Tracy, all you say here about your capabilities may be true, but your argument has a gaping hole in it. If I don't put a hold on a book then how do I know that it will go to you, or someone as good as yourself, and not to someone who will "proof" it in twenty minutes? I've asked you this question before when you complained about holds but you never answered it. I ask it again. If you have a suggestion for an alternative to holds, now is as good a time as any to make it. Otherwise, it is useless to say that you may be as good as the person for whom a book is being held, since there is no way to ensure that you will get it and not some jiffy proofer.
Evan----- Original Message ----- From: "Tracy Carcione" <carcione@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:24 AM 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. TracyHi 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 bookwith 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 yourworries. 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 existingfor 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 listof 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxput 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.