Hi Lori, As I said, I only hope this is a temporary oversight and not something deliberate. It would seem strange to me to have someone in authority at Bookshare say the equivalent of, "Let's elevate the status of validators to proofreaders, while at the same time give them less information than they used to have to do their work." I really like getting the book info I now get when submitting a book. But that information is only preliminary. If it were not, then there would be no point in having proofreaders anyway. Evan ----- Original Message ----- From: Lori Castner To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:58 PM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: A Backward Step for Proofreaders? 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