Destruction of Records

[Guy Etchells]

Destroying original documents such those would be pure lunacy, they will be needed for years to come to correct errors such as records that missed being digitised.  If any organisation thinks it can digitise masses of records without a few mistakes along the way then they aren't thinking straight, where humans are involved there will always be the risk of human error.

Even in the few hours it has been on line people are finding mistakes. I can't find my grandparents, although I know exactly where they were living. I also know the names of their neighbours on both sides, so looked for them, but they aren't there either, so it looks as if a section of the road has been left out. How could this be checked if the originals are destroyed?

The easy way to do it is search for the road (by address), but be aware the house numbers do not all follow in sequence. They show odd number first then any additional odd number, folled by even numbers then any additional even numbers

Cheers
Guy

[groom]

Thanks Guy, but I've already done that, been up and down the road a couple of times, but they and their neighbours are definitely not there. I've informed FindMyPast.

[StanleysChesterton]

They should be kept for, say, 200 years.... there are plenty of cheap places you can put this sort of stuff.... eg Wales. 

A lot of the overhead cost of keeping records is that so much is kept in/close to London, with London property overheads, high London staff costs, etc etc. 

[brianoleary85]

Well the NA's previous experience with digitising archives would suggest that they shouldn't destroy original material anytime soon! : http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning

Surely there's a corner of an abandoned mine somewhere in Britain that could be used for long term, low maintenance storage of archival material that it is believed won't be used anytime soon.

[loo]

Well the NA's previous experience with digitising archives would suggest that they shouldn't destroy original material anytime soon! : http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning

...and that was before we were quite so besieged with worries about hackers as we are today.

[LizzieL]

BTW, I agree with everyone else here.  Technology could change too far, too fast, so don't destroy the originals..

I agree, never destroy the original paper records. As long as humans can read and the paper and ink are in tact and legible they can be retrieved.

Many years ago, I worked for a company that kept paper records for 5 years and then microfilmed them. At first this was on reels of film, then as technology advanced they moved over to microfiche. Then an inspector called....
He wanted to see records going back 12 years, no problem, we had them. But where were they? - on the reels of film carefully indexed and archived. And where was the reel film reader?

[Guy Etchells]

They should be kept for, say, 200 years.... there are plenty of cheap places you can put this sort of stuff.... eg Wales. 

A lot of the overhead cost of keeping records is that so much is kept in/close to London, with London property overheads, high London staff costs, etc etc. 

Or they could be archived with the other archived records in the Chesher salt mines.
Cheers
Guy

[Aulus]

No, of course it shouldn't be destroyed.

There are digital copies of the Magna Carta document that was so much in the news earlier this year, but nobody's suggested destroying the originals, and I don't see what the difference is.

[Josephine]

Just last night I was searching through images of old newspaper articles online when I came across a photo of two young men who were serving in the First World War. It should have been a wonderful treasure but instead the photo was almost completely black due to the way it was microfilmed. This is the rule rather than the exception when viewing old newspapers on microfilm -- and in most, if not all cases, the original newspapers were destroyed after they were microfilmed. This is the case for articles and photos that are of personal interest and also of historical import.

Even records that have been captured more recently using more modern technology often come up short because they were done in bulk by people who had to meet a deadline and therefore couldn't afford to fidget and fuss with each image. And if you don't have the originals to go back to, you might be stuck with unreadable documents, which again might be relevant to a few individuals, or to the world at large.

Regards,
Josephine