I certainly applaud the recording of records for posterity and making  
them available for public use.

But please tell me why they're not being digitized on the scanners  
that the library already has rather than using 1950's technology?

We've had this argument before, I know, but somewhere there needs to  
be a recognition that serving the greater public with digital will get  
more folks served than a MF roll that one person at a time can view.

A scanner already in place costs the same as a person to run a MF  
machine, presumably. After that, MF costs are way higher. Far fewer  
people can have access, it's B&W, the resolution isn't great, and so  
on and so forth.

Is there a cogent rationale that has compared both and found MF  
superior or what?

Just asking, again, grumbling, again.

Lyle Browning, Resident Curmudgeon

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html