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.