New BSBI Data Entry Guidance

[jimmcintosh]

We have just published new draft BSBI Guidance on Data Entry and hope that recorders will find it useful. It was originally drafted with MapMate in mind but the same principles apply to any electronic data recording system.

One of the most important points is that (in general) higher resolution grid references should NOT be included in the Comments fields - otherwise you (and ultimately DDB users) will lose the ability to map and analyse at that higher resolution. Grid refs should go in the grid ref field*!

We would welcome your comments and feedback on the draft document.

Jim McIntosh
BSBI Scottish Officer

*Site field in MapMate

Attachment removed - see updated version in following post.

[jimmcintosh]

After the recent Scottish Recorders' Conference in March 2015 where we had a session on the Data Entry, we have updated the BSBI Data Entry Guidance document. Some minor but important and possibly very useful changes.

This is essential reading for all recorders - but particularly those just beginning to digitise their own records. Take a look!

It is entitled "Draft" because we would really welcome your comments and corrections.

Best Wishes,
Jim
BSBI Scottish Officer

[berwicks]

Detail of recorders in MapMate
I like to use the comment field. I use it for the Christian name, with just the initials after the surname in the name field. Also for relevant brief biographical details, such as 'SWT staff', 'SNH contractor', 'floreat 1880-1905'. As far as I know no use is made of this data when records are synched to the hub, which is a pity

Michael Braithwaite, 7 June 2016

[admin]

Michael,

Finding the optimal way to use MapMate party records is problematic because mapmate's database structure doesn't fit closely with the DDb's.

The problem is many (>20%) of mapmate party entries refer to more than one person - which breaks the one-to-one relationship between mapmate and DDb database entries. That said, for the majority of records, where a mapmate party is used to cite only a single individual or organisation then the information from the notes field could be valuable and worth trying to assimilate.

I originally tried to maintain the link closely (in which case the mapmate notes would have stayed connected) but the vast proliferation of duplicate entries forced me to change the design. Technical improvements since then may allow me to review the treatment of MapMate notes. Behind the scenes, the mapmate note fields are stored in the DDb and potentially could be re-incorporated.

Although not a solution for the wider (and useful) metadata that you mention I would definitely encourage people to include full names rather than initials in MapMate records - contrary to earlier guidelines from BSBI and BRC.

Thanks for raising this issue - it is worth reconsidering the current the situation.

Tom

[jimmcintosh]

Hi,

Here is an amended and updated version of the BSBI Data Entry Guidelines. It addresses the issues raised in the previous posts in this thread about recorder names.

As always feedback warmly welcomed!

Best Wishes,
Jim

BSBI Draft Data Entry Guidance Feb 2017.pdf

(447.49 KiB) Downloaded 2367 times

[jimmcintosh]

BSBI Draft Data Entry Guidance Mar 2017.pdf

(248.88 KiB) Downloaded 2430 times

Hi everyone!

Here is an amended version after feedback on Recorder names and updating the bullets on Status. Take a look!

Best Wishes,
Jim

[jimmcintosh]

Hi everyone!

We have just updated the section in BSBI Data Entry Guidance on Recorders. Take a look

BSBI Draft Data Entry Guidance Dec 2017.pdf

(251.64 KiB) Downloaded 2354 times

(This supercedes all previous Data Entry Guidance.)

Best Wishes,
Jim