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

  • From: "Mayrie ReNae" <mayrierenae@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:03:21 -0800

Hi Judy,

I don't mean to be argumentative.  I don't exactly like the idea.  I don't
hate it, but I want to see what's been newly submitted first, especially
with the database being so crummy about loading 100 results at a time.
Nothing but getting rid of all the holds for new volunteers would make me
happy.  Just saying.  Whatever changes happen I will work with.  

Mayrie

 

-----Original Message-----
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Judy s.
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 2:04 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: my thoughts on the hold for issue

I would love to see Mike's idea implemented, especially with the way the
database isn't working well and forces viewers to slowly go through the list
25 books at a time. With Mike's idea, new volunteers could simply reverse
sort the list on title, and established volunteers wouldn't have to wade
through the new volunteer holds.

Judy

Mike wrote:
> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
> 
> 
 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.

Other related posts: