I came across this image the other day and it got me to thinking:
should one go back and re-label pictures when someone has changed their name?
I’m inclined to think not.
The modified image (which is the one used to illustrate this post) was posted to Genealogy Tip of the Day on Facebook where it generated some discussion. I’m still leaning towards not going back and changing the name I’ve used to identify my daughter on already annotated images for the following reasons:
- it identifies her name at the point in time the picture was taken
- it was her correct name–it’s not like she was identified incorrectly as someone else
- I have other pictures that are not annotated where I do know who is in them
- I really have better things to do with my time
There are context clues in the original image’s annotation. I should have added “great-granddaughter,” but I’m not certain that now I’m going to back and add that to the images where I have not already done it. As I continue to identify images, I’ll put brief relationship information (when known) in the annotation. But I don’t think it’s necessary to modify and identify my daughter by her married name. As I identify other images I may do that. It also may be a good idea to include the date the digital image and identification was made along with the date of the picture (if known), making it clear which date is which.
Fred Hinke says:
Leave the name as is – but you might want to be more specific about where the picture was taken. Your home, Ida’s home and add a street address assuming there is one.
toni says:
I use the birth name consistently through their life. I may add the married name after the birth name when I have half a dozen Susie Smiths.
Carla says:
It the time, that was her name. It will be a clue to those who come after. In the pics after she got married, then you can list her by her family name and married name. That will be a clue to those who come after and might be looking at the pictures you have passed on to the next generations.