[bksvol-discuss] Re: Appreciation of your efforts
- From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:32:00 -0500
Looks like some of us have been burning the midnight oil, because as of
last night the backlog was down to 430 titles, in spite of a goodly
number of new entries. Comps and congrats to all and sundry. Let's keep
at it!
G.
Guido D. Corona
IBM Accessibility Center, Austin Tx.
IBM Research,
Phone: (512) 838-9735
Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visit my weekly Accessibility WebLog at:
http://www-3.ibm.com/able/weblog/corona_weblog.html
"Jesse Fahnestock" <Jesse.F@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
08/14/2004 02:58 AM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss
To
<bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[bksvol-discuss] Appreciation of your efforts
Silvara and Rui:
As the only power-that-be posting on this list, I'm very distressed that
you feel like I may not value your efforts! Silvara, exactly the opposite
is true. My initial posting earlier this week was a call to volunteers to
make a concerted effort to validate more books -- just as you have. I was
simply hoping we could make a group effort to tackle the growing list of
books awaiting validation. If everyone does so with the gusto you have, we
will make short work of it. Thank you for your effort and care.
Likewise, Rui, I hope it was not I who you felt was putting down your
efforts. I think I've gone out of my way to praise the extra work
volunteers put into cleaning up books over time, both individually and as
a group. If that doesn't come through, I apologize. Let me say for the
record that I am consistently awed by the amount of love for this project
that the volunteer community shows. I never would have guessed we'd have a
collection of this quality at this point in time, and it's all down to the
volunteer group.
That said, it is my job to help us meet all of our objectives, and one of
our current objectives needs to be the shortening of the validation list.
To that end I tried to suggest ways to get through some of the books --
which don't need a lot of attention -- more quickly. You've noted that
you're already doing that. That's great! I can only thank you for your
efforts and hope that everyone does the same. As I mentioned before, in
terms of approach and what matters, you and I agree. So please don't feel
like you are not appreciated by the 'powers that be' -- nothing could be
further from the truth!
I will post a couple of follow up messages to my recent post separately.
But I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that I am not being critical.
I'm trying to offer guidance for the group, that's all.
jesse.
-----Original Message-----
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jana Jackson
Sent: den 14 augusti 2004 06:32
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Requirements for acceptance -- the bottom
line
Hi, Silvara! Please know that your validation efforts are very much
appreciated. As Mary said, Bookshare.org is a community. Each volunteer
brings his or her own strengths (or weaknesses, as the case may be) to the
table. Some of us have more time, patience, and editing skills than
others.
As OCR software continues to improve, many of us are finding it easier to
clean up our scans before submitting, resulting in much-improved scans.
Keep in mind that the requirements that Jesse has outlined for us are
minimal. This does not mean that excellence should not be encouraged.
Remember that when you validate or submit a book, you are not necessarily
doing so for the benefit of the Bookshare staff; you are doing it for the
good of the Bookshare community as a whole. Please keep up your good
work!
Take care!
Jana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Silvara" <silvara@xxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 9:38 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Requirements for acceptance -- the bottom
line
> I have a couple of points that I'd like to discuss.
> What is readable is very subjective. As you stated Mary, what is
considered
> readable to one person can be totally frustrating for another. The
example
> about the term paper perfectly illustrates my feelings in this matter. I
> too, would like to know if it's possible to raise the quality standards
for
> bookshare. I totally love this idea of bookshare and how we can have
instant
> access to a wide variety of books. But I strongly feel that quality is
> important. After all, bookshare is not a free service. If we don't pay
> cash, we pay with our time.
>
> About 3 months ago I noticed that there were a lot of books waiting to
be
> validated. Thus, over the past 3 months I've spent a lot of my free
time
> validating. I've validated thirty something books during this period. I
> spent time doing some basic cleaning up so that these books could be
even
> better. However, the comments by the powers-that- be, during this week
has
> lead me to feel that my efforts to improve the books were a waste of my
> time, and worse, not appreciated. I can not consciously approve books
> knowing that with a little extra time spent on the clean up process, the
> book's quality can approach near-perfection. Thus, the result is that I
> will have to think about how much time I want to devote to bookshare in
the
> future.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mary Otten" <maryotten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 8:03 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Requirements for acceptance -- the bottom
line
>
>
> > Ah yes. the notion of what is readable is the rub in all of this.
Richard,
> I love your idea about the volunteers and validating.
> > But getting back to the idea of readable, consider, if you will, what
> would happen to you if you turned in a term paper, let's not even
discuss
a
> thesis or disertation, just a garden variety term paper, and that paper
had
> > a bunch of cross-outs, scribblings, maybe a few coffee stains
obscuring
> some of the text. What are the chances, do you suppose, that you would
get
> anything but an F on that messy paper, 95 or even 98 percent of
> > which might be perfectly readable? Why the heck should people pay for
> anything less than the high end of "good" quality? Why shouldn't we as
> submitters of materials take enough pride in what we submit to want to
> > make it truly readable, i.e. containing some errors, but not so many
that
> the meaning of entire passages is garbled? Obviously, if you have an
old
> book with a bad font that just won't ocr well, there's not a lot you can
> > do. I've got such a book that I keep trying, hoping that the next
> iteration of K1k will unlock the key to the crummy Soviet-era font and
paper
> on which the book was printed, so that I can actually enjoy reading the
> > book myself and have a decent enough scan to post for anybody else
crazy
> enough to want to read this particular volume. <smile>
> > Somebody posted a question asking about how the standards were decided
> upon, or words to that effect. I too would be interested in that, and
would
> like to know if there is anything that we can do to revisit the issue
> > and get them raised. The word "readable" means very different things
to
> different people, it would seem. Otherwise, we wouldn't have titles on
the
> system with portions that are totally garbled and not at all readable.
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
