[bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions

  • From: james.homme@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:54:04 -0500

Hi,
Or, when someone scans a book, they should get credit even if the book is
not validated.

Jim

James D Homme, , Usability Engineering, Highmark Inc.,
james.homme@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 412-544-1810

"Never doubt that a thoughtful group of committed citizens can change the
world.  Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead



                                                                           
             "Ilene Sirocca"                                               
             <ilenesia@comcast                                             
             .net>                                                      To 
             Sent by:                  bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx        
             bksvol-discuss-bo                                          cc 
             unce@xxxxxxxxxxxx                                             
             g                                                     Subject 
                                       [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative 
                                       to validating fair quality          
             01/12/2008 11:31          submissions                         
             AM                                                            
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
             bksvol-discuss@fr                                             
                eelists.org                                                
                                                                           
                                                                           




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

 To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line.  To get a list of 
available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.

Other related posts: