I am suggesting that we validators go through the books by submitters with poor records as quickly as possible. Reject those which need rejecting as quickly as possible so new validators do not get stuck with them. Get staff clear that we validators are only willing to put in so much time on one book when the submitter could have given a clean scan with a little up front care. Remember about a tenth of the books on step one were from such poor submitters in the recent past. I have not checked lately. Cleaning up step 1 rapidly means less of such books for new validators to stumble upon and find frustrating.
E. At 11:22 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote:
Hi, Elizabeth. You may have a point. New volunteers don't understand the rating system and how it actually works on step 1. Yet I keep thinking that we have a limited amount of resources in time and manpower. It seems to me that paying attention to sloppy submitters just encourages them to give us more messy work. It's like paying attention to the child who won't do his schoolwork while ignoring the child who behaves well or at least tries to. Lots of schools do just that, and I think it's a backward strategy because people tend to respond to attention by doing more of what got them that attention. I think the people who actually put some care into their work deserve the reward of quick approval and an excellent rating. Unless a validater sees a book he/she really wants to read and work on, I think our time is best invested in processing readable books. I think that as long as there are books rated excellent or good needing attention, the ones rated fair should sink to the bottom of the list until someone has a lot of free time and energy to rehab them. I have heard the argument that the poor scans come from people with older technology. Yet we have 3 volunteers that I know of who use Kurzweil 8 and who submit clean scans. They get the clean scans because they read what they submit and rescan pages where necessary.If you're thinking I'm making a value judgment, you're right. I'm saying that, in myopinion, books that have been scanned and proofread are more worthy of immediate attention. As long as we have nearly 450 books on step 1, I think it's a waste of our resources to spend hours rehabbing a book that can only get to fair or good condition if we approve it.Monica Willyard E. wrote:Folks this surely is another reason to clear poorly scanned books off step 1. What a shame if we lose a validator out of such frustration. So sorry you had trouble.E. At 08:25 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote:E I don't know if you dislike romances or not, but that's how it sounded in your message. I've rejected it, someone else can give it a shot, and that's it. Thanks for the help. I don't know f I'll bother doing this again.__________ NOD32 2677 (20071122) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. <http://www.eset.com>http://www.eset.comTo unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to<mailto:bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>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.__________ NOD32 2678 (20071122) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. <http://www.eset.com>http://www.eset.com
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.
