Inconsistent guidelines for standard PL?

[lurcherlover]

For me, I would like a DPL/PL to follow the text. As it happens I do a pretty thorough PL myself - and for poetry it has to be 100% perfect (Accurate). I know in a solo book (not that I will be recording any more of those) - I might have tiny changes that do not alter the meaning, but I keep them as few as possible. I think we owe this to the listeners even if it makes the recordings and editing much harder work.

And if the listener is not getting a great experience, then what are we here for?

[TriciaG]

For me, I would like a DPL/PL to follow the text. As it happens I do a pretty thorough PL myself - and for poetry it has to be 100% perfect (Accurate). I know in a solo book (not that I will be recording any more of those) - I might have tiny changes that do not alter the meaning, but I keep them as few as possible. I think we owe this to the listeners even if it makes the recordings and editing much harder work.

Then use "Special" as type of PL, and indicate your preferences.

And if the listener is not getting a great experience, then what are we here for?

"To make all books in the public domain available, for free, in audio format on the internet."
https://librivox.org/pages/about-librivox/
(This is a good page to read once in a while, to remind ourselves of what we're here for and what is our focus.)

[lurcherlover]

For me, I would like a DPL/PL to follow the text. As it happens I do a pretty thorough PL myself - and for poetry it has to be 100% perfect (Accurate). I know in a solo book (not that I will be recording any more of those) - I might have tiny changes that do not alter the meaning, but I keep them as few as possible. I think we owe this to the listeners even if it makes the recordings and editing much harder work.

Then use "Special" as type of PL, and indicate your preferences.

I was once going to ask for "Special" but was told it might be more difficult to find a PL as most PL's want the non text reading option. I've not been too worried as I do a pretty careful PL myself and with one quite long book for Audible I managed to persuade my long suffering wife to also proof listen. It was very good of her as we both ended up not enjoying the book that much (I won't say who the author was ...)

[TriciaG]

It might be harder to find a PL in a case like that, but if that's what you want, and if you're willing to wait for it, you're certainly entitled to do so.

[DACSoft]

And if the listener is not getting a great experience, then what are we here for?

"To make all books in the public domain available, for free, in audio format on the internet."
https://librivox.org/pages/about-librivox/
(This is a good page to read once in a while, to remind ourselves of what we're here for and what is our focus.)

Although I've been aware of this statement, and the requirements of the "standard" level PL vs. other levels, I never really thought, until this discussion, whether or not there is a potential for LV to be doing a disservice to the public listening audience.

A major benefit of the standard PL is that PLs/DPLs can listen to their projects without being tied to a reading device. They can listen while jogging, driving, housework, or doing many other activities.

On the other hand, in the extreme (surely non-existent here at LV), one could decide to record a solo, for example. They select the standard PL listening level. They begin recording, and inadvertently or intentionally skip paragraphs or paraphrase paragraphs, either accurately or inaccurately. But none of this causes an interruption in content flow. The PL listens to the section(s), doesn't read-along (a proper choice under the standard guideline) and since there are no obvious errors, or items that give the PL a "Huh?" moment, the PL approves the section with a "PL OK!"

I'm not speaking of minor word or phrase changes that don't change the intent of the author.

According to the standard guidelines, the only content that is verified is the intro, disclaimer, and outro. Editing in LV appears to be required only to the extent that is satisfies the requirements of the PL level identified in the project. (ETA: ...and the technical requirements.)

Where is the tipping point (is/should there be one?) between the goal of making all PD books available in audio format, vs. ensuring, on a macro level, that the content of the audio books being produced (reasonably) reflect the printed books? Unless I missed it in the documentation, I don't see this addressed as pertaining to the reader or the listener.

As a DPL and reader, this is a thought-provoking discussion for me. My thanks to the individual who began it.

FWIW,
Don

[lurcherlover]

When I began recording for LV about three years ago I was not aware that the DP/DPL did not follow the text, as I just assumed that as we had to include a link to the source material then it would be used to check for accuracy. It was only later that I learnt that basic/standard PL'ing did not require the text to be verified. (Sloppy of me not to have read up on all this at the start, I know!)

DACSoft said "Where is the tipping point (is/should there be one?) between the goal of making all PD books available in audio format, vs. ensuring, on a macro level, that the content of the audio books being produced (reasonably) reflect the printed books? Unless I missed it in the documentation, I don't see this addressed as pertaining to the reader or the listener."

I think this is a very good point and I realise though that it produces a conflict with PL'ing because of the reasons DACSoft has mentioned i.e. PL'ing whilst doing other things/not having to have the text up on a split screen or separate device.

As you may have guessed, I have not done any PL'ing of other readers work, and I've instead concentrated on reading. I did consider it but decided I would probably make a lousy PL rather than a semi-lousy reader.

[schrm]

i did some pls and also pls of testrecordings..
i think, the problem with left out words or passages is relevant.
but not that much, that i had left out words or sentences in major parts of my pling experiences.

also one could interprete, presumably, some differences in test pl rules and standard pl rules. and on the other hand all pls are expected to add to the test-pls, with time and patience.

but to repeat what i wrote above: pling is a rather individual thing, with several sides included (pl-side, reader-side, but also eg mc-side).
there are on all sides included: "mental" skills, "physical" abilities, and just knowledge.
and, honestly: i don't know of many pl's, who never look up the texts.
so, when we all remember the rules and get some hints sometimes.. and strive to reach the goals and work together as persons, accepting some differences, also..

well, let's see and quote our faq:

Don't you have any standards?
It depends what you mean by standards. Our feeling is this: in order for LibriVox to be successful we must welcome anyone who wishes to honour a work of literature by lending their voice to it. Some readers are better than others, and the quality of reading will change from book to book and sometimes from chapter to chapter. But we will not judge your reading, though we may give you some advice if you ask for it. This is not Hollywood, and LibriVox has nothing to do with commercial media's values, production or otherwise. However: we think almost all of our readings are excellent, and we DO try to catch technical problems (like repeated text etc.) with our Listeners Wanted/prooflistening stage. Maybe you'd like to help?

You mean your readings might have mistakes in them?
Project Gutenberg has a 99% accuracy rate target for its texts; we aim to equal or better that. For a 20 minute audio recording, 99% is equivalent to 12 seconds of error. Count to 12 and see how long that is. So, we think by a pretty objective measure, even with a few mistakes, we're doing pretty well.

that said, i changed the pl hints in my projects to special, now.

and i apologize to kevin! i read along the texts in your pls, eg.
before your recordings, that was not clear and even when letting you decide what to edit, it was my fault.