BellonaTimes wrote:A pity that they occasionally do such a sloppy job of it; I've seen blurred copy, missing pages, gloved fingers on images, mis-labeled books, etc I have actually spent days photographing images for microfiche (temp job at real estate company many moons ago) and I know how dull it is, but if you're being paid to something as important as this, sloppiness is neither admirable nor acceptable.
I must say that I've never seen a book scanned and uploaded by Archive.org employees
that has been badly done. They're always the ones I go to first. Are you sure the ones you're complaining about are actually scanned by Archive.org and are not the "community texts" or the texts originally scanned by Google and uploaded to Archive? Those, especially Google's (who can afford to make better scans), are the ones I despair of when I see them pop up in my searches.
For example, Google's copy:
As soon as you "open up the book" with the Read Online link, you can see the difference. And here, for our purposes, it's a difference that makes a difference. You can't even tell who the translator is in the Google scan because somebody has slipped something over the name, but Archive's scan is not only perfect but easier on the eyes.