World Archives Project

Thanks for the change to the accuracy percentage, Anna. I know you say that it is not really an indicator as to how we’re doing, but it certainly motivates if you have a reasonably high score. And the comment that itis really for you to know how detailed your instructions are, but it really makes me feel down if the percentage number goes down!

In the past, a 92% accuracy and 2,000 records keyed were requirements in order to become an arbitrator.

With the new accuracy bar, what rating do I need to reach in order to become an abitrator? Is it still 2,000 records?

I am interested in becoming an arbitrator and wanted information on the requirements.

Thanks in advance

I am more confused than usual. My focus has been keying images of immigrants who have applied for naturalization, and the challenge of figuring out how to spell their names perfectly. Seems that I key images I previously keyed, so I presume that there are two keyers and one arbitrator to decide which is the more accurate, and sometimes I guess I’m the sole keyer. What I don’t understand is why I’m keying for three months time, and almost everytime I get back to the image set there is a decrease in # of images keyed. I’m pleased with my high percentage of accuracy, but what’s with the three month score and total amount scored since I started my subscription? Please understand I have no interest in becoming an arbitrator–I’m just trying my best to help family genealogists obtain an accurate record of their ancestors’ information. If I boost my percentage accuracy, fine, but it is challenging enough trying to figure out the best spelling contained within an image–I try my best to avoid marking an entry illegible, but most of the images, face it, are over a century old.

Not sure that I prefer the new dashboard. I prefer to have my own downloaded image sets at the top, as it used to be, rather than having to open that “tab”. I also would like to know my percentage. The bar for accuracy is fine, but I also want to
know the actual number.
I hope this isn’t the final version, and that you can write in the ability to let us customize our dashboards to how we’d prefer them.

Mary Ann, you still have the percentage visible within the keying tool.

I would love to have accuracy broken down by project, I work so many different ones simultaneously. It’s hard to determine which projects are dragging my accuracy down vs which ones are keeping it up. Apparently a 93% is considered “exceptional”…

I’m curious as to why “My Projects” only shows projects that have downloaded images. I would think this area would show the different projects we’ve worked on (or are working on). Since I don’t like to leave images hanging undone, I only download as many as I think I can key in a reasonable sitting. But I would like to see the projects I’ve worked on, so I can choose which one to do on any particular day. And I agree with Paulmd199, I would love to see each projects accuracy rate.

I think that’s a step in the right direction – but it still doesn’t address what I consider to be the root of the accuracy problems – the project instructions. I would love to see the WAP make a better effort at producing very clear directions for each and every keying project. In recent months, it seems the directions on every new project are more vague than the last one.

Clarity, simplicity and examples of SEVERAL different situations is what’s needed to give everyone the real motivation to keep going. I know I’ve slowed down on my keying simply because I felt like I was spinning my wheels, trying to be super accurate, yet watching my accuracy percentage tumble – mainly, I feel, because of directions that were simply not clear or detailed enough. (Wiki included).

Thanks, I hope this latest change will be a positive one, and if you can look into better directions, that would be even better.

This is not about accuracy but about the quality of the digitalisation of the London Schools Admissions and Discharges project. Someone must be aware about the time it is taking to make progress on this project. I fail to see (again and again) why the poor digitalisation means that the same information needs to be keyed twice in the majority of cases. For example 1A & 1B both show DOB – in the latter only a partial DOB is visible but 1A shows full details and has already been keyed. I can understand that DOB needs to be keyed when it is not included on the A side – but is all this duplication really necessary? I think someone needs to look again at this. And PLEASE don’t anybody bother to tell me to key what I see – I knbow that!

@Mary-Lyn
The problem isn’t in the digitization but in the original microfilming done many years back. The books were larger than the photographable area, so two images were taken. There is some overlap.

It is possible to stitch images together with software. But results aren’t always ideal.

One thing that the overlap allows to happen is to catch alignment problems on the back end.

Okay, not that I’m obsessive-compulsive (I am), but I was stressing because my work wasn’t 100%. With the new dashboard, I see that my work is in the ‘excellent’ range. Thanks, I needed that!

I like the accuracy bar, but would like some feedback on the errors I am making, particularily if I am making the same mistake over and over again.I would rather be told and put it right, than just keep maing it.