PL first-timer question

[blueskies]

I'm considering trying out PL-ing in addition to reading and have a couple questions from the FAQ.

1. For Standard Level PL, what does it mean that we don't listen to text content?

For what type of thing should I NOT be listening?
Text content, reading style, speed, pronunciation, or accents....

Does this mean we don't read along in the text while listening to the file for accuracy? I'm stumped and I'm pretty sure I have misunderstood.

2. Since it's an MP3 file, I assuming any software that's compatible can be used for listening. Is that correct? In my case I'd probably use iTunes for windows, but if there's something that works better, I appreciate suggestions.

Thanks for your help.

[lymiewithpurpose]

Hey there! I'm pretty sure you meant to post this in the 'Need Help' forum, but I'll answer it anyways . That's awesome that you want to PL! We are in need of more for sure. I think you'll find it a lot of fun.

1. I think you are right here. This has been one of the great debates of Standard PLing. Some are convinced that you need to follow along with the text and only comment on major textual errors, some say you should not follow along and just listen for stumbles/repeats/etc. For me, usually I do a mix. I open the book and follow along for maybe a couple minutes, then listen for another couple. This helps me pay attention better. That being said, I only comment on major textual issues (somebody forgot to include a paragraph, a word change significantly changed the meaning of a sentence, etc.). I'm sure somebody will be along to contest my strategy though . The only part you need to be more strict about are the intro and outro disclaimers.

2. Anywhere is fine. It is helpful if you can check the tech specs (run it through Checker) for the BC, but it is not absolutely necessary. I tend to listen on iTunes, but sometimes if there are quite a few corrections, I listen on Audacity. That is easier for me to go back and replay for some reason.

Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any questions, and have fun!

[tovarisch]

I'm considering trying out PL-ing in addition to reading and have a couple questions from the FAQ.

1. For Standard Level PL, what does it mean that we don't listen to text content?

For what type of thing should I NOT be listening?
Text content, reading style, speed, pronunciation, or accents....

Does this mean we don't read along in the text while listening to the file for accuracy? I'm stumped and I'm pretty sure I have misunderstood.

No, you didn't. It is up to you whether to follow the text while listening for 'Standard' level of PL.

2. Since it's an MP3 file, I assuming any software that's compatible can be used for listening. Is that correct? In my case I'd probably use iTunes for windows, but if there's something that works better, I appreciate suggestions.

Anything that allows you to hear should be perfectly fine to use. To allow you to judge the quality (and hear noise, bumps, clicks, hiss, etc.) you should probably utilize headphones (as opposed to desktop speakers).

In addition PLers are expected to check technical parameters of the recording, and for that we recommend Checker.

[blueskies]

Thanks Campbell and tovarisch! Yes, I see now that I should have posted in the Need Help topic. I'm going to consider whether PL-ing suits me, but at least now I understand how standard differs from word perfect.

[lymiewithpurpose]

Thanks Campbell and tovarisch! Yes, I see now that I should have posted in the Need Help topic. I'm going to consider whether PL-ing suits me, but at least now I understand how standard differs from word perfect.

I'm glad we could help! Personally I feel like it's a lot of fun. If you ever wanted to give it a try without committing to DPL, you could go find a project that has a ~ in front of it and offer to listen to one or two chapters. Alternatively, you could find a project that has a DPL and ask to PL a chapter or so. Some DPLs may like to do the whole thing themselves, but others are happy to let others try a section or two.

I also forgot to mention about the debate about not following along with the text, if you decide not to, you can always go back into the text and check if something seems off to you. You don't have to ignore everything weird

[TriciaG]

Moved this to "Need Help" for ya.

Two Wiki pages for you, that help answer these questions:
https://wiki.librivox.org/index.php/Guide_for_Proof-listeners
https://wiki.librivox.org/index.php?title=ProofListening_tips_and_quiz

[lurcherlover]

I'm a bit surprised about this - regarding standard PL'ing. I've always assumed that anyone PL'ing would always use the text, otherwise how would it be possible for them to say it was anything near accurate, and the reader could have added his own additions and alterations. I thought it had to be 99% accurate?

[lymiewithpurpose]

I'm a bit surprised about this - regarding standard PL'ing. I've always assumed that anyone PL'ing would always use the text, otherwise how would it be possible for them to say it was anything near accurate, and the reader could have added his own additions and alterations. I thought it had to be 99% accurate?

I get what you mean. I also know PLers who just don’t follow along at any time. Everybody has different standards I guess. Personally, I’m just concerned that a whole passage or something will be omitted. I’ve done that before and I have caught it a few times. I did Pl one book where there was no text to follow along with. The reader read from a paper book. This was harder for me, because I really had to listen and make sure everything made perfect sense and there were no weird jumps. I guess some people prefer to do it this way!

[lurcherlover]

I'm a bit surprised about this - regarding standard PL'ing. I've always assumed that anyone PL'ing would always use the text, otherwise how would it be possible for them to say it was anything near accurate, and the reader could have added his own additions and alterations. I thought it had to be 99% accurate?

I get what you mean. I also know PLers who just don’t follow along at any time. Everybody has different standards I guess. Personally, I’m just concerned that a whole passage or something will be omitted. I’ve done that before and I have caught it a few times. I did Pl one book where there was no text to follow along with. The reader read from a paper book. This was harder for me, because I really had to listen and make sure everything made perfect sense and there were no weird jumps. I guess some people prefer to do it this way!

But surely Librivox insists on texts that are on Gutenberg.org and verified as being in the Public Domain? How could someone be reading from a book which might have been edited and have a recent publication date even if it was originally written before 1924?

Can an Admin verify that a book being PL'ed has to be PL'ed from a Gutenberg text (or in some cases from another reliable and verified source acceptable to LV).

I accurately (I hope) PL my own readings and very rarely have to change something because the DPL or PL has found a problem. But the whole point of having work PL'ed is to just catch the occasional mistake in pronunciation, missing text, noises off, and stumbles in reading, and anything else that comes to light. The PL is an extra pair of ears and checks the reading against the text. A PL also should put the submitted file through the Checker app to make sure it is technically correct for LV, such as being in mono etc. In professional PL'ing they pick up the slightest mis-pronunciation, hesitation, noise, erratic speeds, obvious changes in gain (volume) etc., etc. I know LV has a slightly lower acceptance than that required for professional work, but I would have thought that accuracy in reading the exact text (correct for 99%) was essential. The areas where LV allows some headroom is in the interpretation and speed of reading as well as not pointing out the suitability or not of the voice for reading, which is fair enough as LV uses mostly volunteer readers who are pretty dedicated.

[TriciaG]

But surely Librivox insists on texts that are on Gutenberg.org and verified as being in the Public Domain? How could someone be reading from a book which might have been edited and have a recent publication date even if it was originally written before 1924?

Can an Admin verify that a book being PL'ed has to be PL'ed from a Gutenberg text (or in some cases from another reliable and verified source acceptable to LV).

A project must use a PD text. The link they put in the project is the one they're supposed to record from. That's why it says, "Source text (please only read from this text!)" [bolded mine for emphasis]

IF someone wants to record a book that doesn't have an e-text or for some reason they just want to record from a hard copy, we ask them to scan or photograph the title page and verso (copyright info page), and upload that to us so we can verify the edition they're reading from is PD.

We're not so untrusting as to expect readers to say they're going to read from, say the Gutenberg text, then turn around and record from some other text. I admit it has happened before (we've pulled a cataloged project or two for this), but 99.9999% of readers don't, so we're not going to burden PLs with the requirement that they have to follow along with the text to be sure the reader is using the stated text.

I accurately (I hope) PL my own readings and very rarely have to change something because the DPL or PL has found a problem. But the whole point of having work PL'ed is to just catch the occasional mistake in pronunciation, missing text, noises off, and stumbles in reading, and anything else that comes to light. The PL is an extra pair of ears and checks the reading against the text. A PL also should put the submitted file through the Checker app to make sure it is technically correct for LV, such as being in mono etc. In professional PL'ing they pick up the slightest mis-pronunciation, hesitation, noise, erratic speeds, obvious changes in gain (volume) etc., etc. I know LV has a slightly lower acceptance than that required for professional work, but I would have thought that accuracy in reading the exact text (correct for 99%) was essential. The areas where LV allows some headroom is in the interpretation and speed of reading as well as not pointing out the suitability or not of the voice for reading, which is fair enough as LV uses mostly volunteer readers who are pretty dedicated.

Where does this leave blind PLs? They cannot follow along with the text.

Occasionally we get an error report of a missing paragraph/page/section of text in a recording, but it's rare. And 99% accuracy is actually a large margin. On a 20 minute recording, that's 12 seconds of textual error.

If you want the PL to follow along with the text on your recordings, use the "Special" PL designation, and then state your requirement(s). But standard PL does not require it, as per the links in my post above.

[TriciaG]

I just noticed that the wiki pages I linked to don't give the levels of PL. "Standard" is in the PL Needed template: https://wiki.librivox.org/index.php?title=ProofListening_Template
And the various levels are listed here: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17680

[lymiewithpurpose]

I'm a bit surprised about this - regarding standard PL'ing. I've always assumed that anyone PL'ing would always use the text, otherwise how would it be possible for them to say it was anything near accurate, and the reader could have added his own additions and alterations. I thought it had to be 99% accurate?

I get what you mean. I also know PLers who just don’t follow along at any time. Everybody has different standards I guess. Personally, I’m just concerned that a whole passage or something will be omitted. I’ve done that before and I have caught it a few times. I did Pl one book where there was no text to follow along with. The reader read from a paper book. This was harder for me, because I really had to listen and make sure everything made perfect sense and there were no weird jumps. I guess some people prefer to do it this way!

