[bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- From: "Ilene Sirocca" <ilenesia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:31:47 -0500
I certainly sympathize with this suggestion, but I do have a problem with it.
The problem is that so far, book are not supposed to be rejected because they
are rated fair. If they were, we wouldn't have the fair rating allowed in the
first place. If a validator who is also a scanner rejects the original
scanner's fair book and then submits a scan of her own, she takes away the
original scanner's credits, no matter how undeserved they might be in terms of
book quality, and gives them to herself. This is not your intention, but this
is what happens.
If Bookshare wants to have more excellent scans it has to go to the root of the
problem and not allow people to submit fair scans, or maybe even good ones
although that's more debatable I suppose. Yes, some scanners may drop out if
they're held to a higher responsibility, so that has to be part of the
consideration of this matter. But if excellent books is what we are after, the
original rules have to be tougher. If just getting as many books as possible
is the goal, then fair scans have to stay. Personally, I'd vote for a slower
groth rate and a higher quality.
There's my two cents' worth.
Ilene
Other related posts:
