>From: "Connie Burkett" >To: "John C. Jacoby > "Maggie Stewart > "Ron Eason > "Tim Stowell >Subject: [Census-Discuss] Followup >Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:47:53 -0400 > >John, I'm going to try to comment on the 9 points in your last email. > >1. IMAGES: The images do have a value. I know when you look at most of >them on the Internet they are hard to read. However. if we have a >transcription with an "extended" surname index for the imaged counties, the >researcher will be able to look through the index to find the exact image >file (page) to open. Then after opening the image, it can be saved to your >hard drive and opened in software there where it can be viewed close-up by >zooming. I use MS PhotoEditor to open the saved image .gif files. With >doing these few steps, the researcher has a copy of the actual microfilm and >does not have to depend on someone else's interpretation of the handwriting. > >The image files are extremely large compared to the .TXT files for the >transcribed censuses. One image can take up as much space as three or four >.TXT files with each text file containing 20-25 pages. But I still think >they have a value. > >2. FLOATING COUNTY LINKS: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. > >3. FTP: FTP is quite efficient for our purposes. > >4. CENSUS SUBMISSION: Sometimes the completed files are submitted through >the SC and sometimes they come directly from the transcriber. I suppose >this depends on the relationship that has or has not developed between the >SC and the transcriber. In a lot of cases, it takes so long to transcribe >that the SC has changed and any relationship that was established with the >volunteer when they first volunteered is lost. >YOU GUYS WILL UPLOAD ANYTHING: Please give me specifics here. We do not >upload anything. Our team of File Managers have tried to get a consistent >look and make sure everything that needs to be there is there. Perhaps some >of the older files that were uploaded a long time ago have problems. We are >trying to catch the odd files and redo them. Right now we have 10 >transcriptions we are holding up while we wait for answers from the >individual transcriber. > >5. ARCHIVIST FOR ILLINOIS: Not part of the Census Project. > >6. STATE AND NATIONAL PAGES: What percentage of our customers are you >referring to? The grumbling few, or the majority? > >7. HAND HOLDING: I agree, there is a lot of hand-holding, especially with >the first transcription. This is good, because we get a lot of repeat >transcribers who no longer need hand-holding and in fact, offer their help >on the CENSUS-L list. > >8. ONE SET OF PAGES: I am highly in agreement with one set of pages. In >fact, there should only be ONE Census Project, there is not a need for two. >Two Census Projects are entirely too confusing for our many wonderful >volunteers. > >9. INDEX: ?? RESPONSE DOCUMENT TEMPLATES: You've not tested my three >states. I agree with you that each SC has customized their responses >somewhat. I know I did, since the wording on the example that was sent to >me when I became SC for my first state was not to my liking. I modified it >and continued to modify it until I was satisfied with the wording. > >Connie > > > > >