Fending Off Digital Decay, Bit by Bit
Electronically produced drafts, correspondence and editorial comments, sweated over by contemporary poets, novelists and nonfiction authors, are ultimately just a series of digits — 0’s and 1’s — written on floppy disks, CDs and hard drives, all of which degrade much faster than old-fashioned acid-free paper. Even if those storage media do survive, the relentless march of technology can mean that the older equipment and software that can make sense of all those 0’s and 1’s simply don’t exist anymore.
Recent Posts
- E-Books Can Subvert Book Bans, But Corporate Profit-Seeking Stands in the Way March 10, 2024
- Ten Stories That Shaped 2023 December 15, 2023
- War Sows Disruption at the National Book Awards November 16, 2023
- “No one else is saving it”: the fight to protect a historic music collection November 16, 2023
- No, I Don’t Want to Join Your Book Club November 9, 2023
- Iowa election 2023: Pella Public Library retains independence November 9, 2023
- A door at a Swedish library was accidentally left open 446 people came in, borrowed 245 books. Every single one was returned November 9, 2023
Recent Comments
- Examining Arab and Muslim librarians in fiction – Pop Culture Library Review on Librarian Combats Muslim Stereotypes
- St. Paul libraries face moment of reckoning – LISNews – News For Librarians on Secret and mysterious libraries
- Ellie on Just How Gross Are Library Books, Exactly?
- Prodigious1one on The Teaching Librarian Versus The Teacher
- Jason on Ten Stories That Shaped 2019
- centaurea on Libraries using Internet Trust Tools
LISNews Archives
- March 2024 (1)
- December 2023 (1)
- November 2023 (5)
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (1)
- August 2023 (22)
- February 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (20)
- December 2022 (6)
- February 2022 (3)
- December 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (1)
- July 2020 (11)
- June 2020 (11)
- January 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (4)
- October 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (4)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (11)
- February 2019 (41)
- January 2019 (31)
- December 2018 (6)
- November 2018 (11)
- October 2018 (15)
- September 2018 (9)
- August 2018 (22)
- July 2018 (1)
- June 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (7)
- April 2018 (8)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (17)
- January 2018 (13)
- December 2017 (8)
- November 2017 (16)
- October 2017 (18)
- September 2017 (11)
- August 2017 (8)
- July 2017 (8)
- June 2017 (21)
- May 2017 (39)
- April 2017 (22)
- March 2017 (15)
- February 2017 (21)
- January 2017 (40)
- December 2016 (20)
- November 2016 (9)
- October 2016 (20)
- September 2016 (48)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (55)
- June 2016 (61)
- May 2016 (39)
- April 2016 (67)
- March 2016 (81)
- February 2016 (85)
- January 2016 (69)
- December 2015 (90)
- November 2015 (126)
- October 2015 (107)
- September 2015 (85)
- August 2015 (42)
- July 2015 (32)
- June 2015 (35)
- May 2015 (39)
- April 2015 (14)
- March 2015 (60)
- February 2015 (75)
- January 2015 (44)
- December 2014 (30)
- November 2014 (39)
- October 2014 (43)
- September 2014 (30)
- August 2014 (36)
- July 2014 (59)
- June 2014 (46)
- May 2014 (62)
- April 2014 (58)
- March 2014 (52)
- February 2014 (37)
- January 2014 (42)
- December 2013 (41)
- November 2013 (25)
- October 2013 (43)
- September 2013 (28)
- August 2013 (32)
- July 2013 (61)
- June 2013 (51)
- May 2013 (50)
- April 2013 (52)
- March 2013 (68)
- February 2013 (62)
- January 2013 (62)
- December 2012 (53)
- November 2012 (64)
- October 2012 (111)
- September 2012 (109)
- August 2012 (128)
- July 2012 (57)
- June 2012 (75)
- May 2012 (163)
- April 2012 (158)
- March 2012 (109)
- February 2012 (125)
- January 2012 (136)
- December 2011 (109)
- November 2011 (74)
- October 2011 (82)
- September 2011 (95)
- August 2011 (106)
- July 2011 (93)
- June 2011 (102)
- May 2011 (94)
- April 2011 (105)
- March 2011 (100)
- February 2011 (92)
- January 2011 (110)
- December 2010 (124)
- November 2010 (83)
- October 2010 (118)
- September 2010 (115)
- August 2010 (110)
- July 2010 (108)
- June 2010 (113)
- May 2010 (78)
- April 2010 (121)
- March 2010 (191)
- February 2010 (182)
- January 2010 (168)
- December 2009 (129)
- November 2009 (116)
- October 2009 (131)
- September 2009 (149)
- August 2009 (162)
- July 2009 (166)
- June 2009 (189)
- May 2009 (112)
- April 2009 (164)
- March 2009 (185)
- February 2009 (151)
- January 2009 (173)
- December 2008 (200)
- November 2008 (155)
- October 2008 (252)
- September 2008 (267)
- August 2008 (193)
- July 2008 (208)
- June 2008 (161)
- May 2008 (208)
- April 2008 (253)
- March 2008 (201)
- February 2008 (246)
- January 2008 (185)
- December 2007 (200)
- November 2007 (208)
- October 2007 (241)
- September 2007 (227)
- August 2007 (269)
- July 2007 (201)
- June 2007 (205)
- May 2007 (157)
- April 2007 (217)
- March 2007 (250)
- February 2007 (183)
- January 2007 (181)
- December 2006 (163)
- November 2006 (180)
- October 2006 (170)
- September 2006 (215)
- August 2006 (210)
- July 2006 (202)
- June 2006 (257)
- May 2006 (280)
- April 2006 (271)
- March 2006 (347)
- February 2006 (284)
- January 2006 (300)
- December 2005 (267)
- November 2005 (238)
- October 2005 (364)
- September 2005 (349)
- August 2005 (377)
- July 2005 (382)
- June 2005 (403)
- May 2005 (371)
- April 2005 (420)
- March 2005 (367)
- February 2005 (368)
- January 2005 (346)
- December 2004 (311)
- November 2004 (260)
- October 2004 (308)
- September 2004 (228)
- August 2004 (319)
- July 2004 (395)
- June 2004 (338)
- May 2004 (288)
- April 2004 (364)
- March 2004 (348)
- February 2004 (438)
- January 2004 (266)
- December 2003 (222)
- November 2003 (226)
- October 2003 (281)
- September 2003 (317)
- August 2003 (315)
- July 2003 (278)
- June 2003 (282)
- May 2003 (265)
- April 2003 (271)
- March 2003 (249)
- February 2003 (283)
- January 2003 (210)
- December 2002 (186)
- November 2002 (184)
- October 2002 (222)
- September 2002 (210)
- August 2002 (207)
- July 2002 (184)
- June 2002 (166)
- May 2002 (160)
- April 2002 (195)
- March 2002 (183)
- February 2002 (195)
- January 2002 (203)
- December 2001 (203)
- November 2001 (238)
- October 2001 (183)
- September 2001 (153)
- August 2001 (204)
- July 2001 (243)
- June 2001 (176)
- May 2001 (92)
- April 2001 (116)
- March 2001 (153)
- February 2001 (142)
- January 2001 (131)
- December 2000 (110)
- November 2000 (124)
- October 2000 (128)
- September 2000 (132)
- August 2000 (138)
- July 2000 (166)
- June 2000 (135)
- May 2000 (120)
- April 2000 (121)
- March 2000 (181)
- February 2000 (163)
- January 2000 (54)
- November 1999 (37)
what a surprise…
ask anyone who’s tried to retrieve a file from a 10-yr-old floppy and you’ll see how difficult it is… I had to beg to get a floppy drive on my new pc.. and even then, corrupted files are common… and what I had to go through to salvage those files from my 5.25s wasn’t worth the effort…
but whatever was printed on paper can be scanned into Word over and over and over for a hundred years…
Laser printer
>but whatever was printed on paper can be scanned into Word over and over and over for a hundred years…
Unless the original was put onto paper using a laser printer. The toner will flake off much quicker than a hundred years.
Any evidence for that claim?
HP used to assert archival permanence for laser printing on acid-free paper, with the toner permanently bonded to the paper. Is there more than anonymous anecdotal evidence that properly-operating laser printers produce printouts that will actually “flake off” at some point?
Must admit, I’ve *never* had that happen with properly-operating printers and good paper, and I do have laser printouts >20 years old. Now, if you want to talk about printing using ink jet printers with non-archival inks (more prevalent 10 years ago than now), you have a case–the ink won’t flake off, but it may very well fade away.
Evidence
Several archival organizations have information on the web about toner flaking. The worst toner is if you are using a dry toner instead of a wet toner. A wet toner is more able to fuse with the paper.
See:
National Archives of Australia
http://www.naa.gov.au/records-management/secure-and-store/physical-preservation/faq/photocopies-and-laser.aspx
Adhesion of toner to paper
The physical durability of a xerographed copy depends primarily on how well the toner adheres to the paper. Time, temperature and pressure appear to be the most important factors, but adhesion may also be affected by the surface finish and porosity of the paper. It is more difficult for dry toners to penetrate coated papers and papers with small pore sizes. Moisture content of the paper can be critical for the toner-to-paper transfer process and may also affect the fixing process.
Full-colour images are thicker than black toner images because they are composed of four layers of toner. Consequently, they do not fully adhere to the paper and are more prone to flaking during flexing or folding.
***********
Librarians that just assume “all paper is good and will last hundreds of years” are taking a gamble. I have had numerous experiences with toner flaking and sticking to other pages. Combining this anecdotal info with the recommendations of archival institutions I don’t think you are safe to think that you can print something on your office laser printer and that you will be able to read it in 200 years.
Quoting the same source you cite
“Toners composed of stable resin materials and a stable pigment such as carbon black are capable of strong bonding to the paper surface. Copies using these toners and printed onto permanent or archival quality paper can be considered permanent and suitable for long-term storage. ”
That’s what your source says. Cut-and-pasted directly without modification. Coated papers and full-color images are entirely different questions (who uses coated papers for office printing anyway?).
Another source
If the fuser in your printer does not heat exactly right the toner will flake off. So any particular piece of paper printed with a laser printer may or may not be archival quality. There is an unknown factor with every laser print. Moisture absorbed by the paper also effects how the toner bonds.
Good paper and good ink you do not have to wonder if any particular sheet is ok.
See this: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/r-evans4/www/toner.html
I have had the exact problem mentioned in this article of toner flaking off and sticking to the back of other sheets of paper.
If laser printing adheres to paper 100% why do companies that make secure documents have rules like this?
***********
Be toner retention paper (laser printed title documents incorporate the ink into the paper allowing the retention of the toner so toner images cannot be scraped, lifted with tape or flaked off). The fusion agent shall not retard or impede the chemical sensitization contained in the paper.
***********
Repair manual
Here is a line from a laser printer training manual:
Fusing – two heated rollers melt toner to the paper.
A poor fusing assembly will give you raised print, toner flaking, light print, ghosting and sometimes excess build-up on the cleaning pad.
What? A poor fusing assembly will cause toner flaking? WTF???? I thought all laser prints are archival quality. Sure you can tell me that if I have a good printer and good toner my prints can last hundreds of years. But this advice gets turned into — laser printing is an archival medium.
So 100 years from now what things are we going to lose because we took Walt’s advice? Hope that all your fusers were at 100% and moisture level in the air was right and all the other factors were correct to make the laser print archival.
Something is not archival when there are a whole pile of unknown variables to account for to know if you got an archival print.
More toner flaking
Another site talking about toner flaking: Toner Flake-offs : Even toners that flake-off cannot be blamed on the printer. It’s also a matter of low quality paper. Too glossy or too much thickness causes toner flaking. If the medium is not right and was produced with poor adhesion qualities, expect the toner to flake off because the latter is basically plastic powder that is supposed to melt on the paper.
*********************
So if your paper is to thick or if you get a bad batch of toner it may not be archival. Walt the whole point of archival is that you are going to “know” that the medium is going to last. With laser printing and the numerous variables you do not know what is going to happen.
how come librarians…
always have to verify the source, yet never identify themselves as someone other than ‘anonymous’? I wish the plethora of anons would pick a name and use it.
Tina
So if the anonymous posts all had a name at the end that would seriously change something?
Tina
in a way, but not ‘seriously’
The reader would able to distinguish one anonymous person from another, that’s one reason.
Also if you’re entering a contest, such as our current joke contest, you can darn well conclude that anonymous is not going to win, or if he/she does, they will not receive prizes and/or recognition.
You’re not the only one
I’ve given up on this discussion–partly because there is, in the long run, very little point in arguing with A Possible Group of Nameless People Citing Mostly-Unlinked Sources. I quote Anonymous’ source *directly* and that’s not good enough. Why bother?
Fact is, by Mr/Ms Anonymous’ standards, there’s no such thing as an archival medium. Some microfilm fails. Hell, if you carved the words into stones, some stones would break. Traditional printing on acid-free paper only works if nobody tears the paper.
What you can virtually guarantee: Without an active, well-funded, constantly-monitored migration program, the likelihood that something stored on a digital medium will be usable 50 years later is a LOT lower than the likelihood that a laser-printed page will be readable 50 years later. That’s also meaningless, ’cause it’s not plausible to print everything out…which, really, makes the whole discussion annoying but not useful. So I’m done. Anonymous can keep trashing me for saying things I never said, like “all laser printing is archival no matter what the paper or the printer.”
And note that I was responding to a flat statement that toner would flake off laser-printed documents–not “possibly,” but a flat statement Which is, simply, not true. Since I never made a countering flat statement that toner would never flake off any laser-printed document (clearly false), well, draw your own judgments. Or just do as I should have done: Treat factual claims by Anonymous with the seriousness they deserve.
so?
So, what does a name really matter. I can call myself, Jim, Bob or Susan, but you still wouldn’t know me or even know if those were my real names. You would no nothing about me or my qualifications (or lack thereof) on any given subject. I get that replying to Anonymous can be confusing because you’re not sure if you are carrying on the conversation with the same person. If you want it to change, talk to those that run this site. They can suspend anonymous posting; they have in the past. Until then, there will be anonymous posters. Why attack us who make use of this option? It’s counterproductive.
And I seem to recall many people during Revolutionary times who wrote and published writings anonymously and pseudo-anonymously. Remember the Federalist papers? Now, I’m not comparing LISNews to that, because this site pales in comparison. Really, an argument over toner? My point is do you really want to “treat factual claims by Anonymous with the seriousness they deserve”—I’m assuming you mean Anonymous posting is frivolous—and discredit the message because there is no name to accredit it to? Let’s just forget those pesky Federalist Papers then because they didn’t have the decency to “pick a name and use it”! Even when Anonymous actually posts links to his/her sources, “that’s not good enough. Why bother?” Seems like no one will be happy.
back to the original post…
Technically, 0’s and 1’s are bits, not digits.
~firstgentrekkie
Both silly and wrong
Technically, that’s wrong–doubly.
1. 0 and 1 are as much digits as 2, 3, 4, etc… They also happen to be binary states.
2. “bit” as used in this regard was coined in 1948 as an abbreviation for “binary digit.” So you’re saying 0s and 1s are digits, not digits. Right.