[bksvol-discuss] Re: Requirements for acceptance -- the bottom line
- From: "Rui Cabral" <rui@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:02:18 -0400
Good morning:
Well it's me again. (smile)
(jana said)
"Keep in mind that the requirements that Jesse has outlined for us are
minimal. This does not mean that excellence should not be encouraged."
The problem is it was practically being discouraged.
as a side note, i worked on 2 books tonight, 1 i am about to vallidate with
an accuracy of 99.92% (312 page book)
The other one is currently around 99.4 but i still have some work to go on
it. i'll probably get it around 99.6.
Rhetorical Question, that second book had 2 missing pages in the middle of
the book, should i have rejected the book?
You could make the argument for yes. In my opinion, no. but i went 1 step
further i have placed the book on hold at my local library so i can grab it
tomorrow and scan those 2 pages.
(now thats a complete book)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jana Jackson" <jana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 12:32 AM
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:
