I'm coming in a little late on this thread but can I ask what is the 
rationale behind this whole process and is it worth the resources spent to 
either stamp a document or put in a disclaimer sheet before each 
light/unreadable document?  Is it really required by standards or statute or 
is it just something that's done because "that's the way it's always been 
done"?

Gary Vocks

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Allan, Liz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [RM] Doc Scanning : how to best indicate original doc was of 
poor quality


> Our imaging staff uses a stamp that says "BEST AVAILABLE IMAGE" for
> documents that are visually impaired. (I like that: 'visually
> impaired'!)
>
> Liz Allan
> San Jose, CA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Howard Furst
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:08 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [RM] Doc Scanning : how to best indicate original doc was of
> poor quality
>
> We are in the process of imaging a large collection of active
> engineering documents.
>
> When we began the project we were instructed to use a rubber stamp that
> said VERIFIED on any document that was of suspect quality or had a
> visually impaired issue.
>
> After seeing their documents stamped VERIFIED they are having second
> thoughts. Because these paper docs are still in active use, they don't
> want them marked up and they also feel the word VERIFIED could be
> misunderstood for something about the document.
>
> I am looking for constructive comments, ideas and advice from those with
> document imaging experience about methods they use to indicate suspect
> image quality.  (Please no opinionated lectures).
>
> My questions:
>
> Q1) What is the best wording to use. Is there a standard term or is
> VERIFIED
> it?
>
> @2) What alternatives are there to a rubber stamp? ( we have used
> cleared
> post it flags but this is very labor intensive;  Ideally have a patch
> sheet that triggers an "overlay" but I don't see this supported in our
> Kofax software or B&H scanner)
>
> Q3) Is it better not to even indicate suspect quality?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Howard Furst
>
>
>
> ===
> Howard Furst
> [log in to unmask]
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
>
>
> <font size="1" face="arial">This message (including any attachments) may 
> contain confidential or otherwise privileged information and is intended 
> only for the individual(s) to which it is addressed. If you are not the 
> named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this 
> e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have 
> received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. 
> E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error-free as 
> information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late 
> or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept 
> liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message or 
> that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required 
> please request a hard-copy version from the sender.
>
> SOURCECORP, Incorporated
> www.srcp.com
> </font>
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
> 

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance