um, perhaps someone should tell david rothman that if he keeps talking about me over on the d.p. forums, i'll have to go over there and start posting again to clear up the record... and i don't think you d.p. people want me to do that, do you? no, of course you don't. so maybe someone should tell him... and for the record here, regarding "the relationship" between distributed proofreaders and librarycity, i quoted extensively in my post from the _webpage_ whose u.r.l. i listed at the top of my message, so it wasn't _me_ saying all of those things... and people who compounded those quotes with their own misinterpretations should answer for their own mistakes... *** i informed you about one of my newest demo-books:
but i forgot to say that i used scans i got from d.p. so as to show people the quality of some of the scans that d.p. does. these scans were good enough for some acceptable o.c.r., presumably, because the final e-text as posted was good, but the scans are not good enough for reading purposes... this is not a criticism -- because that wasn't their intent -- but it does have bearing on those people who try to tell us the d.p. scans can be productively used for those purposes. many (if not most) of the scans that d.p. has in storage are simply not good enough for reading, even if they're cleaned. they're good enough to do "continuous proofreading", yes, but that's about all. if we _really_ will want to put their scans in some kind of "archive" for reading by end-users, then d.p. needs to set a new standard of quality for people scanning... anyway, since my other scan-sets are of very high quality, it was good to have a demo with a lesser-quality scan-set. but in general, i would not consider this level of quality to be of above the minimal level required for public posting... (and i remind people again that this was not its objective.) *** meanwhile, here's a morsel from carlo on the d.p. forums:
Perhaps here we need a new idea. We need to be sure that the proofreading is OK before applying the formatting. This means that we have to check the proofreading quality before F1, and in case of need repeat a P round.
hey, carlo, perhaps you need an even newer idea -- forgo the formatting rounds entirely for zen markup! (alright, it's the same old idea i suggested long ago...)
Then the project goes to the F rounds or to an off-line formatting.
when i suggested offline formatting "long ago", some d.p. people wanted to tar-and-feather me, suggesting i didn't know what "distributed" meant. well, um, yes, i certainly do, but pushing a whole book worth of scans out at an array of people so they can say "nope, no formatting on that page either..." is retarded... and doing it twice is _doubly_ retarded... -bowerbird