Welcome to the BillionGraves Community! An amazing community of users from every corner of the globe here to help you in your BillionGraves endeavors! Join the movement and connect with others to create the world's largest GPS cemetery database!
Welcome to BillionGraves Q&A, where you can ask questions, receive support, and look at answers from other members of the BillionGraves community.

3,059 questions

3,993 answers

4,342 comments

2,632 users

What is the use of having over 77 thousand images when about 9 out of every ten are NOT legible?

0 like 0 dislike
18 views
What is the use of having over 77 thousand images when about 9 out of every ten are NOT legible?  Really frustrating to keep getting them and unless I read it wrong, we don't get credit for those, ONLY the ones that we actually get transcribed.  

Today over 100 images and only credited for about 32, and yes, I keep up with how many I click on.
Shirley
asked 5 days ago in Transcribing Images by Shirley BG Explorer (1,230 points)

1 Answer

0 like 0 dislike
Shirley:

Some photographers just don't know what they should be doing and I no longer waste my time on them. Just hit that SKIP button.

In other cases the stones are so old, worn or covered with lichen that they can not be read. Again, just hit that skip button and slide on by.

If you live in an area where there are a lot of old stones showing up in your 100-mile radius feed, find a  newer lawn cemetery or municipal cemetery with lots of untranscribed images and work from that one instead of wasting your time with the unfiltered queue. Use the filters above the image to select where you want to look for better images.  If you are in the US go for the National Military cemeteries - there are usually a lot of decent photos there.

Eventually I hope BG will get better at screening out the bad photos, but I don't thing they will happen any time soon.

DS
answered 4 days ago by dswright BG Master (30,600 points)
edited 3 days ago by dswright
Thank you.
There is  a button to click which we can use to indicate that those images/headstones are unreadable or are otherwise not readable, such as 'inappropriate image', 'not a headstone' etc.  I think when we do that, it removes the image from the queue.
Springsteen Fan:

You are right.  We should only use that for images that have no transcribable value. Might be a good photo of legs/arms/trees/streets/etc, or a blurry mess.

However, too many times I have seen where someone tagged it bad photo when it was the best anyone could have done in photographing an old stone. Sometimes there are clues which allow me to figure out what is on the stone, and I can compare it with data from other sources (FAG, Ancestry, local cem records).

Thanks for your prolific work.

DS
...