Inconsistent guidelines for standard PL?

[Kazbek]

There's a notion that standard PL involves following along with the text and noting any divergences that substantially alter the meaning. I received this instruction in a project forum from an admin and have been following it since. I've also seen references to this notion from other PLs and readers. However, if you look at the written guidelines for standard PL, they fairly clearly say something else.

The wiki version is more explicit: It is NOT necessary for you to follow along with the text

https://wiki.librivox.org/index.php/Guide_for_Proof-listeners

The forum version states as much implicitly, since it does not mention noting any divergences in content for standard PL and mentions following with the text only for word-perfect PL.

viewtopic.php?p=318667#p318667

There's a more explicit statement to that effect further down:

For what type of thing should I NOT be listening?
Text content [...]

Are there two different guidelines for standard PL or has the community standard evolved in a way that's not reflected in the written versions?

Michael

[TriciaG]

There's a notion that standard PL involves following along with the text and noting any divergences that substantially alter the meaning. I received this instruction in a project forum from an admin and have been following it since.

This is incorrect. This would be a "special" PL of some sort.

Either you were told wrong, or you wrongly understood it.

EDIT to add: some BCs get this wrong as well. If they want you to do that, the type of PL should be "special" with a notation as to what they want.

[KevinS]

If I say something that doesn't make sense---I am somewhat surprised by how often this happens!---I hope my PL will speak up regardless of the level of PL.

It's nice too when one establishes a nice relationship with a PL who knows one's wishes---established after a few listens and bumps and all that. One in particular keeps me from sounding foolish. (Well, maybe there are a few who do this. It's a job for a crowd!)

[Kazbek]

Thanks, Tricia. For myself, I'll be verifying with the BC from now on whether they want to me to do that as part of PL. My broader concern is that the practice of annotating meaning-altering deviations in projects with requested standard PL is widespread enough -- also among the Admin Team -- that some BCs will come to expect it as default and will not ask for it explicitly when they want it.

Michael

[philchenevert]

Thanks, Tricia. For myself, I'll be verifying with the BC from now on whether they want to me to do that as part of PL. My broader concern is that the practice of annotating meaning-altering deviations in projects with requested standard PL is widespread enough -- also among the Admin Team -- that some BCs will come to expect it as default and will not ask for it explicitly when they want it.

Michael

Hi Michael. Hopefully Tricia has answered your concerns about what is expected of standard PL. following the text is not required.
But I am confused about what you mean by "the practice of annotating meaning-altering deviations in projects with requested standard PL..." Please explain more about what you mean and I am just curious. Thanks!

[Kazbek]

But I am confused about what you mean by "the practice of annotating meaning-altering deviations in projects with requested standard PL..." Please explain more about what you mean and I am just curious. Thanks!

I just mean that it's something that I commonly see in the projects. These things get mentioned in PL notes, and sometimes there's an exchange on whether the deviation alters the meaning enough to merit a correction. I've had this kind of exchange in both projects with requested standard PL where I've been DPL and the BC made no requests for special PL.

Michael

[knotyouraveragejo]

For group projects, standard PL guidelines, which as noted above doesn't specifically require following along with the text, should be followed unless otherwise noted. However, like almost everything else here at LV, this is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. Some prooflisteners like to read along with the text and may therefore note differences that change the meaning. Others don't read along, but will go check in the text if they hear something that just doesn't make sense in context.

It is entirely up to each reader to decide if they wish to address such PL notes or not, since they are technically outside of standard PL. As long as both PL and reader agree on the type of notes being given, then all is well either way. As a soloist, I personally appreciate notes if I have made mistakes in my recordings, but I don't require my DPL to listen along with the text unless they choose to do so. Bottom line, I think there is some flexibility here, but no one wants to see a page of PL notes that includes lots of things that are clearly outside of the scope of Standard PL. The last thing we want is to discourage or scare off new readers!

[Kazbek]

Personally, the notion of distinguishing deviations from the text that substantially alter its meaning from those which don't makes a lot of sense to me as a reader and listener. If the community is adopting it as a somewhat common practice, perhaps one might consider adding a documented level of PL that reflects it, something like "sense-perfect PL". It seems to me to be more widespread than word-perfect PL, though admittedly my perspective may be be biased by the choice of projects I happen to browse.

Michael

[TriciaG]

Yeah, someday when we get into the system and make changes, I think adding that kind of level of PL'ing makes sense. Maybe change "Standard" to "Basic" - as it's pretty much the ground floor of PL'ing - and making a level that doesn't require following along with the text but includes noting things that make the PL go, "Huh? Was that right?"

[Kazbek]

There's another potentially confusing point at play here. What I think I'm hearing in this thread is that if a PL is being asked to do standard PL and notices that some word was replaced by another, substantially altering the meaning of the text, they are encouraged by the community to point it out (at least in solo projects), and then the reader may or may not choose to fix it. This is different from, say, mispronunciations, which PLs are discouraged from remarking on, unless asked to do so explicitly. That distinction is not conveyed anywhere in the guidelines. In fact, the last guideline snippet I quoted in the first post above seems to discourage pointing out the first type of errors.

Michael

[RSlabaugh]

As DPL only, here's some methods I've developed over time. They may or may not be helpful or add to the topic.

Following with text - I usually only do for projects that can get 'boring' or that need facts stated as written. Especially fictional stories I hardly ever follow with the text.

If something doesn't make sense as read, it probably won't to a listener either, and now is the time something can be done about it. But before mentioning it, check with text to ensure it wasn't a misunderstanding on my part.

The main rules I go by are these: 1) The BC is the boss. 2) It's the reader's file, so my job is to help them get it to where they can feel accomplished but not overworked. 3) And, last but not least, LV is about having fun. ...And making audio books.

There's probably more I could mention (like bouncing off the MC if things get complicated), but those are the main points I can think of now. If this post is unhelpful or irrelevant, please disregard.

Best wishes for happy PLing!

[Peter Why]

Even in "word-perfect" PLing, you can have different levels. I prefer word-perfect PLing for my non-fiction solos, as I don't want to add factual mistakes to a text that may be important. However, I really don't mind the minor mistakes that don't change the sense too much .... missing out a "the" usually won't matter, for example.

Peter

[schrm]

to be honest, i think of pl-ing in 2 ways, also regarding languages, too:
while im lacking english skills and i just don't know, which mistakes are hard for english listeners, and which are not, i follow the text and try to be rather non-invasive with my pl.
in german, i did the dishes while listening - but that is not very enjoyable, to be honest.
and in my work, i cannot listen to audiobooks like i did when i began librivoxing.
actually, i enjoy reading along. the interpretations of different readers are marvellous... (and this, i've learned from the weekly poem and watched in several group projects.)

i try to keep in mind, that i'm supposed to not read along. but missing sentences, or text passages, i cannot accept for my own contributions and i think, it's really hard to ignore that. (when reading along...that's the point)

last but not least we are different people with different backgrounds, cultures, jobs. that is one side that makes pl a rather individual thing - the other side is the reader.
a big help is to get reminded of the simple set of rules we have.

and to add to rslabaugh: another summarize and another brillant experience of a dpl.
all these rules are guidelines and should be told every so often as questions arise

[ej400]

Yeah, someday when we get into the system and make changes, I think adding that kind of level of PL'ing makes sense. Maybe change "Standard" to "Basic" - as it's pretty much the ground floor of PL'ing - and making a level that doesn't require following along with the text but includes noting things that make the PL go, "Huh? Was that right?"

I think that it would be great to create a couple of other levels of PLing. Everyone has their own personal wishes for what they'd like noted, but I'm one who is in between word perfect and standard.

Here are my thoughts: If something alters the text, or changes the author's intent, it should be marked down. A DPL should write down each thing they believe the reader may want noted, regardless if it's only standard PL, because it is ultimately up to the reader to decide if they want to correct it. There are certain things they should correct, although they may not want too, but say a reader wants close to everything marked down, then at least choices for the reader were noted in case they want to correct it.

[TriciaG]

Elijah - for now, use the "Special" PL and write out your requests.

(I used to write "Special - Standard, plus anything in the recording that makes the listener go 'Huh?'")

However, I wouldn't suggest on GROUP projects making it so that the DPL notes everything down and leaves it to the reader to pick and choose. New readers who don't know that it's just a suggestion will think they have to correct everything, and some will get discouraged and disappear. Keep in mind that we are reader-centric, not listener-centric, and that we want to err on the side of encouraging readers rather than giving listeners the best experience they can have.