Narrative-Type versus Photo-Type Reports

[hausdok]

I have one really great reason for taking pictures if you don't. You don't have to take notes anymore. I take a picture, or several, of everything I need to remember for the report, my camera is my notepad and my memory, 1 gig.. It's really great, all the info on an A/C data plate comes home with me from one click, along with proof of how the attic was packed solid from end to end if ever needed for litigation, and it just makes the report look good. The clients get a big smile on their faces when I come down off the roof, tell them whats up there and finish with, "don't worry I took pictures, you'll see exactly what I mean".

I can't even tell you how many times I've noticed something in the pictures that I didn't on site while the clients, agents and homeowners were bantering at me.

Ok, so it was several reasons.

With respect, how does a bunch of photos prove that you actually looked at everything you are required to look at in a house? How do photos seen without context help a client to decide what's important to the client?

There's more to the job than just photographing deficiencies. You are required by most standards to inspect and report on certain components throughout a home. Are you all taking pictures of each of those items that you've inspected that you are required to inspect - even when there is nothing wrong with them - so that 2, 3, 5, or 10 years from now you have the ability to reconstruct what you did in that home if you must?

As an investigator, I took mountains of photos of many crime scenes but it wasn't the photos that were the investigative report; the photos only supported parts of the investigative report and the conclusions drawn therein. To this day, police reports are still done with meticulous attention to detail in order to ensure that the reports involved aren't worthless and the pictures are still support for the report.

Your report is your own official record of what took place at the inspection. If your report consists of only the photos of the stuff that you found to be deficient, how do you deal with a situation where years later you are accused of having not inspected something you were supposed to inspect that later turns up deficient and costs the client big bucks? In a case like that, wouldn't the simple fact that your report contained only photos of the stuff that you found deficient work against you? Couldn't the complainant bolster his/her case by pointing out that, since you didn't have a picture of that component, that you were negligent and didn't even inspect it? How are you comic book style advocates dealing with that?

I can understand using a single photo to support showing how something is deficient but there also needs to be context. The client needs to be told what the issue is, why it is bad for the house, and what to do about it. The photo might show the issue but I'm not certain that it will always make it clear to the client why the issue is bad for the house and reinforce that fact in a client's mind so that the client is actually liable to follow the recommendation rather than disregard it.

I could hand you a handful of photos with arrows and text boxes. You'd understand only what was in that photo and wouldn't be able to form a mental picture of anything else in the house or the conditions at the time of anything outside of that picture frame. How does it prove that you looked at anything outside of the frame of that picture?

I can look at a book containing photos of building deficiencies all day long; but, unless someone explains to me what's normal versus what's not normal, and why each of those is bad for the home, how do I go about figuring out which is most important to me?

Kurt feels that the fact that a few of my clients have asked about photos means folks want photos; well, I'd say that only those folks who wanted photos, otherwise, the folks that didn't get photos would have complained and they certainly wouldn't be recommending my services strongly to friends and colleagues despite the lack of photos.

I can support the idea of writing a strong record that's supported by photos only where absolutely necessary, but I still think that we need to support any conclusions and recommendations attached to those photos with a written record of why we reached those conclusions and we have got to maintain a detailed record of our visit to the site; for our own protection as well as the client's. I don't think that a raft of photos with only short captions under each provides the kind of permanent record we need.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[kurt]

That commentary is really much more about resistance than understanding. I used to be that way too, because it required me to rethink what I do and how I do it. Then, I stopped blocking and started thinking.

The bulk of the argument "against" photos is made up stuff, i.e., creating hypotheticals that support one's preexisting bias. For someone that I consider to be one of the most rational, pragmatic, and logical individuals I've ever met, Mr. O's "arguments" are not arguments; they are made up hypotheticals supporting a predisposition.

Also, working with large quantities of photos is a pain in the butt with all the current retail report systems, i.e., MS Word based. No one wants a pain in the butt, so guess what happens? Folks decide photos aren't important.

The argument for photo based reports is very simple. Folks understand pictures about something they know little to nothing about more than they do paragraphs of words whose meanings they don't know.

As an example.......

"The northwest corner of the east facing gable dormer has rot in the rake end and cornice return. The gable dormer eave woodwork, including the rake, fascia, and soffit should be repaired."

Or.......

"The eave is rotten right here; repair the rotten eave,", .....with an establishing shot and a close up photo showing folks where it's rotten.

(While both examples language could be better, the point is there.)

Also, using photos requires one to think like a photojournalist in addition to being an inspector. Geeez Louise, another thing we have to change about how we think about what we do........ Well, I've found that making the painful transition to thinking like a photojournalist to be an immensely helpful process that makes me look at things in ways I never did before. Which, IMHO, is what all the arguments against photos are really about.

Then, the argument that only the very few who were courageous enough to ask for pictures are the only one's who want pictures is firmly in the realm of specious reasoning. That's not research; that's taking a couple unrelated personal experiences and extrapolating to a conclusion.

Before I switched reporting methods, I actually did research and comparisons with dozens of customers by showing them examples of both. (FTR, I used InspectExpress and Cramerware with a few photos, my old system/no photos, and a checklist as examples). Which ones do you think they unanimously chose? (Hint: the one's with pictures.)

I understand the pain of having to rethink one's beliefs, routines, and habits. I used to be there. Challenging myself, I created an entire software system with photos as the basis of the report system. It's better. I know this pains the wordsmiths out there, but it's better. And easier. In ways I'd have to show you drive home the point.

On another tack, someone explain how photos are not an excellent way of recording what we did and what we looked at......is someone actually arguing that paragraph after droning monotonous paragraph listing in full sentences where I went and what I did is better than a couple pictures of the far end of the attic or the back of the chimney up on the roof?

Folks use the argument of "folks like me and recommend me" as the basis for their report system being "better". Does that actually make sense to anyone? There are a thousand little things that folks take notice of and process into their decision making. Heck, folks liked me and recommended me for years when I was using a checklist. They liked me and recommended me because they could see I busted my ass for them.

OTOH, the idea of a 63 page inspection report staggers my mind. What on earth is anyone thinking? If one is incapable of condensing things down to approx. half that, I can't imagine what the heck they're doing......?......

In closing.......

Resistance to change, whether for worse or better, is a natural tendency of any self-regulating organism. One's resistance to change is likely to reach it's peak when significant change is imminent.

Transformation sometimes comes on the winds of grace. To raise one's sails into the winds of grace is a personal decision..........

[Chris Bernhardt]

With respect, how does a bunch of photos prove that you actually looked at everything you are required to look at in a house? How do photos seen without context help a client to decide what's important to the client?

Mike what are your talking about? How does a photo of an electrical panel with the cover off not prove someone pulled the cover off and looked at it? The same with the HVAC system etc.

How would the photo be less convincing to a judge and jury than narrative, " I removed the electrical panel cover and examined the panel."

What's the other side going to say? That the photo is not proof the inspector took the panel cov off and looked at it; that only his written statement in the report is valid evidence?

The use of photos in the report are in support of the findings, but they are not the report and no one said they were. The Oregon & ASHI SOP both require that the inspector state or list in a report the items inspected and indicate whether or not they are satisfactory in the opinion of the inspector. No one said anything about a photo only report.

Chris, Oregon

[gtblum]

OTOH, the idea of a 63 page inspection report staggers my mind. What on earth is anyone thinking? If one is incapable of condensing things down to approx. half that, I can't imagine what the heck they're doing......?......

Fish on!

Shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Two pictures can fill one page.

[Chris Bernhardt]

Also, working with large quantities of photos is a pain in the butt with all the current retail report systems, i.e., MS Word based. No one wants a pain in the butt, so guess what happens? Folks decide photos aren't important.

That's the problem and why ended up writing my own report writer. Any & every new idea I can come up with to generate, style & format a report I can impliment myself.

The next wave of report writers are going to have to start spitting out reports in different formats. A PDF to print out a report for a client without a computer, web based reports, and smartphone reports etc. I even had a client ask me if I could generate a machine readable report for the vision impaired.

Chris, Oregon

[hausdok]

With respect, how does a bunch of photos prove that you actually looked at everything you are required to look at in a house? How do photos seen without context help a client to decide what's important to the client?

Mike what are your talking about? How does a photo of an electrical panel with the cover off not prove someone pulled the cover off and looked at it? The same with the HVAC system etc.

