[bksvol-discuss] Re: A Backward Step for Proofreaders?
- From: "Lori Castner" <loralee.castner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:58:58 -0800
Evan, I absolutely agree with your concerns.
Last evening I "checked in" a book I had finished validating (proofreading) and
did not get the error rating that used to appear, any information about adult
content or acknowledgment that the book had been added to the admin cue and no
thanks for my work. Like Lissi, the only way I could tell that the book had
gone somewhere was the fact that I had one fewer books in my checked out books.
This morning before checking email, I attempted to look at the admin cue to see
if the books were there. I found a link for checking the admin cue, and then
entered on a link which said, "Skip to 1-5 of five selections or somthing to
that affect, but the five books in the admin never appeared on my screen.
The only way I now know that the book was accepted into the collection is
receiving the email from bookshare and seeing the book listed on Grandma
Cindy's list. I find this change in the site to be a definite step back.
Cat Lover Lori
----- Original Message -----
From: EVAN REESE
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 9:40 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] A Backward Step for Proofreaders?
Hello Folks,
I haven't checked in any books yet because I don't have any checked out for
proofreading at the moment. However, I listened today as Lissi checked in two
books she had on her checked out list.
It's possible that we may have missed it, but we did not find any of the
quality information that I found when I submitted a book today. Not only did we
not find the info about page breaks and page numbers, but we did not even find
the quality analysis that we former validators used to get. We both found this
to be very odd.
I do not know whether this is a bug, or intentional, but if the latter, I am
very curious as to the reason behind it.
By the way, there doesn't seem to be an option for changing the number of
pages given on the form. What if a submitter misses a few pages, or adds a few
duplicates? What's a proofreader to do?
It would be really cool if the proofreader could compare their quality
analysis with that of the book when it was submitted. It would show what a
difference a conscientious proofreader can, and often does, make to the quality
of a book.
But that is something for the wish list of future enhancements. At the
moment, all in all, as far as the actual check in process goes, it appears that
not only do proofreaders get less book info than submitters now get, but they
get less information than they used to have when preparing books for the Admin
Queue. I don't understand it, and I admit to feeling a bit sad as I write this.
This information is just as important to proofreaders as it is to submitters.
Perhaps more so, because the book is closer to the Admin Queue at that point
and proofreaders are supposed to be the ones doing the final checks of these
things to ensure the highest quality for our readers.
We didn't even find an acknowledgement of her time and effort, as we
validators used to see, nor of the fact that her books were added to the Admin
Queue when the check in process was completed. The only way she could be sure
they were gone was to check the number of books on her list to see if it had
changed.
As I said, we may possibly have missed some or all of these things, tooling
around as we were on a new site; and I would be very happy to be shown to be
wrong about any of this. But if my information is correct, then it is
unfortunate. I hope it is only a temporary working out of the kinks of the new
site.
Evan
Other related posts:
