Even with yesterdays software, you can do way better then 95%. (this is part of the reason i don't plunk down $50 for a membership) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Fahnestock" <Jesse.F@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 4:58 PM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Fair rating > Mary, as we know, Bookshare.org was designed with the capacity to accept books scanned on yesterday's software, too ... and did quite a bit of that in its early days (grin). > > -----Original Message----- > From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mary Otten > Sent: den 13 augusti 2004 19:56 > To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Fair rating > > > Cindy, > Yes, valid but inaccurate words will be ok as far as the automated stats generator is concerned. I am frankly appalled that a book could be accepted with 95% accuracy rating. Unless it is loaded with nonstandard > dialect or with foreign words, 95% is hideously unreadable. Consider, if you will, how unhappy you would be if you had dictation software for writing documents and it gave you 95% accuracy. Would you find that > acceptable? With today's ocr software, I find it amazing that anything would be submitted that wasn't 99.something percent accurate, not counting names and non-English or nonstandard words. > Mary > > > > >