[bksvol-discuss] Re: New 3 hold maximum in check out queue
- From: Laura Shannon <brighteyes324@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:30:24 -0400
Hi Sandi,
Thanks for the information. I did not mean to imply that anyone was
unwilling to expand, only that scanners are more comfortable with those
that they know. I'm not sure that it was even your post that seemed to
imply that new volunteers would not produce as quality of work as older
volunteers. I only know there was a post that seemed to lean in that
direction.
I would actually not have any issue in checking the lists and suggesting
books except that I am not visually impaired and it makes me feel odd to
offer suggestions of my own personal taste. If I was a member as well as a
volunteer, then I would not have any problem with doing so. I would prefer
scanners to work on the Wish Lists of those who have an actual need for
certain books and then have the opportunity to find them on the check out
list for proofing.
Of course I can only speak for my own situation in regard to actually
locating titles for scanning and how I feel about it. I just do not feel
that I should be taking up a scanner's time with my personal preferences
given I am not visually impaired and a member.
Regards,
Laura
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Sandi Ryan <sjryan2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> **
> Hi Laura and All,
>
> One of your comments leads me to respond to you. You said that people who
> start volunteering together continue to work together. This is simply not
> true. I started to volunteer a year ago, and like you, I have years of
> editing and proofing and scanning experience, but I was new to Bookshare.
> At the time new volunteers were announced to the list, so we knew who was
> new, and I could have worked with any of them. At the time there were
> fewer than 100 books on the checkout list, and some of them seemed daunting
> to me as a first proofing task. Also, at the time there was a training
> program for proofers, and one was not allowed to proofread a real book
> until one had completed a test book, it had been read by staff, and your
> proofing was approved. Back then, that process took three or four months,
> and by the time I was approved, two proofers I did not know then had
> encouraged me to scan, and had provided me books to scan for them. They
> provided great pointers for improving my work, they had work to do, and I
> got my feet wet.
>
> I still work with these two proofers. They have become friends, and I
> know they will deal with some issues of scanning that others might miss.
>
> But this year I have also worked with three other proofers who wanted
> certain books to proof, and I offered to scan them. This is not an
> exclusive clique. The two proofers I mentioned first do not work together
> and have some differing views about books and quality. But I can work with
> both of them because they are wonderful people. The other three I've
> worked with are also wonderful, and they've done an excellent job of
> proofing my work. I am supposed to be working with a new proofer, but have
> not received her books yet.
>
> I think your belief that we find and stick with one or two people and are
> not willing to expand is incorrect. I know it is in my case. But what
> keeps me working with these proofers, as I said two months ago when I
> recommended each volunteer have a profile (thanks for bringing that up
> again, Ann, though you didn't like the idea when I suggested it), is that
> they are eager to proof, they participate in searching for books they are
> interested in proofing, and they stay in contact with me. As a scanner, I
> am quite busy. As a proofer without enough books on the list to keep you
> busy, you could help a lot by finding books that are not in the collection
> that you'd like to read. You don't have to buy them--I can find them
> usually through interlibrary loan, which costs $1 per book--but it's my
> little extra contribution--and we can work together. I just don't have
> time to scan books like a wild woman and also be responsible for feeding
> books to people who aren't interested enough to help locate books.
>
> Thanks for stating what you believe. I hope my explanation furthers the
> cause of getting volunteers who want to proof interested enough to search
> for books and expand their volunteering in that way.
>
> Sandi
>
>
Other related posts:
