[bksvol-discuss] perhaps some rethinking might b in order?
- From: "Jackie McBride" <abletec@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:58:51 -0700
Hello, all:
I don't really know where this should go so if this isn't the right
place, some1 tell me where 2 take it & I will.
I just had a book rejected because page breaks don't correspond
w/printed page numbers. The manual says there should be a 90%
correspondence. I have a few concerns about this, which I wish 2
express, & then I'll shut up.
1) The volunteer was correct, according 2 the manual, 2 reject the
book, so I need 4 her 2 understand my problem is not w/her. She did
what she was instructed 2 do.
2) My problem is w/the policy. Specifically, when a paperback is
small enough 2 scan 2 pages at once, I think it's ridiculous 2 expect
a close page number correspondence. It will discourage people from
scanning because scanning will take twice as long since each page will
need 2 b scanned individually. That's not fair, not to the person
submitting the book & not 2 the readers.
I really hope that this policy will be reexamined & some changes made.
The volunteer acknowledges that it was an excellent scan, that all
copyright & publication information was present, & that the only
reason 4 rejection was the issue of page numbers. Yall, that's not
right.
Again, if this isn't the proper venue, plese accept my apologies &
tell me where to go, as it were. If it is, then I hope some
productive discussion can be generated & some resolutions obtained.
Thanking every1 in advance for their attention.
--
Jackie McBride
Check out my homepage at:
www.abletec.serverheaven.net
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list of
available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
Other related posts:
