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.

3,170 questions

4,113 answers


2,728 users

Reporting images without surnames

3 like 0 dislike
I frequently encounter images where a close up has been taken of a portion of the headstone and a linked image of the entire headstone was not provided.  This means that I see a first name and dates, but have no idea of the individual's surname.  I could transcribe this, but it would be of no use to anyone and would only clutter the database.

This is also occasionally an issue where part of the headstone is visible, but half is blocked by flowers or vegatation.

I report these images, but have to use Other because none of the other reporting categories fits.  It would be great to add another Red-reporting category that was something like "Insufficent Information" or "Surname not visible"
asked Sep 7, 2014 in Features and Enhancements by Stephen_Smith BG Rookie (520 points)

1 Answer

1 like 0 dislike

I do agree that it seems like more information could be provided with the drop down menu; however,  the real problem is that photographers often do not have time to correct linking and bad image problems  from their my photo file.  Uploaded imaged go directly to the transcription pool.  Transcriptions are geo located which means anyone transcribing in that area  will receive these images first and if there a lot of transcribers in that area the images will go through the pool quickly possibly even before the photographer can fix this errors.  Photographers can not delete or link any image once it's been transcribed.

It wasn't always this way when photographers  once had complete control over their images.  Sereral requests were made to give photographers back this ability or at least delay the time when the images go to the pool so but so far nothing is being done to address this problem.

While I not asking you to change your reporting habits just to consider that the photographer maybe a newbie and having a hard time with linking or getting adjusted to good images in a cemetery.
answered Sep 7, 2014 by BeNotForgotten BG Veteran (14,350 points)
I fully understand the issue, especially for newbies.  It would just be nice if there was a little bit more feedback to them with the "rejected" photos other than that it was Red Flagged as "Other".  Another line in th pulldown menu with something like Requires Linking or "Partial Headstone" might provide them with more about why the transcriber could not work with it.
Could't have said it better myself. It would also be nice if  feedback would be sent to the photographer so the would know be aware of the problems.
I agree.  I also wish that the Transcribe page included the date the image was uploaded.  I often wonder when I pull up an image with only partial data if there is another image somewhere that it should be linked to that will complete the item.  For example, headstones with only a single given name; it would seem likely that they are part of a family plot, and that somewhere there is a "primary" headstone with the surname.  If the image upload date was very recent, I would be inclined to skip transcription in hopes that it would be linked by the photographer and therefore become a more accurate record later.  Even better would be the ability to for a photographer to choose to hold images back from the transcription pool until review was complete, even if there was a maximum length of time that holding was allowed.