[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.
Valerie
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:
