[bksvol-discuss] Re: New 3 hold maximum in check out queue
- From: Regina Alvarado <reggie.alvarado@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:30:26 -0400
Thank you Tracy. Well said. I really, really like Mary's suggestion. The
people who have their scanners and who pass books back and forth, etc.
should be able to still help one another, and perfectly good proofers can
still find books they like.
Reggie
-----Original Message-----
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tracy Carcione
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:24 AM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: New 3 hold maximum in check out queue
Personally, I'm glad the hold fors will be limited. It's depressing to go
and see that all the interesting books are being held for someone else,
and sometimes for many months. I'm a good proofreader; I'd do just as
good a job as those hold-for guys. But, like Reggie, I don't have a gang
of scanner friends to hold things for me.
I thought taking a hold off after a few months was a good idea, but it
seems to have fallen by the wayside. And I think limiting the hold fors
is a good thing. Just because I don't have pals to hold things for me
doesn't make me a bad person to proofread a book. It's just possible I
might even do a better job than the hold-for person.
Tracy
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I agree with all of the points made here about the value of holds put on
> books with special circumstances.
>
> And I have a very simple suggestion. Submitters, before you submit a book
> with a hold on it, please look at the check out page, sort it by title,
> and
> make sure that your intended proofreader doesn't have three holds already
> waiting. Alternatively, you could contact your intended proofreader and
> ask
> them if it's okay to submit a book for you right now. This way, no books
> get proofread by anyone unintended to proofread them, and the number of
> holds on the check out page is kept lower and is less intimidating to new
> volunteers.
>
> No solution is going to be perfect, but that is my suggestion to ease your
> worries.
>
> Mayrie
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Berry
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 5:17 AM
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: New 3 hold maximum in check out queue
>
>
>
> Awesome points. I don't do much volunteering. But I like to help when I
> can. I didn't realize this was such an issue but after reading emails I
> can
> see this may not bee the smartest moove for Benetech and it should
> certainly
> be reconsidered because there is the possibility you could loose a lot of
> good volunteers and that would be more of a tragedy.
> Benetech also needs to ensure they don't just think "Well that's fine we
> can
> get more volunteers." That would be very inappropriate to think that way
> and
> as it looks this decision may need to be overturned at management.
> Hopefully Jim reads this list.
>
> On 7/24/2012 08:41 PM, Ali Al-hajamy wrote:
>> Perhaps an exception could be made for those who are checking out
>> books put on hold specifically for them? I can't scan and don't work
>> closely with any volunteers, so I don't know the specifics of the
>> situations brought up by Vallerie Judy, and others, but I think that
>> would solve the problems discussed without having to abrogate this
>> mandate entirely. Checking for and removing random extra holds seems
>> especially unfair when you consider that there are times, as with
>> Cindy (I think; someone on this list, at any rate) and a historical
>> book she is doing by Ian Kershaw which is enormous and, I'm guessing,
>> because it is nonfiction, requires a lot of extra attention an average
>> mystery or romance would not, volunteers have been working on books
>> for a long time, and may simply require more than three weeks to
>> finish proofing a book to ensure it isn't removed from their list of
>> checked out books just because they have four books checked out rather
>> than three.
>>
>> On 24-Jul-12 21:20, Larry Lumpkin wrote:
>>> I must agree with those who disagree with this new policy. I have
>>> proofers whom I prefer to work with and we have worked out our own
>>> arrangements on holds. I think holds should be worked out between us
>>> volunteers.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Judy s.
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:00 PM
>>> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Madeleine Linares
>>> Cc: Alisa Moore; Mayrie ReNae
>>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: New 3 hold maximum in check out queue
>>>
>>> This policy is a giant step backwards for those of us who
>>> specifically make arrangements so that certain types of difficult to
>>> scan and proofread books are held for us so they can get the special
>>> attention necessary to make sure they end up in the collection at the
>>> highest quality, not because we're "hoarders."
>>>
>>> Many volunteers specifically ask me to proofread books for them
>>> because the books have special problems with footnotes, graphs, weird
>>> formatting that indicates something to the sighted reader that needs
>>> to be someone conveyed to our blind readers, charts etc. that are
>>> special circumstances that can only be handled by an experienced,
>>> careful, sighted volunteer like several of us who are members and
>>> volunteers both, but happen to be sighted.
>>> I don't
>>> have any control over when other volunteers submit such books for
>>> proofreading. Scanners try to remember to ask if I have another book
>>> already waiting, but sometimes they forget.
>>>
>>> I'm proofreading a book right now, for example, that is over 700
>>> pages long, took the scanner several months to scan, is full of much
>>> of the above, and the scanner absolutely wants done by me so that all
>>> of those things can be managed.
>>>
>>> I also have several books that I specifically bought because I want
>>> to see them in the collection so they can complete series, for
>>> example, or are out of print and on a certain subject, so I bought
>>> them and sent them to other volunteers who are kind enough to scan
>>> them. I don't want them proofread by a random volunteer, given that
>>> I've tried that and ended up with too many that were disappointing
>>> quality because the proofreader eliminated all the formatting or
>>> couldn't determine that there is formatting that is messed up and
>>> needs to be fixed, or stripped out all the footnote numbers, or
>>> eliminated tables that were critical to the material in the book
>>> because they came through oddly from the scanning.
>>>
>>> Then I have yet another book that another volunteer really wants to
>>> see in the collection that I'm proofreading because it's a
>>> specialized book on horse genetics and behavior traits, and she knows
>>> that I, like her, have an extensive background at the national level
>>> in horse training and showing, and am a hobbyist in horse genetics.
>>> When these books go to the general queue without a hold much of the
>>> material in the book gets garbled by a proofers spellchecker because
>>> unless you have that background you don't know that a longe line
>>> isn't a lounge and the spellchecker is going to "fix it"
>>> so that it's wrong.
>>>
>>> I could go on and on with examples--these are just what I have
>>> sitting in my queue today!
>>>
>>> Does it really benefit the members who are going to read these books
>>> to have a hold removed from a book like that if I have two other
>>> books with a "hold for" in my name in the checkout queue?
>>>
>>> Honestly, folks, this just seems both punitive and rife with the
>>> potential to decrease quality because it totally ignores these common
>>> kinds of situations, instead of fixing the problem of not enough
>>> books for volunteers to proofread.
>>>
>>> Judy s.
>>> On 7/24/2012 6:26 PM, Madeleine Linares wrote:
>>>> Hi Volunteers,
>>>>
>>>> We are really excited because we have seen an increase in new
>>>> volunteers!
>>> Due to feedback from them, we are reducing the number of holds a
>>> volunteer can have in the checkout queue at one time. Each volunteer
>>> may now have a maximum of three holds at a time. We are reducing the
>>> number of allowable holds for two reasons: First and foremost is to
>>> share the wealth! We want new volunteers to be able to choose from a
>>> number of books that might interest them to keep them engaged while
>>> they're still learning the ropes.
>>> Secondly, we hope that reducing the number of holds and freeing up
>>> books in the checkout queue will reduce "poaching."
>>>> Volunteers will have until Aug. 15 to finish up the holds already
>>>> existing
>>> for them, and after Aug. 15 I will be checking the Check Out Queue
>>> daily and removing extra holds at random.
>>>> Thank you all for understanding and, as always, for your hard work!
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> The Bookshare Volunteer Dept.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
>>>> bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a
>>>> list
>>> of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject
>>> line.
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
>>> bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a
>>> list of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the
>>> subject line.
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
>>> bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a
>>> list of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the
>>> subject line.
>>>
>> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
>> bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a
>> list of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the
>> subject line.
>>
>
>
> --
> Scott Berry
> Msn: electronicman1960@xxxxxxxxx
> Skype me at: scottbb1973
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
> bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list
> of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
>
>
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list of
available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list of
available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
Other related posts:
