There are two notes fields on flexible.csv, one just 'Notesp and the other called 'transcriber notes'
Both of these are relevant to the actual record and used as follows
Notes - Any extra info you don't have a field for
Transcriber Notes: - a clarification say 'illegible', or alternative name etc
There is a third 'Notes' field that is relevant to the whole file and contained within the headers of the .csv file. It is populated in WinREG when you set up the file. There is a space in the headers when you create a flexible csv. file or you can populate after the file has been uploaded in the edit headers section.
I think this has been confused. I can't find the 'transcriber notes' field in the screen where you select the fields, although when you have transcribed a record and submitted it there is a column head for transcriber notes with two + + in it. It is not clear whether this is the 'transcriber notes field' for the record or the header notes field that applies to the whole file generally.
In any case, this needs to be looked at as a priority. Not a bug per say but problem with the design.
Not sure what category to put this in. Not a bug but problems with the database design
There are two notes fields on flexible.csv, one just 'Notesp and the other called 'transcriber notes' Both of these are relevant to the actual record and used as follows
Notes - Any extra info you don't have a field for Transcriber Notes: - a clarification say 'illegible', or alternative name etc
There is a third 'Notes' field that is relevant to the whole file and contained within the headers of the .csv file. It is populated in WinREG when you set up the file. There is a space in the headers when you create a flexible csv. file or you can populate after the file has been uploaded in the edit headers section.
I think this has been confused. I can't find the 'transcriber notes' field in the screen where you select the fields, although when you have transcribed a record and submitted it there is a column head for transcriber notes with two + + in it. It is not clear whether this is the 'transcriber notes field' for the record or the header notes field that applies to the whole file generally.
In any case, this needs to be looked at as a priority. Not a bug per say but problem with the design.
Not sure what category to put this in. Not a bug but problems with the database design