Hello, my name is Liz and I am OCD. It's been 3 minutes  3 seconds since my last episode in trying to correct things that are wrong.

:-)

Well, I'm not quite that bad. But I have been trying to help by spotting author names that are incorrect (like Margret Rey, NOT Margaret, in case you are "curious"), and correcting descriptions that include information about a single copy's condition. Sometimes the submissions are VERY quickly reflected on the site, and sometimes I'll come back a couple of days later --- no correction, and no sign that the correction was even looked at.

I am also adding photos, and our dear Patti Patouie has been kindly walking me through the process, so that most of my photos come out half decent. Photos seem to be posted much faster, as well. How can this former editor / proofreader / English instructor help speed the process up?

AlamoLiz

All of the data and image edits are approved by volunteers. The quickness of approval depends on their availability and the amount of work they are getting.

You can always volunteer to be on one of those teams. Use the Contact Us line at the bottom of the page to inquire about getting on the teams to help approve edits. (or if Sherry (royaltech) is available in Live Help she's a coordinator)

eta: if they a not approved they will tell you, so if you are hearing nothing, then they should still be coming.

I've noticed (don't know if this is actually true or just my perception) that Book Edits seem to be approved more quickly once you get to Friday. In my experience, the closer you do them to Friday, the quicker you see them. I'm guessing that lots of the volunteers don't have much time during the week or on the weekend, but maybe they sign in on Friday night and go thru those edits.

The information also has to be confirmed  and data is sometimes harder to confirm.  I will give you a PM and see if I can find out some info.

Liz, If you join the BD team, you could work as a volunteer for a couple of months & eventually become a BD approver.  It's a little time investment now, but it would speed up the process in the long run.  Having said that, though, I don't think you can approve your own edits. 

Well, I'm going to probably have one even more unhappy receiver for a bit then.

She is throwing a fit because my 8 page Science Notes activities (as in classroom activities, not as in coloring book) book is not the actual book.  Well, it said it was 8 pages in the book info and a review also described it (I know, not the right use of a review, but I noticed it was there when I was checking before I listed to be sure the page count was included b/c it was small).

I told her I'd give her her credit back if she edited the book's data to make it crystal clear.  My and her levels of clarity have been proven repeatedly now to be different.  I don't feel it was mis-listed but I don't want her to be able to re-request this and do the same to the next sender.  May as well have some benefit from this for the library as a whole anyway, it needed a description where a description is supposed to be.

I guess she'll be waiting until the weekend to get her credit.  I said I'd give it back after the data was updated, since I have no way of knowing if she submitted.

Assuming she isn't lying tome, that edit was rejected really fast.

So great, now we have a very ambigious (to me it isn't, but having had a receiver whining apparently it is) listing.

All the details support it being the 8 page go-with, but apparently online somewhere that ISBN is listed as being with the book.  So they won't clarify the author or update the description.

Yet all the details--pages, publisher, etc, match the go-with and not the book.

So if someone orders after actually reading the details they will expect the smaller. If they order, I don't know how, they expect the actual book.  That's just a completely invalid entry in the library now.   If they want it used for the actual book, they need to fix the details so it matches the actual book (if the book was ever put out under that ISBN, I am not clear), including pages, binding, and fix the title.  If they want it used for the go-with, they need to allow clarification of author and extra description.

Grumble.  It's bad enough I got harrassed into giving back a credit for a book I feel was properly listed (demanding at least the edits be done).  It's even worse when the edits on it get rejected so the same thing can get pulled on another sender.

Something that just caught my eye...  The OP mentioned submitting edits for descriptions that related to a specific copy of a book.  If that's the case, then it would have to be a book posted without an ISBN, and I seem to recall reading somewhere that those descriptions can't be edited.

Can someone on the BD team please clarify or confirm that please?

ETA: I have posted a few older books without ISBN's on here, and it was my understanding from the help docs that it was okay to put information that is specific to that copy of the book in the description, since that entry really does only apply to that copy.

Bernhard, non-ISBN records can only be edited by the original submitter, so they aren't an issue for the data team.  PBS still doesn't encourage putting copy-specific details in it (i.e. "higlighting on page 47"), since some members do occasionally reuse those records and because it can be confusing to newer members (since you can't put copy-specific details in normal book records, the way you can on some other book swap sites).

Kayote, I'm not sure I fully understand your situation, but if an edit to the book which required additional materials to be included were rejected, it is likely because that would impact all copies posted into the system.  Or it could be because the data approvers have to confirm information in the edits, and they may not have been able to do so.  Feel free to send me a PM if you have specific questions.

Cheers,

Catt

By not confirming the edits, they left a half-and-half entry in the library. It's simply wrong for the actual book, and it's arguably ambigious (as was argued at me) for the for what it actually is.  This results in whiney receivers who don't read and don't realize (Science Series) and that publisher are similar to (Monarch Notes) or (Cliff Notes) in that it isn't the actual book.

By leaving it exactly as listed there is an invalid/ambigious entry in the database that does not unambigiously match the ISBN version I had (doesn't match enough requesters can be stupid), and certainly will NOT match any matching ISBN edition (if it exists) of the actual book.