(subject changed to reflect the content)
Kay,
This is one I can't win, whichever way I go.
For years I used to email indexers individually - volumes were much
smaller then. While most took the advice onboard, we had some
indexers who resigned because they thought I was picking on them. One
even said it was too much like being in school - and this was an
indexer who continued to make the same mistakes day after day,
despite my annotated comments on his work. Of course I get stroppy in
those circumstances, who wouldn't?
So I changed tack, and now rarely contact individual indexers about
errors. Firstly, with the current volume, it would be too
time-consuming. If it takes me 20 secs to identify and fix an error,
it would take me at least 5 minutes to identify the indexer; hunt
around for their email address; realise they're a new indexer and I
don't have it; send an email to Pauline to get the email address;
format an email with the incorrect data and an explanation of what's
wrong; then field the reply. When there are 30 or 40 errors in a
daily run, you can see how impossible it is to comment individually.
It is much quicker for me to comment at intervals in bulk to the list
- that way, all indexers are aware of the types of errors coming
through, and I hope would be more conscious of possible errors when
entering future data. I never name individual indexers, so no-one
need think they are being picked on. Your errors are between you, me
and the gatepost <g>
If anyone knows of a better way of doing things, I'm all ears!
John
John,
Regards your 2017 resolutions :
Seems a bit of confusion for some with yours and Doug's bantering. Would it not be better to advise the person making the mistake with a 'correct' entry as an example or would this be too personal?
Sometimes it takes a sledge hammer and cryptic hints don't always find their mark; I would rather you point out to ME what I was doing wrong so I could correct it.
This of course assumes it would not take too much time as where we are all sitting we cannot see the volume of errors.
Please be kind
Kay Brooke
