[bksvol-discuss] Re: Pearl by Tabitha King
- From: "Ann McCay" <annmccay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:34:51 -0700
I would have wanted, as a submitter, to be told, and I'd certainly have
wanted to fix the book. I would have been upset if I were not given that
option and everybody else's weight into not having the submitter have the
option to work with the problem was what had been done.
_____
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carrie Karnos
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:22 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Pearl by Tabitha King
Hi Sue,
When I return a book for more editing, I have 2 options. I can return the
book that the original person submitted, or I can return the validated copy.
99% of the time I return the validated copy, retaining all the changes that
the validator made. Only when the validator deletes all the page breaks in a
book (as happened last week) or when the validator deletes some pages or
something drastic like that, do I return the original book from the
submitter. Given that I can retain all the validation changes, would you
like me to return the book for more editing?
Looks like there are 2 votes for more editing, and no votes for the other
options. This means I should be even more fussy than I already am. That's
fine with me, I would rather allow only well-validated books into the
collection, but I'm afraid that the volunteer group will start a mutiny if I
return 3 out of every 10 books in the approval queue instead of 1 out of
every 10 books like I do now (I'm guessing at these numbers - I haven't kept
track, to be honest). Okay, unless I hear otherwise, I will go into
super-fussy mode :-)
Carrie
----- Original Message ----
From: siss52 <siss52@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2008 8:48:41 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Pearl by Tabitha King
Hi Carrie,
I woould vote against returning it for more editing since the copy kicked
back would be the submitter's work only, not the book after validation.
Therefore, may I make another suggestion? Could you return the book to Step
1 in the RTF file that was uploaded to the approval queue, with a comment
telling what is wrong and requesting more editing?
Just my thoughts,
Sue S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Carrie Karnos <mailto:ckarnos@xxxxxxxxx>
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:10 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Pearl by Tabitha King
I changed the book rating from excellent to good when I approved it because
there are some junk characters on some pages (like the very last page in the
book). If there were just a few junk characters, I'd leave it as excellent.
If there were loads, I'd return it for more editing. This book was right on
the fence. So my question to the group is: what do you want me to do when a
book has some junk characters, more than a few but less than loads? The
choices are:
1) leave it as excellent
2) return it for more editing
3) change the rating to good
Have I missed another option?
What's your vote?
Thanks! Carrie
----- Original Message ----
From: Amber Wallenstein <amber.wallens@xxxxxxxxx>
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2008 8:03:40 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Pearl by Tabitha King
Hi all:
Did anyone on this list validate Pearl by Tabitha King? I worked really
hard on it, and I noticed it had a "good" rating, instead of an "excellent"
rating. Does anyone know why? I always want to improve my scans and I'm
baffled why this gets a "good" rating. It has a lot of dialogue but that's
all I can think of.
Thanks.
Amber
Book blog:
http://community.livejournal.com/book_cuddler/
I have accepted a seat in the House of Representatives, and thereby have
consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and to the ruin of our children. I
give
you this warning that you may prepare your mind for your fate.
John Adams
E-Mail: amber.wallens@xxxxxxxxx
__________ NOD32 3338 (20080807) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Other related posts:
