- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

developments over at distributed proofreaders
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 09 Dec '05

09 Dec '05

i'm seeing some encouraging developments over at d.p., the most notable being an admission that the system has not always used the time and energy of volunteers wisely. i also see that the false veneer of "we're all one happy family" has a few cracks in it now, which i take as a very healthy sign, because it always struck me scarily as a little bit too cult-like. but there's enough truth in it that volunteers will emerge from the currently choppy seas with commitment intact, i believe... even though there are several suggestions that i could make, vis a vis volunteer energy, the big issue these days seems to be the number of rounds, and how those rounds are construed... rather than go over and post on the forums there, because hey, you guys don't really want _me_ over there right now, do you?, i'll just post a couple quick thoughts here instead... the p1.5 experiment and garweyne's diff tool are interesting, but um, you're really complicating the process unnecessarily. and there is a very simple solution. i've suggested it before, and another person has suggested a variant of it just recently... (sorry, can't remember exactly who, i think it was jhellingman.) garweyne's research on the diff tool in part seeks to determine whether a change that is made was a "significant" one. he has made some remarkable progress on capturing that information, really remarkable, but rock bottom, it's still a difficult judgment. more to the point, it's an unnecessary one. as long as _changes_ are still being made to a page, any changes, even "insignificant" ones, the page should be considered "in flux". it is only when a number of people (that number unspecified here) have looked at a page and determined "there's nothing here that needs to be changed" that we can really consider that page "done". (even then, it might still have errors. but that'll always be the case.) so, the question does _not_ boil down to "what changes were made, and are they significant?", a question that will be difficult to answer, it boils down to "were any changes made to the page by this person?". and _that_ question is dirt-simple to answer. if the text is the same, then no changes were made. no complex analysis is required at all. as long as changes are being made, not done. no changes, done. sure, sometimes you might temporarily cycle through a loop where one person does something, the next undoes it, the next re-does it, the next undoes it, but sooner or later, that pattern will be broken. (and you could jump out of it sooner, too, just by checking to see if the current version of the page matches the one that is _two_ back.) the beauty of this system is its simplicity. no complex analyses and no "rating" of the proofers (since that seems to be damping morale). just a simple method, with a foundation that is extremely intuitive... this has direct relevance to the "backlog" problems d.p. is facing too. that's because, if you keep sending the page back through p1 until two (let us say) proofers both view it without making any changes, and only _then_ is it sent to p2 (which is considered the "thin line". because responsibility is charged for any errors that survive _it_), then the _quantity_ of output from p1 will be curtailed somewhat, but the _quality_ of that p1 output will be considerably improved, to a point where you actually have great confidence in its accuracy. with less quantity, and better quality, pages will breeze through p2. for some pages -- easy ones, where the first proofer caught all -- that would mean only 3 p1 proofers would have to view the page. for difficult pages, it might take 6 or 10 proofers before it's solid. but so what? if that's what it takes, that's what it takes, and you'll feel when it finally gets out that you did exactly how much it took to get it _right_, no more, no less. and that's what you really want. all pages are not equally difficult; you need a variable methodology. any fixed-number-of-rounds system will result in too few rounds for the difficult pages, and too many rounds for the simple pages... and as far as i can tell from comments made, this type of system would _not_ be hard to implement in the actual code of the site... there are all kinds of things you could add to this that would make it even more useful -- like automated diff feedback as learning guide for proofers whenever their page was subjected to a further change, or ranking of proofers based on the percentage of pages they did that were touched/untouched by later proofers -- but since the important point here is _simplicity_, i'll not bother to discuss those in any detail. try it! you will quickly see that it works, and works well! anyway, as always, that's my advice, take it or leave it, as you see fit. but i get the impression that y'all really want to fix things now, and that you are getting bogged in the difficulty of a certain approach, when -- from my removed perspective -- i can see that a way that is much simpler will actually _better_ solve your various problems... best of luck. thanks for proofing! -bowerbird

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] broadband penetration
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 08 Dec '05

08 Dec '05

michael said: > Think of what? this thread, right here, right now. :+) -bowerbird p.s. i expected you to say "people never _did_ listen to me."

