[bksvol-discuss] Re: reading in mp3Re: Re: question: Re: page breaks
- From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:51:14 -0600
Correct Lisa. I do not want junk copy of any category to be in the
collection. If a book is not worth fixing, it should be mercifully
culled.
Guido
Guido Dante Corona
IBM Accessibility Center, Austin Tx.
IBM Research,
Phone: (512) 838-9735
Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.ibm.com/able
"Lisa Leonardi" <lml5280@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
12/12/2004 10:33 AM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss
To
<bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[bksvol-discuss] Re: reading in mp3Re: Re: question: Re: page breaks
Mike,
Why should standards be any diferent from one book to another? You may
consider romancs to be light pleasure reading, and maybe they are, but
some
of us enjoy them immensely. I, for one, have downloaded some romances off
of bookshare that are so garbled, I wasn't able to read them. I have also
attempted to validate some of the "fair" romances on the download list...
but because they were so garbled, I gave up. I understand that books like
science and history that contain dates must be of the highest quality;
however, it isn't fair for some of us to miss reading several pages of a
book simply because someone didn't think it was work fixing since it was
just a book for pleasure reading.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Pietruk" <pietruk@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 8:24 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: reading in mp3Re: Re: question: Re: page
breaks
> Prat
>
> Yet those "romance books" are very readable even with their errors. Now,
> if they were science or history text with dates, formulae and assorted
> other data, that would be a different story.
> What truly would be gained by declining those submissions given that
they
> are light pleasure reading and little more.
> Yes, if you can figure out how the submitter could improve the quality
> without much cost or pain, you'd have some rationale.
> My hunch is that individual is doing those books for herself first and
> foremost; and thereafter sharing.
>
> I am all for quality improvement, teaching improved scanning techniques;
> but I cannot favor that at the expense of less material being available.
> I understand where you and Guido are coming from, but I don't see why
> Jesse's standards of acceptance from last August are suddenly not
> acceptible.
> This is an instance where it is not broken, so why fix it.
> The solution isn't eliminating those contributions; it is making certain
> that the downloaders understand the limitations of those submissions
and,
> based on that, can make an informed decision of whether or not to
retrieve
> those books.
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree as I doubt
> either side will give in to the other. And beyond that, it not our
> decision anyway!
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
