[bksvol-discuss] Re: my thoughts on the hold for issue

  • From: Valerie Maples <vlmaples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:39:33 -0600

It would be nice, instead, if engineering could modify search to include an 
exclusion ability, in short, find everything without hold in the title.


Speech recognition in use ... I talk, it listens, sometimes we make mistakes!  

On Feb 19, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Mike wrote:

> I guess that is true, I do kind of like to see the first dozen or so new 
> items, though mostly I wish there was a magic button that would sort by books 
> I'm most likely to be interested in.
> Misha
> On 2/18/2011 5:03 PM, Mayrie ReNae wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>> Your suggestion doesn't actually work as well as you think.  The default
>> sort order is by date added with the most recent at the top of the list.
>> We'd all have to reorder our sorting to avoid the holds for new volunteers.
>> Not that that's a huge thing, better than wading through the dang things,
>> but, not quite as simple for everyone as you say.
>> Not being crabby, just saying.
>> Mayrie
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike
>> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 2:00 PM
>> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: my thoughts on the hold for issue
>> How about starting the new volunteer test books with Zhold for instead of
>> hold for.  This would require the new volunteers to be given a couple new
>> instructions to find their book (sort in reverse alphabetical order and look
>> for Zhold for "their name") instead of just look for their hold for book.
>> But I don't think it is too onerous and it would get the new volunteer books
>> out of the way of most people looking for non held for books to proof.
>> Misha
>> On 2/18/2011 9:22 AM, Evan Reese wrote:
>>> Well, according to Scott's numbers, there are thirteen hold fors older
>>> than three months. As of right now, there are 364 books on the check
>>> out page. So that equals 3.6 percent of the total number of books on
>>> the check out page. Also according to Scott's numbers, there are a
>>> total of 35 hold fors within the last three months; 31 of which are
>>> less than two months old, which equals 9.6 percent of the number of
>>> books on the check out page. So altogether, the total number of hold
>>> fors of any age comprises 13.2 percent of the total number of books on
>>> the check out page. (These figures do not include the hold for test
>>> books, which cannot be counted because they are not for books that
>>> will get into the collection.) Another way to put it is to notice that
>>> the total number of books being held for over three months, 13, is
>>> less than the number of books that have been held for less than one
>>> month, 17.
>>> So it doesn't look to me as though the hold for is being abused, nor
>>> does it appear that it generally slows down the process of getting
>>> books into the collection. The vast majority of books, 86.8 percent,
>>> are not being held for anyone. (Once again, this does not include the
>>> hold for test books.)
>>> Evan
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cindy Ray"<cindyray@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> To:<bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 8:15 AM
>>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: my thoughts on the hold for issue
>>>> I think three months is plenty long to hold a book. For me this is
>>>> about putting books in the collection. There are plenty of books to
>>>> proofread; however, I worked at Iowa Dept. for the Blind coordinating
>>>> proofreading for a while and proofreading educational materials; I
>>>> saw some stuff that had been around for a really long time, and the
>>>> book I just proofread had been around for a very long time; so holds
>>>> just slow down the movement of books longer. Don't know anything else
>>>> about the other places, like que, which I can't remember how to spell.
>>>> Cindy Lou
>>>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 7:08 AM, Melissa Smith wrote:
>>>>> I think, in normal circumstances, 3 months is plenty long for a hold
>>>>> for. Personally, when I have a book I'm holding for someone, I
>>>>> contact the proofer to find out when they're ready for me to put it
>>>>> up. I put the book up when they are ready, and they download it
>>>>> within a day or so. However, I can see that life may get in the way
>>>>> at times, and then, contacting Carrie to extend the hold would be a
>>>>> nice option.
>>>>> Though, in most cases 3 months should be plenty of time.
>>>>> Melissa Smith
>>>>> On 2/17/2011 8:58 PM, Jamie Prater wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, I'm not sure what the answer is. I know books need to move
>>>>>> along and not clog up the list.  I've seen the new volunteer
>>>>>> materials clog up and linger on all lists, the checkout list, the
>>>>>> in process list, and the awaiting approval list. If they get to
>>>>>> that point, they need to go on ahead and download the materials and
>>>>>> do something with them. I've seen lots of stuff stay in the
>>>>>> approval queue and the in process queue, longer than they used to
>>>>>> stay.  I know people get backlogged, so is three months a
>>>>>> reasonable answer, and if not, what is? I can't throw rocks at
>>>>>> anybody since a couple of months ago, I let some things linger
>>>>>> during a turbulent period of my life when life was too complicated
>>>>>> to work on anything, and one book in particular almost stayed too
>>>>>> long and I was glad it didn't overstay its welcome on the checkout
>>>>>> list and I'm glad I didn't miss it as it was part of a series.  I
>>>>>> hope people who make up the huge influx of volunteers really intend
>>>>>> on moving through and
>>>>  volunteering and not letting materials stay in one spot and never
>>>> following through. If everybody does, the possibilities will be
>>>> limitless for all scanners and proofers and readers alike.  I like
>>>> the idea of books for new volunteers to practice on and build their
>>>> confidence levels up before tackling real books. My first
>>>> validation/proofing book was one I had read at least twice and was
>>>> very familiar with and it had very little to correct, so I just
>>>> eventually read manuals and learned by doing and part of the road was
>>>> a bit bumpy and I made people mad who thought I wasn't willing to
>>>> read the manual, but I was, I just had a job and a lot of other stuff
>>>> going on.  I'm sure we can come up with a workable solution and/or
>>>> possible policy change.

Other related posts: