[bksvol-discuss] Re: In-house volunteers and validations

  • From: "Marissa Mika" <Marissa.M@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:21:12 -0800

Whoa whoa. Hold on now. When I say "zap," I mean I do the bare minimum for 
validation, to push those ancient ones through. They'll go live, they just 
won't be in tremendous shape. 

But Cindy raises a good point. If you scanned something and it's been sitting 
on the download page for the past six months, download it and validate it 
yourself. (Or, in general, if you feel comfortable validating your own work.) 


-----Original Message-----
From:   bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Tracy Carcione
Sent:   Fri 2/11/2005 7:02 AM
To:     bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:        [bksvol-discuss] Re: In-house volunteers and validations 
Nnoooo!  Don't zap old submissions!  I've been tackling some of the old
Japan-related stuff, but it takes a good bit of work, so it's slow.  But
it's interesting, and uncommon, so I think they're worth it.

At 10:45 PM 2/10/05 -0800, you wrote:
>The meeting is actually tomorrow. We have several other targets we're
trying to meet, including over a 1000 books submitted by a university that
need to be processed, and 200 Spanish books that need our attention. We can
certainly stop flooding the download page with what we've processed in-house
and validate those in the office. 
>I hate to say this, but since I've been here (long enough), the step one
page   has fluctuate between 200 and 500 books awaiting validtion. The
backlog on the approvals is a reflection of being understaffed, but the
download page is relatively normal. . .just on the high end. I'm going
through and zapping some of the really old submissions that haven't been
touched in say, a year. Other than that, it's up to you as volunteers to
figure out how much time and attention you want to spend on your validations.
>-----Original Message-----
>From:  bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of siss52
>Sent:  Thu 2/10/2005 9:20 PM
>To:    bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject:       [bksvol-discuss] Re: More Awards for Bookshare?
>Marissa SAID last week they were having a meeting this week and she would
>ask about in-house vols helping with validations..  How about it, Marissa?
>Sue S.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mary Otten" <maryotten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:24 PM
>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: More Awards for Bookshare?
>I guess I'm somewhere in the middle on this discussion. Because of the heavy
>validation backlog, I'd like it a lot if some of the in house volunteers
>would be interested, if they could pitch in on the validation side, since
>it clearly generally involves a whole lot more time than what was initially
>envisioned. On the other hand, I do like the idea of special projects, like
>Pulitzers or Newberries etc, rather than just pumping out the latest book
>of interest this month, which nobody will remember a year from now. It seems
>to me that many best sellers and book of the month selections will take care
>of themselves, because they are of immediate popular interest,
>so they are more likely to be picked up by an existing member and scanned.
>Of course, for the big long block busters of mega-interest, like Harry
>Potter or the Clinton autobiography, the in house volunteers did do
>those. I also appreciate the in house volunteers taking a shot at more
>difficult titles, like cookbooks, which are really difficult to do well if
>you can't see the original copy. I wonder if it would be worth it to see if
>in house
>volunteers might be interested also in validating some of the more difficult
>titles, such as the nonfictions that contain notes, maps and the like, which
>can really benefit from somebody following with the printed copy.
>Attachment Converted: C:\panix\mime\winmail3.dat

Other related posts: