Unit Diaries

[bmac]

Well, I decided to volunteer to do the survey and, to the question about whether I would recommend to a friend/relative gave these answers (which will probably be ignored) said 'No' with the following reasons:

1. It is too expensive and will, if extended, become prohibitively expensive to those doing research of a detailed nature;

2. Because it is difficult/impossible to see the originals of certain digitised files as a result of NA policy;

3. There is then no way of knowing whether the documents made available comprise the complete contents of a file; and

4. As a result, important documents may never be available to researchers; as a result

5. Documents on-line should NOT become a substitute for the ability of visitors to see the original files; otherwise

6. This will seem to be just an excuse for the NA to raise revenues rather than a method for widen access to those who, perhaps, cannot attend in person.

[saberhagen427]

Another thing you can do is use the NA's feedback form to submit a complaint. Then they have to respond, although they might not respond in the way you want.

[Max]

Does anyone know what statutory obligations the NA have for presenting for inspection documents that are full and complete, and in their original format? There has to be a standard set out somewhere.

Andy

[saberhagen427]

I've just done the Documents Online survey. Slightly worrying that they seem to be considering charging for downloading finding aids. In the comments box I told them in the strongest possible terms that finding aids should be free, as well as complaining about the war diary issue. On the other hand it's encouraging that they seem to be considering some way for users to submit correction to the index, and even upload their own photos.

[stiletto_33853]

Just been digging around in some of these scanned War Diaries for someone who had a relative wounded in August 1917 in the 16th RB. Something appeared not quite right with some of the reports as they were signed by an Officer who was not in the 16th Rifle Brigade.

Here we go again, the signals, casualty reports and action reports are all from the 9th Rifle Brigade, scanned and placed on line in the 16th Rifle Brigade War Diary, unbelievable, I mean this incompetence is staggering.

There are 10 downloads for August 1917 for the 16th Rifle Brigade, so someone would have paid for August 1917 diary entries and appendices only to find that they are the 9th Rifle Brigade (the diary is 16th RB), is it just me or does anyone find this yet another unbelievable saga in the incompetence of the people that are supposed to be looking after our history. I would not mind but a lot of these reports and casualty returns actually even say 9th Bn. RB on top of the sheets.

A thoroughly irked

Andy

[stiletto_33853]

Irked is to kind a word, I am bloody furious to put it mildly. Continual lack of attention like this would had led to instant dismissal in my career through gross negligence. Absolutley aghast, p.....d off, etc., etc.

Very disgruntled indeed if you had not gathered.

Andy

[dfaulder]

Irked is to kind a word, I am bloody furious to put it mildly. Continual lack of attention like this would had led to instant dismissal in my career through gross negligence. Absolutley aghast, p.....d off, etc., etc.

Very disgruntled indeed if you had not gathered.

Andy

Perhaps a note to Trading standards about goods not conforming to description or fit for purpose?

David

[stiletto_33853]

or who knows, maybe taking money under false pretences.

Andy

Maybe a moderator will axe this, but I am bloody furious

[saberhagen427]

You should definitely use the NA's feedback form to complain about this if you haven't already. If they don't know about it they won't have a chance to put it right.

[stiletto_33853]

Gavin,

I have sent a complaint in to the archives regarding this matter, also listing several other erronous scanning's they have made that I have come across. If I have come across several in the area of my interest then heaven's knows how many there actually are.

Andy

[dfaulder]

Gavin,

I have sent a complaint in to the archives regarding this matter, also listing several other erronous scanning's they have made that I have come across. If I have come across several in the area of my interest then heaven's knows how many there actually are.

Andy

Presuming that responses (from the PRO) to complaints are deemed to be on the public record:

I received this in response to my complaint:

Thank you for your email.

The purpose of the survey is to assess the document copying service already provided on our website. We are committed to developing our services in the future based upon customer need. We therefore use surveys and other market research to canvas the widest possible range of views to ensure that all potential points of view are covered.

Please be assured that this survey covers only one part of the service we provide to the public to access the records we hold and The National Archives has no plans to curtail access to 'real' documents in any way.

The results of this survey will not be used to influence any argument to replace physical access to documents with online copies and is not built with that assumption in mind.

The National Archives makes a small charge for document copies downloaded or ordered via our website as the costs associated with making documents available online, and thus to people who cannot come in person, are very high. As we are funded by the taxpayer, we cannot justify the expenditure on public funds in this way and so recover out costs at the point of sale. All our records are free to access, and will remain so, via our reading rooms in Kew.

I hope that this answers your query and sets your mind at ease as to the intentions of the survey.

Thank you again for your comments,

Kind regards,

Rob Doran

My original feedback (in two complaints) read:

Re your user survey on document copying:

I am concerned that the survey seems to be built on two assumptions:

1) Charging is appropriate

2) Online access is a suitable substitute for access to the real documents.

I would not like to see the results of this survey presented as users agreeing to charges and to the non availability of the real documents.

1) The National Archives is a tax-payer funded national resource and the widest possible access should be encouraged. This should not be funded by charging people who cannot visit (due for instance to distance) when they may have to "buy" a whole document to discover one bit of information. The cost rapidly becomes prohibitive.

(break between comments due to 750 character limit)

2) The real documents must remain available so that researchers (at all levels) can actually experience the documents and understand them in context (covers, adjacent documents, back & front, damage, feel, completeness etc.).

The implicit proposal may be fine for someone just wanting to look at Grandad's medal card, but it is not a substitute for researchers.

BTW 750 characters is far too few for a serious comment

[SFayers]

Hi folks,

This is the first time I've read through this particular thread, and it's got me somewhat concerned.

Last year I ordered and paid for a copy of the 5 Siege Battery RGA War Diary for March to December 1917 inclusive. When I received it (I have to say I thought the turn-around time was excellent), I noticed that some of the pages for March, April and May were not there. I assumed this was because they were missing from the original - but now I'm wondering if it's because they simply weren't copied by the folk at the NA?

Best regards

Steve

[stiletto_33853]

Just thought that I would update people on an ongoing debate (using the word debate very loosely) re the differences I have found in the 16th Rifle Brigade's diary with Steven Cable (Reading Advisor)

The claim is now that the information has been "interpolated" and that there may be a reason why the 9th Rifle Brigade appendices are in the 16th RB Diary.

I have checked all the names from these 9th RB appendices against their officer papers and medal roll entries. None of the names mentioned were ever in the 16th RB, the 9th RB never operated with the 16th and none of these men were ever even attached to the 16th RB, so the question remains, what are 9th RB appendices doing in the 16th RB Diary to which I have not received a satisfactory answer.

I have received no reply to my request to see the original documents, despite repeating such requests.

Welcome to the world of Disney

Andy

[Gunner R.A.]

At some point in the future i will need to consult the war diaries for the 187 soldiers commemorated on my local war memorial, and i had thought about looking at the online versions, however this thread is not filling me with confidence!

I guess i will have to stick with trying to access the originals, it looks like the NA needs a kick up the a***!!!

[dfaulder]

Missing pages from the "online" version may reflect the actual state of the document boxes. When I was looking at some of these boxes, I noticed that some of the appendices where in the wrong month (presumably someone had detached them to copy them and put them back in the wrong order). I asked the staff if I should reorder them (no - you must not change what is in the boxes), or hand them back in with a note indicating that they are in the wrong order (no - no point, we do not have the resources to do anything about it). So I just left those "copy slips" in the file on which I had written what I thought the problem was.

David

[stiletto_33853]

David,

Please refer to post #7 in this thread regarding just one diary that I had photographed and appeared on-line shortly afterwards. Although this is not always the case, in my area of interest once you start to delve deeply into them there have appeared to be a fair few errors.

Andy

[stiletto_33853]

Well we seem to be making a little bit of progess regarding the 16th Rifle Brigade's war diary. This from that latest exchange of correspondence:-

"Thank you for your kind offer(1).

I have been double checking that officers mentioned in the notes were with the 9th Rifle Brigade. I know that several of the papers make this clear but I wanted to double check. The Army Lists did confirm your claim, though Capt. A.M. Rosevear, who is mentioned is with 13th Battalion London Regiment (serving with Reserve battalion, Territorial Force). I suspect that he may have been attached to the 9th Battalion Rifle Brigade.

There will be no problem with you seeing the original. Can you e mail me a few days before your visit, making clear that it is for my attention, and I will personally sort it out to ensure access. I will be contacting documents on-line to remove the offending images, though we will not make any changes to the original until after you have viewed it. We will the place them with the 9th Battalion Rifle Brigade with a corresponding note.

I would like to thank you for bringing this anomaly to our attention.

(1) The help offered was that I have all the Rifle Brigade Rolls at home and have made a corresponding database by number and surname to indicate what document they are kept in and corresponding page number. I offered to look at all the medal rolls to confirm what battalion these men served in, although having already checked it I know that they are all listed with the 9th RB.

So, it would appear that if you kick up enough fuss the original's are available for viewing, but it sure has been a long winded process to have them made available.

On to the next "ANOMALY", a fair few to deal with

Andy

[stiletto_33853]

Anyone got any information on Capt. A.M. Rosevear, originally 13th London Regiment?????