When making digital copies of records, it can be tempting to create file names that are short and brief. After all it sames time. The problem is that later it can waste time–an inordinate amount of time. S
Several years ago while at the Family History Library in Salt Lake, I made digital images of several records. One set of images came from the estate of Belinda/Melinda Newman who died in Linn County, Iowa, in 1867.
Unfortunately I saved all the images I made from numerous files and records in one massive folder. Separate individuals and court cases were not given their own folder. That’s something I should have done.
But at least my file names were descriptive enough that I could track whose file it was and where I obtained it. The file name structure I used was actually incomplete now that I look at it, but it was complete enough, especially when I looked at the records it included.
The file name I used was:
- linn_county_belinda_newman_570_xx.jpg–where xx was the consecutive image number.
In reading the actual records, it was clear the materials were from Linn County, Iowa. Somewhere I should have indicated that the images were made from microfilm copies of the records at the Family History Library. It was obvious that the images were made from microfilm given the black background on each image.
But I was extremely glad that I did not name all these files using this naming structure:
- image_1
- image_2
or some other equally cryptic approach. Then I would have been confused.
The extra time it took to save the files with these names was well worth it. Even if I had put them in a folder named “Melinda Newman Probate Linn County, Iowa, Case Box 570” I could have had difficulties if the files had somehow been moved from that folder. This way…whereever the file goes the citation is attached to it.
No responses yet