Hi Cindy, Sending books to individuals is a "no no"! <smile> This is bookshare policy, that we are not supposed to email submissions to one another. Sue S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "groups Warford" <groups_warford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:12 AM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: hold for revisited Hi Dave, I usually don't really enjoy controversy, but this strikes a chord with me. In a lot of ways I agree with you. First, I have to confess that I've been a "hold for" person. In my case I'm a new validator and the submitter is being kind in honoring me and trusting me with the books. This is a good feeling, and I know it must be sort of frightening for the submitter who does such good scans. On the other hand, your note strikes a chord because I am a member of a rowing club which is very elitist, and it's extremely frustrating and some times demeaning. In this case, the members only want to row with those they feel are of their caliber, are their friends or people with whom they are comfortable. On the other hand, a mantra of the club is, "You need to row with people better than you are in order to better yourself". A catch 22 if there ever was one. So, while I definitely understand a submitter being comfortable with a person they know will take time with his/her book on which a lot of scanning and proofing was spent, I have to agree that new people, in my case, validators, won't get as many chances to learn as we might if so many "holds for" weren't present. Again, a catch 22! I'm trying to think of a compromise here. Would submitters feel more comfortable if the validator sent the book back to them before uploading it? Maybe, but this means proofing again for the submitter. My thoughts are that the validator's name should be posted with a book a long with the submitter's. (This may be the case already, I just don't know!) If, for example, I do a crummy validation, either the submitter or some one from Bookshare should contact me and let me know. I do definitely agree with your first point: if a book needs some one who is sighted to validate it, then that's the way it is and a "hold for" is appropriate. Thank you for making me consider something I might have otherwise missed. I hope those on the list will take our comments as they are meant, i.e., not criticisms but something to think about. (Oops, I shouldn't be putting words in your mouth. The above statement was mine and mine alone.) <smile>! Take care, Cindy 4 "Success is loving life and daring to live it". - Maya Angelou -----Original Message----- From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of talmage@xxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:32 AM To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bksvol-discuss] hold for revisited I'm going to lead off here with the passage from the Step 1 page regarding books with 'Hold For' in their title. Titles denoted with a "Hold For" prefacing the title are intended for a specific validator. Please respect this request. My first question here is, why? Now I must admit I am, and always have been, biased against the practice of 'Hold For' books. To me, the practice smacks of elitism, cliquishness, and in many cases the primary objective does not seem to be the quality of the collection. I understand there can be a number of reasons to put hold for in the title, and they include: 1. for a vallidator with a copy of the book, or text in question, to have something to compare against the submitted work; 2. for a vallidator with specific interest in the project; 3. for the submitter's assurance that the book will be picked up in a timely manner; 4. for the submitter's assurance that the book will be handled in an appropriate manner. Now I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but to me the only one that would seem to have merit, is the first one I sited above, with the proviso for our sighted volunteers, that any of the projects they touch can only be improved upon by the ability to compare the original print version with the copy submitted to Bookshare. I make this last tipulation because sometimes technology can become too clever and we can start relying on it too heavily at the expense of accuracy. Aside from that however, I don't believe that most of the hold for books fall under the 1st example above, but instead come under 1 or more of the others. In closing, before I get the fire storm going, no, I can't recall a specific instance where I wished to validate a hold for book, but I just don't like the exclusionary practice, and I would point out that not all volunteers are on the list so as to be aware of the why and wherefores. Dave 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.