[bksvol-discuss] Re: Thoughts On Older Books On Step 1
- From: Barbara <barbarab65@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
I agree people who submit books should be encouraged to read the books that
they submit before submitting them so that they are in the best shape possible.
If would be nice if submitters could indicate whether they have read the book
and cleaned it up before they have submitted it in order to let potential
validators know how much time they will need to spend on a book. This would
make validating so much easier. Right now, I am reading all the books I
validate to much sure that they are as perfect as I can get them and this is
really time consuming, but fun. I am not complaining but if you want to speed
up the process, people need to read the books and correct them before they
submit them.
Barbara
"E." <thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I suggest that some of the older books may actually be in pretty poor
shape. This is only a hunch. It comes from having gone through some
of the older books on the list lately.
The validation process was thought of originally as just a checking
out of the book. Submitters, particularly those submitting "heavier
reading" please need to create the best original they can.
A larger pool of validators might mean speedier turnover of books,
getting them off step 1. A larger pool of validators also will mean
some of us will take on some of the nonfiction or other titles, just
out of a law of percentages.
Economic incentive may help too as you point out applied to books on
step one for, perhaps nine months or more.
E.
At 06:36 PM 5/15/2007, you wrote:
>Elizabeth's messages about the older books on step 1 got me to look
>at the step 1 page this evening to see what I could do to help
>out. Looking at the titles has got me wondering about
>something. Many of these books are either textbooks, essays, or
>other heavy nonfiction titles. I think most of us avoid working on
>books like this. I'm trying to find a solution to this problem. Do
>you think it might work to give validaters some sort of double
>credit for working on books that are over a year old? Or for
>textbooks since that's what many of these titles are? As I looked
>at the oldest books, my reaction was a groan because validating them
>would be tedious and boring to me. While some of our members do
>enjoy that type of material, I don't think I'm alone in my
>feelings. Would receiving double credit be an incentive for you
>personally? I'd like to know what you all think of my idea because
>I will suggest it to John if it has merrit. Does anyone have other
>ideas for encouraging people to process our more scholarly titles?
>
>
>"Don't let yesterday use up too much of today!" Will Rogers
>Monica Willyard, rhyami@xxxxxxxxx
>Add rhyami to your Skype if you'd like to chat.
>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.
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
>269.7.1/805 - Release Date: 5/15/2007 10:47 AM
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:
