Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264455747

Subject: Re: [TGF] BCG Standards #3 and 4
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:42:27 -0700

Thanks, Michael!

I remember that discussion. My question is not HOW to do it. but WHEN
and to WHAT images. Specifically, exactly what do standards #3 & #4
imply for the data collection process?

Do you process EVERY image you collect just AFTER they enter your
collection so that the citation information is viewable for every image
you have right from the beginning, whether or not you ever use the image
for publication or to share with a client or someone else? Do you think
these standards set this expectation?

The same issue pertains to paper records, too, as I mentioned in a
previous post. It makes sense, theoretically, to implement these
standards for all raw data, because one 'never knows' where it might
show up when out of our direct control. I'm asking if this is what
these standards actually mean, and, if so, feeling overwhelmed by how
much time it would take me to comply.

I'm sorry I'm having so much trouble expressing this clearly. You are
not the first to kindly offer help regarding the technical details, but
that is not my issue. I already do include a viewable citation in added
whitespace around an image but only for a relatively small handful of
images I share, before sharing them. In fact, I have a couple scans of
Connecticut HAIT RW military records I came across and thought you might
be interested in, that are waiting for me to process before I send to
you. At this rate, don't hold your breath. <g>

>From reading your post it does, indeed, sound like you process every
image this way as you get them. I am very, very impressed, Michael. I
think this is one task where I could use an assistant, perhaps two, to
process the thousands of images I've collected. Or figure out a way to
automate the process. Maybe this has replaced transcribing as my most
'hated' task.

Just read Elissa's post where she describes what she does when she
returns from a research trip. My equivalent is to implement my
file-naming conventions, and file (place in correct folders), update the
master source entry if needed, or create new one, etc. Sometimes I'll
start with the task of creating indexes to the images, identifying which
are useable, which need to be redone the next trip, etc. Unless the
standards gods deem otherwise, I guess I'm utterly failing at meeting
these 2 standards.

Again, thanks!

Michael wrote:
> We discussed this in another discussion a few months ago either on this list or on one of the APG lists.

and he later wrote:
> Then I have a viewable digital copy of the record, with full citation, that can also be zoomed in on, for issues with readability. And if I need to share the image with anyone, they can view it without issues, using Adobe's free Reader program.

This thread: