[bksvol-discuss] Re: Volunteers: how much work is realistic
- From: Paula Mack <pmack1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:10:45 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
I have been spellchecking as well as removing extra spaces.
Paula
-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Van Oosterwijck <curiousentity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sep 9, 2004 12:15 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Volunteers: how much work is realistic
Some of us just like to read through books in their entirety, fixing all
errors possible, but that doesn't mean you have to. Of course books are
even more enjoyable when nearly perfect, but most scans are readable without
this work. Try to choose books that seem to be of excellent quality, so you
don't have to worry about the small number of errors that will be left in
the book. Also, you might consider validating books that many other people
wouldn't find that interesting, because you won't be reading the whole,
possibly boring, book. ;-) A spellcheck, although not completely infallible
will find a lot of errors that you can fix.
Another good thing to do, which is not very time consuming, is to remove
junk characters by doing a search for each character that should not appear
in any normal book and replace with nothing. Strings of many spaces, | \ ^
and ~ are just a few of the most common and annoying characters. Stars,
bullets, and tabs can also be junk characters, but you might not know if a
book should contain these or not, so don't remove them unless you know they
don't belong.
I hope this helps, and is encouraging.
Sarah Van Oosterwijck
http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paula Mack" <pmack1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:28 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Volunteers: how much work is realistic
> Hi listers,
>
> I have been reading with some dismay the discussion regarding book
validation. I volunteered my time, because I was under the impression that
volunteers were needed. This is evident in the amount of books awaiting
validation. I assumed that the job involved making sure that all title,
author and copyright information were included and that they were accurate.
I assumed that a spellcheck would be necessary to eliminate the OCR errors
that crop up. The guidelines I was sent seemed to indicate this, and in
fact, didn't even suggest spellcheck, although I think that would be
necessary in even the most perfect scan.
>
> However, from this list and the other Bookshare list, I am getting the
feeling that anything less than going over each word and page number with a
fine-tooth comb is not wanted. Now, I can't speak for any one else, but I
am extremely anxious to help out at bookshare. However, when I scan my own
books, I don't expect perfection. When I read Bookshare books, I don't
expect perfection. OCR, can not, at least at this point in time, provide
perfection. If people have the time to go through every character
comprising a book, that's fine. Personally, I have a full-time job, a home,
and a family. I don't have that kind of time, and frankly, if I did, I
don't think I'd want to spend it in this manner. As an avid reader, I'd
rather see more books available, then have less books to choose from and
have them be perfect.
>
> I would like the staff to make some kind of statement regarding this
issue. If this kind of microscopic examination of each book is desired,
then I suspect there may be less people willing to volunteer.
>
> Personally, I still want to volunteer. However, if following the
guidelines as they are, along with spellchecking is not acceptable, then I
would like to know this. I certainly would not want to cause problems by
releasing books that the staff does not deem acceptable. however, if a
microscopic examination of each book is truly what is wanted, I think this
needs to be made clear so that potential volunteers can make an informed
decision.
>
> thanks,
>
> Paula
>
Other related posts:
