Sorry Mike, but rather, some submitters appear to be on the incorrectly assuming end of things. If I scan for my own enjoyment, I simply scan, then read. I do not truly care if I have removed all errors. If I submit a book to Bookshare, I am performing a job for an entity with "PAYING CUSTOMERS". The fact I am not a salaried employee but I am simply awarded some brownie points by a finnicky system that assigns those points to some else half of the time, is totally and utterly immaterial. For all intents and purposes I am working for Bookshare, I am not handing some desperados my scraps of e-food. I have scanned plenty of books that I judged were not good enough to warrant submission: I have never submitted those copies, nor will I in the future. In many cases, as I got better and better recognition engines, I scanned again, and again. Some of these rescans improved to the point where I decided to submit them, in other cases they are still in my ""Hall Of Shame." If a submitter does not care if their labour is accepted or rejected, I feel even more comfortable nuking their flawed submissions. I am once again repeating, working for Bookshare customers. In my rejections, I always add an informative note about the technical reason for rejection and most often what the submitter needs to do to avoid future problems. It is up to the submitter to request this info from the administrator. Quite Frankly Mike, there are fortunately few volunteers who systematically submit poor jobs, they themselves know who they are and should have gotten the message. At least in one particular case one of these folks has recently decided to become an anonymous submitter. Unfortunately the unique glib and uninformative nature of his short synopses just gives him away, even without downloading the submission for analysis and confirmation. And no, I am sorry, a poor quality book is not at all better than no book at all, it is only a poor book, and it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Regards, Guido Dante Corona IBM Accessibility Center, Austin Tx. Research Division, Phone: 512. 838. 9735. Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx Web: http://www.ibm.com/able Mike Pietruk <pietruk@xxxxxxxxx> Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 12/29/2004 03:47 AM Please respond to bksvol-discuss To bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx cc Subject [bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux Guido You are also assuming, and I would suggest erroneously, that the submitter cares in all cases whether their books is accepted or rejected. Some folks submit their scans as a courtesy to allow others the benefit of what they've done for themselves. Hence, by just rejected their work, you convey no msg other than BookShare doesn't want it. Hence, you are not going to improve their efforts as their initial intention wasn't a BookShare submission but to read it for themselves. If they consider the book readable for themselves, that is all that matters to them in this instance. While I wholeheartedly agree that better quality books are desirable over worse scanned ones, I also recognize the philosophy upon which BookShare is based. I also recognize that something else is at play: BookShare, due to its success and growth, is perhaps bursting at its ability to process received submissions and needs, therefore, to figure out a means of making the workload managable. While I do personally nuke books that are of such poor quality making reading difficult or impossible, I also accept the notion that I also rather have a poorer quality book than none at all. And in many cases, nuking a book won't be having it rescanned but gone forever.