On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM, T.G. Boyd <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The present NCA rules should be adhered to rigidly, because they represent
> by far the most efficient way to ensure that researchers who don't actually
> know whether part of a name is a middle name or the first part of a compound
> surname are able accurately to predict where that name will appear in an
> index. Eg, it is *not* safe to assume that everyone who reads the name
Thus spake a dinosaur who is cloistered in a vacuum unwilling to
notice the general public using modern search engines
> 'David Lloyd George' & wants to look said 'Welsh Wizard' up in an archival
> index will know that the surname is 'Lloyd George' rather than 'George'
People still use those?
> (what about, eg, an 18yo from Outer Mongolia who wants to learn a bit about
> the First World War in the west or the origins of the British Welfare
> State...?), & such an assumption becomes even less safe as the subject in
> question becomes more obscure. If we stick with the current NCA rules then
> all we need to do to ensure that ANY researcher, whatever their existing
> level of knowledge, can find a particular person's listing, is to add a
> brief note describing the current name-construction convention to any
> finding aid, so that *anyone* who bothers to read that guidance will know to
When was the last time you read Googles help, I bet you just used it
and it worked.
> look for David Lloyd George under 'G' rather than 'L'. By contrast, if we
> switch to indexing David Lloyd George under 'Lloyd' rather than 'George',
Why index under anything where a search engine is available,
especially one with subject facet search.
> &c, then the only way to make a finding aid as accessible/useful to *all*
> researchers would be to produce a complete list of every single possible
> interpretation of what a subject's name might be, & attach the 'correct'
> construction to each entry. This would mean, eg, that David Lloyd George
> would have to be included in such an additional list not only as 'George,
> David Lloyd' and 'Lloyd George, David', but also as 'David Lloyd George', in
> case a researcher assumed at first that 'David Lloyd George' was a
> triple-barrelled surname (just as 'Gordon Duff Pennington' actually is).
> Producing such an enormous additional list for each index, let alone
> requiring researchers to read through it, is obviously hugely inefficient &
> extremely unhelpful compared with composing a brief note to the effect that
> each individual is indexed under the final element of their name and adding
> a copy to each finding aid (which is all that the current NCA rules require
> in order to achieve the same level of service-provision).
>
> In trendified political terms, its an accessibility/equalities question: do
> we make our finding aids &c will be useful to *all* potential service users
My point exactly. no need for any of that with a modern search engine.
> (by sticking with current NCA rules), or do we make our finding aids
> culturally exclusive & less helpful to researchers from non-traditional
> backgrounds purely in order to pander to the vain sensibilities of those
> people with compound surnames who choose to look themselves or their
> relatives up in our indexes (which is what those calling for a change are
> suggesting)...?
That attitude is utter rudeness to the public who expect respect to
their given name.
David Caroline
Put my name in the wrong order and you change my gender! the rules are wrong.
Contact the list owner for assistance at [log in to unmask]
For information about joining, leaving and suspending mail (eg during a holiday) see the list website at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=archives-nra
|