Clarification on Prooflistening please.

[TriciaG]

In which case, if I ruled the world, the section would be opened up for someone else to read correctly.

[ezwa]

Actually, if the original reader can't be contacted, shouldn't another reader record the missing line(s)/paragraph and have them pasted in the file, at the very least?

[chocoholic]

Actually, if the original reader can't be contacted, shouldn't another reader record the missing line(s)/paragraph and have them pasted in the file, at the very least?

That's what I would have done. I hate to second-guess somebody else's decision, but I would not have let a missing paragraph slide. [edit: except maybe under extraordinary circumstances, like a language that's hard to find someone else to read.] Did the MC know about it?

[annise]

Actually, if the original reader can't be contacted, shouldn't another reader record the missing line(s)/paragraph and have them pasted in the file, at the very least?

In most cases if you did this it would sound very odd . I see standard Pling as checking that the file is listenable to and makes sense . I know if I read along with the text it would annoy me if it wasn't exactly the same so I use my ears not my eyes and then I don't know But I find most people are anxious to fix anything I mention.
I have more problems with the very few files that I find unlistenable to but it is a group of volunteers and I am madly impressed with the quality of nearly all I PL or download and enjoy.
So try again Alana - if you didn't like that MC/BC's way of dealing with it there are plenty of others or even give them another try - there may have been reasons they didn't want to post which you would agree with if you knew

Anne

[MariaLa]

Hi Marian,
Here's some information on our prooflistening policy: http://librivox.org/wiki/moin.cgi/GuidesforProoflisteners


Regarding correcting errors: mostly errors are fixed, especially if they change the meaning of a text, or are disturbing. However, we aim for a 99% accuracy rate (same as Gutenberg does with their online texts I believe). If you look at it that way, it means that in a 20 min recording, we would let slip by 12 sec of errors and still be 99% acurate! 12 sec! That's long... So I think in general we're way above the 99% accuracy.

Regards,
Anna

Hi everyone!

I'm new here, and I was going through tips and quiz for prooflistening. And like Marian here I'm wondering, not only the meaning of a text should be preserved but also the wording, right? The guide says that it's not necessary that I correct "cake and wine" for "wine and cake", I did though in my practice training with template and all. I see the point Anna makes here, absolutely. I hope this is the right place for my comment/doubt. Is it wrong proolistening if I point out to this kind of mistakes?

Thank you!
Maria

[Rapunzelina]

Hi Maria! Welcome to Librivox!

I wouldn't say it's "wrong proof-listening" but I would say it's an optional change on the reader's part. I'm personally reluctant to fix small mistakes like this, because my edits are obvious and jarring

So if it depends on the reader, soloist or Book coordinator, you can ask what level of proof-listening they would like. In the Standard PL level, you are not required to follow with the text, so you wouldn't perceive small mistakes like that.

[MariaLa]

Hi Maria! Welcome to Librivox!

I wouldn't say it's "wrong proof-listening" but I would say it's an optional change on the reader's part. I'm personally reluctant to fix small mistakes like this, because my edits are obvious and jarring

So if it depends on the reader, soloist or Book coordinator, you can ask what level of proof-listening they would like. In the Standard PL level, you are not required to follow with the text, so you wouldn't perceive small mistakes like that.

Hi Rapunzelina! Thank you

Well, thanks for the clarification!

Maria