[bksvol-discuss] Re: my thoughts on the hold for issue
- From: Steve Holmes <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:00:18 -0700
Now, there's a good idea. That and the backend process needs to be
seriously looked at to improve performance. When it takes a minimum
of 30 seconds just to scroll to the next page, no wonder everybody
wants the hold stuff out of there. That and I wouldn't mind if we
could specify the size of each page. For me for example, I set
google's hit count per page up to 100 because I don't like constantly
having to click to next page. I don't use a virtual buffer with Orca
so once the page is loaded, I can merely just nav aaround the list
to my heart's content.
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:39:33PM -0600, Valerie Maples wrote:
> 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.
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.
Other related posts:
