Redigitizing specimens from number mix-up

[RebekkaML]

A large amount of specimen labels that were ordered for DaSSCo were not reserved in Specify and are already in use by others (#151 ).
Out of the 250.000 numbers that were printed but not reserved, there are 10.369 that we used but that are already in use for other collections. We need to re-barcode and then re-image these specimens.
There are in total 99 boxes that need to be redone.

After talking to the Digitizers and Collection managers, it was decided that the best way forward is to stick a new barcode over the old one, since there is no way of removing the "wrong" barcode without damaging the paper and wasting a lot of time. We will scan both barcodes into an excel sheet and later connect them back to the data. This way, we don't have to enter all the information into the DigiApp again.

[RebekkaML]

The boxes we need to redo are:

667
672 - 681
696 - 700
705 - 743
753 - 796

The "gaps" in this list are explained by boxes that were digitized with "safe" labels because there was a roll of those still at Herb03 or that got lucky and got numbers that hadn't been used by anyone else. I marked those gaps both in the collection and on the printed out list of boxes where we can record our progress so we don't accidentally redo them as well.

[RebekkaML]

Christian Lange remarked that it would be good to attach a note to all these specimens when importing them into Specify that explains why they have two barcodes stuck over each other, because in a few years no one will remember this happened and it might cause confusion.

[RebekkaML]

I tested our decided approach today (only scanning old and new barcodes into an excel sheet and then sticking the new barcode over the old one) and sent the table to @beckerah, who said this works fine for her.

I also took several test images to make sure that the software can still read the barcode, even if the old one shines through a little bit and put them here: "N:\SCI-SNM-DigitalCollections\DaSSCo\MASTER_IMAGE_STORE\rebarcoding_test".

@beckerah had a look at them and the software doesn't seem to have a problem with this.
@chelseagraham will also have a look at them.

Once Chelsea has also agreed, we can start using this approach next week.

UPDATE from Chelsea:
I had a look and think they look good. Cannot see the old barcode coming through or anything! We're good to go. Thanks for doing this test, Rebekka :D

[RebekkaML]

I have started a table we can use to fill in and written instructions on how exactly to do the rebarcoding and reimaging, both can be found here: "N:\SCI-SNM-DigitalCollections\DaSSCo\Workflows and workstations\Herbarium\Rebarcoding and Reimaging".

This are the instructions:
Rebarcoding_protocol.pdf

[beckerah]

Christian Lange remarked that it would be good to attach a note to all these specimens when importing them into Specify that explains why they have two barcodes stuck over each other, because in a few years no one will remember this happened and it might cause confusion.

@RebekkaML
What about: "Specimen re-barcoded; original catalog number in use in another collection"?

[RebekkaML]

With help from @beckerah, I improved the excel table for entering in the old and new barcode so that the barcode scanner automatically jumps back to the beginning of the next row after we finish a specimen, so that we don't have to manually move to a different row. I also programmed the barcode scanner at Herb01 to enter a "tab" after each barcode, so it moves one cell to the right after scanning instead of one cell down. We need to change this back when we want to do regular digitizing again.