[bksvol-discuss] Re: request of submitters
- From: Jamie Yates <mirxtech@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:50:39 -0400
When I first became a volunteer I thought that the minimum requirements for
proofreading were good enough too. But then I am sighted and I had no idea
of all of the things that can go wrong with a book that VISUALLY looks good
to me on my screen. After joining this list and getting to know many of you
and reading nearly every message even when it takes me days to get caught
up, I understand the need to really read the books that need proofread,
which is why I generally only proofread things that need sighted help. What
I see on my screen just isn't always what it really says.
I know Bookshare has always had pretty minimal requirements for
proofreading, but since they are evolving and becoming better and offering
better quality books, I would like to think that eventually they would be
requiring more in what is needed for proofreading. Maybe not reading every
single word--although I have become convinced that is the ideal
situation--but spending enough time with the book to make sure it is as
close to great as possible. The biggest problem, as was pointed out to me,
is that if staff says spend more time with the book, what is to stop the
proofreader from just waiting 2 hours and uploading it later?
Once I suggested some checkboxes on the check in page: one for check here if
you have read every word of this book and one for check here if you have at
least run a spell check, verified all of the pages are present with page
breaks and verified the copyright and title information. Then at least staff
would know if the book was read cover to cover and then if there was a
significant pattern of problems, that could be addressed.
I imagine there are volunteers who have no idea that some people read every
word of the books they proofread. I had no idea when I was a new volunteer.
My big issue with my own scans is that I do not have the patience to read
every word of the scan on the computer screen. I do watch it as it goes
through the OCR process and Omnipage flags every darned little word it
thinks is wrong so I can verify it with the print book while I still have it
and then when I am done I page through the entire file counting pages
(something I learned to do on this list), making sure each one has a page
break (Omnipage isn't perfect in that regard), and looking for things that
don't look right. It's the only way I feel comfortable submitting a book I
don't read on the screen. It's just that that process isn't fail proof and I
feel more comfortable having my name on a submit when I know it's really
been looked over well--not even actually read cover to cover but looked over
"well".
I wish that before people could submit books or proof read books there would
be little acknowledgement things to initial online like after you've read
this section of the manual you initial and hit submit. Yes, that doesn't
guarantee a person read it, but then staff could say you initialed this that
you read it.
But anyway, maybe someday Bookshare will require a bigger commitment out of
the proofreaders than they do now. They have demonstrated they are committed
to providing quality books for members so I am certain that day will
come--it's just a matter of deciding how to enforce it once a policy is
decided upon. You can see the huge stumbling blocks with that process.
Unlike a scan, which is tangible because you can see it and count the pages
and know whether or not it is complete, a proofreading is more intangible
because you have no idea what a person really did with the scan without
actually proofreading it yourself and comparing it to the original submit.
If Bookshare does that, then Bookshare doesn't need proofreaders, right?
Time for me to go to bed!
--
Jamie in Michigan
Currently Reading: Witnesses of War by Nicholas Stargardt
www.michrxtech.com/books.html
Other related posts:
