I, too, am a relatively new validator and sort of agree with the three people who responded before me, Dave, Cindy4 and Tracy. But, I'm unfamiliar with the history of "hold for", why it was implemented, and what it's implementation was meant to achieve. Perhaps some of the old timers could explain to us newbies why "hold for" is used so frequently.
Tracy makes a good point when she says "Quantity is defeated by leaving books
sitting on Step 1 for weeks, while the designated person is doingsomething else. " I've noticed this too and it does seem to defeat the purpose of the process. However, I don't have any problem with the "hold for" designation of a book as long as it gets processed in a timely manner and doesn't bog down the process.
Cindy4 brings up a good point when she says "My thoughts are that the validator's name should be posted with a book a long with the submitter's." This is one of my pet peeves about the process. I think that validators and submitters should be considered a team, and the book should be a cooperative project between the two people. Once the project is finished both scannor and validator should get credit or blame for the outcome. I would go even one step further and state that the email addresses of scannors and validators should be available somewhere to facilitate discussion between the two and take some of the chatter off this list. I also think that all volunteers should be encouraged, if not required, to subscribe to this list.
I'm aware that some scannors just want to scan books, throw them up there, and let someone else worry about the mistakes. And some validators want to grab a book to read, and, perhaps make a few changes to obvious errors and pass the book on. This approach is great for quantity, but hell on quality. And I think the days of fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants approach to getting a book on the site are over.
Thanks, Bob----- Original Message ----- From: "Tracy Carcione" <carcione@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:43 AM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: hold for revisited
I agree. I think "hold for" is being way overused. I do see books marked "hold for" which interest me, but I usually leave them alone. Then they sit on Step 1 for weeks. What is the value in that? And there seem to be an increasing number of "hold for"s. One objective of validating is quality. Another is quantity. Quantity is defeated by leaving books sitting on Step 1 for weeks, while the designated person is doing something else. I don't see any good reason for it. I too do a good job validating. Unless the person named has an actual copy of the book, or is going to sit down and read it word for word, punctuation mark for punctuation mark, what's the difference? TracyI'm going to lead off here with the passage from the Step 1 page regarding books with 'Hold For' in their title. Titles denoted with a "Hold For" prefacing the title are intended for a specific validator. Please respect this request. My first question here is, why? Now I must admit I am, and always have been, biased against the practice of 'Hold For' books. To me, the practice smacks of elitism, cliquishness, and in many cases the primary objective does not seem to be the quality of the collection. I understand there can be a number of reasons to put hold for in the title, and they include: 1. for a vallidator with a copy of the book, or text in question, to have something to compare against the submitted work; 2. for a vallidator with specific interest in the project; 3. for the submitter's assurance that the book will be picked up in a timely manner; 4. for the submitter's assurance that the book will be handled in an appropriate manner. Now I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but to me the only one that would seem to have merit, is the first one I sited above, with the proviso for our sighted volunteers, that any of the projects they touch can only be improved upon by the ability to compare the original print version with the copy submitted to Bookshare. I make this last tipulation because sometimes technology can become too clever and we can start relying on it too heavily at the expense of accuracy. Aside from that however, I don't believe that most of the hold for books fall under the 1st example above, but instead come under 1 or more of the others. In closing, before I get the fire storm going, no, I can't recall a specific instance where I wished to validate a hold for book, but I just don't like the exclusionary practice, and I would point out that not all volunteers are on the list so as to be aware of the why and wherefores. Dave 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxput 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.-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1159 - Release Date: 11/29/2007 11:10 AM
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.
