Saturday, November 12, 2016

Now Indexing:
Something Incredibly Easy


Call me a reluctant volunteer. I've been burnt before by failure to correctly decipher messy handwriting. I'm a sucker for being considered an "A" student, and checking my stats on that arbitration ratings page for indexing at FamilySearch.org sure hurts when the numbers slide. Truth be told, though, the numbers only slide when the records are impossible to read.

So what does a reluctant indexer do, the next time around? Go for the easy stuff. Natch.

This time around, the selection was for the U.S. Oklahoma World War II Draft Registrations from 1940 to 1945. While I'd otherwise have targeted a level of difficulty right in the middle of FamilySearch's 1 to 5 range, this time I chickened and opted for the easier level 2. Hectic week with travel and all, you know.

Right off, I vetted the collection by clicking the "view sample" button. I realize that option doesn't always work, but I can hope, can't I? Fortunately, hope sometimes does reap a payoff, and I got to see how easy the collection was. Well, at least the first card up in that collection. It was typewritten. I figured this would be a snap.

Not only did the collection turn out to be isolated to Oklahoma residents, but every man listed in the batch was named Robert Underwood. That may not seem like a problem until you realize the first step in the indexing process is to identify the quality of each record to be indexed. The program asks the indexer to signal whether the record is blank, illegible, not applicable to the collection or other such problems. And the program wants the indexer to also flag the duplicate copies.

Checking each page to make sure each Robert Underwood was not the same guy as the previous one kept me on my toes. At least I was treated to a tour of parental creativity as I realized the gamut of middle names thought to go well with that set of given name plus surname.

For once, I didn't run into any frustrating examples which didn't fall into the parameters addressed by the step by step instructions. I seem to have a knack for breaking the rule book—or finding the unpredictable scenarios—but this session went smoothly. If I had had the time to do so, I would gladly have gone back and done a second batch for this week's indexing. Perhaps, if the collection is still there for the taking—after all, the "U" batch I handled was dangerously close to the end of the alphabet—I'll dispatch a few more sets after I return home. I can safely say this was the easiest, least frustrating batch I've indexed in quite a while. A welcomed change of pace, for once!

6 comments:

  1. Even though this particular collection doesn't include my ancestors, I truly appreciate how long it takes to decipher and record handwritten documents during the indexing process! Thank you for helping me and all the folks out there who are searching for ancestors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, you are welcome, Marian, but I certainly do only the slightest bit of this volunteer work, compared to some very dedicated folks.

      Still, each of us can do our part, and that yields even more of such wonderful resources as are at our fingertips--for free--on such sites as FamilySearch.

      Delete
  2. Your eyes deserve the break anyway! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, thanks, Iggy, for sympathizing with those bleary eyed moments in my indexing past. Yes, this was a delightful break. And it brings up the point that sometimes even typewritten documents need to be transcribed and transformed for digitization projects.

      Delete
  3. I did some easy YMCA U of MN records last week, it was a pleasant batch:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, sometimes it is just a relief to do something easier, yet know you are still contributing to the cause by your participation. Those easy records need to be indexed, too. And I'm just the one to volunteer!

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...