[bksvol-discuss] Re: book bumped back to step one
- From: Grandma Cindy <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Claire O'Brian <claireo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Claire,
What you do is wonderful--much more than your
predecessor. smile I think many of us have wondered if
it wouldn't have been easier and quicker for the
administrator just to add the copyright date if it's
there rather than return the unvalidated book to step
one. smile
And I'm glad you return the book to step one in some
cases rather than just rejecting it--although I must
say that if the book has scannos that could easily
have been fixed and were not, maybe the book should be
rejected so the scanner and validator learn not to be
so lazy.
I am curious about one of your paragraphs,
though--smile--if you fill in the copyright date at
times when it's the only thing wrong, why return it
when it was found on page 3. Was that to indicate to
the validator and scanner that they should look a
little harder for it? Also, I've found that some
people don't recognize the copyright symbol as an
indication of copyright and think that the information
is missing. If you're returning the book to step one
as an educational thing, like where the copyright can
be found, you might want to include teaching about the
symbol, too. Not that you don't already have enough to
do. grin
Cindy
> Hi guys:
> Normally I don't bump the book back to step 1 for an
> issue with the metadata (author, copyright, etc.) I
> usually just fix it up myself for efficiency sake.
>
> There are 2 main reasons books that have been
> recommended for approval get bumped back:
> 1) The original submission had page breaks, but the
> validated copy does not. In this situation I have to
> bump the original submission back so that the scan
> will have page breaks.
> 2) Easily correctable scanning errors. When I open
> the file and see many scanning errors that a spell
> check could correct, I often send it back for some
> more attention. I usually put a note in the comments
> saying something like: "Could benefit from a spell
> check."
>
> I rarely send books that have been recommended for
> rejection back to Step 1, but it does happen.
> I carefully evaluate the reasons the validator has
> used to determine the book should be rejected, then
> I verify these. If I come to the same conclusion as
> the validator (which is most of the time) the book
> is rejected. If not, I return the book to step 1,
> always with a comment.
> Examples might be: The validator couldn't find a
> copyright, but when I check I find it on page 3. The
> comment might read "Returned to Step 1, Copyright
> verified to be on page 3."
>
> Also: Cindy is correct, I have the option of
> returning the original submission of the book, or
> with the validator's edits. Which one I send back,
> really depends on the situation, but obviously I try
> to keep the validator's edits, if I can.
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> Claire
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grandma Cindy [mailto:popularplace@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tue 10/30/2007 9:45 PM
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Claire O'Brien
> Subject: book bumped back to step one
>
> Hi, Lori.
>
> A book is usually bumped back to Step One by the
> administrator if the copyright is missing or the
> authors aren't listed correctly, or something
> technical like that. It isn't really a rejection.It
> will usually say in the comments and is something
> minor to be fixed. Hopefully, now, I think it has
> been
> said, that it's the validated copy and not the
> original that's bumped back. I'll copy this to
> Claire
> and get that confirmed. One of our complaints was
> that
> it seemed a waste of time to have to revalidate a
> whole book if the problem was only something like
> that
> that could easily be fixed, and I thought that
> change
> was instituted. smile
>
> Cindy
>
> --- Lori Castner <loralee.castner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, I'm confused here. If a book is rejected, why
> > and when does it go back
> > to the Step One page?
> >
> > If it goes back to the step one page won't it be
> > downloaded by a different
> > validator who will find the same reason for
> > rejecting it? I thought all
> > rejected books just went into the rejected cue.
> >
> > Cat Lover Lori
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bob" <rwiley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:45 AM
> > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: rejecting a book
> >
> >
> > >I totally agree.
> > >
> > > I discovered that one of my books had been
> > rejected only by finding it on
> > > the download page again. When I looked at the
> > comments, I knew exactly
> > > what had gone wrong. But I found that to be a
> more
> > humiliating way of
> > > discovering my mistakes, and would much prefer a
> > letter telling me what
> > > happened to the book.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "E." <thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 5:36 AM
> > > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: rejecting a book
> > >
> > >
> > >> Bob I do know that the books I reject tend to
> be
> > from people who make the
> > >> same kinds of misstakes over and over again. If
> > my comments are not
> > >> forwarded to them, I have no idea how they will
> > learn to submit
> > >> acceptable scans in future.
> > >>
> > >> I doubt folks are so thin skinned that they
> > prefer no reason at all for a
> > >> reject to a plausible well written explanation
> > for the reject. Apparently
> > >> staff for now has decided otherwise. I had no
> > idea this was going on by
> > >> the way. What a shame!
> > >>
> > >> E.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> At 06:20 AM 10/30/2007, you wrote:
> > >>>It would be helpful to validators if an email
> was
> > sent to the validator
> > >>>who uploaded a rejected book stating that a
> book
> > was rejected, and giving
> > >>>the reasons for that rejection.
> > >>>
> > >>>Currently I don't think validators are notified
> > when a book they have
> > >>>uploaded is rejected. Therefore, a validator
> may
> > think he/she is doing a
> > >>>fine job when, in reality, they are making the
> > same mistake over and
> > >>>over.
> > >>>
> > >>>Bob
> > >>>----- Original Message ----- From: "E."
> > <thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:49 AM
> > >>>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] rejecting a book
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I am extremely careful to only reject a book
> for
> > truly overwhelming
> > >>>>reasons. I have rescued many submits since
> > beginning to volunteer for
> > >>>>bookshare in 2002. Please know I give
> extensive
> > explanations to Claire.
> > >>>>Please do find out the reason when your book
> is
> > rejected. I give
> > >>>>extensive explanations so folks can learn to
> do
> > better work. Submitters
> > >>>>and validators all work togethere here to put
> > the best work possible
> > >>>>into the general collection. (smile)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>E.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>--
> > >>>>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> > >>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488
> /
> > Virus Database:
> > >>>>269.15.6/1086 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 7:57
> PM
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>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.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>__________ NOD32 2626 (20071030) Information
> > __________
> > >>>
> > >>>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus
> > system.
> > >>>http://www.eset.com
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 /
> > Virus Database:
> > >> 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 7:57
> PM
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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:
