[bksvol-discuss] **text Quality**
- From: "Rui Cabral" <rui@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:49:49 -0400
This without doubt is my biggest issue with bookshare. The "fair rating."
In my experience, anything marked fair is usually almost unreadable.
We as a bookshare community need to put the emphasis squarely on text
quality, proper pagination, etc.
Otherwise the collection may grow but the membership will not.
Less members=less funding for all of those site improvements that everyone
wants. Over time when the improvements don't materialize more members will
not
renew there subscriptions, which in turn means even less funding.
All of this can be traced right back to the text quality issue.
To the people who say, "having the book is better then no book at all," I
say, you are outright wrong!!"
Bookshare is supposed to be an E-library of sorts. Would you expect to go to
your local library and borrow a book with pages missing, pages where maybe
a few lines ran together, etc.
Of course not, if you found such a book, you would bring it to the front
desk and (in most cases) they would most likely take it out of circulation.
Reading is supposed to be enjoyable, people do it as a hobby, to relax, etc.
It becomes outright drudgery when you have to "interpret" your book instead
of reading it.
Thank you.
-- Rui
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pam Quinn" <quinns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 3:07 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Fiction By Best Selling Author & See Long
Synopsis
> Agreed. Those of us who are sharing high quality books are doing so
> because we want to, not because we feel any obligations. If we allow
> volunteers to start quibbling and cracking the whip, I for one would
> say to hell with it. I have enough books here to enjoy for several
> lifetimes and can scan more as I wish. But if it comes to having books
> rejected because of lack of page numbers, lack of personal preferences
> in synopsis, we need to change the rejection notices to include the
> reason for rejection at the very least. Above all else though,
> emphasis should be placed on quality, especially now that near perfect
> scans are no problem. I've seen some books on here that have a
> wonderful synopsis, page numbered accurately and what have you, but
> are virtually unreadable due to so many errors. If books such as these
> are a thing of the past, we're dooing great, I'd say.
>
> Pam
>
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:38:42 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >The quickest way to discourage me from submitting scanned books would be
to suggest that my efforts were being rejected because somebody didn't like
my synopses. I would simply take my tent and go home. I do not know whose
job it should be to assure that such things are handled correctly and share
Guido's disaffection with useless short summaries. However, let us not
suggest the firing squad for what is, compared to the overall effort, a
misdemeanor punishable by an email slap on the wrist, perhaps.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >Paul Edwards, Director
> >Access Services, North Campus
> >Phone: (305) 237-1146
> >Fax: (305-237-1831
> >TTY: (305) 237-1413
> >Email: pedwards@xxxxxxxx
> >home email: edwpaul@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: E. [mailto:thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:18 PM
> >To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Fiction By Best Selling Author & See Long
> >Synopsis
> >
> >
> >I agree. What is stopping a volunteer from coming up with a one or two
> >sentence brief description? There also seem to be a lot of submissions
> >with no long or short descriptions at all. How can you scan a book and
> >know absolutely nothing about it? Please take a moment and come up with
a
> >short description at the very least. Usually you can find enough from
the
> >scanned book jacket info to do this even if you have no intention of
> >reading the book.
> >
> >While on my rant "romance" is not a short dexcription I find
> >satisfactory. I even have trouble with "historical romance". I do like
> >"historical romance set in eighteenth century America" as an example. I
> >similarly dislike "science fiction" as a description. Surely a little
more
> >info can be gleaned from somewhere by the submitter!!!
> >
> >E.
> >
> >
> >At 09:27 AM 4/28/2004, you wrote:
> >
> >>In spite of the repeated please from several of us, I keep finding glib
> >>or useless short synopsis in recent submissions. Quite frankly I do not
> >>understand which part of the word USEFUL some volunteers have a problem
> >>comprehending.
> >>
> >>In particular, in today's fresh crop of glib contributions I see
> >>
> >>The Golden Cup by Delva Plain,
> >>
> >>anonymously submitted by a "Bookshare Volunteer", whose short synopsis
> >>proudly states: Fiction by best-selling author.
> >>
> >>Another title,
> >>
> >>Holding Out by Ann O'Falk
> >>
> >>was submitted by 'Louise' and bears the totally useless short
description:
> >>"see long synopsis".
> >>
> >>In both cases, a meaningful long description is available for these
> >>books. Is there any reason why a shorter version of these descriptions
> >>was not inserted in the short description field? Book submitters should
> >>ensure that their own submissions include meaning ful short
> >>descriptions. Reviewers should catch omitted or meaningless short
> >>descriptions and repair them appropriately.
> >>
> >>Ultimately please remember that we volunteers are performing a service
> >>for our customers, who deserve the best fruit of our efforts.
> >>
> >>I must conclude with a recommendation to the Bookshare staff that all
> >>further reviewed/approved books containing trivial short descriptions be
> >>routinely rejected by the administrator.
> >>
> >>Thank you for listening,
> >>
> >>Guido
> >>
> >>Guido D. Corona
> >>IBM Accessibility Center, Austin Tx.
> >>IBM Research,
> >>Phone: (512) 838-9735
> >>Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>Visit my weekly Accessibility WebLog at:
> >>http://www-3.ibm.com/able/weblog/corona_weblog.html
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Other related posts:
