Allow FamilySearch Users to Index Images Documents
Many of the documents within the "Images" section are often time-consuming and difficult to parse through to find the information you're looking for. I always wish there was a way to index the rest of the page for anyone else who might need it, but there is no function for that. I feel like people would be more compelled to participate in document indexing projects this way.
Comments
-
If the record is of the "image only" type, this might be due to the fact that FamilySearch has not been provided with permission to index it (i.e., the whole batch of records). FamilySearch appears to be working hard to ensure as many of the images appearing on its website are indexed, as naturally this does make life a lot easier for researchers. So, unfortunately, no - outside of the officially-approved FamilySearch indexing projects, there is no means for users to carry out indexing of such records in order to share with other users.
3 -
Unless such a collection has another record custodian approved indexing platform (some other/duplicate indexing project) - you are limited to the Source Notes section when ATTACH TO TREE or alternately download and attach via Source Box:
The Idea has been put forward in the past to make a dedicated Transcript text field available - but I haven't seen any FamilySearch consideration/feedback on the Idea. FamilySearch probably feels the Notes are sufficient. I am unaware of any future possibility of including transcriptions attached in Tree to future indexing Projects - but I do agree such might be advantageous. Of course, such transcription might require record custodian permission/approval as well - thus some might wait for the Indexing Project.
Either way, attachment of the record in Tree is one way to share that unindexed Source data - but certainly doesn't organize a project for indexing of the collection and if indexed at some future point would likely create a duplicate Source (not a problem in my view - at least it would provide some comparison to the Indexing Project).
2 -
In addition, getting a project ready to index requires a lot of behind-the-scenes work. It's not a quick fix.
2 -
I feel like this is a fantastic idea that would never go unpunished. I, too, spend quite a few hours in non-indexed images, finding bits of amazing history and have wished I could just go ahead and type up the information I found in an index format, but I suspect that would be a very bad idea as a whole. I'm sure there are indexing rules and standards that are usually complied with that I would not know about. I would assume fillable forms are custom developed for each set of records, so what would I do if I had questions or couldn't match the fields with the data I see? I would probably create a sloppy index or add "important [to me] information" to improper fields or just stop with half a record indexed if I got frustrated. Depending on the image and time I have, I would not always index the entire page, but just the portion pertaining to me. This would result in a product that would frustrate others and have to be cleaned up later.
I also see why some collections are hard if not impossible to index in the first place. I have been nose diving in the Virginia Personal Property Tax images, which began 1782 and we lucky Virginians continue to pay it annually even now. The tax was revised each year in the decades which have been released (1782-1861), creating more columns and different information every couple of years. Each DSG has multiple years and some have widely varying information. I am not sure how an experienced indexer is going to deal with that, let alone me.
Now, if we could do this in such a way that our work would be invisible to the public, ie have it just "waiting" and available for a future indexing project to get started, that might be a benefit. I think most people would agree that correcting someone else's work is much quicker than starting from scratch.
0 -
Currently, links between unindexed images and tree profiles are only visible to users in one direction: you can go from the profile to the image. FS clearly keeps track of the other direction, because the "Attach to Family Tree" button will not let you choose a profile that the image is already attached to. Maybe what we need is a tab at the bottom with "Attachment Information", listing all of the profiles that the image has been attached to. This would allow a motivated transcriber to add his/her reading of the (relevant portion of the) page to each attached source's Notes/Description field.
One problem with this idea is that it only really works with the "Attach to..." button: if you use the URL to create a source citation, FS doesn't keep track of that attachment. (Which is a good thing when there are multiple different entries on an image that are all relevant to one person but are for completely different events, like when a father buries five children in succession, and then dies himself, during a cholera epidemic.)
Turning an on-the-fly transcription into a useful index would be ...non-trivial. I suppose they could use the Search - Records - More Options box to generate a set of fields that one could choose to index, but there would inevitably be questions to deal with: maiden name or married? should I assume date of event based on date of entry (or vice versa)? If it's just labeled "parents", should I put that as "father" or "mother"? (And so forth and so on.) And all this leaves aside the question of permissions: record custodians cannot be assumed to give permission for any sort of indexing of their material.
2 -
If there were a tag attribute for the transcription text then those tags could 'bracket' that text. But yeah - it's probably just worth it to the person/profile transcribing - who knows what the records custodians would think at this point. But hey the image is available to attach so ...
I remember thinking a long time ago... If everyone that touched a record also indexed/transcribed it ... Maybe as part of a workflow ... That would be one method of reviewing indexing or double-blind indexing...
But I guess we have AI to review now ...
1 -
My work-around has been to add the jpg of the image as a memory then tag every name that appears in the document and connect them to as many of the mentioned people as I can find. It gets the original connected to the people. If you upload as a .jpg you can tag as many people as are mentioned. If you use a .pdf format it is less specific. You can still tag to the person, but not directly to where they are mentioned. We inherited a ton of original family records, and so far, this is working. If you want an example, see Rev. Joseph Willoughby Sawyer MX23-DDM. His memories have several examples.
0 -
@JulieSDuMond, if you instead use your Source Box (and the Sources feature in general), then you can tag the actual conclusions rather than just the people. The tradeoff is that this will not allow you to highlight a piece of text, but that is not usually a problem for printed or typed documents. (It also greatly simplifies things when someone's name appears in six different places on the page.)
1 -
I'm in the middle of sorting through images again and I'm again bothered by the fact I can't index them for others. The sidebar even shows what percentage have been indexed (0% unfortunately), but there is no way to contribute. Let us help you FamilySearch!
1 -
One problem with adding an image of a collection to Memories - is that you may need to indicate the express permission from the record custodian/owner. If a FamilySearch Source then that permission is implied - but might be limited. Perhaps FamilySearch will implement a generic Source image redaction/abstraction image process that a record custodian/owner might be more likely to approve (rather than a full page of records for example). But if FamilySearch implemented a Memories transcription/index every field process (corresponding to the new AI index every field process) - that would be cool.
2
