Indexing Ohio Nat [Part B]. Example 1 doesn't seem right as far as the Record #.
Batch [MQ5S-2VR] indicates that number is the COA No. Look at the Petition next to it.
Answers
-
From the PI/What To Remember About This Project:
If an image contains multiple documents on a single image and all of the documents relate to the same person, combine the information from all of the documents on the image into the entries you index in the data entry area, using the most complete version of the information.The PET is the most complete version, and therefore, the PET's record number is used at the record number.
0 -
Wrong. The instruction below that reads - Index only the topmost indexable record. Do not index the information on the partially covered document.
0 -
You are combining the COA and PET.
0 -
@Harmon, James Bartlett: don't confuse overlays with "mixed-content" images.
The pages in these naturalization files were treated for filming/scanning purposes like book pages, attached along their left-hand edges. (I think most of the time they actually were so attached, but it can be hard to tell.) This is all fine and dandy — we all know how to use a book, right? — except that some of the pages are a different size than the others. What the overlay instructions amount to is that we are to pretend that the pieces of paper are all the same size, like in a normal book.
So, the shared batch in question consists of four images.
Image one has the back/last page of Peter something-or-other's depositions and the front/first page of the same Peter's Petition. It's multiple documents pertaining to the same person, so they should be combined.
Image two has the back of Peter's Petition, containing his Oath and Order of Admittance. Those should be combined.
Image three is where it gets interesting: the left-hand side is a certificate of arrival for one "Roger, Moische", while the right-hand side is the Petition of one "Melvin Rose". The placement of the documents implies that these are actually the same person, but there's no indication of that on either document: the arrival doesn't say anything about Melvin, and the petition doesn't mention anything about Moische. My instinct is to index them separately: it is not our job as indexers to make decisions about "are these really the same person?" (Also, this would avoid the clunkiness of "Melvin or Moische Rose or Roger".)
Image four is just Melvin's Declaration (again with no mention of Moische), so no combining needed.
0 -
I'm talking about Example #1. Why do they want us to enter the COA number instead of the proper one next to the No. ______?
0 -
I believe the instructions show an example of a stand alone COA
0 -
No. It's for a Declaration of Intention. They have us enter in the incorrect number.
0 -
Could you pass the along @Ashlee C.? The example is 7?14247 (It's actually 714247, but I digress). The record number should be 22874.
0 -
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I'll send it in to be looked at.
0
