You misunderstood my comment. I was merely postulating on a comment about how they said don't have the staff or money to do the work. Having not ever seen the notaries, I obviously had no idea if they were in folders, stacks, boxes, bags or bound books. I took just one possible route to give an idea of what could be done with the aid of volunteers. I didn't delve into all the details that would require, but I stand by my statement that any archive could find willing and qualified volunteers who could greatly increase the amount of digitization of records. One doesn't need any knowledge of what is in a record to film it. Just clear instructions on what to film in what order. I also stated about using a piece of equipment to hold the piece. I didn't state that apparatus would also hold the camera (and thus always be in focus). There's also a piece of software written to utilize two cameras mounted on such a apparatus that allows two camera's to take alternating pictures and sort them onto a computer in real time. I was not cutting down the hardworking Archivists, just that the Archives and many other archives around the world ignore the potential that walks in their doors every day they are open. What would it cost to hire 10, 20, 100 people to do such work? Plus an equivalent number of overpriced book holders with built in scanning ability? You related you passing dream and I simply related mine. We have different dreams. You would throw money at the Archives and I would give them free manpower and time, and inexpensive but functional equipment. I had no doubt there are many thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands or millions of documents that need scanning. If you look carefully at my original post I did say qualified volunteers. These are old documents and anyone who isn't aware of the fragile and delicate nature of them isn't qualified. I don't claim to be an expert. As far as what I neglected to consider, it was really a matter of not unnecessarily filling up people's email boxes of a detailed plan on how to scan an archive's records. You also seem to have breezed over my comment on how easy and inexpensive it is to make the equipment necessary to film records. It doesn't take the $300,000 equipment that Google uses. It can be done just as nicely quite inexpensively, with the injection of a minor amount of physical labor (ie a hand to turn the pages, and a finger to press a button for each picture). Some plywood, aluminum rods, brackets, special plexiglass, bolts, screws, worm screws, camera mounts, some wire and a few switches, some electronics. Sure it's nice to have the latest Ferrari of book scanning to blast around town in, but it's really not necessary to do a good job. Never did I claim vast experience, but I have been hacking, building and inventing things since I could walk. Not everything I've hacked got put back together in a working condition and not all my inventions have worked. Have come close to blowing myself up on occasion and doing other serious harm to myself. If I had a thinner skin, I might be offended by parts of your reply, but, this is the Internet, and misunderstandings come easy without the human personal clues. No insult was intended to either you or our wonderful Archivists, and in return I won't feel insulted by your email. I just think it's more effective throwing people at a problem than money. Money rents people, but has a way of being diluted along the path and renting people is expensive. People who volunteer for the sheer joy of it tend to be more dedicated and committed. There is no dispute it's long hard boring work, that tends to give me headaches and neck aches. I may just be more stubborn than some, and stick it out beyond what most people would. Not that anyone has ever called me more stubborn than a Missouri Mule, but I do live in Missouri. ;') Lastly, I said digitizing, not digitizing and indexing. Indexing is a whole other subject. Entirely. But to take a collection and scan it in the order it is stored in should be relatively trouble free. Clearly, loose papers are far more troublesome to handle than bound books. etc. Brian PS, I'm going to trim the post. We don't need it to grow too huge. ;') PPS, I have no intention of continuing a discussion on this. It was really meant only to stimulate ideas. On how to help a bunch overworked dedicated people. On Mon, June 13, 2011 2:23 pm, Charlie Sheridan wrote: > Fellow members. > > I don't enjoy having disagreements at your expense but believe I must > answer > Brian's comments on my statement "wealthy benefactor idea" that refers to > notary records being scanned. My comment was only a passing dream that > might resolve the issue in my lifetime. Hopefully it won't cause any hard > feelings.

Both of you have good ideas, but I think we are straying here. I would love it if all Archives took advantage of the FamilySearch team, but understand why some of them are reluctant. That said, I think this thread has reached a dead end. All the best, Valorie On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:41 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > You misunderstood my comment. I was merely postulating on a comment about > how they said don't have the staff or money to do the work. Having not > ever seen the notaries, I obviously had no idea if they were in folders, > stacks, boxes, bags or bound books. I took just one possible route to give > an idea of what could be done with the aid of volunteers. > > I didn't delve into all the details that would require, but I stand by my > statement that any archive could find willing and qualified volunteers who > could greatly increase the amount of digitization of records. One doesn't > need any knowledge of what is in a record to film it. Just clear > instructions on what to film in what order. I also stated about using a > piece of equipment to hold the piece. I didn't state that apparatus would > also hold the camera (and thus always be in focus). There's also a piece > of software written to utilize two cameras mounted on such a apparatus > that allows two camera's to take alternating pictures and sort them onto a > computer in real time. > > I was not cutting down the hardworking Archivists, just that the Archives > and many other archives around the world ignore the potential that walks > in their doors every day they are open. What would it cost to hire 10, 20, > 100 people to do such work? Plus an equivalent number of overpriced book > holders with built in scanning ability? > > You related you passing dream and I simply related mine. We have different > dreams. You would throw money at the Archives and I would give them free > manpower and time, and inexpensive but functional equipment. > > I had no doubt there are many thousands, tens of thousands or even > hundreds of thousands or millions of documents that need scanning. If you > look carefully at my original post I did say qualified volunteers. These > are old documents and anyone who isn't aware of the fragile and delicate > nature of them isn't qualified. I don't claim to be an expert. > > As far as what I neglected to consider, it was really a matter of not > unnecessarily filling up people's email boxes of a detailed plan on how to > scan an archive's records. You also seem to have breezed over my comment > on how easy and inexpensive it is to make the equipment necessary to film > records. It doesn't take the $300,000 equipment that Google uses. It can > be done just as nicely quite inexpensively, with the injection of a minor > amount of physical labor (ie a hand to turn the pages, and a finger to > press a button for each picture). Some plywood, aluminum rods, brackets, > special plexiglass, bolts, screws, worm screws, camera mounts, some wire > and a few switches, some electronics. Sure it's nice to have the latest > Ferrari of book scanning to blast around town in, but it's really not > necessary to do a good job. > > Never did I claim vast experience, but I have been hacking, building and > inventing things since I could walk. Not everything I've hacked got put > back together in a working condition and not all my inventions have > worked. Have come close to blowing myself up on occasion and doing other > serious harm to myself. > > If I had a thinner skin, I might be offended by parts of your reply, but, > this is the Internet, and misunderstandings come easy without the human > personal clues. No insult was intended to either you or our wonderful > Archivists, and in return I won't feel insulted by your email. I just > think it's more effective throwing people at a problem than money. Money > rents people, but has a way of being diluted along the path and renting > people is expensive. People who volunteer for the sheer joy of it tend to > be more dedicated and committed. > > There is no dispute it's long hard boring work, that tends to give me > headaches and neck aches. I may just be more stubborn than some, and stick > it out beyond what most people would. Not that anyone has ever called me > more stubborn than a Missouri Mule, but I do live in Missouri. ;') > > Lastly, I said digitizing, not digitizing and indexing. Indexing is a > whole other subject. Entirely. > > But to take a collection and scan it in the order it is stored in should > be relatively trouble free. Clearly, loose papers are far more troublesome > to handle than bound books. etc. > > Brian > > PS, I'm going to trim the post. We don't need it to grow too huge. ;') > PPS, I have no intention of continuing a discussion on this. It was really > meant only to stimulate ideas. On how to help a bunch overworked dedicated > people. > > On Mon, June 13, 2011 2:23 pm, Charlie Sheridan wrote: >> Fellow members. >> >> I don't enjoy having disagreements at your expense but believe I must >> answer >> Brian's comments on my statement "wealthy benefactor idea" that refers to >> notary records being scanned.  My comment was only a passing dream that >> might resolve the issue in my lifetime.  Hopefully it won't cause any hard >> feelings. > > -- > Resources for Alsace-Lorraine list members: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~valorie/Alsace-Lorraine-L.htm > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- http://linuxgrandma.blogspot.com Last.fm, Facebook, Twitter, Identica, LinkedIn, Delicious: valoriez