As I recall, when we did have the jiffy proofer problem it was solved by Carrie who started noting how long a book had been checked out and if it had been checked out for about five minutes she would return it to the checkout list as not having been out for long enough for proofreading. The two jiffy proofers who had depleted the checkout list back then promptly stopped. As far as I can tell they stopped volunteering at all. That is just as well because I don't think they were interested in volunteering anyway. They were just interested in accumulating as many credits as possible. As far as I can tell there has not been a jiffy proofer outbreak since. I was the one who discovered the two jiffy proofers in the first place because I noticed that some of my own submissions went through the process almost instantly and that the checkout list was depleting, so I started looking at book histories and comparing them to the people who were proofing. At a later time when the checkout list started depleting again I suspected a jiffy proofer and I started checking again and did not find any. It was apparently just due to a large influx of new volunteers. The answer to your question of how can you be sure that your book will not be taken by a jiffy proofer is that you can't be absolutely sure. However, it is apparently rare and I, for one, have continued to submit books without holds and since those two jiffy proofers were thwarted I have never had a book checked out and promptly checked back in again yet.
On 7/25/2012 2:32 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Tracy, all you say here about your capabilities may be true, but your argument has a gaping hole in it. If I don't put a hold on a book then how do I know that it will go to you, or someone as good as yourself, and not to someone who will "proof" it in twenty minutes? I've asked you this question before when you complained about holds but you never answered it. I ask it again. If you have a suggestion for an alternative to holds, now is as good a time as any to make it. Otherwise, it is useless to say that you may be as good as the person for whom a book is being held, since there is no way to ensure that you will get it and not some jiffy proofer.Evan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tracy Carcione" <carcione@xxxxxxxxxx> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:24 AM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: New 3 hold maximum in check out queuePersonally, I'm glad the hold fors will be limited. It's depressing to goand 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 asgood a job as those hold-for guys. But, like Reggie, I don't have a gangof 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. TracyHi Everyone,I agree with all of the points made here about the value of holds put onbooks with special circumstances.And I have a very simple suggestion. Submitters, before you submit a bookwith a hold on it, please look at the check out page, sort it by title, andmake sure that your intended proofreader doesn't have three holds already waiting. Alternatively, you could contact your intended proofreader andaskthem if it's okay to submit a book for you right now. This way, no booksget proofread by anyone unintended to proofread them, and the number ofholds on the check out page is kept lower and is less intimidating to newvolunteers.No solution is going to be perfect, but that is my suggestion to ease yourworries. 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 queueAwesome 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 Ican see this may not bee the smartest moove for Benetech and it should certainlybe reconsidered because there is the possibility you could loose a lot ofgood volunteers and that would be more of a tragedy.Benetech also needs to ensure they don't just think "Well that's fine wecanget more volunteers." That would be very inappropriate to think that wayand 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 existingfor 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 listof 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxput 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxput 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxput 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.
