Personally, I'm glad the hold fors will be limited. It's depressing to go and see that all the interesting books are being held for someone else, and sometimes for many months. I'm a good proofreader; I'd do just as good a job as those hold-for guys. But, like Reggie, I don't have a gang of scanner friends to hold things for me. I thought taking a hold off after a few months was a good idea, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. And I think limiting the hold fors is a good thing. Just because I don't have pals to hold things for me doesn't make me a bad person to proofread a book. It's just possible I might even do a better job than the hold-for person. Tracy > Hi Everyone, > > I agree with all of the points made here about the value of holds put on > books with special circumstances. > > And I have a very simple suggestion. Submitters, before you submit a book > with a hold on it, please look at the check out page, sort it by title, > and > make sure that your intended proofreader doesn't have three holds already > waiting. Alternatively, you could contact your intended proofreader and > ask > them if it's okay to submit a book for you right now. This way, no books > get proofread by anyone unintended to proofread them, and the number of > holds on the check out page is kept lower and is less intimidating to new > volunteers. > > No solution is going to be perfect, but that is my suggestion to ease your > worries. > > Mayrie > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Berry > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 5:17 AM > To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: New 3 hold maximum in check out queue > > > > Awesome points. I don't do much volunteering. But I like to help when I > can. I didn't realize this was such an issue but after reading emails I > can > see this may not bee the smartest moove for Benetech and it should > certainly > be reconsidered because there is the possibility you could loose a lot of > good volunteers and that would be more of a tragedy. > Benetech also needs to ensure they don't just think "Well that's fine we > can > get more volunteers." That would be very inappropriate to think that way > and > as it looks this decision may need to be overturned at management. > Hopefully Jim reads this list. > > On 7/24/2012 08:41 PM, Ali Al-hajamy wrote: >> Perhaps an exception could be made for those who are checking out >> books put on hold specifically for them? I can't scan and don't work >> closely with any volunteers, so I don't know the specifics of the >> situations brought up by Vallerie Judy, and others, but I think that >> would solve the problems discussed without having to abrogate this >> mandate entirely. Checking for and removing random extra holds seems >> especially unfair when you consider that there are times, as with >> Cindy (I think; someone on this list, at any rate) and a historical >> book she is doing by Ian Kershaw which is enormous and, I'm guessing, >> because it is nonfiction, requires a lot of extra attention an average >> mystery or romance would not, volunteers have been working on books >> for a long time, and may simply require more than three weeks to >> finish proofing a book to ensure it isn't removed from their list of >> checked out books just because they have four books checked out rather >> than three. >> >> On 24-Jul-12 21:20, Larry Lumpkin wrote: >>> I must agree with those who disagree with this new policy. I have >>> proofers whom I prefer to work with and we have worked out our own >>> arrangements on holds. I think holds should be worked out between us >>> volunteers. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Judy s. >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:00 PM >>> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Madeleine Linares >>> Cc: Alisa Moore; Mayrie ReNae >>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: New 3 hold maximum in check out queue >>> >>> This policy is a giant step backwards for those of us who >>> specifically make arrangements so that certain types of difficult to >>> scan and proofread books are held for us so they can get the special >>> attention necessary to make sure they end up in the collection at the >>> highest quality, not because we're "hoarders." >>> >>> Many volunteers specifically ask me to proofread books for them >>> because the books have special problems with footnotes, graphs, weird >>> formatting that indicates something to the sighted reader that needs >>> to be someone conveyed to our blind readers, charts etc. that are >>> special circumstances that can only be handled by an experienced, >>> careful, sighted volunteer like several of us who are members and >>> volunteers both, but happen to be sighted. >>> I don't >>> have any control over when other volunteers submit such books for >>> proofreading. Scanners try to remember to ask if I have another book >>> already waiting, but sometimes they forget. >>> >>> I'm proofreading a book right now, for example, that is over 700 >>> pages long, took the scanner several months to scan, is full of much >>> of the above, and the scanner absolutely wants done by me so that all >>> of those things can be managed. >>> >>> I also have several books that I specifically bought because I want >>> to see them in the collection so they can complete series, for >>> example, or are out of print and on a certain subject, so I bought >>> them and sent them to other volunteers who are kind enough to scan >>> them. I don't want them proofread by a random volunteer, given that >>> I've tried that and ended up with too many that were disappointing >>> quality because the proofreader eliminated all the formatting or >>> couldn't determine that there is formatting that is messed up and >>> needs to be fixed, or stripped out all the footnote numbers, or >>> eliminated tables that were critical to the material in the book >>> because they came through oddly from the scanning. >>> >>> Then I have yet another book that another volunteer really wants to >>> see in the collection that I'm proofreading because it's a >>> specialized book on horse genetics and behavior traits, and she knows >>> that I, like her, have an extensive background at the national level >>> in horse training and showing, and am a hobbyist in horse genetics. >>> When these books go to the general queue without a hold much of the >>> material in the book gets garbled by a proofers spellchecker because >>> unless you have that background you don't know that a longe line >>> isn't a lounge and the spellchecker is going to "fix it" >>> so that it's wrong. >>> >>> I could go on and on with examples--these are just what I have >>> sitting in my queue today! >>> >>> Does it really benefit the members who are going to read these books >>> to have a hold removed from a book like that if I have two other >>> books with a "hold for" in my name in the checkout queue? >>> >>> Honestly, folks, this just seems both punitive and rife with the >>> potential to decrease quality because it totally ignores these common >>> kinds of situations, instead of fixing the problem of not enough >>> books for volunteers to proofread. >>> >>> Judy s. >>> On 7/24/2012 6:26 PM, Madeleine Linares wrote: >>>> Hi Volunteers, >>>> >>>> We are really excited because we have seen an increase in new >>>> volunteers! >>> Due to feedback from them, we are reducing the number of holds a >>> volunteer can have in the checkout queue at one time. Each volunteer >>> may now have a maximum of three holds at a time. We are reducing the >>> number of allowable holds for two reasons: First and foremost is to >>> share the wealth! We want new volunteers to be able to choose from a >>> number of books that might interest them to keep them engaged while >>> they're still learning the ropes. >>> Secondly, we hope that reducing the number of holds and freeing up >>> books in the checkout queue will reduce "poaching." >>>> Volunteers will have until Aug. 15 to finish up the holds already >>>> existing >>> for them, and after Aug. 15 I will be checking the Check Out Queue >>> daily and removing extra holds at random. >>>> Thank you all for understanding and, as always, for your hard work! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> The Bookshare Volunteer Dept. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >> > > > -- > Scott Berry > Msn: electronicman1960@xxxxxxxxx > Skype me at: scottbb1973 > > > 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.