[bksvol-discuss] Re: releasing books
- From: Cindy Rosenthal <grandcyn77@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:53:08 -0700
Judy, you make a good point, and it's why I no longer take books to fix
that have been rejected. But there area books released that the proofer
simply hasn't time to work on or because the proofer isn't comfortable
with the subject matter or the book is too long and complex (maybe there
are footnote numbers or foreign words; when these appear on the checkout
list a future proofer should be made aware of this so as not to take the
book to proof and then find, after starting work, he or she doesn't want to
do it. I'd like to be ale to explain why I'm
releasing a book so other proofers can know in advance what the might find
when they take it from the checkout list.
CIndy
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Judy s. <cherryjam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Cindy, as a volunteer I know I've seen requests for a space to leave
> comments when releasing a book since I started volunteering many years ago.
> I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Bookshare engineers to get
> around to providing it. Not that I wouldn't like this too, but I've given
> up any expectation of it happening.
>
> Secondly, I've reached the point of feeling that under certain
> circumstances proofreaders enable bad scanners to continue their low
> quality work by working on scans that should be rejected. After spending
> years proofreading as a volunteer, as well as reading volunteer submitted
> books from the collection as a member, I've seen a great number of
> absolutely fantastic scans of really difficult material, so I know that
> many volunteers are producing amazing outstanding quality scans and
> therefore it can certainly be done.
>
> I guess where I'm coming from is that it's one thing to do a lot extra
> when a scanner is just learning how to scan, or when a book has challenging
> aspects to it, like bizarre fonts and images that don't scan, or really
> complicated formatting that doesn't translate when it gets OCRed. However,
> I've seen that there are scanners who habitually push off questionable
> quality scans of straightforward books on the proofreader, expecting the
> proofreader to fix it, and never improving the quality of their scans. I
> don't think that should get rewarded by a proofreader going the extra mile
> and putting in all kinds of their time to fix it. I think those books
> should be rejected. My rule of thumb has become that if it is a
> straightforward book and it's going to take me more time to fix problems in
> the book than it would take to rescan it, I reject it, and say that's why
> I'm rejecting it in the comment area of the rejection page.
>
> This is all, of course, just my take. smile.
>
> Judy s.
> On 10/6/2014 1:48 PM, Cindy Rosenthal wrote:
>
> Gary, there are books a proofer doesn't want to work on for a variety
> of possible reasons, e.g., the content disturbs them, they simply don't
> have the time to work on them, they need a sighted proofer who can obtain
> the print book (I can't think of others at the moment; but they need to be
> released, not rejected. Only, except by posting on the volunteer list we
> have no way of telling why we're releasing the book. Don't you think it
> would be convenient to be able to have a space in which to put comments
> when one releases a book as well as when one submits a book? Then when
> people like Lisa take a book from the checkout list that sounds as if she
> (or he) would like to proof it that person would know why it was released
> and would know whether it was something that he/she wouldn't like to or
> couldn't work on; maybe it needs navigation formatting or page breaks or
> the content doesn't interest her/him'CIndy
> CIndy
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Gary Petraccaro <garypet130@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Sounds as if someone wasn't doing their job and rejecting them. Why
>> didn't you just do that.
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lisa Cushman" <crysania@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 7:16 PM
>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: releasing books
>>
>>
>> That would be really helpful. I have had a couple of occasions where
>>> Icheck out what I thought would be a really great book,only to find out
>>> that someone had released them for a very good reason. Usually they were
>>> books that would've been almost impossible for me to proofread. I would've
>>> loved to have been spared the trouble.
>>>
>>> Lisa Cushman, CRC, LMFT
>>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Cindy Rosenthal <grandcyn77@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Madeleine, I think it would really be useful if there were a comments
>>>> section as part of the release link so we proofers can explain; Am I
>>>> forgetting something? or am I correct in remembering that there is only one
>>>> with the submit button. In the history you administrators put why a book is
>>>> rejected (I can't check now since I don't want to release anything
>>>> True, we can post on the list so mayabe having a comments sectin
>>>> wouldn't be worth whatever trouble the enginers wold hve to do to put one
>>>> with the release button
>>>> CIndy
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Judy s.
> Follow me on Twitter at QuackersNCheese
> <https://twitter.com/QuackersNCheese>
>
Other related posts:
