Hi gang,
Just to set the record straight, probably 80% of the books that I approve
with an excellent rating have got a few junk characters or scannos in
them. But since the vast majority of pages are fine, I let the errors go.
Amber just re-edited and re-uploaded Pearl to the approval queue. The
book is much better, it doesn't have nearly the number of junk characters
that it did before, but because Amber wanted to be told if there were any
other junk characters, I'm going through the book with a fine-tooth comb,
looking for any and all errors. I'm on page 86 out of 350 and I have found
13 errors so far. Most of them are trivial, but since she wanted to know,
I'm doing this for her. If I return all books that have any errors at all
in them, I'd be returning 80% of the approved books for more editing. Do
you all want this? Do you want 100% perfect books? I try to make the
bestsellers perfect, but I'm a deranged perfectionist, as we all know.
How's this for a compromise? If you're happy with me letting some errors
go through with your books, no need to say anything. If you want me to
return your books for more editing if I find over,... let's say 10,
errors, then tell me you want me to do a super-check of your books. It
will require lots more work on both your part and on my part, so think
carefully before you sign up for this.
[I have to say at this point that there are several validators who always
upload books with fewer than 10 errors. Whenever I see their names, I
breathe a sigh of relief because I know their books will have no junk
characters, no scannos, no missing pages, no duplicate pages, no unwieldy
font sizes, no weird formatting, no messed-up fractions or charts or maps,
just page after page of beautiful text. Dave Russell, Marilyn Beasley, our
summer intern Shuqiao Song, the tag team of Louise Gourdoux and Jim Baugh
- and I'm sure there are others who I can't think of right now. They all
do beautiful work.]
Carrie
----- Original Message ----
From: Ann McCay <annmccay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2008 10:34:51 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Pearl by Tabitha King
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: <mailto:ckarnos@xxxxxxxxx>Carrie Karnos
To: <mailto:bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>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/>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: <mailto:amber.wallens@xxxxxxxxx>amber.wallens@xxxxxxxxx
__________ NOD32 3338 (20080807) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
<http://www.eset.com>http://www.eset.com
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1596 - Release Date: 8/6/2008
4:55 PM
