Tighten recruiting email for already-onboard reviewers

Recipients are colleagues who saw the talk and already said yes, so:

- Drop the "what the archive is" pitch and the GitHub URL — they
  already know.
- Drop "no GitHub account, no software needed" — telling already-
  onboard volunteers what they DON'T have to do is confusing rather
  than reassuring.
- Drop the "this is exactly the kind of thing only people who've
  been around" persuasion — they already volunteered.
- Define OCR on first use (automated optical character recognition)
  since the technical backstory wasn't part of the talk.
- Reorder so the "what you do" section comes early, since that's
  the only thing they actually need.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

Author: aaronjnewman

scripts/recruiting_email.txt

@@ -1,111 +1,88 @@
 RECRUITING EMAIL — DRAFT
 
-Personalize the opener for each recipient (and add specific year suggestions
-where you can — e.g. "Suzanne, you've already done a pass on 1995-2000,
-want to keep going from there?"). Everything from "Subject:" down to the
-sign-off is reusable.
+Audience: colleagues who attended the 50th-anniversary talk and have
+already volunteered to help. They know what the archive is and why
+you're doing it; they just need the operating instructions.
+
+Personalize the opener if you want — otherwise this is ready to send.
+The body is plain text and copies cleanly into Outlook.
 
 ============================================================
 COPY FROM HERE INTO OUTLOOK
 ============================================================
 
-Subject: Help clean up 50 years of In-House Conference abstracts?
+Subject: In-House archive review — quick guide
 
 
 Hi {Name},
 
-For the 50th-anniversary In-House this year I put together a complete
-searchable archive of every program from 1975 to 2026 — roughly 2,150
-abstracts across 48 conferences (2020 and 2021 are absent due to COVID).
-The scans and PDFs you and others rescued have been OCR'd into a
-structured database and pushed to GitHub:
-
-    https://github.com/aaronjnewman/inhouse-conference-archive
-
-The OCR did its best, but the older scans in particular have lots of
-small errors — author names mangled ("Hc1,Jaughton" for "McNaughton"),
-dropped accents, occasional words swallowed up. I'd like a small group
-of folks who know this department to do a careful pass year-by-year and
-clean those up.
-
-
-WHAT IT IS
-
-A Google Sheet, one tab per year. No GitHub account, no software to
-install. Each row is one presentation. You see what the OCR captured
-on the left, and there are yellow columns on the right where you type
-the corrected version.
+Thanks again for volunteering to help review the archive. Here's how
+it works.
 
+I've shared a Google Sheet with you (let me know if you don't see it).
+One tab per year from 1975 through 2026, skipping 2020 and 2021. Each
+row is one presentation. The white columns on the left show the title,
+authors, and abstract as automated optical character recognition (OCR)
+software read them out of the program PDFs. Where the OCR got something
+wrong, type the corrected version in the yellow column next to it.
 
-WHAT YOU'D DO
 
-1. I'll share the sheet with you. Pick one or more years.
+WHAT TO DO ON EACH ROW
 
-2. On each row: if the title / authors / abstract is wrong, type the
-   correct version in the yellow column next to it. If it's already
-   right, leave the yellow columns empty.
+1. If the title, authors, or abstract is wrong, type the corrected
+   version in the matching yellow column. Leave a yellow column blank
+   if it was already right.
 
-3. Set the row's "status" dropdown to one of:
-     - fixed       — you typed at least one correction
-     - checked-ok  — you read it and nothing needed changing
-     - needs-help  — something's wrong and you're not sure how to fix it
+2. Set the "status" dropdown to one of:
+     - fixed       you typed at least one correction
+     - checked-ok  you read it and nothing needed changing
+     - needs-help  something's wrong and you can't fix it from the sheet
+                   (e.g. an entry seems missing, or two abstracts got
+                   fused into one). Add a note in the "notes" column;
+                   I'll handle these.
 
-4. Put your name in the "reviewer" column so we can credit you.
+3. Put your name in the "reviewer" column.
 
-5. Each row has a "source_pdf" link straight to the program PDF on
-   GitHub — click it if you want to compare against the original scan.
+4. The "source_pdf" column has a link straight to the original program
+   PDF — click it to compare against the scan when in doubt.
 
 
-A FEW CONVENTIONS
+CONVENTIONS
 
-- Author format: Lastname, Firstname and Lastname, Firstname — e.g.
+- Author format: Lastname, Firstname and Lastname, Firstname. E.g.:
       LoLordo, Vincent M. and Jacobs, W. J. and Foree, Donald D.
-  This is BibTeX's canonical form. It avoids ambiguity with compound
-  surnames ("Van der Berg") and initial-only given names ("M.G. Yoon").
-
-- Don't touch the white columns — those are the read-only "what the
-  OCR currently says" record.
-
-- Don't worry about structural problems — e.g. one abstract that's
-  actually two presentations fused together, or an entry that's missing
-  entirely. Just set status to needs-help and explain in notes;
-  I'll fix those by hand.
-
-
-TIME
-
-Each year has 15-65 entries. A careful pass on one year is roughly
-30-60 minutes depending on how bad the OCR was. There's no deadline —
-do as much or as little as you want.
+  This handles compound surnames ("Van der Berg") and initial-only
+  given names ("M.G. Yoon") without ambiguity.
 
+- Leave the white columns alone. They're the read-only record of what
+  the OCR captured.
 
-HOW FIXES GET APPLIED
 
-Once a week, a script pulls the corrections from the sheet, applies
-them to the canonical archive, and regenerates the BibTeX file. So
-every Monday the public archive on GitHub reflects everyone's work
-from the prior week.
+TIME AND PACE
 
-If you're game, just reply and I'll share the sheet. Happy to do a
-15-minute screenshare first if you'd like a walkthrough.
+Each year has 15-65 entries; a careful pass runs about 30-60 minutes
+depending on how rough the OCR was. No deadline. Do as much or as
+little as you want, in whichever years appeal to you. If you'd like
+a suggestion of where to start, tell me what era you remember best
+and I'll point you at the right tabs.
 
-Thanks for considering it — this is exactly the kind of thing only
-people who've been around the department can do well.
+Updates from the sheet are pulled into the main archive once a week,
+so your work will start showing up in the regenerated bibliography
+soon after you make it.
 
+Thanks again,
 Aaron
 
 ============================================================
 STOP COPYING HERE
 ============================================================
 
 
-AFTER THEY REPLY
+AFTER THEY REPLY (or when sending)
 
-Things you'll likely need to do once they say yes:
+  - Share the spreadsheet with their personal Gmail (Editor access)
+    before you send the email, so the "I've shared a Google Sheet with
+    you" line is true when they read it.
 
-  - Share the spreadsheet with their personal Gmail (Editor access).
-  - Optionally suggest 1-2 specific years they have personal knowledge
-    of ("you were a regular through the late 90s — would you take
-    1996-2000?").
-  - Point them at scripts/README.md (in the GitHub repo) if they ask
-    for more detail than the email gives.
+  - If you have specific years they're well-placed to review, suggest
+    them in the personalized opener.