Talk:World Archives Project: Oklahoma, Indian and Pioneer Historical Collection and Index
From Ancestry.com Wiki
Extra Keying Helps
Common Keying Errors Found by Reviewers
Key only the city in the residence city field.
Key ALL of the birth place in birth place field.
Key only family members on the subsequent interview page.
If there is a date use interview page. If there is no date, use subsequent interview page. /\ This disagrees with the field help for the project, as there are some initial interview pages with no dates done by at least one of the interviewers. "Choose the "Interview Page" form type for the first page of a transcript" should mean just that - please clarify!
Pages that only have a name at the top of the page should be classified as a 'cover page'.
Please do not key names from these cover pages. http://www.ancestry.com/wiki/index.php?title=File:OklaIndianProj_Index.jpg
Do not key the word 'County' in the birth place field.
Do not key prefixes in the given field.
Do not key suffixes in the surname field.
Questions and Answers
If you have a keying question that is not answered on the project page or in any of the information above, click “EDIT” and ask it here. (If you click on Rich Editor you won't have to worry about formatting your entry.) Then click “WATCH” at the top right on this page and you will be notified via email when an update has been made.
Q: Do we key in cemetery inscriptions as burial pages or as cover page entries? They usually have multiple names per page listed at a burial ground. The header is: Carselowey, James R. - Cemeteries - Cherokee - McLaughlin. Below are all inscriptions of gravestones - there are multiples per page plus multiple pages - I've had whole sets with just these inscriptions. Advise?
- A: Yes key the records as burial records. --Wiedwoman 22:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Q: "Employee" is a valid relationship in the keying tool for this project. Do we key employees of the person being interviewed when listed?
- A: No. We are only keying the names of family members. --Wiedwoman 22:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Q: Even though the instructions only exclude the interviewer, we are not keying other people named in the stories (e.g. neighbors, clergy, teachers, etc.)?
- A: Same as answer from above.--Wiedwoman 04:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Q: If a narrative in a Subsequent Interview Page is not explicit in stating who is being interviewed, does it get labeled as a Cover Page? I have a full page of narrative, with names mentioned, but they are mentioned in 3rd person, and I have seen pages where the only name along the top is actually the interviewer's name.
- A: I would think when an interviewers name is at the top of the page that we would key the main character of the narrative and their relatives. --Wiedwoman 07:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Q: I have come across two interviewers who are listed as Mrs Husband's first name and last name. Since no prefix Do I put Mrs M C in given name place. If we don't it will look like the husband is being interviewed.
- A: Use [blank] as her given name with another record for her husband. --Wiedwoman 18:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Q: Instructions are to not key the interviewer, however... I have a narrative written from the interviewer's perspective AND the interviewer is related to the person the narrative is about. What happens then? Does the interviewer get keyed, since he is actually related, and also has written the interview as if he, himself, has been interviewed?
- A: Yes, in this case we would key the interviewer as the original record. --Wiedwoman 02:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Q: If an interview's Page 2 (or subsequent page) doesn't indicate who it is about, but is directly following (in the same image set) a page with the name of the person it's about, can that information be carried over (unlike normal keying rules) IF there is irrefutable evidence that it IS the very next page in the narrative? (I have one of these, currently) If that is not allowed, must it be labeled a cover page?
- A: Data should not be carried over from one image to the next. If there is data that you can determine is related to the individual being interviewed it should be keyed. For example, if the record states that they were "born on September 20" you would mark the name fields [Blank] (Ctrl+B) and enter the birth date information. We are able to associate the records from one page to the next when we process the data. Another example is if the record states, "Their father, Jack Anderson lived in..." You would enter Jack Anderson in the name fields and Father in the Relationship field. Annafechter 21:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Q: If an interview's Page 2 (or subsequent page) has a narrative that does not indicate who it is about, and does NOT directly follow a page we could glean information from, do we label it as a--Wiedwoman 16:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC) cover page? (I suspect the next 4-image set following the one I am doing now will have some of these)
- A: See the answer above. Annafechter 21:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Q: I have 2 sets with the following "Cherokee Claims" format. My thinking is to label the first pages of them as Interview Pages, Ctrl+B (blank) the dates, and label subsequent pages in that type as Subsequent Interview Pages.
- A: You may need to ask Anna. I think I would just key interviewee name. --Wiedwoman 01:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Additional: Yes, I had intended on only keying the claimant's name (what I'd consider the "interviewee," for lack of a better label) on each one. What is your opinion on the labels for them? First one in a "claim" as Interview Page, following ones as Subsequent Interview pages would be the only logical labels, I'd think. Your thoughts?
Q: Adding onto the previous Cherokee Claims question, I've seen a few claims where the original affidavit is followed by another by a 2nd Cherokee individual stating they have knowledge of the 1st Cherokee individual's claim. I've been keying the 2nd name as a record but with no relation to the first. Is that right? I know we're only supposed to be doing familial relations but proof of any Cherokee individuals seems quite pertinent.
/\ That seems logical to me, but I wish Anna would speak up about it. I now have a third set with 4 more Cherokee Claims images. Hanging on to them until I hopefully get an answer.
Q: In the "Common Keying Errors Found by Reviewers" section above, it states "If there is a date use interview page. If there is no date, use subsequent interview page." However, the field help states: Choose the "Interview Page" form type for the first page of a transcript, and there was at least one worker (interviewer) that never put a date on their interviews, including the first page of one. Should we not be using the field help's stated rules??
- A: The only difference between the 2 forms is one has a date and one does not. It doesn't make sense to use as interview page when there are no dates to input. --Wiedwoman 16:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Followup Q: So everyone who is unlucky enough to follow the keying tool's stated rules will get a drop on their accuracy by doing what they are supposed to do? Doesn't seem fair to me.
- A: There would not be a drop in the stats. The only thing I am doing is if there is NO date I change to a subsequent interview page. All that is being lost is the blanks for the dates, because there was no date to key. If there is a date on the interview form I would not change it. --Wiedwoman 16:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
(it's me again...) See, my point is that I have seen (multiple times) at least one worker that does not even have the normal beginning page (with the person's parentage and total number of pages in the packet), nor does he put a date on the first page of the interview. My concern is that, if it isn't marked as an initial Interview Page, it won't be correctly sorted as such, and will mess up the order of the finished product. It would just get shoved in with the previous interview if it's not noted that it's a different interview by being ~labeled~ and keyed as being a new Interview Page. Wouldn't it? (wish I'd saved screenshots of the images to ilustrate)
Q: Under Interview Page, Interview Keying samples, Keying examples (file 41968) it shows the name at the top of the page as Cannon, Ocsar and in the keying it shows the given name as Cannon and surname as Oscar. Surname means family or last name, or is that incorrect and I have been keying incorrectly all this time?
- A: It may have only been this image that they switched the name around. Yes Surname is last name.
Q: I just came across an interview where the interviewee is providing information about a Dr Bennett, a man entirely unrelated to her. The interview pages are labelled at the top with both the interviewee's name and Dr Bennett's. What name do I key? Can I even key any of the information about Dr Bennett?
Re: Dr Bennett -Without seeing an image (have you posted one on the forum pages anywhere?), I would say it sounds like it's listing the interviewer up top and Dr Bennet (the Interviewee)... If that's the case, you'd key Dr Bennet as interviewee. Or, this is told by a relative of Dr Bennett as if it was him speaking. Would love to see a screenshot of the image. --Mabnightowl 01:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Re: Dr Bennett: Picture! My whole image set is talking about Dr Bennett and his family in 3rd person, like its being recounted by Latta Ogden but she's not mentioned anywhere in it as being a relation. Re: Dr Bennett - Personally, I would have to think Latta Ogden is the person taking the interview, and Dr Bennett is the person being interviewed. I have seen multiple sets where the interviewer wrote the interview in 3rd person like a newspaper report would be written. I just keyed them as if the person they were talking about in 3rd person (Dr Bennett, in this case) was the interviewee, and I haven't seen a huge drop in stats. *shrug* We may find out that's wrong, but that's how I'd do it. --Mabnightowl 00:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If you have a suggestion or would like to make an addition to the project page, click “EDIT” and post your suggestion here. (If you click on Rich Editor you won't have to worry about formatting your entry.) Then click “WATCH” at the top right on this page and you will be notified via email when an update has been made.
My opinion: This entire project needs to be redone later to include all names in the records. A lot of subsequent interview pages, I know, are still talking about family members, but I can't key them as such because I can't assume anything from the page I'm on when relationships are not specifically stated. Right now I am keying a history of Sequoyah by his ggg-grandson, but on the 2nd page, it doesn't state this relationship. It only gives the interviewee's name at top and the continuation of Sequoyah's marriages and children. But, since this is not the interviewee's wives and children, and I cannot assume anything, I cannot key a wealth of wonderful information. Also, a lot of interviews are about town histories, gangs, tribe histories, etc, and we cannot key any names because they are not relatives. Please tell me we can redo this project at a later date!! ~lrs~
I agree, there is a huge amount of information being skipped because of the way this is being keyed. If it isn't redone later, I would hazard a guess that some other group, outside of Ancestry.com's purvey, will do these records more completely, and Ancestry will miss out on the kudos and potential funds they would have received otherwise. (MAB)
I would love to see this project changed so we type an entire interview. Just gets interesting and you move to another one.
I wish I could startover, every time I look on these pages I see something else that's different.
I am cursing the no-inference between pages rule so badly right now. I just keyed an interview where the interviewee provided a spectacular 36 members of her husband's family but due to the way she said it and the fact I couldn't carry information between pages, I could only key 10 of them. I suspect I might still get dinged for inference as I honestly had to draw myself a tree to determine how all the names were related and how they were related to the interviewee.
I agree with all of these comments! It seems like a waste of time to enter this data withiut putting in all of the names. Who cares if the people in the stories are related to the interviewee or not?