Hi, Mickey. I think people are basically saying that since we're being
paid more credit to validate, let's do a good job and not just pass
stuff through the system. In the past, some people would validate a
bunch of books to earn a year's membership. They didn't spend much time
in individual books because they knew they'd have had to validate 100
books in a year to earn next year's membership. That has changed now. I
could be wrong, but I think people are just encouraging each other to
raise the bar of what's acceptable validation. You have always been a
careful validater, Mickey, so I don't see that this would change a lot
for you. (smile) You taught me a lot about being a good validater. I
used to be the kind of person who would just get a book and read it,
ignoring small errors and only stopping if I literally couldn't read
something. That has changed, and you, Sue, Katie, and Elizabeth are all
responsible for helping me make that change. It didn't happen overnight
or even over a period of weeks. It took me a good year or more to
finally understand and then incorporate careful validation principles
into how I do things. It's taken another year for me to refine the
process, to use a system to do these things quickly and comfortably.
Monica Willyard
mickey wrote:
I think I'll do pretty much the same job I've always done, because I
think all of us are doing our best. I don't know that we should change
our criteria for accepting or rejecting a book. We validators work
hard to make the best product we can. Because we've changed our rate
of pay, I don't quite understand what that has to do with the
scanners. Maybe I'm missing something.
Mickey Prahin
