And this disturbs me a great deal. Perhaps originally this was important as they were trying to build up a library, but I hope they will now rethink their priorities. I for one won't even read a book that is rated good because I know it will have a lot of errors. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jackie M." <xercon@xxxxxxx> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 12:55 PM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: My nickel's worth--quality control > The bookshare folks themselves discourage quality - their instructions > appear to indicate they want quantity more than quality. > > - Jackie McCraw > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Wunder" <gwunder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 7:10 AM > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: My nickel's worth--quality control > > > > I agree. As a kid I tried my hand at dish washing and wanted to > > be fast at it. My mother was encouraged by my enthusiasm but put > > back things which still had grease on the sides or little specs > > which were perfectly feelable. She told me she was glad I was > > helping to wash but the outcome had to be that the dish was > > clean. > > > > Now I'm not making a case for perfect scans, but nothing is more > > frustrating than to get into the middle of a book and then > > realize that suddenly I am hearing two columns of the book read > > side by side. These books have never been read by anyone either > > the scanner or the validator or they wouldn't appear like this. > > Someone, be it the scanner or validator, it seems to me, has to > > take responsibility for a read through. If it is the scanner, > > then the validators job is easier. If it is not the scanner, then > > the validator needs to be warned that he/she needs to read cover > > to cover. > > > > Just my opinion, and presented respectfully I hope. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Susan Lumpkin" <slumpkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:36 PM > > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: My nickel's worth--quality control > > > > > > Hi Liz, > > > > I may get bashed too, but as a validator only, I too would prefer > > quality over quanity! > > > > Susan > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > .From: "Liz Halperin"<lizzers@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > .Sent: 6/17/04 4:04:12 PM > > .To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"<bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > .Subject: [bksvol-discuss] My nickel's worth--quality control > > . > > .Ok, I suspect I may get bashed, but here goes anyway: > > . > > .I wish everyone would just SLOW DOWN. There seems to be this > > frenzy to > > .get books into the collection, and less care on their quality. > > As a > > .braille reader, I know I am in the minority, but my patience for > > sloppy > > .books is low. > > . > > .When I scan a book I am very careful to send a clean copy up. I > > don't > > .expect the validator to have to do much of anything except make > > sure no > > .corruption of the file has occurred. I am proud of quality over > > .quantity. > > . > > .I have been doing some validating and there have been a few > > books > > .equally clean as those I submit. They are a joy to validate. > > Most have > > .problems. I fix what I can. Books are submitted without the ISBN > > listed > > .(even though it's right there), sections missing, whole messed > > up pages. > > .When I am faced with many blank pages and then text pages run > > together > > .and too many spelling errors and character errors, I feel no > > guilt to > > .reject the book. It's not worth spending so many hours on. > > Better to get > > .it rescanned in a better version. When I finally validate > > something, > > .it's clean and ready to go. Any problems after that are from the > > .Bookshare conversion processes. > > . > > .With over 500 books waiting for validation, I wish there would > > be a > > .moratorium on scanning submissions. When there was too much > > backlog at > > .the Bookshare end, they made a concerted effort to get caught > > up. It's > > .now OUR end that needs the effort, the volunteers. > > . > > .The two lists, books-volunteer-discuss and books-discuss, are > > very very > > .busy. What if all the time spent reading and writing on the > > lists was > > .spent on validating, for awhile, at least? > > . > > .What if scanners made an effort to send up better quality? What > > if > > .validators had better quality to start with and so could approve > > faster > > .and cleaner? What if we humans went beyond spellcheck and made > > sure that > > .other errors were caught? Errors such as "form" for "from" and > > "end" for > > ."and" and stuff like that? What if we went for quality over > > quantity > > .for awhile? > > . > > .Liz in Seattle > > . > > .Liz Halperin > > .Seattle, WA > > .lizzers@xxxxxxxxxxx > > . > > . > > . > > . > > > > > > > > >