How would the photo be less convincing to a judge and jury than narrative, " I removed the electrical panel cover and examined the panel."

What's the other side going to say? That the photo is not proof the inspector took the panel cov off and looked at it; that only his written statement in the report is valid evidence?

The use of photos in the report are in support of the findings, but they are not the report and no one said they were. The Oregon & ASHI SOP both require that the inspector state or list in a report the items inspected and indicate whether or not they are satisfactory in the opinion of the inspector. No one said anything about a photo only report.

Chris, Oregon

Chris,

So you're saying that you take a picture of the things that are fine - the house, the siding, the windows, the eaves, the earth-to-ground separation, the vegetation near the house, the porch, the walk, the doors, each receptacle, each heating register, the roof, the chimneys, the plumbing vents, the attics, the crawlspaces, the water shutoffs, the cleanouts, etc., etc. to prove that you looked at them. Hmmm.

How would the photo be less convincing to a judge and jury than narrative, " I removed the electrical panel cover and examined the panel."

Well, that wouldn't be a very good narrative unless he described the panel's location and characteristics of what he find inside the panel such as size/type of SEC, type of branch conductors, whether or not it's grounded and what type of service ground conductor there is, etc..

It's not resistance to change, Brother Kurt, it's asking how do I do this transition and still ensure that if I need the information down the road - all of the information necessary to protect myself - that I'll have it. As I've said,....repeatedly, I don't see a way to do it with photos only. I understand using a photo to support an investigative conclusion in a report but I don't understand using the photo as the report without context.

If it were as simple as that, police reports and investigative journalist's articles nowadays would be nothing but photographs with short captions attached. They aren't. The photos support the "story" in the report or article - sometimes weakly, sometimes strongly - but they aren't the story. A picture of a guy dead on the street tells you nothing about the crime. A picture of a demonstration tells you nothing about the circumstances.

You keep focusing on what your little poll has determined the client prefers - that which makes it easiest for them to grasp quickly - but you aren't considering what you need later on in order not to be caught flat-footed by someone who's trying to sue you or simply trying to impugn your integrity.

Let me put it this way, lest you accuse me of constantly worrying about getting sued by customers - which I don't; it's as much creating a permanent record for your own use as it is creating a temporary record for the buyer to use when trying to decide whether to go ahead and purchase the home or not.

Here's an analogy. Cops/detectives - who are nothing but inspectors with badges armed with guns and laws that empower them to enforce rules, stop people and question them and arrest them as necessary - rely on their education and their knowledge of how things should be according to "the book" when making everyday routine decisions. We do exactly the same thing - so don't journalists, since you brought them up - but their rules are a little more loosely interpreted.

They don't go around constantly worrying about what will happen when/if they every get called to testify in any given case in court, or in the case of a journalist whether the "facts" in the article are in dispute, because, as a matter of routine, they are careful to document everything they do and observe, in order to have a permanent record of the job they just did, whether it's helping some lady who just had a heart attack, arresting someone for fraud or an assault, or getting the scoop on rights abuses in a foreign land.

For the street cop, it's all documented in his notebook; for the investigator, it's all documented in his notebook and in his investigative report and he uses photos to document the location and conditions pertaining to physical evidence and he uses the report to support his findings and evidentiary conclusions. For the reporter, a lot of it goes into the article that's written but that reporter still has to keep detailed notes of other things not included in the article - times and places of what was done, who was talked to, etc.

A cop that shows up in court without his notebook to back him up and who relies on photos only has a strong likelihood of getting figuratively eaten alive by a good defense lawyer. He also has a strong likelihood of being found at fault out of court by his department if at some point someone accuses him of not properly following routine or regs. A journalist that can't back up an article stands a good chance of being fired or losing the protection and help of their employer's legal counsel and could end up out of a job, or worse, in jail or sued into poverty.

Cops don't go around worrying about such stuff and I doubt that good journalists do either; they do it out of routine because it's ingrained into their learning that careful documentation will ensure that they enjoy a long and thriving career instead of getting chewed up midway and ending up out of a job.

We should be thinking the same way. If using volumes of photos is going to become the norm, it has to be done in a way that will ensure that the investigators - inspectors - aren't standing there with their mouths open the first time they have to prove that they actually did what they claim to have done. For me, possibly because it's too heavily ingrained into my work ethic, a careful narrative description of something does that better than relying on a photo with a few words used as a caption.

Oh, by the way, your spirited defense notwithstanding, I still think you da man, Kurt, although you're mama's lime-green army boots are a bit hard to take.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[gtblum]

I understand using a photo to support an investigative conclusion in a report but I don't understand using the photo as the report without context.

Who said they did that?

[hausdok]

I understand using a photo to support an investigative conclusion in a report but I don't understand using the photo as the report without context.

Who said they did that?

More than one person does, apparently.

Okay, here's an example for your photo guys. Show me what you'd say about this panel.

Click to Enlarge

32.21 KB

OT - OF!!!

M.

[Bain]

I understand using a photo to support an investigative conclusion in a report but I don't understand using the photo as the report without context.

Who said they did that?

More than one person does, apparently.

Okay, here's an example for your photo guys. Show me what you'd say about this panel.

Click to Enlarge

32.21 KB

OT - OF!!!

M.

Hi,

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't have to be an either/or kind of thing, it can be both. I walk around dictating into a digital recorder and snapping photos. I type a very detailed summary, but also include the photos 'cause it helps people understand.

Missing strain relief in a panel? Show someone the clamp on one wire and where it's missing on another. Instant comprehension, and you don't have to spend gobs of time explaining what a 25-cent piece of hardware is.

[hausdok]

I understand using a photo to support an investigative conclusion in a report but I don't understand using the photo as the report without context.

Who said they did that?

More than one person does, apparently.

Okay, here's an example for your photo guys. Show me what you'd say about this panel.

Click to Enlarge

32.21 KB

OT - OF!!!

M.

Hi,

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't have to be an either/or kind of thing, it can be both. I walk around dictating into a digital recorder and snapping photos. I type a very detailed summary, but also include the photos 'cause it helps people understand.

Missing strain relief in a panel? Show someone the clamp on one wire and where it's missing on another. Instant comprehension, and you don't have to spend gobs of time explaining what a 25-cent piece of hardware is.

No,

I didn't miss the point. I keep saying that I believe that you can use a photo to support a report but I don't understand how a report that is mostly photos with captions is defensible.

A photo only documents what you show in the photo. It' doesn't do you a damned bit of good when something else outside of the photo is at issue.

I want to understand how one manages to balance photos versus the stuff that's required and still keep it defensible and within a decent size and still have a record that you can open years later, be able to read, and have a near-perfect memory of what you've said and done onsite when you need it. You see, I do include graphics and stuff for stuff that I'll regularly encounter but without describing a home I don't understand how one can, years later, recall everything they need to about a home by looking at photos of just the deficiencies seen. Isn't it usually the stuff that they say that one didn't see that bedevils people in this business? How do you prove that you did see it if it's not in the photos?

OT - OF!!!

M.

[Robert Jones]

Mike,

That was an easy one. I would explain that it is a Zinsco/Sylvania service and that it needs to be replaced. I do add a canned comment about the issues with Zinsco/Sylvania.

[Bain]

I understand using a photo to support an investigative conclusion in a report but I don't understand using the photo as the report without context.

Who said they did that?

More than one person does, apparently.

Okay, here's an example for your photo guys. Show me what you'd say about this panel.

Click to Enlarge

32.21 KB

OT - OF!!!

M.

Hi,

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't have to be an either/or kind of thing, it can be both. I walk around dictating into a digital recorder and snapping photos. I type a very detailed summary, but also include the photos 'cause it helps people understand.

Missing strain relief in a panel? Show someone the clamp on one wire and where it's missing on another. Instant comprehension, and you don't have to spend gobs of time explaining what a 25-cent piece of hardware is.

No,

I didn't miss the point. I keep saying that I believe that you can use a photo to support a report but I don't understand how a report that is mostly photos with captions is defensible.

A photo only documents what you show in the photo. It' doesn't do you a damned bit of good when something else outside of the photo is at issue.

I want to understand how one manages to balance photos versus the stuff that's required and still keep it defensible and within a decent size and still have a record that you can open years later, be able to read, and have a near-perfect memory of what you've said and done onsite when you need it. You see, I do include graphics and stuff for stuff that I'll regularly encounter but without describing a home I don't understand how one can, years later, recall everything they need to about a home by looking at photos of just the deficiencies seen. Isn't it usually the stuff that they say that one didn't see that bedevils people in this business? How do you prove that you did see it if it's not in the photos?

