Talk:Photoduplication Services

From FamilySearch Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
(Copies of records: add {{help me}} template to alert wiki support)
(added better formatting to page so you could tell who was saying what)
Line 1: Line 1:
I strongly suggest that you go back to requiring patrons to submit the old form, and link the form on this page.  You likely have many new patrons looking to use the photoduplication service now that you have moved to digital distribution.  In the absense of a form, staff are going to be spending a lot of time trying to process email requests that are not being submitted in an actionable format.  I suspect that this is why the record count is now being reduced to five per month from five per week (I personally would prefer that you stuck with the limit of eight records every two weeks as stipulated on the old form).  This five-per-month restriction is very dismaying as one would like to think that changes implemented to bring about efficiency would not be making the process less efficient for both staff and users. --JML 8 Feb 2013
+
=== Request - go back to old way  ===
  
*****************************************
+
I strongly suggest that you go back to requiring patrons to submit the old form, and link the form on this page.&nbsp; You likely have many new patrons looking to use the photoduplication service now that you have moved to digital distribution.&nbsp; In the absense of a form, staff are going to be spending a lot of time trying to process email requests that are not being submitted in an actionable format.&nbsp; I suspect that this is why the record count is now being reduced to five per month from five per week (I personally would prefer that you stuck with the limit of eight records every two weeks as stipulated on the old form).&nbsp; This five-per-month restriction&nbsp;is very dismaying as one would like to think that changes implemented to bring about efficiency would not be making the process less efficient for both staff and users. --JML&nbsp;8 Feb 2013<br>
  
3rd paragraph: "You no longer need to use a form, however, if you would like to use the old form, you may email it to us."&nbsp; Why tell a patron they can use the old form, when you don't provide a link to get a copy of the old form?&nbsp; Do you think folks have copies of the old form hanging around??<br>******************************************<br>I had trouble finding this page under your new format. I put in various search terms and got over 3,000 possible answers. Your old format had forms listed under FORMS. If you haven't memorized the old format, it is extremely difficult to find something under the new format. How about a dropdown box listing the various features available? Clutter may look unsightly, but if it works far better than neater than neat, I prefer some version of the original where different areas were clearly listed. You have a huge number of resources, and they just don't fit under LEARN. I would never choose photoduplication. I would use copy. or copy from microfilms. Not photoduplication. That is not normal English, that is print-service jargon.
+
=== Form Missing  ===
  
<br>  
+
From the 3rd paragraph: "You no longer need to use a form, however, if you would like to use the old form, you may email it to us."&nbsp; Why tell a patron they can use the old form, when you don't provide a link to get a copy of the old form?&nbsp; Do you think folks have copies of the old form hanging around?? <span style="font-size:90%;">— Preceding [[FamilySearch Wiki:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User: Maggiliz | Maggiliz ]] ([[User talk: Maggiliz |talk]]&thinsp;|&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/ Maggiliz |contribs]])  04:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
 +
 
 +
=== Needs a better name  ===
 +
 
 +
<br> I had trouble finding this page under your new format. I put in various search terms and got over 3,000 possible answers. Your old format had forms listed under FORMS. If you haven't memorized the old format, it is extremely difficult to find something under the new format. How about a dropdown box listing the various features available? Clutter may look unsightly, but if it works far better than neater than neat, I prefer some version of the original where different areas were clearly listed. You have a huge number of resources, and they just don't fit under LEARN. I would never choose photoduplication. I would use copy. or copy from microfilms. Not photoduplication. That is not normal English, that is print-service jargon.<br>  
  
 
:Hi Kilkeeny, thank you for your comments. I have added some redirects that if search for will lead people to this page [[Request for Photocopies]], [[Copy from microfilms]] and [[Photocopies]]. I have also started a new page [[Help:Forms]] that the community can add to, so that it can become a place to list the forms available. The thing I love about the wiki is that it can always be improved, by the community. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] 12:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 
:Hi Kilkeeny, thank you for your comments. I have added some redirects that if search for will lead people to this page [[Request for Photocopies]], [[Copy from microfilms]] and [[Photocopies]]. I have also started a new page [[Help:Forms]] that the community can add to, so that it can become a place to list the forms available. The thing I love about the wiki is that it can always be improved, by the community. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] 12:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  
<br> I just did a support chat, and was told that FamilySearch now sends electronic copies only, so be sure to provide your correct email address, and that there is no charge for this service, so disregard the pricing information on the Request for Photocopies form. She also told me to leave "item number" and "parish and volume number" blank if they're not provided in the search result and catalog entry. Oh, and entry number is not the same as item number.
+
<br>  
  
******************************************<br>
+
=== No charge, need specific information  ===
 +
 
 +
I just did a support chat, and was told that FamilySearch now sends electronic copies only, so be sure to provide your correct email address, and that there is no charge for this service, so disregard the pricing information on the Request for Photocopies form. She also told me to leave "item number" and "parish and volume number" blank if they're not provided in the search result and catalog entry. Oh, and entry number is not the same as item number.&nbsp;<span style="font-size:90%;">— Preceding [[FamilySearch Wiki:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User: JPmiaou | JPmiaou ]] ([[User talk: JPmiaou |talk]]&thinsp;|&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/ JPmiaou |contribs]])  17 December 2012 </span><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
 +
 
 +
=== Instructions are not clear  ===
  
 
I've just finished trying to put together a request, and I second the comment that your instructions - may be clear for you Family Search people, but for us dodos who use your pages avidly...not all that clear.&nbsp; I was very puzzled by the detail asked for - so I simply copied and pasted the "Record Details" from the Indexed item.&nbsp; I hope that's enough - it does list "source film number" and "reference number".&nbsp; (And I did first check to see that the item has been microfilmed.)  
 
I've just finished trying to put together a request, and I second the comment that your instructions - may be clear for you Family Search people, but for us dodos who use your pages avidly...not all that clear.&nbsp; I was very puzzled by the detail asked for - so I simply copied and pasted the "Record Details" from the Indexed item.&nbsp; I hope that's enough - it does list "source film number" and "reference number".&nbsp; (And I did first check to see that the item has been microfilmed.)  
  
I frankly feel that a form would have made it easier - and since I've never done it before, I don't have "the old form.&nbsp;&nbsp; -- MarthaF, 3 February 2013
+
I frankly feel that a form would have made it easier - and since I've never done it before, I don't have "the old form.&nbsp;&nbsp; -- MarthaF, 3 February 2013  
 +
 
 +
=== Copies of records  ===
  
== Copies of records ==
+
{{help me}} I have been trying for some weeks to find out if i can obtain hard copies of documents which are indexed and referred to on&nbsp;your site. I was first advised to email photoduplication, which I did, supplying all the detail shown on the record plus my own contact details. I had no reply. I tried again with another record and received an automated acknowledgement - but still no substantive reply. I emailed again in response to the automated reply to ask whether what I was requesting was possible i.e. a copy of an original document which has been filmed. I received an email response which&nbsp; instructed me to check the catalog to see if the item was digitised (and if it was I could print my own copy). I did that and there is no indication whether or not the item is digitised -&nbsp;I presume that means it isn't. But the email was very unclear as to what i should do next. Will you send me a copy by email (an option which is mentioned) or will I have to go to a LDS History Search centre (not easy!)? And if I have to go in person will I&nbsp;be able to take a copy of the document i want?  
{{help me}}
+
I have been trying for some weeks to find out if i can obtain hard copies of documents which are indexed and referred to on&nbsp;your site. I was first advised to email photoduplication, which I did, supplying all the detail shown on the record plus my own contact details. I had no reply. I tried again with another record and received an automated acknowledgement - but still no substantive reply. I emailed again in response to the automated reply to ask whether what I was requesting was possible i.e. a copy of an original document which has been filmed. I received an email response which&nbsp; instructed me to check the catalog to see if the item was digitised (and if it was I could print my own copy). I did that and there is no indication whether or not the item is digitised -&nbsp;I presume that means it isn't. But the email was very unclear as to what i should do next. Will you send me a copy by email (an option which is mentioned) or will I have to go to a LDS History Search centre (not easy!)? And if I have to go in person will I&nbsp;be able to take a copy of the document i want?  
+
  
 
Your article on the webpage about this is virtually the same words as the email I've been sent - it is very frustrating to be unable to tell whether you be able to help me or not. A quick "No" would almost be better than this raising and then dashing of hopes!  
 
Your article on the webpage about this is virtually the same words as the email I've been sent - it is very frustrating to be unable to tell whether you be able to help me or not. A quick "No" would almost be better than this raising and then dashing of hopes!  
  
 
[mailto:neilann.thomas@tiscali.co.uk neilann.thomas@tiscali.co.uk]
 
[mailto:neilann.thomas@tiscali.co.uk neilann.thomas@tiscali.co.uk]

Revision as of 17:48, 26 February 2013

Contents

Request - go back to old way

I strongly suggest that you go back to requiring patrons to submit the old form, and link the form on this page.  You likely have many new patrons looking to use the photoduplication service now that you have moved to digital distribution.  In the absense of a form, staff are going to be spending a lot of time trying to process email requests that are not being submitted in an actionable format.  I suspect that this is why the record count is now being reduced to five per month from five per week (I personally would prefer that you stuck with the limit of eight records every two weeks as stipulated on the old form).  This five-per-month restriction is very dismaying as one would like to think that changes implemented to bring about efficiency would not be making the process less efficient for both staff and users. --JML 8 Feb 2013

Form Missing

From the 3rd paragraph: "You no longer need to use a form, however, if you would like to use the old form, you may email it to us."  Why tell a patron they can use the old form, when you don't provide a link to get a copy of the old form?  Do you think folks have copies of the old form hanging around?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggiliz (talk | contribs) 04:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs a better name


I had trouble finding this page under your new format. I put in various search terms and got over 3,000 possible answers. Your old format had forms listed under FORMS. If you haven't memorized the old format, it is extremely difficult to find something under the new format. How about a dropdown box listing the various features available? Clutter may look unsightly, but if it works far better than neater than neat, I prefer some version of the original where different areas were clearly listed. You have a huge number of resources, and they just don't fit under LEARN. I would never choose photoduplication. I would use copy. or copy from microfilms. Not photoduplication. That is not normal English, that is print-service jargon.

Hi Kilkeeny, thank you for your comments. I have added some redirects that if search for will lead people to this page Request for Photocopies, Copy from microfilms and Photocopies. I have also started a new page Help:Forms that the community can add to, so that it can become a place to list the forms available. The thing I love about the wiki is that it can always be improved, by the community. --Steve 12:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


No charge, need specific information

I just did a support chat, and was told that FamilySearch now sends electronic copies only, so be sure to provide your correct email address, and that there is no charge for this service, so disregard the pricing information on the Request for Photocopies form. She also told me to leave "item number" and "parish and volume number" blank if they're not provided in the search result and catalog entry. Oh, and entry number is not the same as item number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPmiaou (talk | contribs) 17 December 2012

Instructions are not clear

I've just finished trying to put together a request, and I second the comment that your instructions - may be clear for you Family Search people, but for us dodos who use your pages avidly...not all that clear.  I was very puzzled by the detail asked for - so I simply copied and pasted the "Record Details" from the Indexed item.  I hope that's enough - it does list "source film number" and "reference number".  (And I did first check to see that the item has been microfilmed.)

I frankly feel that a form would have made it easier - and since I've never done it before, I don't have "the old form.   -- MarthaF, 3 February 2013

Copies of records

Question.png I am looking for help!
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please replace this template with {{Helpme-helped}}.


I have been trying for some weeks to find out if i can obtain hard copies of documents which are indexed and referred to on your site. I was first advised to email photoduplication, which I did, supplying all the detail shown on the record plus my own contact details. I had no reply. I tried again with another record and received an automated acknowledgement - but still no substantive reply. I emailed again in response to the automated reply to ask whether what I was requesting was possible i.e. a copy of an original document which has been filmed. I received an email response which  instructed me to check the catalog to see if the item was digitised (and if it was I could print my own copy). I did that and there is no indication whether or not the item is digitised - I presume that means it isn't. But the email was very unclear as to what i should do next. Will you send me a copy by email (an option which is mentioned) or will I have to go to a LDS History Search centre (not easy!)? And if I have to go in person will I be able to take a copy of the document i want?

Your article on the webpage about this is virtually the same words as the email I've been sent - it is very frustrating to be unable to tell whether you be able to help me or not. A quick "No" would almost be better than this raising and then dashing of hopes!

neilann.thomas@tiscali.co.uk