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

  • From: "Marissa Mika" <Marissa.M@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:42:26 -0800


I wrote in a previous post: 

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. 

I'm doing this mainly with some of the older romance novels that have
not budged, nor have been downloaded once for attempted validation. 


-----Original Message-----
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mickey
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:39 AM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: In-house volunteers and validations 

Please don't zap old submissions. I've been taking almost exclusively
ones that have been around since August. The older ones are definitely 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tracy Carcione" <carcione@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:02 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: In-house volunteers and validations

> Nnoooo!  Don't zap old submissions!  I've been tackling some of the
> Japan-related stuff, but it takes a good bit of work, so it's slow.
> it's interesting, and uncommon, so I think they're worth it.
> Tracy
> 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
> need to be processed, and 200 Spanish books that need our attention.
> 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
> page   has fluctuate between 200 and 500 books awaiting validtion. The
> backlog on the approvals is a reflection of being understaffed, but
> 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
> touched in say, a year. Other than that, it's up to you as volunteers
> 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
>>ask about in-house vols helping with validations..  How about it,
>>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

>>validation backlog, I'd like it a lot if some of the in house
>>would be interested, if they could pitch in on the validation side,
>>it clearly generally involves a whole lot more time than what was 
>>envisioned. On the other hand, I do like the idea of special projects,

>>Pulitzers or Newberries etc, rather than just pumping out the latest
>>of interest this month, which nobody will remember a year from now. It

>>to me that many best sellers and book of the month selections will
>>of themselves, because they are of immediate popular interest,
>>so they are more likely to be picked up by an existing member and
>>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
>>in house
>>volunteers might be interested also in validating some of the more 
>>titles, such as the nonfictions that contain notes, maps and the like,

>>can really benefit from somebody following with the printed copy.
>>Attachment Converted: C:\panix\mime\winmail3.dat
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005

Other related posts: