Acknowledge transcriber in the the search record detail display

[Sherlock21]

No description provided.

[Sherlock21]

When a person's name to be credited with doing a Transcription, is put into Batch Header field in row 3, col C, it does not get onto the individual records in that batch, when the record comes up in a search results listing ( and is viewed under "Detail"}

Some donated files are being obtained under Licences that requires that information to be shown to the researcher.
Some Volunteer members also wish that information to get to the user.
Having the ability to add into the File Header details within the FR Application, ( i.e. online) does not get onto the individual record in that batch either so far as I can determine.

[PatReynolds]

Do we need to add a question about desire to be accredited to the Transcriber sign up?

…

On 8 Aug 2017 4:52 p.m., "Sherlock21" ***@***.***> wrote: When a person's name to be credited with doing a Transcription, is put into Batch Header field ow 3, col C, it does not get onto the individual records in that batch, when the record comes up in a search results listing ( and is viewed under "Detail"} Some donated files are being obtained under Licences that requires that information to be shown to the researcher. Some Volunteer members also wish that information to get to the user. Having the ability to add into the File Header details within the FR Application, ( i.e. online) does not get onto the individual record in that batch either so far as I can determine. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1267 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGC5BgCH8RxtMkgsBUDcTmJ328uJW71tks5sWGgYgaJpZM4OwwLP> .

[Captainkirkdawson]

Pat that is a totally different story

[Captainkirkdawson]

There is no code that has ever placed the transcriber or other credit information into the individual record. It has always been held at the batch level,

[Sherlock21]

AH!

But many Transcribers wish their name to be shown to the Public. And the only way the public see the records is in a search result where the individual record item is shown.
The file header is only seen by the CC ( and Mgrs) who know format the userid whose it is.
I recall that when originally specced by the Review Group, it was intended to have the means of optionally showing the 'Credit of Transcriber's name' to the end point user.

SO how do we get that in please?

[Captainkirkdawson]

The transcribers name and any credit information is available to the researcher through the Transcriptions (DAP) pages at a register level.
https://www.freereg.org.uk/freereg_contents/565ae372f493fd51320001c5/show_register

[Sherlock21]

That's a very back door way to get there in my view.
How many transcribers actually know that to be the case - I didn't and I am part off the team! -

The logical of the Search tool is:
you do a search
scan down the results list,
pick the ones of interest and look as the Details Link
read down the details.
End.

All the details available this was round are also on the DAP route as you rightly say. so why not let the researcher find the other things out via the DAP info route too?

[Sherlock21]

Furthermore the DAP Credit information bundles all the Credits together for each type of record as here below:-

Thats not going to be compatible with Agreements to Credit the Transcriber in some cases. There, the actual single record will need a Credit.

[PatReynolds]

Yes, I think the details page needs at least a change of text from "Place (link for place information)" to "Additional information", or perhaps more detailed links (so Place is the Summary (e.g. "Burton Latimer" linking through to the information about that Place). Since Transcriber, supplier of images, Record Office and Church may each Open or Close the transcription, this data is known at this level (I think!).

[SteveBiggs]

If it is a condition of the Licence from the supplier of the source data to provide information at the individual search result level, then we need to find a way to do it. But what information is required? Is it just the transcriber or the whole supply chain of the data as Pat lists? If the latter, this will be very difficult because many (most?) uploaded csv files do not include specific information on where the source came from. The comments in the header often just says "Parish Register" for the source or nothing at all. So for many records, all that's recorded is the transcriber and going back and adding the other supply chain information to all the files is clearly not feasible.

[Sherlock21]

WE have just obtained some date that comes with this Creative Commons licence - which I understand mens we need to show the right credits - from the start.. SO there is a degree of urgency needed as the files would be ready for uploading shortly -

[Sherlock21]

I forgot to add the screenshot!

[Sherlock21]

File info re source and credits for data is entered in file header. But this is not seen in search results.

There may be multiple sources and credits within one register. How would these be entered in Register details?

Could the header info be used instead?

[SteveBiggs]

Eric, could you post a clickable link to the license please?

[Sherlock21]

For which comment please, Steve ?

[SteveBiggs]

You posted a screenshot of Creative Attribution ....3.0 ....License.
Could you give a clickable link to this license?

[Sherlock21]

what I posted is on the bottom of the first page on this website. http://tadhistory.org.uk Eric

…

On 8 Sep 2017, at 22:53, Stephen Biggs ***@***.***> wrote: You posted a screenshot of Creative Attribution ....3.0 ....License. Could you give a clickable link to this license? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[Sherlock21]

I am now ready to upload some files for this particular case.

SO I need the necessary advice on what to put and where please.

AND what extra do you need - in respect the flag: NEEDS INFO please.

[PatReynolds]

Sorry, missed this yesterday. Is any info still needed? If not, I'll move and prioritise.

[PatReynolds]

I believe that you need to create an ID for the donor society, and record the information against that ID, upload the records against the ID.

[Sherlock21]

I can't quite imaging how this would work. Can you create an example in T3 please?

[edickens]

We usually upload the batch against the person's ID who converts it to our format. But this would seem to be a much better system and does not require any changes to the website. Just some words in the CCs section to say that this is our policy and why.

[PatReynolds]

Issue #1177 is about updating instructions for CC.

[Sherlock21]

I can't agree with this as a suitable method at all.

Firstly, the User's ID does not get onto the individual viewable record, does it.

Secondly, where does the ID of the person doing all the work go to?

Thirdly, if a County RO does give access to its records, and it wishes to have a credit/ acknowledgment, are you proposing to do this to all the batches that are created from that source, again without the Transcriber getting any credit? IF not, then how do you propose to divide up which system applies to which? and later on find the batches concerned?

Fourthly, how do all the Transcribers in a County share one ID so that all the requisite batches do get uploaded into the same ID?

Fifthly, how will a Transcriber later find a particular batch, in order to do a Reload in this system?

Sixthly how on earth do those who need to ( like the CC, or DM), find a particular batch, to reload or to edit online?

[suffolkroots]

Perhaps all that is needed is info to guide users to where they can find credits etc?

"Transcriptions" is not self explanatory.

[Captainkirkdawson]

Will deal with as part of #809

[Captainkirkdawson]

See following for examples

[Captainkirkdawson]

Update to use the field in #1310 to decide if to display the field

[Captainkirkdawson]

This story unfortunately is mixing three different components into 1 story with people commenting at cross purposes. Unfortunately it is also using credit in a general sense while credit has existed within FR with a specific meaning.
2 of those components require that we respond to the EU directive GDPR on the projection of personal information that requires a positive opt in to acknowledgement.
I propose to split this story into the 3 component, #1267 (this one), #1307 source, and #1396 Additional people being acknowledged.
The GDPR also affects the Transcriptions (DAP) displays so will raise 2 additional stories for those. These latter stories #1397 and #1398 can wait for implementation until the specification for how to deal with the 2 current acknowledgements.

[Captainkirkdawson]

Have set up so that after 25 May 2018 the transcriber will have had to formally authorized the use of their name by the setting of the field established in story #1310
This means that effective that date we will not be acknowledging the contribution of 99% of our transcribers since they are now inactive.
This is in flexible_csv branch

[Captainkirkdawson]

On test2

[SteveBiggs]

Should the transcriber be listed now in a search record on test2? This result does not show it:

I then went in to my profile and ticked the box "Acknowledge my transcription", clicked Update and got this:

[Captainkirkdawson]

@SteveBiggs Fixed the crash, bad merge of code with multiple changes. My error.

However the code changes in #35 management are very problematic.

Will now look at the first part of your comment

[Captainkirkdawson]

@SteveBiggs I believe that it now works as designed.
Transcribed by will appear for all up until 25 May 2018. After that only those that have asked for acknowledgement will be shown.
The credit still comes from the file and will be shown until 25 May 2018

[SteveBiggs]

Yes that all works now thanks, but should we still have the old 'Transcription agreement accepted' tick box as well?:

[Captainkirkdawson]

No I was unaware of the work on the new transcriber agreement so this is not required.
As you will have seen I have major concerns over how that has been coded.

[Captainkirkdawson]

Revised. Please see #1310 for the edit form.
Revised to work with the latest guidance from Pat. We use an opt out of acknowledgement instead of an opt in

[Captainkirkdawson]

Deployed to production

[SteveBiggs]

Looks good