[bksvol-discuss] Using a global replace
- From: Cindy <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
Sarah, you suggestions are very useful, but I must
warn about one thing: the stright line junk character,
i.e, | --or what looks like that. In some fonts, the
lower-case l (el) . I made the mistake of replacing
what looked like two straight line junk characters
only to find that I'd replaced all the double els. It
took me a long time to find the words from which they
were missing and put them back. I made a few similar
mistakes in the same book with other things, I think
maybe "he" and "be." I've learned my lesson. (grin)
Cindy
-- Sarah Van Oosterwijck <curiousentity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Some of us just like to read through books in their
> entirety, fixing all
> errors possible, but that doesn't mean you have to.
> Of course books are
> even more enjoyable when nearly perfect, but most
> scans are readable without
> this work. Try to choose books that seem to be of
> excellent quality, so you
> don't have to worry about the small number of errors
> that will be left in
> the book. Also, you might consider validating books
> that many other people
> wouldn't find that interesting, because you won't be
> reading the whole,
> possibly boring, book. ;-) A spellcheck, although
> not completely infallible
> will find a lot of errors that you can fix.
> Another good thing to do, which is not very time
> consuming, is to remove
> junk characters by doing a search for each character
> that should not appear
> in any normal book and replace with nothing.
> Strings of many spaces, | \ ^
> and ~ are just a few of the most common and annoying
> characters. Stars,
> bullets, and tabs can also be junk characters, but
> you might not know if a
> book should contain these or not, so don't remove
> them unless you know they
> don't belong.
> I hope this helps, and is encouraging.
>
> Sarah Van Oosterwijck
> http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paula Mack" <pmack1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:28 AM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Volunteers: how much work
> is realistic
>
>
> > Hi listers,
> >
> > I have been reading with some dismay the
> discussion regarding book
> validation. I volunteered my time, because I was
> under the impression that
> volunteers were needed. This is evident in the
> amount of books awaiting
> validation. I assumed that the job involved making
> sure that all title,
> author and copyright information were included and
> that they were accurate.
> I assumed that a spellcheck would be necessary to
> eliminate the OCR errors
> that crop up. The guidelines I was sent seemed to
> indicate this, and in
> fact, didn't even suggest spellcheck, although I
> think that would be
> necessary in even the most perfect scan.
> >
> > However, from this list and the other Bookshare
> list, I am getting the
> feeling that anything less than going over each word
> and page number with a
> fine-tooth comb is not wanted. Now, I can't speak
> for any one else, but I
> am extremely anxious to help out at bookshare.
> However, when I scan my own
> books, I don't expect perfection. When I read
> Bookshare books, I don't
> expect perfection. OCR, can not, at least at this
> point in time, provide
> perfection. If people have the time to go through
> every character
> comprising a book, that's fine. Personally, I have
> a full-time job, a home,
> and a family. I don't have that kind of time, and
> frankly, if I did, I
> don't think I'd want to spend it in this manner. As
> an avid reader, I'd
> rather see more books available, then have less
> books to choose from and
> have them be perfect.
> >
> > I would like the staff to make some kind of
> statement regarding this
> issue. If this kind of microscopic examination of
> each book is desired,
> then I suspect there may be less people willing to
> volunteer.
> >
> > Personally, I still want to volunteer. However,
> if following the
> guidelines as they are, along with spellchecking is
> not acceptable, then I
> would like to know this. I certainly would not want
> to cause problems by
> releasing books that the staff does not deem
> acceptable. however, if a
> microscopic examination of each book is truly what
> is wanted, I think this
> needs to be made clear so that potential volunteers
> can make an informed
> decision.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Paula
> >
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