But surely Librivox insists on texts that are on Gutenberg.org and verified as being in the Public Domain? How could someone be reading from a book which might have been edited and have a recent publication date even if it was originally written before 1924?

Can an Admin verify that a book being PL'ed has to be PL'ed from a Gutenberg text (or in some cases from another reliable and verified source acceptable to LV).

I accurately (I hope) PL my own readings and very rarely have to change something because the DPL or PL has found a problem. But the whole point of having work PL'ed is to just catch the occasional mistake in pronunciation, missing text, noises off, and stumbles in reading, and anything else that comes to light. The PL is an extra pair of ears and checks the reading against the text. A PL also should put the submitted file through the Checker app to make sure it is technically correct for LV, such as being in mono etc. In professional PL'ing they pick up the slightest mis-pronunciation, hesitation, noise, erratic speeds, obvious changes in gain (volume) etc., etc. I know LV has a slightly lower acceptance than that required for professional work, but I would have thought that accuracy in reading the exact text (correct for 99%) was essential. The areas where LV allows some headroom is in the interpretation and speed of reading as well as not pointing out the suitability or not of the voice for reading, which is fair enough as LV uses mostly volunteer readers who are pretty dedicated.

In the situation I was talking about, an admin verified that the edition of the book used was in the public domain, so it was ok. And I do have to say I was pretty picky with it. If something didn't make sense even a little bit I pointed it out so that the reader could take a look at it. Not ideal, but it worked.

And yes, I do like to follow along frequently with the text as a PLer. I only pause to just listen if the reader has a high accuracy rate and I know that I can follow it easily. Then, the second something strikes me as strange I go and look in the text. I also make sure I follow along for at least 50% of the recording. With poetry or higher levels of PLing I always am more picky. I do make sure to run things I PL through Checker and make sure all the technical settings are correct. I also point out any stumbles, words that significantly change the meaning of the text, noises, if I am following along missing sentences, etc. However, as it is standard PL I realize that I am not supposed to point out every little change in text. If it is word perfect, than I do make sure to point out some of the more detailed differences. I would also like to point out that in standard PL it explicitly states that we are not supposed to comment on the pronunciation of readers. That being said, if it significantly changes the meaning of the text or the reader has asked for pronunciation notes, I will.

I would like to add that I do agree with you for my own recordings. For my solos I let my DPL know that any notes are fine. Whether that means I rearranged a few words in a sentence or my pronunciation sounded slightly weird, I am more than happy to fix that. I want my recordings to be the highest quality possible. However I do let my PLs know that they are not obligated to note these slight mistakes. I ask for standard PL so that people do not feel intimidated or pressured to join my project, and I am more than happy if somebody just wants to check for the basic mistakes. I realize that everybody does have their own ways to PL and comfort levels, just wanted to share a bit of mine .

[ej400]

I'm pretty sure too, that someone who PL'ed a section in standard pl, would notice if the text seemed to dramatically change. Don't most books have a pretty good pace? I think it's awesome that we have blind PL's (not the part that they are blind, that's no fun), but the fact that they can contribute to librivox somehow. I think it's a wonderful thing of how inclusive we are, and I hope we can keep it that way.

For me, when I go to PL a section, I always follow along with the text because I can concentrate on what the reader is saying. But if I didn't, I probably would get distracted while PLing. If I paid a lot of attention, and wasn't so high energy as I was, I could probably catch things without following the text. But don't blind people rely on what they hear and touch? I mean, if you were limited on your senses, wouldn't you use your other's to make up for what you don't? So (and I'm not really sure), wouldn't blind people probably be able to tell what's going wrong with the text? If if just changes, I'm sure they'd catch it. <thinking>

Just a thought.
Thanks,
Elijah

[annise]

As someone who joined to PL and who never read along with the text unless I was PLing a language I didn't speak, I find the assumption that reading along with the text is better in some way or that it is a lower standard not to sort of insulting and likely to put off some would be PLers. If people find reading along with text works for them that's fine by me , but many of our good prolific PLers don't - they may miss an odd word substitution but that's all and if I sat glued to a screen for all the things I PLed I'd have gone to sleep.
So peoples brains work differently and they have different lifestyles.
And really, in the missed errors I find when I listen for pleasure, I haven't noticed that they occur more often when they are PLed by people who don't read along - and yes, if there are consistently missed errors I do check later sometimes (just in case it was me missing them)

Anne

[lymiewithpurpose]

I find the assumption that reading along with the text is better in some way or that it is a lower standard not to sort of insulting and likely to put off some would be PLers.

I apologize if I seemed to put forward this message. I personally don't think either way is better than the other. Like you said, everybody has their own ways their brain works. While reading something may not be beneficial for you, it may help me pay attention better. It might be a problem not to follow along for word perfect PL, but for standard many people find this works best for them. I don't want to turn away any future PLers who think that they have to follow along, because you don't! Again, sorry if I made it seem like it would be any worse to.