4th May 2011, 02:58 PM
Sith Wrote:Either way, the numbers who could realistically be expected make use of this is so small that it would just be clogging up a chunk of bandwidth that could be better used for something else (like better on line reports).
That's basically what I was saying, that it would be better to spend more time on preparing more accessible reports for wider audiences. However, although I agree that the audience for 'raw' site data is likely to be limited, I do think you can make a reasonable case for doing it. Although later archaeologists wanting to re-assess the site may be happy to visit the archive, it would be simpler if the material was accessible online, particularly if they want to look at several sites in an area, whose physical archives may be located in a variety of disparate places. I also don't think it would only be pedants trying to find errors who would be interested - you'd also potentially get people who wished to use the information to draw their own conclusions about the site or to assess the validity of the official interpretation by looking at the unmediated data.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum