[bksvol-discuss] Re: New 3 hold maximum in check out queue
- From: Cindy <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
That's a very good point. The scanners who want me to proof their scans, or
those who post that they're scanning something and ask if anyone wants to proof
them, when I say yes, they hold on to them until I am ready to check them out
and work on them.
Cindy
> 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.
Other related posts:
