|
Oberleutnant posted:This got me and my boss chatting. We figured if you assume 1 min to scan each document (which we guessed is over-optimistic once you factor in time spent checking each document because the scanner can get temperamental) it'd take us about the same - 15 years at about 80,000-90,000 docs a year. Out of curiosity, is this a process that has actually started or you guys were just talking about it? Also, is it possible some of that stuff has already been digitalised elsewhere, or is everything you have a unique copy? Disinterested posted:Everywhere I have ever wanted to get copies/images of documents from an archive I can't get to / do it myself basically I've found you're just paying a premium to get your document sifted to the top of a pre-existing digitalisation process as a way of funding a massive digitalisation that's going to take decades. I'm totally OK with that. It's just that nobody has worked out a good way of automating enough of the process to make it not highly labour intensive (which only gets worse the more delicate / inconvenient the material is). Wouldn't automating the process be too risky when it comes to older documents and/or fragile ones? I mean, even if there was some guy who came up with this novel idea that makes the job 10 times faster, when it comes to older documents I'm pretty sure it'd be safer to have someone handle it careful than some machine that won't give a poo poo.. If my work printer is any indication, machines just love jammin' Disinterested posted:The most orgasmic moment of my research career was finding that a giant repository of letters from my research subject with lovely handwriting to someone more famous had been meticulously transcribed with a typewriter by an archivist 100 years ago, who did it simply for the sake of doing it. That must have made your day for sure. Did you send a thank you note to his grandkids? Flowers on his grave? You owe him. 
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Dalael posted:Out of curiosity, is this a process that has actually started or you guys were just talking about it? Also, is it possible some of that stuff has already been digitalised elsewhere, or is everything you have a unique copy? We're a private ducal archive so a lot of the papers are unique, though there are certain items - parliamentary papers, etc that are almost certainly preserved elsewhere. As a private archive we're kind of eccentrically run, and the duke and trustees don't really seem give a toss about what the government-run public record offices are doing in terms of programmes, standards and guidelines, etc - especially anything that might cost money. Those of us that are actually in the trenches are trying to implement something approximating the standards and practices that you see elsewhere, but it's an uphill struggle. This is all a very roundabout way of saying that our digitisation programme is extremely ad-hoc and is just done as and when the opportunity arises, rather than being a formal policy. For a few years we had to do digitisation in secret because the duke's librarian was an old fuddy-duddy who didn't hold with all this technological wizardry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That is impressively terrible. Please tell me that those people were utterly slated?  " lecture (very rude) which transitioned smoothly into the regular "whenever I lecture people on how Hegel actually meant something completely different from what most people think, and Karl Popper is a complete moron, they just nod along and their opinion switches right back to the consensus when we meet again in a few months". One of those lectures that stuck with me for years even if I'm not sold on the premise. Alternate answer - cheers mate, them cheeky sods were "slated" good and proper, begorrah. ... Getting back to the topic at hand. We have a rough agreement as to which Roman emperors turned out to be unexpectedly terrible despite being brought up "right" (Carcalla and Caligula, probably?) but which ones got "well, that went unexpectedly well" from their contemporaries? Claudius and Otho (the latter obviously didn't get a lot of chances to gently caress up)? Some of the latter ones I'm not really familiar with?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
I'm guessing most votes would be going to later Emperors, figures like Aurelian and Diocletian foremost simply for managing the most insanely successful job of putting the Empire back together despite both also being barracks Emperors from the sticks like most of the guys that had been successively pushing the Empire into an early grave. I guess Justin as well simply for being an illiterate peasant but I'm not sure if we're going to put all that on Justinian anyway. I don't know if there's going to be any figure that really beats Claudius for the old 'exceeds expectations' simply because the expectations were roughly that he'd dribble on himself before plunging the Empire back into civil war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Wouldn't automating the process be too risky when it comes to older documents and/or fragile ones? I mean, even if there was some guy who came up with this novel idea that makes the job 10 times faster, when it comes to older documents I'm pretty sure it'd be safer to have someone handle it careful than some machine that won't give a poo poo.. If my work printer is any indication, machines just love jammin' I think what most people mean by "automatization" isn't referring to the mechanical processes so much as the formatting, referencing, labeling, and cataloging that constitute so much of the time needed for digitalization. Increasing per-document scanning speed would be great, don't get me wrong (and would probably come in the form of scanning multiple documents at once, or increasing the speed of the scanning process, rather than some kind of automated feeder) but it's the time needed to meticulously record the associated metadata that is the real roadblock. Think of it this way: If a document takes one minute to scan, then it probably takes another minute and a half for basic labels and references, and another thirty seconds to catalogue. That means that this 15 year project is really a 45 year project. And that's without considering the variable time required for formatting and post-processing. Even if you reduced the time required to scan by an order of magnitude, it's still a 31.5 year project. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:This got me and my boss chatting. We figured if you assume 1 min to scan each document (which we guessed is over-optimistic once you factor in time spent checking each document because the scanner can get temperamental) it'd take us about the same - 15 years at about 80,000-90,000 docs a year. When I did archiving at one point it took about 3 minutes a proper document, because you also have to decided if the document needs to be archived most of the time (you have no idea how much you come across something with no historical or economic value that someone just had to keep)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:39
|
|
sbaldrick posted:When I did archiving at one point it took about 3 minutes a proper document, because you also have to decided if the document needs to be archived most of the time (you have no idea how much you come across something with no historical or economic value that someone just had to keep) This is partly driven by the fact that museum items are highly regulated in some places so that you can't just get rid of them even if you want to.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:(you have no idea how much you come across something with no historical or economic value that someone just had to keep) lol...i'm an archivist so.... i do... i really loving do 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think what most people mean by "automatization" isn't referring to the mechanical processes so much as the formatting, referencing, labeling, and cataloging that constitute so much of the time needed for digitalization. Increasing per-document scanning speed would be great, don't get me wrong (and would probably come in the form of scanning multiple documents at once, or increasing the speed of the scanning process, rather than some kind of automated feeder) but it's the time needed to meticulously record the associated metadata that is the real roadblock. So what are you waiting for?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:When I did archiving at one point it took about 3 minutes a proper document, because you also have to decided if the document needs to be archived most of the time (you have no idea how much you come across something with no historical or economic value that someone just had to keep) What kind of stuff are you talking about? I thought that even stuff like grocery lists are important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:What kind of stuff are you talking about? I thought that even stuff like grocery lists are important. Let me tell you about opening a box to find 300 identical copies of a printed bill submitted to parliament, uncut straight from the printer. That is garbage that goes in the trash once its existence is recorded. Copies of the document will exist elsewhere, and even if they don't we'd only keep maybe 5 or 10 at most. Space is at an absolute premium in most archives of any size. Old printed magazines and newspapers are another prime candidate for the bin. There might be some 3 line miniature article about a duke visiting some bumfuck town on his way somewhere actually important, and some nerd will have kept the entire magazine. At the very least we cut out the article, record the particulars of the mag - publisher, title, date, etc - and trash the rest of it. Those are specific examples of things that have cropped up recently in my office, and are specific to our particular collection policy. e: we recently threw away maybe 10 copies of a custom-made leather-bound order of service for a duchess who died in the 19th century, too. We have a handful of copies preserved, so the rest were simply taking up space. In the bin. communism bitch fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:What kind of stuff are you talking about? I thought that even stuff like grocery lists are important. Stuff like grocery lists sadly become unimportant if you already have a million pages of them as far as digital archive goes. Which of course one of the reasons why it costs so much as not only do you have to archive it, but you have to figure out if it's worth archiving in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:e: we recently threw away maybe 10 copies of a custom-made leather-bound order of service for a duchess who died in the 19th century, too. We have a handful of copies preserved, so the rest were simply taking up space. In the bin. Couldn't you auction something like that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Couldn't you auction something like that? It's never happened to my knowledge and if I had to guess why I'd say it's because it doesn't look good to be flogging off your family papers - even if they are historically worthless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
That's why private auction houses exist though. Might be a good opportunity to create your own job! If you're an underfunded archive peon in a private collection there'd be no faster way to get noticed than to turn it into a profit center.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Let me tell you about opening a box to find 300 identical copies of a printed bill submitted to parliament, uncut straight from the printer. I just wanted to say your job sounds amazing. Working in the private archives of an ancient estate is totally my dream, if not just for the setting. So which Duke is it - Norfolk right? I'm just assuming it's Britain from the way you've talked about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Octy posted:I just wanted to say your job sounds amazing. Working in the private archives of an ancient estate is totally my dream, if not just for the setting. Good guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Good guess. Hey, you mentioned a castle. Had to be him. I also think I've probably asked you about all this before. In fact, I'm certain I have. I'm just repeating myself in my old age.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
I definitely remember this happening in this thread or some other thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
I don't recall but I can't remember what I was doing yesterday so it comes as no surprise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:but which ones got "well, that went unexpectedly well" from their contemporaries? Claudius and Otho (the latter obviously didn't get a lot of chances to gently caress up)? Some of the latter ones I'm not really familiar with?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Let me tell you about opening a box to find 300 identical copies of a printed bill submitted to parliament, uncut straight from the printer. Why would you keep even two?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Carl's job is the thing of legends
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Why would you keep even two? Honestly: A vague sense of unease, because what if? e: that's a really flippant answer on my way to the shower. More seriously: 300 took up far too much space, but a small hanful can help long term preservation (minimisation of handling and/or separate storage). We're talking over decades and centuries rather than years. At an archive with a limited budget and space everything is a compromise somewhere between best practice and practical necessity. So; how bout them Romans? communism bitch fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Honestly: A vague sense of unease, because what if? e: that's a really flippant answer on my way to the shower. More seriously: 300 took up far too much space, but a small hanful can help long term preservation (minimisation of handling and/or separate storage). We're talking over decades and centuries rather than years. I have a sneaking suspicion that at some point in the past someone in your position said "Well, five boxes is just wasteful and takes up far too much space, but surely keeping one box can help long term preservation."  This (very informative) derail makes me wonder how much thought the Romans, for example, put into preserving their own writings and miscellaneous stuff for posterity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:I have a sneaking suspicion that at some point in the past someone in your position said "Well, five boxes is just wasteful and takes up far too much space, but surely keeping one box can help long term preservation." As I recall Seneca had all his letters copied before he sent them, with the explicit goal of ensuring they survived for posterity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
I once had a job at a law school where for the last three months or so, most of it was trashing books. Thousands of beautifully marbled, leather bound books. They were all things like state legislature reports, volumes of legal code, and hundred-volume series that were just indexes to help you find other books. All totally obsolete thanks to the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
quote:I once had a job at a law school where for the last three months or so, most of it was trashing books. Thousands of beautifully marbled, leather bound books. They were all things like state legislature reports, volumes of legal code, and hundred-volume series that were just indexes to help you find other books. All totally obsolete thanks to the Internet. This was asked just a little further up... but, again, aren't these worth something - even just as sort of "home decor"? I know lots of people who buy old books that are not really ever going to get read (ie. cheap sets of old novels or encyclopedias, from garage sales) just because they look good on the shelf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
jmzero posted:This was asked just a little further up... but, again, aren't these worth something - even just as sort of "home decor"? I know lots of people who buy old books that are not really ever going to get read (ie. cheap sets of old novels or encyclopedias, from garage sales) just because they look good on the shelf. At a certain point, it's just not worth the time and effort for big institutions to find buyers for that sort of thing. Even if someone comes up and offers to take the materials off their hands, the sheer scale of the collections will quickly swamp anyone that doesn't have a reliable commercial outlet for the materials. And often schools in particular will run into issues where they have to justify selling assets that they originally bought using grant funding or something - and it's just safer to junk things rather than trying to pick up petty cash. I cringe at the waste, but really it's pretty minor compared to the everyday wastage that is accepted at these sorts of institutions. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
They do, but not as much as you'd think, because there are more of these books around than you'd think. I also expect that most people who buy books to look good on the shelves at least want to imagine they might read them some time, which is not going to be the case with the Wisconsin State Legislature Reports 1934. Most of these books also have just enough wear, mild dry rot on the leather, etc. that a collector wouldn't want them considering that the content is totally banal. That said, I do know a couple artists who will take as many marbled boards as they can get and make art out of them. In my particular case, there was no way to facilitate doing anything productive with the books. Since they were paid for with taxpayer dollars, they were taken out of storage, unboxed, and shelved, just so a librarian could account for them before they were destroyed. It's slightly maddening to shelve a small library worth of books, just so you can then slap them off the shelves into a bin and haul that bin down to a dumpster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Couldn't you auction something like that? Honestly, their isn't a market for these kind of things. I mean, this is only selling for 175 dollars http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-1611-1...=item4631761ac4 If I had the money laying around I would but it but still.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Has anyone else read Arther Ferrill's Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation? I'm curious what people besides myself think about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
What would an ancient olympian wear to train in before the games? Say he was training for a footrace.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:What would an ancient olympian wear to train in before the games? Say he was training for a footrace. Possibly this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
jmzero posted:This was asked just a little further up... but, again, aren't these worth something - even just as sort of "home decor"? I know lots of people who buy old books that are not really ever going to get read (ie. cheap sets of old novels or encyclopedias, from garage sales) just because they look good on the shelf. My uni would put materials like this out while awaiting destruction. From what I remember, books purchased this way were marked as effectively destroyed. It was a way to deprive fac/staff/students of petty cash, and get rid of the books at the same time. Not sure what went into accounting for the money, though, but I assume that was what IS interns are for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:What would an ancient olympian wear to train in before the games? Say he was training for a footrace. Jorts
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:What would an ancient olympian wear to train in before the games? Say he was training for a footrace. Lots and lots of lush Greek ball-hair. So I'm still fixated on wanting to find more about the world of the Late Bronze Age Collapse, and particularly the Greek Dark Ages. I know there are several books out there on the topic - as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I read and greatly enjoyed Eric Cline's 1177 BC. Does anybody have any recommendations for a book on the topic that discusses in-depth what they think life was like during that period? Obviously, I know it's just about the haziest period in history to research, but I would love to dig into the weeds as much as possible. Any recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Lots and lots of lush Greek ball-hair. Somewhat related question: Modern media always depicts Romans as middle-aged Englishmen, which is of course slightly confusing. Were they genetically similar to the modern-day occupants of their respective parts of Italy, or did migration within the empire or other factors cause significant shifts in the genetic makeup of what becomes modern Italians?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Somewhat related question: Tough to say for sure how they actually appeared, but, at risk of sounding like a South Park episode, "the truth is probably somewhere IN BETWEEEEEEEN." They almost certainly didn't look like middle-aged Englishmen, but there also were a lot of ethnic migrations in various parts of the peninsula that changed the average Italian's appearance somewhat. Lombards, Magyars, Franks, Visigoths in the north, Arabs, Normans, and Byzantine Greeks in the south, etc. There were blondies there, like Alexander had been (although he obviously didn't live in Italy), but there were also darker-complexioned folks as well. e: Point being, I think the spectrum of skin tone, hair color, eye color, etc, wasn't all that different then from what it is now in Italy, but subsequent migrations of peoples changed the distribution a bit between regions. \/\/\/yep, that too. Plus a lot of it was the English monarchy trying to claim the mantle of Roman hegemony as often as possible\/\/\/ Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Pretty sure its just a theatrical convention due to Shakespeare
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 20:25
|
|