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] broadband penetration
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 08 Dec '05

08 Dec '05

well, if you get the feeling that people aren't listening to you as closely as they once did, maybe you'll think of this. otherwise, suit yourself... meanwhile, i will be busy trying to figure out how to quickly and easily convert 10,000 scanned books into zen markup language text, so everyone has lemonade... -bowerbird

2 1

re: [gutvol-d] broadband penetration
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 08 Dec '05

08 Dec '05

but michael, as one preacher to another, i'll remind you of something you already know. as the u.s. has hit the tipping point on broadband, there will be no turning back now, just a bigger rush. and increased speed is one of those things that computer users take for granted _very_quickly_, to the point we _forget_entirely_ the old and slow. so it will be increasingly difficult to talk with people if we don't consider their newly-changed mindset... to my mind, that means that an "either/or" approach will come to be rejected by them without consideration. far better, in my opinion, to recognize the new reality, and combine accommodation to the high-speed present enjoyed by _some_ people with an "awareness campaign" constantly reminding them that some people aren't so lucky. in other words, replace "either/or" with "both", and then tailor the sermon to the matter of the "choice" between 'em. you and i both know that, when push comes to shove, the "choice" is crystal-clear, so there's no need to artificially constrain the options that people entertain. argue against your enemies, not with your friends... -bowerbird

2 1

re: [gutvol-d] broadband penetration
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 08 Dec '05

08 Dec '05

michael said: > Let's not forget that 50% of the world doesn't > even have phone service if any kind at all, > much less narrow or broadband Intneret. i haven't "forgotten" that, michael. > I'm still targeting the world from the bottom up, as am i. > For the majority of people broadband is totally > out of reach, even out of sight. you're preaching to a fellow preacher, man. -bowerbird

1 0

broadband penetration
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 08 Dec '05

08 Dec '05

what is the current penetration of broadband? i seem to remember from the newsletter that a strong majority of people say they have it... which seems not to jibe with my reality, but most of my friends are poets, so we're poor. heck, three of them are living in a tent in my backyard right now. (not really, just kidding.) still, it seems to me that many people might have broadband at _work_, so they say "yes", when really, i would be more curious about the percentage who have it have _home_... does anyone have the figures? -bowerbird

2 1

Canadian ISBN's
by N Wolcott 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

Does anyone know if Canadian ISBN's can be ordered from US bookstores like Borders or Barnes and Noble? Do they appear in Amazon? or do they limit themseleves to Bowker's Books in Print. The question is if a self published book is given a Canadian ISBN, will anyone in the US be able to order it. I understand that even US ISBN's are not necessarily in Amazon, limiting their distribution. Canadian ISBN's are free while in US they are $30 a pop. I know that public libraries do not get Canadian books , mine anyway. Fredonia Books get a NL ISBN, but they can be ordered here and are on Amazon. Maybe a special deal? Norm Wolcott nwolcott2(a)post.harvard.edu

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] Google print
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

the dust has not cleared, norm. what is necessary at this time is a clearinghouse, where efforts to download every set of scans that google provides are coordinated, so they can be made available at a convenient place in cyberspace. an overlap of such downloadings will unnecessarily duplicate work, and only piss off google, who has already blacklisted certain people for excessive pings. and an uncoordinated effort will almost certainly result in many of the books being neglected... project gutenberg's high profile and history makes it a natural to coordinate all of these efforts... -bowerbird

1 0

"iridium asteroid"
by Michael Dyck 27 Nov '05

27 Nov '05

In PT1a Weekly Project Gutenberg Newsletter, Michael Hart wrote: > > Even a tiny gold, platinum, or iridium asteroid under 100 feet > in diameter could destroy the world's economic system, because > in spacefaring terms, our finanical institutions are based on, > still to this day, "beads and trinkets" that could still buy a > Manhattan Island for $24 worth of such beads and trickets from > the perspective of any spacefaring race that could simply pull > such an asteroid out of orbit and give it to us for Manhattan. > > Think such asteroids don't exist? > > Just ask any dinosaur expert what wiped out those dinosaurs. > > It was an iridium asteroid, and a lot bigger than 100 feet. No, it wasn't "an iridium asteroid". It was an asteroid with about the average concentration of iridium for bodies in the solar system, which is to say, in parts per billion. The notable thing is that on Earth, most of the iridium is concentrated in the core; in the crust, iridium is (even) rarer than the solar system average. Thus, when a 10km asteroid of average iridium concentration slams into the Yucatan peninsula, you get a thin layer of rock (all over the world) that is "rich" in iridium, relative to the surrounding rock. But it's still just parts per billion. -Michael

2 1

"iridium asteroid"
by Michael Dyck 26 Nov '05

26 Nov '05

In PT1a Weekly Project Gutenberg Newsletter, Michael Hart wrote: > > Even a tiny gold, platinum, or iridium asteroid under 100 feet > in diameter could destroy the world's economic system, ... > > Think such asteroids don't exist? > > Just ask any dinosaur expert what wiped out those dinosaurs. > > It was an iridium asteroid, and a lot bigger than 100 feet. No, it wasn't "an iridium asteroid". It was an asteroid with about the average concentration of iridium for bodies in the solar system, which is to say, in parts per billion. The notable thing is that on Earth, most of the iridium is concentrated in the core; in the crust, iridium is (even) rarer than the solar system average. Thus, when a 10km asteroid of average iridium concentration slams into the Yucatan peninsula, you get a thin layer of rock (all over the world) that is "rich" in iridium, relative to the surrounding rock. But it's still just parts per billion. -Michael

1 0