[bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
- From: "Kaitlyn Hill" <Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:05:34 -0700
Hello Everyone,
What I have started doing when I scan a book that I may not want to read...
For example some of the books that have been sent to me to scan, I put the
recognition rating and number of miss spelled words according to the rank
spelling in the comments so that the validators have a sense of the quality.
Also I put my contact info in there incase the validators has a questions.
Kaitlyn
Level III Practitioner
Reconnective healing and the Reconnection
Level 1 Reiki healing
Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Find your vessel and fill it wih the light and with the light behind the
light,Then let the light shine for the world so others may know the truth
-----Original Message-----
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Morales
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:07 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
I do scan things sometimes that I may not be interested in if someone asks
for it, and if it's not too long, I'll read through it even then, but if
it's something long, if someone asks for it, I ask if someone will be
willing to validate it, anyway, even though I may not be able to speak of
the quality. Take care.
Julie Morales
inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows/MSN Messenger (but not email):
mercy0421@xxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Van Oosterwijck" <curiousentity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:33 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
I don't scan things I have no interest in, so I do the same. I would be
short changing both myself and bookshare if I didn't read and correct what
I scanned. Besides, I'm a procrastinating perfectionist. :-) That means I
have more fun reading and correcting my books than going through the upload
process.
Sarah Van Oosterwijck
Assistive Technology Trainer
http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Blanks" <scottsjb@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:45 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
> Weighing in on the validation discussion ...
>
> I suspect there are two types of submitters. One type scans a book
> without paying much attention to the content until after they've scanned,
> if at all. The other submitter reads the book as they go. I happen to
> belong to the latter group. You guys might think I'm strange, but I enjoy
> reading the book as I scan it. And an advantage to this is that I get to
> know the book quite well. Thus, I feel its perfectly acceptable for me to
> do the validation, because there simply isn't a very high likelihood that
> anyone will know the book as well as I do. Someone here mentioned that
> one shouldn't validate the books they submit because they might be too
> "close" to the book. I guess I can maybe see that point, but my initial
> feeling is that, at least in my case, yes, I want the books on the site,
> but I really want those books to be as close to pristine as possible. I
> would *never* knowingly rush a book through either the scan or the
> validation just to get it on the site. I really enjoy the challenge of
> producing a clean result.
>
> I know this might be the exception rather than the rule, but I just
> wanted to throw my thoughts into the pot.
>
> Scott
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julie Morales" <inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:27 AM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>
>
>> Hi, Joanie. But how would one know that the submitter did pay that much
>> attention to detail? How would one know that the submitter did read the
>> book
>> entirely through? All of the Janette Oke books I've been submitting have
>> been read completely through. They are of excellent quality. Kurzweil's
>> ranked spelling proves that. Most of them are at least 99.8 percent
>> accurate
>> or better. Is that good? Certainly, but don't take my word for it.
>> *smile*
>> I'm not saying anyone would do this, but it's possible that someone
>> could
>> say they read the book completely through in hopes of speeding up the
>> process when, maybe, in fact, they did not. I think having another
>> person
>> validate is a good form of checks and balances and support it. I think
>> it's
>> a necessary part of making sure Bookshare stays true to what it was
>> meant to
>> be, and we do have copyright to think about. What if a submitter did
>> validate their own submission and something in that area was missing?
>> Those
>> are just my thoughts, anyway. Take care.
>> Julie Morales
>> inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Windows/MSN Messenger (but not email):
>> mercy0421@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "CJ Vining" <Vining@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:01 PM
>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>>
>>
>> That's one opinion I don't happen to agree with. If the book scanned
>> poorly,
>> then yes, a second person looking at the file may be a good idea, but if
>> it's a near excellent scan to begin with, and the book is being read
>> cover
>> to cover anyway by the submitter, I don't see why that person's
>> validation
>> is any less valuable than someone else's. The book is still being read
>> with
>> the same attention to detail as one would give to a book one did not
>> scan.
>>
>> Joanie
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rui" <goldWave@xxxxxxx>
>> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 8:51 PM
>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>>
>>
>>> (this is a repost of a message i wrote on 6/18/04)
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone:
>>>
>>> I am very glad that all the text quality people have come out of the
>>> shadows.
>>> There is only one more thing I would ask.
>>> Please do not self-validate.
>>> If your book has been sitting on the mountain of step 1 books for a
>>> while,
>>> (2 weeks of more) perhaps you could point that book out to the list.
>>> I truly feel it is very worthwhile to have a second pair of eyes
>>> (pardon
>> the
>>> pun) look at the book.
>>> That's why writers don't proofread their own books, a second person is
>> lible
>>> to catch more.
>>>
>>> I hope my text quality bretheron share my views on this.
>>>
>>> -- Rui
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hope Hein" <hmhein@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:25 PM
>>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] validating
>>>
>>>
>>> >I am trying to validate This Side of HEAVEN. I down loaded it in to my
>>> >documents, then unzipped it, then brought it up in word. Lastly I
>>> >changed
>>> >the file name so it could be edited. I found many errors as well as
>> missing
>>> >words or even possibly sentences. I am correcting the errors and
>>> >trying
>> to
>>> >figure out what is supposed to be written to complete missing
>>> >sentences.
>> It
>>> >is so garbled in some spots that I am going to check it out of the
>> library
>>> >and try a rescan. The reason I am saying all of this is two fold.
>> Firstly,
>>> >could my computer be doing something I.a. taking out words or not
>>> >showing
>>> >them to me? Secondly, could the people who scan the books also
>>> >validate
>>> >them since they have the print copies? This is just a suggestion. I
>>> >know
>>> >that I am knew and do not know much about scanning and validating. You
>> all
>>> >are doing a wonderful job and it is a privilege to read the books. I
>>> >just
>>> >wonder if the books could be scanned and validated by the same person
>>> >it
>>> >would save time and frustration. I have tried to validate four books
>>> >and
>>> >only one has made it so far.
>>> >
>>> > I would be grateful for any suggestions if anyone thinks my computer
>>> > may
>>> > be causing some of the missing lines. Also, please give me feedback
>>> > on
>>> > what you think of the same person scanning and validating.
>>> > Thank you
>>> > I love Book Share and truly want to make it the best it can be.
>>> > Hope
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 7/25/2005
>
>
Other related posts:
