[bksvol-discuss] Re: hold for revisited

  • From: "Lori Castner" <loralee.castner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0800

Hi, After reading Monica's post, I want to be sure that people understand that 
I do not feel that there is any discrimination among bookshare volunteers.  
However, also n response to Monica's comments, it is not always easy for a new 
volunteer, employee, any group member, to become part of a network, and I do 
think that essentially validating is an individual project--which is 
essentially good for me as I tend to be a loner.  But that being said, it is 
not always easy to know the best way to get feedback on progress.

These comments have little to do with the hold for issue.

Cat Lover Lori

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lori Castner 
  To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:33 AM
  Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: hold for revisited


  Cindy, I very much agree with your points  I think that in some ways new 
validators are really on their own; of course, we have the manual and 
information from this list, but when we validate a book we just have to hope it 
will come out well.

  I submitted a book a while back and requested on this list that if someone on 
the list took the book to validate that I would appreciate feedback about my 
submission; I did all the things to the book that I would do when validating 
it.  I hoped that sort of feedback would confirm the success of what I am 
doing.  That book is still out for validation--which is fine--but don't know if 
I will ever hear.

  I think that this discussion gives us an opportunity to share our views, but 
really it won't change anything.

  Also, I have very much appreciated the support that you have given directly 
to me.

  Cat Lover Lori

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: groups Warford 
    To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:44 PM
    Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: hold for revisited


    Hi Monica,
    I do understand your points as far as percentages go.  However, I do 
respectfully disagree.  What I and other new members of the rowing club have to 
fight is the perception that we couldn't row well and basically never will be 
able to row well.  This perception was held by the long-term members and 
unfortunately by the Executive Director at the time.  So, for example, I was 
told that I couldn't row in windy conditions without ever having been tested to 
see if that were true.  It turned out that I am one of the better people in 
rowing in windy conditions because I'm not afraid of the water, and being 
blind, the waves that are kicked up aren't an added distraction the way they 
are for a sighted person.  We had one guy join the club and won a silver medal 
at the Southeast regional championships.  However, none of the long-term 
members thought he could.  And, even when he did, he was looked at as a threat 
(this part, the threat, is not like Bookshare).  So, basically the rowing club 
had no way for someone to prove and improve their skill level so that a 
long-term member would know the newer people could b trusted.

    So, what I'm feeling here from this discussion is that I, as a new 
validator, don't know how to win people's trust.  What do I need to do to show 
that I can or can't handle a book with scripture and so on?  It's very 
subjective.  As far as a submitter and a validator who are used to working with 
each other being able to talk in the room or on the phone or via Skype, what 
prevents a new validator from being able to do the same if given the chance?

    Honestly, I really don't know who puts "hold for" a lot, and I never 
thought and still don't think of you as doing so.  However, Dave's message did, 
as I said, strike a chord and I felt much like I do with the rowing club.  
Everything is subjective and how do I improve and how do others know I have 
improved?

    I mean this very respectfully, and I expect our opinions will never mesh.  
That's fine with me; just please don't take my opinions personally and I will 
try to follow my own advice.

    Thanks for taking the time to write,.  I always learn from your insights 
and experience, and I thank you very much for that!

    Cindy 4


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Monica Willyard
    Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 6:43 PM
    To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: hold for revisited


    Hi, Cindy. I do understand what you are saying. I think there is a big 
difference in what's happening here and in your rowing club. Here's why. There 
are literally over 400 books which do not have a hold on them that a new 
volunteer is welcome to work on. The holds make up a fairly small portion of 
the step 1 list at any given time. Right now, there are 431 books on step 1. 
There are 10 books with holds on them. That's less than two percent of the 
total of books available for validation. I could understand your concerns if we 
were seeing over a hundred holds on step 1 and new volunteers could only work 
on the textbooks floating around on step 1. Most of us who submit books 
actually upload quite a lot of books without holds. For example, three of the 
last five books I've submitted haven't had any holds on them. The other two 
books had holds because the books were needed in a time-sensitive manner, one 
for a book club and one because it's a Christmas book. When we have the 
opportunity to work with someone on a specific project, I think we should have 
the freedom to choose to work as we see fit. We can do the hold thing, or we 
could just call a person on the phone and upload our book while we're talking 
so they can grab it immediately. The result would be the same, though you 
wouldn't see "hold for" on the website. It would just take something that's 
done openly and push it underground, emphasizing the kind of cliquish behavior 
Dave wrote about in his post. I can't speak for anyone else here. I'd rather 
see the holds done openly so we all know what's going on and who is doing what. 
I don't think this is an issue unless the holds reach the thirty percent level 
or more, or if they are used to prevent someone from validating at all. I just 
don't see that happening.

    Monica Willyard


    groups Warford wrote: 
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.

  

Other related posts: