Indexing Project: The search for perfect metadata

One of the struggles I've experienced in indexing my assigned digital images has been determining how much time to allocate to working on each record. Since this is a "Final Project" for a class, there's a natural tendency to spend quite a bit more time on the process, and ensure that every field is entered "perfectly," although I don't find that this is indicative of the way we are likely to encounter metadata creation in a professional environment. Certainly, in my day-to-day role as a school librarian, I don't have the spare time to get "too fine" with my cataloging backlog (I hardly have the time to catalog at all), nor did my experience at JPL, entering and describing documents in a digital repository, give me an excess of time to really pore over and deeply research the individual entries. Real-world metadata description often puts a premium on speed that is definitely absent from class exercises to a certain extent. That's not to say that emphasis isn't also placed on the accuracy and quality of entries, but these facets all need to be balanced when entering data in a work environment.

Now, this isn't to say that I didn't put a grade A effort into my image description. As someone who over-thinks, over-writes, and then over-thinks some more, I bellyached plenty over my fifteen assigned images. But at a certain point, I also recognized (and thanks to the sentiments of Dr. MacCall), that there isn't going to be perfection in our entries, and that the subjective nature of much of object description means that there are always going to be ways in which entries could be improved or tweaked. There is also the reality, beyond our control to an extent, that those searching through our records are going to be thinking of terms, phrases, and descriptive terms that are wholly different than those we conceived of, and it is difficult to ensure that all such perspectives are properly represented in our metadata entries.

I think there's a trend in our culture to think that doing something "well enough," or accepting "less than perfect" signifies laziness, a lack of ambition, or an acceptance of mediocrity. While it's true that we don't want to produce poor quality metadata, it's important not to lose sight of what it is we're producing. Metadata is a tool, a representation of a work utilized to find a desired information resource. It is meant to be USED. In order for that to happen, however, we need to be willing to "cut the cord," and let it come to life. In doing so, and turning it over for users to scrutinize, we may discover points for improvement and editing that we never would have considered on our own. It's a learning process, and one that we should approach humbly, open-minded, and with an ability to adapt. Don't get so concerned with creating excellent metadata, that you really end up creating no metadata. For an over-thinker like me, this is a tremendous challenge, but one I will continue to apply myself to meeting as I gain more and more experience with metadata, cataloging, and other descriptive processes.

This will be my last blog for LS 566, Metadata...I really just can't believe Mr. Anti-Social Media managed to crank out 42 this semester! If you've been following my posts, I appreciate you taking the time, and thanks for those that have left comments. Best of luck to the rest of my SLIS compadres in their future studies and professional endeavors.