[bksvol-discuss] Are You Guys Getting Your "About to Expire" Notices?

  • From: "EVAN REESE" <mentat3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:39:02 -0500

Just wondering whether anyone else has had a book expire, or has renewed a book 
that was due to expire less than two days from the time you renewed it. I 
submitted a book for Lissi to validate and she did not get any notice that the 
book was due to expire in two days. Nor, did she gget a notification that the 
book actually had expired, which it did before she renewed it.

Are you all getting your notices? I've written to Pavi about this. 

The book that expired was apparently picked up by someone else and, I think, 
rejected. I cannot tell for sure because the letter from Bookshare is a bit 
ambiguous, saying that the book "has not been added" to the collection. But it 
doesn't say what DID happen to it, whether it was kicked back to the list of 
books to be proofread, or sent to the rejection list. I checked my list of 
books that have been rejected and it wasn't there, and I did not find it on the 
list of books to be proofread. Needless to say, I have written to Pavi about 
this as well.

I am sorry to say that, given the lack of acknowledgement of books sent up to 
the Admin Queue, the lack of a quality analysis on the proofreading page,, the 
lack of expiration notices, the ambiguity of my recent letter from Bookshare, 
communication between Bookshare to its volunteers seems to be a lower priority 
than it used to be.

Yes, I know that Pavi said that they would work on the acknowledgement issue, 
but there seems to be a whole range of examples that indicate a lowering of 
interest in clear feedback to the volunteers.

I did not participate in the recent thread concerning not liking the new site, 
but I am afraid that I am beginning to think that in addition to some issues I 
have with the site, I am liking the new Bookshare less overall. They have built 
the site "from the ground up" as I believe they said, when perhaps they should 
have taken what worked well from the old site and added to it. Now they have to 
spend all this time fixing things that worked just fine before.


Other related posts: