[bksvol-discuss] Re: hold for revisited

Ah, Thanks, Susan, and Thanks to Jamie for helping us.  <grins>

Lisa

----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan" <slumpkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: hold for revisited


Lisa,

Good posts; I'd only like to add that Jamie from Michigan is sighted too and
has helped many of us.

Susan, The Happy validator

-----Original Message-----
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lisa Belville
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:01 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: hold for revisited

Hi, Dave,

As someone who exclusively validates and has her name listed with the "hold For" designation, I just want to point out a few reasons why the "Hold For"
provision is there, and why it's not really as elitist as you may think.

First, your point about someone having a copy of the book is a valid one.
however, it must be noted that we really do not have that many sighted
volunteers.  Besides Grandma Cindy, Barbra, and Judy, I can't think of any
off the top of my head.

To address your other points:

Dave says: 2. for a vallidator with specific interest in the project; Lisa
says: Yes, and I think this is a perfectly legitimate reason. For example,
I volunteered to validate Julie's book about dogs from the Iams company.
Why?  Because I like dogs, and so the subject is relevant to me.
Julie posted to the list asking for volunteers and I responded. She didn't have to pick me, she could have just waited to see how many of us offered to validate the book and just picked a name at random or made us guess a number between 1 and 1 million. <smiles> But doing this would be impractical, not to mention time-consuming, so she gave me the privilege of validating what's
turning out to be an interesting read for me.


Dave says: 3. for the submitter's assurance that the book will be picked up
in a timely manner; Lisa says:  And what's wrong with this?  We have had
books on Step 1 for over a year.  If a submitter knows in advance that
someone is interested in
validating a book   encompassing specialized subject matter, I see nothing
wrong with having a validator's name listed, since that book will be
validated and hopefully added to the collection in a more timely manner.
The example of the religious book Cindy Lou is validating is a perfect
demonstration of this concept in action.


Dave says: 4. for the submitter's assurance that the book will be handled in
an appropriate manner.
Lisa Says:  See above.  <smiles> All of the instances you listed above are
perfectly legitimate reasons for a submitter to include a validator's name
with the "Hold For" designation. All of us are submitting and validating on
our own time.  many of us do it for the love of Bookshare and its mission
rather than for actual credits toward a subscription.  I don't think it's
being selfish or elitist for a submitter and a validator to form an alliance
in which books are submitted, validated, and published on Bookshare.  As
submitters and validators, we should have some say so over what we submit
and validate. Sure, I've validated books that aren't of interest to me, but
honestly, I'd prefer to stick to subjects that I enjoy, and validate books
from submitters who I know do a good job.

I'm not sure what we can do about all volunteers not being on the list.
perhaps Bookshare should say something on their volunteer sign up pages to
the effect that" "All volunteers are strongly encouraged to sign up for one
or more Bookshare oriented lists."  And then site the reasons why having
access to the list makes the submission and validation process run more
smoothly.

I don't want to come across as callis here, but a volunteer's refusal to
join the list isn't my problem How many times have books lingered on step 1 or have to be rejected simply because we cannot reach the submitter to have
pages rescanned?  How many times have we discussed the submissions of
various submitters who are not on the list, and do not provide an E-mail
address?  The same holds true for validators.  E's example of validating
with no punctuation spoken is a good one.  This is a tip that a beginning
validator needs to know.

So, even though I'm not walking around with my nose in the air or practicing
the secret Bookshare handshake, <grins> I think maintaining the "Hold For"
designation is a good way to ensure that the submission and validation
process will lead to an increase in books with an excellent raiding without
bogging down Step 1 with books no one is interested in validating.

I hope you take these comments in the spirit in which they're given, which
is to help articulate the rationale behind the "Hold For" designation, and
not to promote some kind of elitist Bookshare membership.

Lisa
----- Original Message -----
From: <talmage@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:31 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] hold for revisited


I'm going to lead off here with the passage from the Step 1 page regarding

books with 'Hold For' in their title.

Titles denoted with a "Hold For" prefacing the title are intended for a
specific validator. Please respect this request.

My first question here is, why?  Now I must admit I am, and always have
been, biased against the practice of 'Hold For' books.  To me, the
practice smacks of elitism, cliquishness, and in many cases the primary
objective does not seem to be the quality of the collection.
I understand there can be a number of reasons to put hold for in the
title, and they include:
1. for a vallidator with a copy of the book, or text in question, to have
something to compare against the submitted work;
2. for a vallidator with specific interest in the project;
3. for the submitter's assurance that the book will be picked up in a
timely manner;
4. for the submitter's assurance that the book will be handled in an
appropriate manner.
Now I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but to me the only one that
would seem  to have merit, is the first one I sited above, with the
proviso for our sighted volunteers, that any of the projects they touch
can only be improved upon by the ability to compare the original print
version with the copy submitted to Bookshare. I make this last tipulation

because sometimes technology can become too clever and we can start
relying on it too heavily at the expense of accuracy.  Aside from that
however, I don't believe that most of the hold for books fall under the
1st example above, but instead come under 1 or more of the others.
In closing, before I get the fire storm going, no, I can't recall a
specific instance where I wished to validate a hold for book, but I just
don't like the exclusionary practice, and I would point out that not all
volunteers are on the list so as to be aware of the why and wherefores.

Dave
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: