[bookshare-discuss] Re: Validating books

  • From: "Susan Mangis" <suemangis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:54:34 -0700

And having someone else proofread your work finds errors one misses.  After
all, you wrote it so of course it says what you think it says.

Sue Mangis
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pratik Patel" <pratikp1@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: August 23, 2004 8:30 AM
Subject: [bookshare-discuss] Re: Validating books


> James,
>
> The calls for proof-reading books from the original submitters is not to
> have the original submitters completely read the books that they
> submit--though they may choose to do so.  What many volunteers are
> frustrated about is the lack of any care when submitters submit the
> material.  Although this doesn't apply to all individuals, it is
problematic
> in many instances.  What the alidator would like to see is some care being
> taken so that there are no pages missing or that most of the necessary
> information appears where it is supposed to.  The validators are here to
> look over the material  with a second, impartial judgment.  That is one of
> the reasons why Bookshare--and I would as well-discourage individual
> submitters to validate their own material.
>
> Pratik
>
>
>
> Pratik Patel
> Managing Director
> CUNYAssistive Technology Services
> The City University of New York
>      ppatel@xxxxxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Nuttall [mailto:jnuttallphd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 10:11 AM
> To: bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bookshare-discuss] Validating books
>
> What exactly is the purpose of validating books?  Some have written on the
> forum that they would like those who scan a book to proofread the book.  I
> can understand especially for Braille users the need for accuracy.
> However my question is, "if the person doing scanning also does the
> proofreading why can't we skip the validation step?"
>
> Jim -- Michigan
>
> talmage@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I couldn't really say when 2 page mode became a standard feature in
> Openbook or Kurzweil, as I took a hiatus from Openbook between versions 2
> and 6. I must admit that I've never used anymore than a demo of the
> Kurzweil software line, but I started out with the Openbook products back
> when they were Arkanstone Reader and had the full sized ISA card. Back
> then it was great, Arkanstone would send updates to the software end of
the
> system at frequent intervals, and at no charge. When they moved over to
> the software only system with Openbook, I only went as far as V2 (not sure
> which minor version was my last), and then got tired of shelling out what
I
> consider significant amounts of cash for updates. When I wanted improved
> OCR after that, I went to the online auctions and picked up inexpensive
> copies of Textbridge and Omnipage. One of the problems with the version of
> Textbridge 98 was it didn't have a 2 page mode only a multiple column
mode,
> which resulted in scans like those that started this thread. The scans
> could be of high quality, you just had to put up with 1 long page rather
> than 2. A year or so ago, I finally moved back to Openbook
> V6. Unfortunately, with V7, there were no new features that I could see
> that would justify my upgrading, so probably when they improve it enough
> with V8 or 9 it will be a costly upgrade again.
>
> Dave
>
> At 09:59 PM 8/22/2004, you wrote:
> >Hi, Dave. You are probably right about that. I just thought that two page
> >mode had been around for years. I used to scan in one page mode, but I
> >think that was back in the early days of K1000 when it didn't have a two
> >page mode. I don't remember when openbook added two page mode. I stopped
> >using it when it was 2.2U.
> >eAt 8/22/2004, you wrote:
> >
> > >Hi Paul,
> > >
> > >I think you may have missed the beginning of this thread, but the books
> in
> > >question are old scans Cindy has in her collection.
> > >
> > >Dave
> > >
> > >At 01:47 AM 8/22/2004, you wrote:
> > > >Hi. Why can't you scan them in two page mode? With today's scanning
> > > >programs, that shouldn't be a problem.
> > > >It also bothers me that people are scanning and submitting books
> without
> > > >even bothering to proofread what they scan. The volunteers don't have
> time
> > > >to proofread each and everypage. Doesn't submitting books in this
> fashion
> > > >just create more garbage on bookshare?
> > > >But there should be no reason for books that are not paginated
> properly.
> > > >K1000 does it and I assume openbook does the same.
> > > >At 8/20/2004, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Cindy,
> > > > >
> > > > >You can submit them! Just a few of the validators are a bit
> > stickler for
> > > > >perfection. Messed up pagination is not a legal reason for
rejection!
> > > > >
> > > > >There are only five things a bookshare book needs.
> > > > >
> > > > >Title
> > > > >Author
> > > > >Copyright date and holder
> > > > >All pages or at least 99.9 percent of them,
> > > > >
> > > > >And the text be readable.
> > > > >
> > > > >The rest is perfection on the part of the validator, and if they
> reject
> > > > >perfectly legidment submissions then... they need to reconsider not
> > > > >validating that kind of material in the next time.
> > > > >
> > > > >Excellence is good, this book that you are submitting is devoid of
> other
> > > > >errors as you fixed them, so their "excellent text quality is
> > there. Just
> > > > >not the pages.
> > > > >
> > > > >Submit them! And someone will appreciate them!
> > > > >
> > > > >Perfection is o.k., but obsessing on it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Shelley L. Rhodes and Judson, guiding golden
> > > > >juddysbuddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >Guide Dogs For the Blind Inc.
> > > > >Graduate Advisory Council
> > > > >www.guidedogs.com
> > > > >
> > > > >The vision must be followed by the venture. It is not enough to
> > > > >stare up the steps - we must step up the stairs.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Vance Havner
>
>
>
>
>
>



Other related posts: