Re:
Getting more people who care to read the finished or almost finished product and providing an easy and convenient way to give feedback on bugs found, or
DP-US and DP-Canada both have a smooth-read facility, with instructions on how report problems.
god forbid to be able to actually fix those bugs directly might also make a "contribution.
Allowing the hoi polloi, as it were, to "fix bugs" is a sure-fire way of introducing errors. I occasionally have to disallow an errata-reported error because the reporter wasn't aware that a word was, in fact, valid. For example, "ancle" is a valid, albeit archaic, variant of "ankle", and is not an error. But, if it's a typo/scanno for "uncle", it is. I've also handled reported errors where the error was real, but the suggested correction was incorrect. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Adcock" <jimad@msn.com> To: "'Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion'" <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:39 AM Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: rfrank reports in
If every proofer knows that every page is going to be looked at by someone else, will they proof that page differently than if they intended it to be one-and-done?
Under the *current* DP system everyone knows that everything being done is also going to be worked on by about six other people. The hard part then is getting anyone to feel "ownership" about anything -- particularly about getting something *done*.
Automatic scoring of proofing efforts and automatic reporting back of scannos that slip by that other people find -- without making a "big deal value judgement" about those that slip by might make a positive contribution.
Getting more people who care to read the finished or almost finished product and providing an easy and convenient way to give feedback on bugs found, or god forbid to be able to actually fix those bugs directly might also make a contribution.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d