Poorly filmed records
Some of the records are poorly filmed and indexers are doing their best to transcribe them. However, with so many having missing information in the transcription, and the record so poorly filmed, how are we to review whether they are right or wrong.
If the record was mostly unreadable, at what point does it go back to the original point and re-filmed. Poorly transcribing a poorly filmed record serves no purpose other than praise for those who desperately tried their best to transcribe and review with incomplete record information.
Comments
-
What indexing project are you having issues with?
It is not easy, especially during the pandemic, for FamilySearch to go back to the archive and re-film records. They'd only do this if most or all of the records of a set were poorly filmed. And there is no guarantee that the record owner will let them film the records again.
0 -
I believe I saw a comment on another topic that microfilms cannot be re-scanned, and you extract whatever data is legible (however I can't locate this comment).
The impression I get is that the scanning teams scan records in one particular location and then more on to another location, and may NEVER return to the original location.
1 -
I am finding this in the scanning of directories. some of the pages are so blurred it is nearly impossible to get the information correct. Of course, increasing the size only makes the blurred more blurred. Not only will it be difficult for the indexers to get it right, but the reviewers have no real option to verify what the indexer transcribed. Then you have the researcher who is hoping to be able to use the information after it has been published but left wondering if that is a match.
Surely there needs to be another way to rectify the poor quality.
0
