"Index this page"
It would be great to be able to "Index this page", not only "Attach this page".
Browsing back and forth is a real time consuming and it would be taking a way to long time before those pages would be indexed at all.
I have stopped attaching pages. I'm just filling out the info, like the dates, somewhere in the future they turn up eventually...
It's better to be able to index a page, it will be searchable for others to. Attach only the record fast and the job is done for all time.
I would have indexed hundreds of pages by now.
Regards
Comments
-
You and/or FamilySearch need permission from the record custodian before being allowed to index their material. Some of the "image only" collections are likely never to be available in an indexed form on the FamilySearch website.
Even if you did index them, this would only be for your personal use, as FamilySearch indexes come about either by their setting up a project to cover specific records, or by gaining permission (say from Find My Past, etc.) to publish that company's records on its website.
Where possible, it's best to add the image sources to the relevant IDs as, firstly, not all indexed records have a linked image and, secondly (as mentioned) some images will never be indexed.
1 -
I'm pretty sure that there are many pages left to index here. Not somewhere else.
I also noticed a couple of times that one page/image was skipped, not indexed.
Is there any possible way to choose a certain aria / film from some list? If we are already there and reading them, we can just as well indexing them.
Yes, those "by the rules"
0 -
From your experience with indexing, perhaps you could kindly add your advice as to the feasibility of what is being suggested here.
0 -
If/when the 'edit every field' indexer app reaches the collection everyone can indeed index pages.
0 -
I was assuming the poster was referring to wanting to index material that is currently image-only.
2 -
While an "index every field" project sounds lovely, I recall previous RootsTech presenters who have told us "indexing on the fly" would soon be available. It isn't yet, and that's been several years. I wouldn't pin too much hope on such a change in the near future.
0 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile it's already being implemented on collections. True it might take a while before getting to all - from memory I think some of the dates to changes were from a year or two ago. They've been implementing I'm the background - who knows if that's contributed to issues.
@Paul W either way ... The AI indexer may do the first pass - then put the collection out there for anyone to index.
0 -
Yes, I know it has been implemented on some collections. I'm simply saying I'll believe it when I see it that everything can be done in that manner and that the site will survive. It's not sliced bread.
0 -
I don't know how it compares to sliced bread ... But it will take some 'getting used to'. From what I have seen it is powerful enough to basically create a transcription - rather than only an index - of a record. But 'with that power comes [more] responsibility' to make sure it is complete and accurate.
1 -
What I was thinking about, to be more clearly, to have on option.
When you are looking at on image or a page (what ever you call it) is to have on option button.
- This image is in the que to be indexed.
- And since you are here and looking at it, would you like to help out to index it ?
- [ Yes]
2 -
The 'edit every field' indexer just supplies the capability for anyone to index a collection in which it has been implemented - implying yes it's approved for indexing/transcription. Anyone can make those edits and does not need to apply to do so. Learning a bit beforehand about the tool would be advisable though. Maybe FamilySearch can release a sandbox record set where people can play/learn the new app.
0 -
I still think you are misreading the issue being described. Images, "in the que to be indexed" seem to be what is being referred to here. Unless I am missing something regarding a new feature to index image-only records, it appears you are referring to (with your 'edit every field remark') records that have already been indexed.
The main point I have made is that, currently, for an index-only entry/page/collection to be indexed, there would need to be the creation of an approved, FamilySearch indexing project. Otherwise, FamilySearch could find itself in trouble if it added patron-indexed items to its database without a record custodian's permission.
1 -
@Paul W as I mentioned above - FamilySearch won't release the new 'edit every field' indexer for a collection if it's not approved for it (whether images only or prior image with index).? I'll let FS worry about on which collections they make it available. I think I've run across both already with the new app - so they are getting a good sample reaction for how people handle it apparently.
I have no idea how this new app might affect the more traditional indexing Projects/app. My opinion: since the new app is more powerful - capable of a transcription - people should learn how to use it versus the indexing WebApp. To my understanding it shortens the post-indexing/publication period - allowing those edits to be immediately visible/searchable for the collection. I think the reason for this new app/process is to fill the need created by the completion of digitizing all microfilm images last year ... There needs to be increased indexing capability...
I could be wrong ... Just an opinion.
0 -
@genthusiast, the detail that you're skipping here is that the "correct anything" function, by definition, only applies to image groups that have already been indexed. If there's no index, there's nothing to correct.
2 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi no. As mentioned above - I believe I have seen both cases - image only collections and image indexed collections. Though I could be mistaken... Perhaps they were pages skipped over in prior indexing passes (human or machine). But I believe I have seen both. Further- the new 'edit every field'/indexing app allows you to add/delete persons - so if the page is unindexed you treat it as any fresh new image to index and add the highlights/entries/persons. I do not believe I am making this up - but don't have a URL/example on hand to refer to. If I see another fresh/unindexed image/page in the new app - I'll try to remember to post here for all to enjoy.
Perhaps to resolve the question - I'll just flag this post for a Moderator to follow-up please: Are there any collections released to the new 'edit every field'/indexing app that are image only - meaning they do not have a previous index attached? Or are all the collections being migrated from the previous image viewer solution to the new one - importing the current index with it?
0 -
If there's no index attached to any of the images in the group (film), then how can the index correction function be invoked? Can users freely change the film number? (I can find no method of doing so, looking at a semi-random 1950 census film.)
(And totally off-topic, but egads, that image viewer is beyond annoying. It spends at least ten seconds loading each page, and Always. Zooms. Back. Out. I hope I'm never forced to use it for actual research.)
1 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi There are two tabs to the new indexer in the default view on the right-hand side cards (preview column or whatever those are called). One tab is the previously indexed names - IF they are indexed - and which also have the Add Person (or whatever button/links option at the bottom). The Delete/Add Person is how anyone can generate a new index for a record (whether other records on the page are indexed or not). The other tab is Group Information (or something along those lines) - which contains the citation/reference to the film or source of the images, etc. This Group Information tab from what I have seen is usually not editable by the user (or I would not usually recommend the user attempt editing if it is editable)- and usually contains information input from FamilySearch. However I did see one image the other day which did allow some editing of the Group Information (whether by mistake or whatever I don't know).
The loading of images in that viewer do have the newer focus routine (whatever is going on in the background). Once the image appears I don't mind the interface at all - and only expect it to improve as various issues may arise and are dealt with.
0 -
Here is an example of an image only unindexed record - Ah, the Computer Indexed Data tab shows it has not yet been indexed.
What I am claiming above is that I think I have seen images/pages which were blank on the Computer Indexed Data tab but which DID allow you to add persons/index to the image. Perhaps I was incorrect and the Computer Index was just left blank for some reason (meaning the page was open for indexing but had no results from the Computer OR someone went in and deleted the index)? I will have to give an example if I locate such (again).
0 -
@genthusiast, that film has been indexed.
Random example: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-65D9-CDP?i=164&cc=1392488
Search results: https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?q.filmNumber=4170369
Catalog page: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/2357453
It wasn't done by computer, though (the citation gives a 2017 date), so maybe that's why the newer interface is lying to us?
2 -
Interesting. I did not check elsewhere. I think what it means is that the computer indexer has not done it's process yet then - whether that involves a combination of AI/NLP and migration of previous index I don't know. Thanks for pointing that out though - I'll have to look more carefully when I give an example.
0 -
@genthusiast Since this is a very new feature, internal indexing has only been implemented on relatively few collections. I am not aware of any order or timetable for when collections will have this feature. I think it is something we will have to wait and see.
2 -
@Maile L well that's too bad. I thought it was going to be implemented on as many as got the go ahead (the point of every field). So will the previously indexed collections maintain the older edit feature and index then (only names, dates, places if lucky)?
0 -
I believe it will be implemented on those that have approval. I just stated that I do not know how long it will take to get to that point. I am guessing that the rest will stay the same until it is rolled out everywhere.
0 -
@Maile L Ok. That is similar to what I'm guessing too ... If/when ...Thank you for follow-up.
0 -
It was very interesting to read all of your comments.
This Project indexing thing is not very comfortable for everyone. I did indexed too, but sometimes we get pages that is not only unreadable, but we don't have a chance to even recognize the names.
When you do research at a place, you learn and recognize those names. That makes "you" the best indexer.
If they are waiting to be indexed, we can index it at the same time as we are reading them. At the end, indexing goes faster and instead of going back and forth multiple times on the same documents, you can just do a search. Voila...
Yes, does documents/images only of course, that are waiting in line to be indexed.
Do the math. If someone would only indexing 10 pages a day, what would 1000 people a day accomplish?
Also, as genthusiast pointed out too, sometimes pages are skipped, not index. I don't know why, human/computer error, but no matter why actually, we can fix that too.
I even seen that only one of a twins was indexed.
0
