[bksvol-discuss] Re: New 3 hold maximum in check out queue
- From: Valerie Maples <vlmaples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Ali;
I think you are confusing the check out for proofreading book list Madeleine
referred to with a person's my checked out books list. Anyone can still have
five books shecked out, but the checkout list will potentially limit holds.
Valerie
Join us in celebrating our 10th Anniversary!
Bookshare: Bringing Reading to Life for 10 Years
http://www.bookshare.org/
________________________________
From: Ali Al-hajamy <aalhajamy@xxxxxxxxx>
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Larry Lumpkin <llumpkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, July 24, 2012 8:41:28 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: New 3 hold maximum in check out queue
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.
Other related posts:
