[bksvol-discuss] Re: bottlenecks in submitting and validating

  • From: "Kaitlyn Hill" <Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:01:32 -0700

I used 200 as an example. 
What I was getting at was things that may need fixing and if  a person found
thingsneeded fixing these could be added when they release it so that the
final validater would have a better idea of possible problems. 
Rank spelling 
Poorly scanned table of contents 
Many words that run together. 

In many of these cases someone who is interested in reading the full book
would not mined making these kinds of corrections. Or in the case of soemone
like Cindy if there was someone willing to work on a book needing pages that
were missing they could pair up on the list to work together. 

-----Original Message-----
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of E.
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 8:01 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: bottlenecks in submitting and validating 

Two hundred characters is not enough for a comments dialog.  Those cryptic 
comments on the step 1 page are not what I mean. I mean something like.

"Book contains lots of linefeeds in the middle of sentences.  Table of 
contents needs rescanning.  Lots of number errors such as z for 2 i for 1 
and o for 0 resulting in things like izio for the date 1215."

Admittedly this is a long comment but sometimes people can be saved a lot 
of up front work by good running comments on a book.

Please give me an idea of what you are getting at here.  What might a 
submitter say for example?  Sounds like you are saying have commentary from 
the submitter about
the book.
At 10:09 PM 9/1/2005, you wrote:

>E, your suggestions and my comments.
>It is possible that these might be remedied by changes to either the
>bookshare site or
>the site which includes "no book left behind".
>Bottleneck 1.  the endless renewal of a book for validating by the same
>individual.  I do not know what is going on here exactly.  Either you are
>working on a book or you are not.  I can understand some books taking a
>very long time, sometimes a month or two.  I have had this
>example.  Shurely a 90 day limit on a renewal by the same individual would
>work.  It could be waived by administrative approval.
>Note: This is not a lot different than getting approval for downloading
>than 100 books per month.
>bottleneck 2. loss of knowledge of a book and its needs during the
>validation process.  I take a copy of a book to validate.  I learn its
>quirks.  For one reason or another I release it.  My knowledge is lost to
>the next validator.  There could be a comments field which I could fill out
>(optionally) when I release a book.  The knowledge would possibly be useful
>to future validators. If bookshare itself is not interested in doing this
>(or cannot do so financially), perhaps it could be part of the "no book
>left behind" program.  I am going for increased efficiency of the
>validation process here not who puts it on whose site.  The point is to
>have a running commentary about a specific book available for a validator.
>Note: this is not difference than the admins do when a book is kicked back
>to the download page. When you release a book you would have 200 characters
>to make comments.
>bottleneck 3. quality of input.  The better the original scan the faster
>the validation work.
>If you have an older version of k1000, the upgrade to version 10 will cost
>you around a hundred dollars.  The tools you will get increase your power
>as a submitter or validator by creating a better product.
>Note: this may work though there are many of those who use the site that
>one reason or another can't afford to get upgrades. One thing that might
>help in this area would be to strongly encourage comments from the scanner
>on the quality beyond the three. Maybe a multiple list of aspects of the
>uploaded book that could be included in the book description.
>Kaitlyn :)

Other related posts: