War Diaries Talk

Casulties Tag - Room For Improvment

  • bootnecksbs by bootnecksbs

    Now & again I come across an entry such as " about 66 other ranks killed, wounded & missing" It would be ideal to have a totals box in the casualties tag so at least one knows there were casualties. At the moment I use the reference tag it which is probably totally wrong and will be ignored and or rejected. If this topic has already been addressed my opologies.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    Yes it's been raised several times before, most recently here http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/boards/BWD000000d/discussions/DWD00006d1?page=1&comment_id=5320213dbc714c572c001fac although we have no solution at the moment.

    I'm afraid that using the reference tag for this is wrong and probably will be rejected. Can I suggest you use the comments box instead or even use a hashtag - maybe simply #casualties - so we can collect together pages like this?

    Posted

  • bootnecksbs by bootnecksbs

    Hi Heather, Thanks for that. I thought I may have been doing it wrong (as I mentioned) but I'm glad to say out of all the pages I've done this only occurred a handful of times. I generally do make comments but not on all pages as (a) there's not always something to mention & (b) I feel it's not necessary to do so just for the sake of it. I have seen some examples of both over zealous hashtag and comment use but, as I'm sure you agree, it's better to do too many than none at all. Regards, Max

    Posted

  • MatthewIWM by MatthewIWM moderator in response to bootnecksbs's comment.

    Hi there,

    Thanks for the suggestion, it's good to know that a number of people feel that this would be a useful addition to the casualties tag, and it's certainly one that we'll pass on to the development team.

    As suggested by Heather, I think putting something in the comments and/or using the hashtag #casualties for this would be a good solution for now. You're definitely right that over-zealous commenting just for the sake of it isn't necessary, but the number of casualties is an interesting fact that we'd definitely like to capture in future, especially we do expand the casualties tag to include a totals box in future.

    Thanhs again for raising this.

    Regards, Matthew

    Posted

  • poppynine by poppynine in response to MatthewIWM's comment.

    I do like to look through the object/comment pages, mainly to keep up with useful hashtags.

    The mention of over zealous comment is, I believe, warranted as it sometimes feels like I'm wading through a blog.

    Heather C has been keeping an eye on the hashtags and wonder if it would be possible to produce an alphabetical list of hashtags, not just the popular ones, to be used and updated as the team see fit?

    Posted

  • brecon_beacons by brecon_beacons in response to poppynine's comment.

    Considering that the people on this project are:
    a) contributing their time and effort voluntarily;
    b) have differing levels of skills, interests and abilities; and
    c) have been struggling with a system of categorisation that is not all-encompassing and is open to a variety of interpretation;

    I really don't feel it's very positive to use this forum to start airing criticisms about "over-zealous comment".

    You are of course entitled to your opinion. But one person's 'over zealous' is another person's 'interesting snippet of information'.

    The 'comments' boxes are sometimes the only way of expressing any individual input into the project. Why deny people that little bit of individuality? The comments can be taken, or left - they do not hurt the project, so why be sniffy about them?

    I happen to think that it's really nice that contributors add their personal comments. I read them, and I like them. Yes, some are more relevant than others - but, as I was not appointed Moral Arbiter on this project, what I think doesn't matter! 😃

    What DOES matter is that people aren't offended or put off making their contribution.

    Please try to appreciate people's efforts, rather than be so quick to criticise them.

    If you can't think of anything nice to say...

    Posted

  • Memento_Mori by Memento_Mori

    I don't know, brecon. I think all the volunteers care a lot about this project, I know I do. I think we all want to do a good job and speaking for myself, one of my objectives is to make the job of the researchers easier.
    I also think that after two months of this project, they have a better idea of what is effective and productive, and what needs improvement; things they could not have known when the project launched. So I feel like it would be useful and helpful for the volunteers if the project admins would make an official post that refines and defines the things they have found useful/unuseful, so we can do a better job.
    I absolutely think the project managers appreciate all of our efforts. A textual medium lacks body cues and facial expressions, so it can be easy to misinterpret intent.
    I am all for constructive criticism, and would very much like to have some.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator in response to Memento Mori's comment.

    I think Memento Mori makes a great point here about getting some constructive feedback on how useful the current comments and hashtgas are going to be to future researchers and to the database which this project intends to set up. I'm not a database admin and so have no real idea how practical it is going to be to use the many comments made - which I agree are often fascinating but sometimes do leave me wondering if someone wrote them just for the sake of saying something rather than nothing.

    As far as hashtags are concerned we still have many people using them incorrectly and frankly wasting their time tagging words that are not interesting and not useful (sorry but this is true - take a look at the "recent" pages and you will see example every day) either because they don't understand how hashtags work (in which case I have been sending people PMs to direct them to the FAQ which I hope helps) or because they have chosen to ignore my advice and carry on tagging the way THEY want to. This latter is of course their prerogative but I venture to say that much of it will be wasted effort as it won't be of use to researchers and will probably be ignored. Of course there are a great number of people hashtagging some really interesting stuff and without them we'd be missing many fascinating snippets, so as Brecon says the last thing I want to do is discourage anyone. I know a list of "standard" hashtags has been suggested but it's not the easiest thing to do as again it risks missing interesting stuff we had not thought of (which is the whole point of hashtags!)

    As for the comments boxes. I will try to get some input here on how useful these have been up till now and whether the practice being followed by some taggers of virtually transcribing the pages and adding extra information is useful or not. It is clearly taking some people considerable time to do this and I think now is the time to find out whether this is nugatory effort or not.

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    I totally agree with Brecon. I recently had a response which made me question whether I should remain a part of the project. It is true that

    A textual medium lacks body cues and facial expressions, so it can be easy to misinterpret intent

    but that needs to be taken into account by those posting particularly the 'professionals' (e.g. moderators etc) who should set the lead on standards.

    Like memento mori, I too firmly believe that the policies/interpretations/rulings etc need to consolidated for reference. There is no value in telling people 'this has been covered before'. The 'tagger' may not have seen that post or even been part of the project when the post was made. In addition, a search function is not infallible when producing results. The solution would be to update the principal reference point - Field Guide - with the policies etc as they develop.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator in response to makfai's comment.

    I agree about the need to update the Field Guide and have already raised it.

    However can we stick to discussing the relevance of the comments and hashtags in this thread now we've started rather than going off at a tangent? I'd be interested to hear what others think on the subject and how they decide what to write in the box or indeed whether to write anything at all. I reckon I write a comment or place a hashtag in less than 30% of my pages - how do others compare?

    Do people look at the "recent" page to see what others have written and do you find it interesting?

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    I had posted my last post before your one of 2 hours ago appeared on my screen.

    Would you like us to confine our answers just to Casualties i.e. How this discussion started or are you looking to broaden the topic?

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    I think an interesting discussion has developed in this thread about comments and hashtags since the original posts and I'd like to hear what others think about it. If I could split the topic up I would but the forum functionality does not allow me to do that unfortunately.

    You've already raised the point about the need to update the Field Guide in another thread. I completely agree with you. I have raised it with the Admins. We all agree it needs doing. My point was can we not sidetrack yet another thread about it?

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    I think that part of the explanation for varying interpretations is a lack of clarity in the Field Guide. The fact that I have mentioned that elsewhere makes my comment no less relevant to this topic. Also, someone may read this topic but not the other one so the repetition in both threads is valid on the basis of relevance to both topics.

    The Field Guide [FG] is very 'broadbrush' and needs to be updated to reflect issues which have arisen since the project went live. However, no matter what its content, people will always have their own interpretations.

    Additionally, if the FG is too prescriptive then that undermines the discretion of the 'tagger'. The project gives to us, who are doing the tagging, the authority to include/exclude data. This needs to be the case because of the way the data was recorded in WWI - often under fire and after/before very testing times.

    For example, the diary authors will not all follow the regs all the time. They may, for example, include the data but not in the format required by the regs. Do we ignore this valuable and relevant data or use our discretion? I favour the latter because, it gives the database compilers an opportunity to record or ignore the data.

    If WE 'taggers' ignore it then we remove from the data compilers the opportunity to record valuable data. I accept, however, that, the compilers will also see data which should be discarded . . but which is the better alternative? In their shoes I would rather that people supplied the data.

    When all is said and done, we 'taggers' are amateurs acting in good faith and not maliciously. If, in good faith, a 'tagger' records more than s/he should is that really a problem? Not in my eyes. That is part of the expected tapestry of a zooniverse project. The amateurs provide the raw data and the professionals do the final sift and grade.

    Personally, I find reading the recent comments & hashtags etc useful. I don't judge the contributions of others; I just scan through the contributions to see if they interest me.

    As far as how many comments/# anyone might do per page then that depends on the type of unit you are tagging and the relevance of the pre-selected menu tags to that unit's activities.

    I have found - doing the sanitary and pioneer units - that there is less relevance in the drop-down activities-menu to their work as there would be relevance to the work, say, of a standard infantry unit. So I cannot see how a % can be usefully applied as a guide to all units.

    Personally, I would let people get on with it after ensuring that the FG is as valuable as it can be to all concerned. If an individual feels a comment is worthy of being made or a matter merits a # then so be it. Why judge them for making the effort even if not be used? At least their other efforts will have contributed to the project.

    Hope this was the kind of feedback you were seeking.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator in response to makfai's comment.

    Yes that's exactly the kind of feedback I was interested in. Thank you.

    My point in trying to help people to understand how to use hashtags properly is to enable them to get the best use out of the valuable time they are putting into this project. It's clear that some people are spending many hours tagging, which is a fantastic commitment and I am keen for them to get the very best use out of the site's functions that they possibly can in that time. Hence my desire to have some feedback here from the site Admins about the use of comments / hashtags in the final data sifting so that people know if what they are doing is likely to be useful to the Project or not and can then make an informed decision on whether to continue.

    As for my 30% figure, I was merely interested in what others were finding. I did not and will not suggest it as a "guide to other units" (although I'd say I found about the same % applied with an RE unit I did) since I'm well aware that some taggers are putting multiple hashtags and multiple comments on every single page they do and if they choose to do that even after reading the FAQ then that's their prerogative of course.

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    Glad to have been of help.

    I am sure no one intentionally wastes their time commenting and hashtagging but does so in the hope that they are contributing to the project.

    So saying I look forward to seeing the feedback from the 'Admins'.

    Posted

  • charcinders by charcinders

    Just to offer my feedback, apart from things that need hashtags like #aircraft and #badscan. I will only comment on a page if:

    • there is something really interesting or unusual,

    • there is something that I think might be of interest to the historians,

    • there is something I want to ask the community or moderators about,

    • I can make a comment that might help other taggers, e.g. the year of the page is not mentioned but I know what it is.

    Excluding hashtags I'd guess I write a comment for 15% of pages.

    Does it matter if some people want to write multiple comments for every single page? Yes, I think it does. I'm sure many of us go to the recent comments page to see what other people have found, and to see if there is anything we can help others with. The more comments about mundane stuff there are the more likely it is that the genuinely interesting comments and the questions needing answers will get buried in the clutter.

    If the comments section is going to be a useful part of the site rather than just a glorified Twitter feed we need some guidelines on use of comments.

    Posted

  • Memento_Mori by Memento_Mori

    I have a few questions I ask myself when considering making a comment.

    -Is this of historical value?-

    A message from Lord Kitchener. Yes.

    A phonetically spelled message from the Russian Sister unit? Yes.

    Daily entries from a particularly witty adjutant who made me chuckle with every entry? No. (But I wanted to!)

    -Is this a new and untested technology?-

    Testing the effectiveness of smoke helmets against gas? Yes.

    A tube helmet? Never seen that before. Yes.

    A new type of feed bag for the horses? Personally interesting, but No.

    -Is this a particularly poignant example of the selflessness or brutality of humanity and war?-

    A soldier going "mad" and running from the trenches screaming? Yes.

    The soldier who chased after him to save him from enemy fire? Yes.

    Would something be considered a War Crime? Yes.

    So perhaps some guidelines resembling that. Makfai's suggestion of a list of keywords to hashtag would be enormously useful. Something besides the "popular hashtags" list. Just because something is popular or trending, doesn't mean that it is something useful to the researchers.

    Just as a personal aside, I tagged an officer wounded at the battle of Moy. I tagged him many times up until I tagged his name as killed a year and a half later. Things like this are so heart-wrenching. No need to enter a comment in the box, but, I totally get why people would. It's a bit difficult for us everyday people to exercise academic objectivity. But bear with us!

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai in response to Memento Mori's comment.

    I agree with and enjoyed your examples! Just shows the wide variety of possibilities.

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    As regards the recent comments page I am fortunate that I have time to visit the site often which means I don't have too many to read since the last time. Perhaps, that is why I don't see this as a problem which needs fixing. I certainly don't see it as a Twitter feed or clutter simply as well-meant contributions.

    So saying I DO support a more comprehensive guide to #tags and comments now that there are perceived areas for improvement based on usage. Charcinders' above list makes a useful contribution/start to such a guide.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator in response to Memento Mori's comment.

    Great examples. I especially like the way you have differentiated between "personally interesting" (which you did not tag) and "historically interesting" (which you did). I think possibly some of us have lost sight of the difference. Maybe it doesn't matter all that much, but we might pause to think why we are hashtagging or commenting on something before we do it and what value might it present in future to someone else since this is not just about what interested or amused us at the time.

    I do agree we might benefit from a suggested hashtags list. How do we then get round the problem that as soon as you prescribe a list you remove flexibility which is exactly the thing hashtags are there to give? If the list remains just a list of suggestions then how do you think we can best get people to read it and take any notice of it?

    I can also identify with your comment on finally tagging someone as killed after months of following them. It truly does bring home what these documents are all about doesn't it?

    Posted

  • vishep by vishep

    Would it not be part of the job of the Admins to weed, consolidate & catalogue the comments & hashtags?

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai in response to HeatherC's comment.

    I agree with the probs in producing a list but maybe we could learn something from the system operated in blogs. However, a 'tag cloud' may tae up too much room on the screen!

    Posted

  • Memento_Mori by Memento_Mori in response to makfai's comment.

    Oh, that might be a good idea, makfai. A box that allows you to post something of interest to the project blog page if that capability exists. That way people feel like the things they find interesting are being "officially" posted, and the managers would feel like there is less clutter, but would still be able to glean good nuggets. It could both solve and create new problems. Haha.

    I saw this and had no idea where to post it. new WW1 casualties I am curious if they would be listed as casualties of WWI. It's incredibly sad.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator in response to Memento Mori's comment.

    I think the very last thing the Admins would want is to give everyone here the capability to post to the project blog page! It would be overwhelmed with trivia in about a day.... I'd rather keep the clutter here!

    As for the news article you could post about this in the History section of the board I would think. Maybe under "Latest News"?

    Posted

  • Memento_Mori by Memento_Mori

    Heather, you make me laugh! I will go post that article there.

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai in response to Memento Mori's comment.

    Sorry I think I did not explain that properly! I was not suggesting a link to the blog page,

    I was just wondering if we could learn anything about organising tags from how that is done in the 'blog-world'.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator in response to makfai's comment.

    I didn't think you really were - I was just having a bit of fun with Memento Mori 😃

    You make a good point - something to look at I think.

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    I wonder if we are re-inventing the wheel here? This is not the first ZOONIVERSE project so it is likely they have had similar issues.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    Haha probably. That's why I have asked a Zooniverse Admin to look at this thread. I'm sure he can give a much more technical and detailed answer than I can!

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai in response to HeatherC's comment.

    Good move!

    Posted

  • f0rbe5 by f0rbe5

    I've come across an individual sent to a Casualty Clearing Station suffering from a venereal disease. I've recorded him as "sick" as he's clearly not a casualty and tagged the page as #venerealdisease From a social history perspective, perhaps a venereal disease option under "Reason" might be of use if it's going to appear regularly - or is that getting too personal about individuals?

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    I think using the #venerealdisease hashtag is the right way to go with this. The tagged data allows us to look at broad trends, but the hashtags are great for building up some context around them, as well as for providing a basis for answering more specific research questions.

    Posted