OT - OF!!!

M.

But I don't think anyone is talking about a photos-only report. My own is about 16 pages of text and the rest is photos. Chris uploaded one of his reports to be critiqued a year or so ago, and there was plenty of text.

As for protecting oneself should problems arise in the future, I'm certain there's more all of us can, and should, do. But if some fruitcake really wants to sue you, he or she will do it. And it gets reeaal complicated after that, regardless of what's in your report.

I've said before that I got sued by the seller of a house a year and a half ago. I'm still dealing with it, even though Kentucky law says I don't have contractual privity with, or duty of care toward, the seller of any house I check out.

[kurt]

With respect to my brother.......

Mike, you're making stuff up. No one said photos only. No one said insert photos without any description of what the photo shows. No one said don't describe stuff. No one said narrative is bad. No one said, or even implied, the positions you are jumping to.

You're hypothesizing situations wherein everything is done all wrong, reports are poorly conceptualized and executed, and then using that hypothetical condition as rationale for your position.

We're arguing that picture based reports are excellent, and you're arguing that pictures are barely, if at all, necessary.

Chris and Bain's argument using the panel cover off as proof of inspection is completely valid. You're saying it's not. That makes absolutely no sense. None.

You're likening this job to a detectives work on a homicide, where evidence collection protocols are critical and have bearing on legal interpretation of what's admissable evidence. That's nuts.

Is it necessary to describe the panel location as anything more than "Laundry", or "Garage"? No, it's not. A location, with a picture, is hugely suggestive that someone did their job the way they were supposed to. If there's some issue with the panel, a photo and a brief concise description of the issue, is an excellent way to get the information across. I propose that's it's not just excellent.

It's better.

Chris, you and I are in the same boat. I think we have followed parallel paths on this thing. I'd love to see your system someday.

[Chad Fabry]

I take lots of pictures but only photos depicting egregious practices, significant failures or hard to explain scenarios make the report. I'll include a dozen photos or so.

That said, I helped another inspector w/ a big old building and my report for her was nothing more than the the photos I took with captions added. If Mitenbuler doesn't hurry and give me a copy of the software he's using, I'm going to create my own "comic book" form. Honestly, it doesn't get any easier to understand than photos w/ captions. Old House Journal, JLC and Fine Home Building have all figured that out.

[kurt]

If Mitenbuler doesn't hurry and give me a copy of the software he's using, I'm going to create my own "comic book" form.

FTR, I've got 3 different ways to do the photo thing, not just comic book.

1) comic / 3 pics per page, paragraph or so per pic. This is the best thing for HOA work for a bunch of folks that weren't at the inspection. It's also a great way to summarize findings.

2) larger narrative (more space for writing) and 1-4 pics per concern. The number of items per page depends on the length of the narrative. Sometimes it's a lot (ala Zinsco stuff, complicated masonry explanations, etc. Defects are concerns are listed numerically; I can sort them 5 different ways to set up priorities, major and minor, etc. This is my primary report delivery.

3) regular "Word" type narrative with pics placed here and there.

I batch import all the photos in one command from the 'puter. They go into a "photolog" file indexed to the clients w/an ID. I can sort them to order simply by tapping on them in the order I want them. I delete the useless shots. I can do a "save as" and have as many photologs of a single job as I need. I can tab through the photos and type in comments as needed.

My camera has an audio record feature. After I take a picture, I have 5 seconds to describe what I'm seeing into the camera. I can forgo the audio by hitting a button, so I can selectively record. When the pic is imported into my software, I double click on the photo and it "tells me" what it is, and I type into the comment space as the photo is "talking" to me.

In the #2 system, I've got 2 columns; comment space on left, and photos on right. I can click one of two buttons; one is "new comment", the other is "select comment". New comment is just me writing a quickie. Select Comment takes me to my comment library where I can search and select from my (approx.) several thousand comment list.

I write a comment in the comment space (sometimes while the photo is telling me what it is), and drag the photo to it from the right column. If you saw this in action, with the interface I have set up, you'd just start grinning. All the database geeks I know look at it, and they get this sly grin on their face and look at me like "yeah....."

I've also got a Graphic Library full of examples, Code Check graphics, pictures of "how it should be", etc. I can search that and punch those into the mix. Every once and a while, I'll do a comment where "this is what you have and this is how it should be". Effective for those that just don't get it.

It's software built for graphic manipulation and presentation. I'm working on a half dozen other presentation formats. Basically, how do you want to show photos and comments? I can do it as many ways as you can think of.

Honestly, it doesn't get any easier to understand than photos w/ captions. Old House Journal, JLC and Fine Home Building have all figured that out.

I couldn't say it any better than that.

Also FTR, I think this is the sort of debate that sets TIJ completely apart from any other online forum. It makes me proud to be a participant.

[sepefrio]

As for the question about file size, my average report is 25-30 pages long. It would contain maybe 40-50 pictures. Yet my PDF size is about 1meg. What I do, although a bit more time consuming, is re-size all the pictures first to about 3x3. They are much smaller and the conversion to PDF compacts them further. If you leave the photo the original size when imported from the camera, even if it is only 1x1 on the report, it is still the same file size as the original. I also have a note that also states that larger pictures are available on request. The other trick to keeping the size down, don't repeat the report in different ways, i.e. page 3-20 are the systems then 21-37 repeat the same comments room by room. I just do it by system then a quick summary that has no pictures.

I also agree I guess, with pictures you prove you were there. Each section of my report starts with certain basics. The electrical portion header states size, location, type etc and is followed with three photos (One panel closed to show location, one panel door open to show markings, and one panel off) and one of two comments; "No Problems noted" or "See Electrical comments below". This establishes the electrical section and yes I guess it does show I did my job. I do the same with HVAC, the water heater and all appliances that convey. Once, my client used my report to force the seller to return the refrigerator he had swapped out but claimed he never did.

The main reason I believe in pictures is for all those things the client can't see. Describe all you want about wood rot in the crawlspace, but a picture really tells them how bad it is. Like Kurt said above too, I like to add pictures form the illustrated home to show how it's suppose to be. Especially when the agent there says things like "the clearance for that condenser is fine". The illustration makes it look more official and the client takes your word for it. I know, kind of childish, but it is a form of proof we know what we are talking about.

[hausdok]

It's all good.

My work is done here.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[kurt]

It's all good.

My work is done here.

OT - OF!!!

M.

Hold on sucka.....we haven't straightened out the thing about my momma and her boots........

[hausdok]

The boots ain't so bad, despite the color, but that danged G-string....? [:-bigeyes

OT - OF!!!

M.

[Chris Bernhardt]

So you're saying that you take a picture of the things that are fine - the house, the siding, the windows, the eaves, the earth-to-ground separation, the vegetation near the house, the porch, the walk, the doors, each receptacle, each heating register, the roof, the chimneys, the plumbing vents, the attics, the crawlspaces, the water shutoffs, the cleanouts, etc., etc. to prove that you looked at them. Hmmm.

Well almost. I snap off photos of all sides & angles of the home, including the roof when I'm up there. It's nothing, the camera don't care, and one get's pretty fast at it after awhile. I take photos of anything that is of interest to me. I take photos of equipment before I open the panels and after. I take photos of things that I will have to later describe in the report. I do take photos of the shutoffs and readily accessible clean outs, and water heater, a/c, and furnace plates. I'm taking more photos all the time.

The difference between what we do and what is done in law enforcement is that we have the opportunity to snap photos at the moment of the crime. It's no different than writing it down at the moment, well actually if you stopped to write it down, you'll just miss too much or take too long.

Also FTR, I think this is the sort of debate that sets TIJ completely apart from any other online forum. It makes me proud to be a participant.

Hear, hear!

Sixty-page reports? Sweet Baby Jesus!

Nobody is going to read a sixty page report. When the plantiffs lawyer tells the judge your report is sixty pages, the judge is going to wince and shake his or her head.

Chris, Oregon

[kurt]

Yeah, I do the same thing. I take photos of damn near everything. Not every outlet or heat register, of course, but all that other stuff that's listed.

Come to think of it, I do take pictures of a lot of outlets if they're all 2 slot types, or there's push button switches, or if there's a gravity heating system I take pics of the supplies and returns in a few rooms. I lift up the register covers to look for asbestos, and I snap a pic while I do it.

It really doesn't take any time. I'm there looking anyway; I keep the camera in my hand and just snap away.

It's funny that folks think it's outlandish. I did too, a while back. You couldn't have convinced me that it made any sense, and I was sure as I'm alive that it would take forever. Mind you, I'm someone that counts the seconds it takes in various operations, knowing that if I can shave a few here or there, it adds up into minutes and hours off my workday.

Photos make it go quicker, not longer. It's all about having the software, the interface, and the procedure figured out. If you don't have the software, don't bother taking a lot of pictures, because you'll very quickly go underwater with pics.

I think that's why folks think it's so crazy. They don't have the software figured out. Kinda like when I first started using a laptop on site in the early 90's. Folks thought I was nuts.

[Chris Bernhardt]

Chris, you and I are in the same boat. I think we have followed parallel paths on this thing. I'd love to see your system someday.

Other peoples report writers force you to think at odds with how you natually think & work. I wrote my report writer in a vacuum. I didn't research how others were doing it; I didn't want to be contaminated.

My narrative format is almost identical to the best, which is Jim Katens in my opinion, although we build it very differently.

I write a leader(subhead) first for each observation I'm reporting on. These are all simultaneously linked to the corresponding items in Oregons SoP, and each leader (subhead) is stored in a table and are correlated and prioritized automatically. I don't have to enter stuff in any order, the program automatically takes care of that.

I then have a module that I call photopicker where I step through each leader (subhead) and assign/link pics to each one. When I do that I have the option of selecting the leader(subhead) as the caption for the pic; that saves a ton of time captioning up pics.

Next step is a module where I write the narrative & recommendation. In that module it shows the leader(subhead) and the pics already assigned for reference as I write. This module also reads the leader(subhead), parses it then checks the broiler plate database and pops up thumbnails of close matches all automatically. There is no hunting thru any menus for broilerplate.

Then I hit process pics and it automatically builds the pic pages all captioned up 8 to a page everything is cross referenced to each other (narrative to photos, photos to narrative, list of items inspected to narrative). Then I hit finalize and it builds the rest of my report automatically. Then I proof it and compile it to PDF. I also have a complier to format the report in XHTML for viewing on smartphones.

This is all written using MS words built in visual basic, although I'm thinking about building it in something faster.

Chris, Oregon

[SonOfSwamp]

If you don't mind me asking, what's a leader in this context?

WJ

[Chris Bernhardt]

If you don't mind me asking, what's a leader in this context?

I call it a leader. I don't know what its proper name is, perhaps headline, header?

For example: Clogged gutters

Chris, Oregon

[kurt]

Chris, sounds impressive. Mines way simpler. Stuff is divided into 3 main categories; Major Concerns, Stuff I don't know and that should be checked out, and FYI.

Major concerns are catalogued according to their system, such as Site, Garage, Decks, Structural, HVAC, etc.

I can sort them all sorts of ways in the presentation, but that's the basics.

I'll toss in another heresy. My reports don't read like an MS Word document. In my view, reading HI reports is akin to sticking needles in your eyes. I don't care how wonderful folks imagine them to be, be it Katen-esque narrative, or folksy WJ, Mr. O catalog of amazing stuff, or Cramerware Word. They're all wretched. Who can read that stuff?

I think HI's, as a group, are creative outlet deficient, and they use the report as their outlet. That's how we end up with all these reports that read like non-fiction novels.

My reports are a simple defect list, numbered One through whatever. The idea of reading through a report, and having to pick out the substantive items, is wretched. I give them the substantive items up front. I explain the stuff that's important in their house.

I did this based on my customer research. I asked folks if they wanted a narrative, or a list, and showed them examples. Unanimous choice was a list. Folks are forced read the stuff I want them to read. No summary. The report is the summary. I actually had one guy ask "why would I want to read all that? Just give me a list". Kinda made an impression on me.

What does everyone do with their report anyway? They strip out all the extraneous stuff, and make a list.

All the SOP stuff is in a Descriptions section in the back. If someone wants to know the descriptive inventory of their house, it's in there.