Thanks PTW. I haven't tried clearing the cache files. However, I have tried a different PC with a newly installed operating system but the problem persists. I have now sent an email to the support team. Thank you to everyone for your contribution. Regards, John. PTW wrote: > Hi John, > > have you tried clearing your cache files? If your cache file is large this can slow down your machine. > > Registry Patrol v.3.0 works well - FYI: passwords and usernames are contained within cache files and are erased, so make a note of the ones you use. > > > Cheers > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins > FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi John, have you tried clearing your cache files? If your cache file is large this can slow down your machine. Registry Patrol v.3.0 works well - FYI: passwords and usernames are contained within cache files and are erased, so make a note of the ones you use. Cheers

Loraine, I do normally left click to download to my browser and then right click to save the image. I have tried right clicking the link as you suggest, but it has made no difference. Nowl, I have already tried downloading with my antivirus software turned off but still no improvement. David, an email to support sounds good to me. I will do as you suggest. Many thanks to everybody for taking the trouble to reply. Kind regards, John. Loraine wrote: > Another thought, John. Do you right click and do the 'save as' option, or do > you just left click to download the image and then save? The right click > option is much, much faster. > > Lol > > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins > FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

John Crew wrote on Mon, 10 Nov 2008: >Has anyone noticed an increase in the time it takes to download scanned >indexes during the past month? Or is it just me? My latest allocation of >scans were taking 5 to 9 minutes (per file) to download. I'm sure that >it used to take about 1 minute (or less). John, is it possible you have some antivirus or other security app that is scanning the downloads and slowing them down? Have you perhaps updated one of these lately? -- Nowl

2008/11/10 John Crew <[email protected]> > Hello Sue, > > Thank you for the suggestions. However, I'm the only computer user in my > household. Wireless networking is also turned off so nobody can be > stealing my bandwidth. Other websites containing very large images are > loading in just a few seconds so I think my broadband connection is okay. > General posts to the admins list along the lines of "is anybody else seeing the same problem" seldom produce anything useful in terms of a resolution. You tend to get a collection of posts that say either "Yes, I've had this problem too", or "No, it just worked fine for me", and you are no further foward with diagnosing what might be wrong. If you believe that there is a server problem, please e-mail [email protected], and give the fullest possible information. In particular, we need to know which image, and the exact date and time. If you have had repeated problems, we STILL need a sample case to investigate, -- Dave Mayall

Hello Sue, Thank you for the suggestions. However, I'm the only computer user in my household. Wireless networking is also turned off so nobody can be stealing my bandwidth. Other websites containing very large images are loading in just a few seconds so I think my broadband connection is okay. Kind regards, John. Sue Barnard wrote: > Just a thought, John - is there anyone else in your house who might be using the Internet at the same time on another computer? Depending on what they're doing, that could be slowing down your connection speed. > > Sue > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Crew" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:29 AM > Subject: Re: Slow downloading of scanned indexes > > >> Hello Lawrence, >> >> Thank you for your reply. I have just tried again and there is a slight >> improvement. Download times now vary between about 1 and 5 minutes. >> >> John. >> >> Lawrence Pearse wrote: >>> Hello, John - I have just tried opening the link you included and downloaded the scan within a second, so I don't know what might be your problem. >>> >>> Lawrence Pearse> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:43:34 +0000> From: [email protected]> To: [email protected]> Subject: Slow downloading of scanned indexes> > Hello,> > Has anyone noticed an increase in the time it takes to download scanned > indexes during the past month? Or is it just me? My latest allocation of > scans were taking 5 to 9 minutes (per file) to download. I'm sure that > it used to take about 1 minute (or less).> > Am I fetching the files from the correct place? Here is a typical link:> http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1920/Deaths/June/ANC-04/A-J/1920D2-H-0309.jpg> > I have tried a different PC but with the same result. My broadband > speeds are also good.> > Any ideas?> > Kind regards,> > John Crew.> > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins> FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/> > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] w >> it! >>> h the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> BigSnapSearch.com - 24 prizes a day, every day - Search Now! >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/117442309/direct/01/ >>> FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins >>> FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >> FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins >> FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins > FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Another thought, John. Do you right click and do the 'save as' option, or do you just left click to download the image and then save? The right click option is much, much faster. Lol

Just a thought, John - is there anyone else in your house who might be using the Internet at the same time on another computer? Depending on what they're doing, that could be slowing down your connection speed. Sue ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Crew" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:29 AM Subject: Re: Slow downloading of scanned indexes > Hello Lawrence, > > Thank you for your reply. I have just tried again and there is a slight > improvement. Download times now vary between about 1 and 5 minutes. > > John. > > Lawrence Pearse wrote: >> Hello, John - I have just tried opening the link you included and downloaded the scan within a second, so I don't know what might be your problem. >> >> Lawrence Pearse> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:43:34 +0000> From: [email protected]> To: [email protected]> Subject: Slow downloading of scanned indexes> > Hello,> > Has anyone noticed an increase in the time it takes to download scanned > indexes during the past month? Or is it just me? My latest allocation of > scans were taking 5 to 9 minutes (per file) to download. I'm sure that > it used to take about 1 minute (or less).> > Am I fetching the files from the correct place? Here is a typical link:> http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1920/Deaths/June/ANC-04/A-J/1920D2-H-0309.jpg> > I have tried a different PC but with the same result. My broadband > speeds are also good.> > Any ideas?> > Kind regards,> > John Crew.> > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins> FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/> > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] w > it! >> h the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> _________________________________________________________________ >> BigSnapSearch.com - 24 prizes a day, every day - Search Now! >> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/117442309/direct/01/ >> FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins >> FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins > FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Took me 1 or 2 seconds to download each page from a sample of 1920/Deaths/June/ANC-04 scans. Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Crew" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 9:43 AM Subject: Slow downloading of scanned indexes Hello, Has anyone noticed an increase in the time it takes to download scanned indexes during the past month? Or is it just me? My latest allocation of scans were taking 5 to 9 minutes (per file) to download. I'm sure that it used to take about 1 minute (or less). Am I fetching the files from the correct place? Here is a typical link: http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1920/Deaths/June/ANC-04/A-J/1920D2-H-0309.jpg I have tried a different PC but with the same result. My broadband speeds are also good. Any ideas? Kind regards, John Crew.

Hello Lawrence, Thank you for your reply. I have just tried again and there is a slight improvement. Download times now vary between about 1 and 5 minutes. John. Lawrence Pearse wrote: > Hello, John - I have just tried opening the link you included and downloaded the scan within a second, so I don't know what might be your problem. > > Lawrence Pearse> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:43:34 +0000> From: [email protected]> To: [email protected]> Subject: Slow downloading of scanned indexes> > Hello,> > Has anyone noticed an increase in the time it takes to download scanned > indexes during the past month? Or is it just me? My latest allocation of > scans were taking 5 to 9 minutes (per file) to download. I'm sure that > it used to take about 1 minute (or less).> > Am I fetching the files from the correct place? Here is a typical link:> http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1920/Deaths/June/ANC-04/A-J/1920D2-H-0309.jpg> > I have tried a different PC but with the same result. My broadband > speeds are also good.> > Any ideas?> > Kind regards,> > John Crew.> > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins> FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/> > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] w it! > h the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > _________________________________________________________________ > BigSnapSearch.com - 24 prizes a day, every day - Search Now! > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/117442309/direct/01/ > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins > FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hello, John - I have just tried opening the link you included and downloaded the scan within a second, so I don't know what might be your problem. Lawrence Pearse> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:43:34 +0000> From: [email protected]> To: [email protected]> Subject: Slow downloading of scanned indexes> > Hello,> > Has anyone noticed an increase in the time it takes to download scanned > indexes during the past month? Or is it just me? My latest allocation of > scans were taking 5 to 9 minutes (per file) to download. I'm sure that > it used to take about 1 minute (or less).> > Am I fetching the files from the correct place? Here is a typical link:> http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1920/Deaths/June/ANC-04/A-J/1920D2-H-0309.jpg> > I have tried a different PC but with the same result. My broadband > speeds are also good.> > Any ideas?> > Kind regards,> > John Crew.> > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins> FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/> > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ BigSnapSearch.com - 24 prizes a day, every day - Search Now! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/117442309/direct/01/

Hello, Has anyone noticed an increase in the time it takes to download scanned indexes during the past month? Or is it just me? My latest allocation of scans were taking 5 to 9 minutes (per file) to download. I'm sure that it used to take about 1 minute (or less). Am I fetching the files from the correct place? Here is a typical link: http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1920/Deaths/June/ANC-04/A-J/1920D2-H-0309.jpg I have tried a different PC but with the same result. My broadband speeds are also good. Any ideas? Kind regards, John Crew.

That's very informative, and very interesting. Thanks Allan, Bob Henderson 1738 --- On Thu, 6/11/08, Allan Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: From: Allan Raymond <[email protected]> Subject: FreeBMD - A Cause for Celebration To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, 6 November, 2008, 5:23 PM Some "light" reading to show the great strides made by FreeBMD http://www.freebmd.org.uk/news.html Thanks to everyone involved. Allan Raymond FreeBMD Co-ordinator of Syndicates FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Some "light" reading to show the great strides made by FreeBMD http://www.freebmd.org.uk/news.html Thanks to everyone involved. Allan Raymond FreeBMD Co-ordinator of Syndicates

A reply has been sent directly 2008/11/6 Eddie Tricker <[email protected]> > Hi Everyone > I know you guys, 'don't enter into correspondence' about your entries in > the FreeBMD database and I know and understand that you have strict rules > about what you enter and what you don't enter into the database. > > -- Dave Mayall

Keith Thanks for identifying this possible problem. I've checked out a sample of the files for the particular volunteer and the same situation also applies to some of these files I've put a task on the system to produce a report to identify the extent of the problem, fingers crossed I hope it is confined to this transcriber or a small number of transcribers. Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Partridge" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: RE: Tip of the Day (No. 6) - Alternative Spouse Names in MarriageRecords I fear I have encountered a slight variation to this problem, which may have increased the scale of it. March 1922 Marriages - Scan ANC-04/K-Z/1922M1-S-0231.jpg Name Steuart, James N. The entry has been transcribed correctly, with the Comment line in (I believe) the right place, but a colon has been added between COMMENT and the (2). This results in the Comment line symbol (the red ?) only being displayed on the first of the 2 entries when viewed in FreeBMD. At a quick glance I could not see this scan included in the list of suspect scans in the link provided in Allan's earlier email - however I may have missed it. Perhaps a check could be made to ascertain the extent of this - hopefully it is just a one-off. Keith > From: [email protected]> To: [email protected]> > Subject: Tip of the Day (No. 6) - Alternative Spouse Names in Marriage > Records> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 18:57:40 +0000> > This is the sixth in a > series of "Tip of the Day" to help volunteers who are transcribing for the > FreeBMD Project. This is an update of the Tip of the Day for the benefit > of our new volunteers plus existing volunteers who may have missed it when > last issued. It takes into account feedback from volunteers since I last > issued this tip.> > Suggestions for other "Tip of the Day" are welcome.> > > Also any suggested improvement to the wording of this "Tip of the Day" is > also encouraged.> > The Transcribers' Knowledge Base at: > > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u provides the definitive advice > for dealing with alternative names in records.> > I've been carrying out > ongoing checks of recent files uploaded by a number of transcribers to see > how they dealt with records containing alternative names. In particular, > where alternative spouse names are shown against a marriage entry the > advice in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u in a number of > instances was not being followed> > The correct way to transcribe a > marriage entry such as> > Dunn,Charles,Curphey or Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697> > > using the advice in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u is> > > Dunn,Charles,Curphey,W.Derby,8b,697> #COMMENT(2) entry reads Curphey or > Bradley for spouse name> Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697> > Please > note, the #COMMENT(2) line is located between the two entries under > consideration.> > By a similar token the correct way to transcribe a birth > entry such as > > Dunn,Charles,Curphey or Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697> > using > the advice in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u is> > > Dunn,Charles,Curphey,W.Derby,8b,697> #COMMENT(2) entry reads Curphey or > Bradley for mother`s name > Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697> > Please > note, the #COMMENT(2) line is located between the two entries under > consideration. > > There should be no space between #COMMENT and (2) > although to cater for the large number of previous instances of a space > being inserted it is now allowed to include a space. > > For > standardisation purposes there is no neccessity to change the format of > the wording after the #COMMENT(2) shown above and in > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u . > > The audit process has > recently been enhanced to include alternative spouse name checks and the > list of files identified as being suspect is listed in > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesAlias.html .> > As at 31/10/2008 > there were 4225 files in the Suspect Report. It woudl be appreciated if > transcribers in conjunction with their Co-ordinators could check > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesAlias.html to see if any of their > files are listed and where appropriate correct the files by including the > appropriate #COMMENT(2) line. A warning message will be shown against any > suspect files when viewed in File Management. > > > > As an aside > > A > misplaced #COMMENT(2) line can have the wrong outcome.> > In the example > below the #COMMENT(2) in the file is placed after the two entries under > consideration rather than between the two entries.> > Barbour,John > H.,Stephenson,Skipton,9a,79> Barbour,John H.,Mitchell,Skipton,9a,79> > #COMMENT(2) - above line has Stephenson or Mitchell as spouse of John H. > Barbour> > The resultant effect from a search is to place a #COMMENT > aganst one related entry and one unrelated entry as shown below: > > > Barbour John H Mitchell Skipton 9a 79 (related #COMMENT - above line has > Stephenson or Mitchell as spouse of John H. Barbour)> Barcinski Philip H > Newton Hampstead 1a 1513 (unrelated #COMMENT - above line has Stephenson > or Mitchell as spouse of John H. Barbour)> > Allan Raymond> FreeBMD > Co-coordinator of Syndicates > > > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins> FreeBMD > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/> > -------------------------------> To > unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Win £1000 John Lewis shopping sprees with BigSnapSearch.com http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/117442309/direct/01/ FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I fear I have encountered a slight variation to this problem, which may have increased the scale of it. March 1922 Marriages - Scan ANC-04/K-Z/1922M1-S-0231.jpg Name Steuart, James N. The entry has been transcribed correctly, with the Comment line in (I believe) the right place, but a colon has been added between COMMENT and the (2). This results in the Comment line symbol (the red ?) only being displayed on the first of the 2 entries when viewed in FreeBMD. At a quick glance I could not see this scan included in the list of suspect scans in the link provided in Allan's earlier email - however I may have missed it. Perhaps a check could be made to ascertain the extent of this - hopefully it is just a one-off. Keith > From: [email protected]> To: [email protected]> Subject: Tip of the Day (No. 6) - Alternative Spouse Names in Marriage Records> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 18:57:40 +0000> > This is the sixth in a series of "Tip of the Day" to help volunteers who are transcribing for the FreeBMD Project. This is an update of the Tip of the Day for the benefit of our new volunteers plus existing volunteers who may have missed it when last issued. It takes into account feedback from volunteers since I last issued this tip.> > Suggestions for other "Tip of the Day" are welcome.> > Also any suggested improvement to the wording of this "Tip of the Day" is also encouraged.> > The Transcribers' Knowledge Base at: > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u provides the definitive advice for dealing with alternative names in records.> > I've been carrying out ongoing checks of recent files uploaded by a number of transcribers to see how they dealt with records containing alternative names. In particular, where alternative spouse names are shown against a marriage entry the advice in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u in a number of instances was not being followed> > The correct way to transcribe a marriage entry such as> > Dunn,Charles,Curphey or Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697> > using the advice in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u is> > Dunn,Charles,Curphey,W.Derby,8b,697> #COMMENT(2) entry reads Curphey or Bradley for spouse name> Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697> > Please note, the #COMMENT(2) line is located between the two entries under consideration.> > By a similar token the correct way to transcribe a birth entry such as > > Dunn,Charles,Curphey or Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697> > using the advice in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u is> > Dunn,Charles,Curphey,W.Derby,8b,697> #COMMENT(2) entry reads Curphey or Bradley for mother`s name > Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697> > Please note, the #COMMENT(2) line is located between the two entries under consideration. > > There should be no space between #COMMENT and (2) although to cater for the large number of previous instances of a space being inserted it is now allowed to include a space. > > For standardisation purposes there is no neccessity to change the format of the wording after the #COMMENT(2) shown above and in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u . > > The audit process has recently been enhanced to include alternative spouse name checks and the list of files identified as being suspect is listed in http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesAlias.html .> > As at 31/10/2008 there were 4225 files in the Suspect Report. It woudl be appreciated if transcribers in conjunction with their Co-ordinators could check http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesAlias.html to see if any of their files are listed and where appropriate correct the files by including the appropriate #COMMENT(2) line. A warning message will be shown against any suspect files when viewed in File Management. > > > > As an aside > > A misplaced #COMMENT(2) line can have the wrong outcome.> > In the example below the #COMMENT(2) in the file is placed after the two entries under consideration rather than between the two entries.> > Barbour,John H.,Stephenson,Skipton,9a,79> Barbour,John H.,Mitchell,Skipton,9a,79> #COMMENT(2) - above line has Stephenson or Mitchell as spouse of John H. Barbour> > The resultant effect from a search is to place a #COMMENT aganst one related entry and one unrelated entry as shown below: > > Barbour John H Mitchell Skipton 9a 79 (related #COMMENT - above line has Stephenson or Mitchell as spouse of John H. Barbour)> Barcinski Philip H Newton Hampstead 1a 1513 (unrelated #COMMENT - above line has Stephenson or Mitchell as spouse of John H. Barbour)> > Allan Raymond> FreeBMD Co-coordinator of Syndicates > > > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins> FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/> > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Win £1000 John Lewis shopping sprees with BigSnapSearch.com http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/117442309/direct/01/

This is the sixth in a series of "Tip of the Day" to help volunteers who are transcribing for the FreeBMD Project. This is an update of the Tip of the Day for the benefit of our new volunteers plus existing volunteers who may have missed it when last issued. It takes into account feedback from volunteers since I last issued this tip. Suggestions for other "Tip of the Day" are welcome. Also any suggested improvement to the wording of this "Tip of the Day" is also encouraged. The Transcribers' Knowledge Base at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u provides the definitive advice for dealing with alternative names in records. I've been carrying out ongoing checks of recent files uploaded by a number of transcribers to see how they dealt with records containing alternative names. In particular, where alternative spouse names are shown against a marriage entry the advice in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u in a number of instances was not being followed The correct way to transcribe a marriage entry such as Dunn,Charles,Curphey or Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697 using the advice in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u is Dunn,Charles,Curphey,W.Derby,8b,697 #COMMENT(2) entry reads Curphey or Bradley for spouse name Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697 Please note, the #COMMENT(2) line is located between the two entries under consideration. By a similar token the correct way to transcribe a birth entry such as Dunn,Charles,Curphey or Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697 using the advice in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u is Dunn,Charles,Curphey,W.Derby,8b,697 #COMMENT(2) entry reads Curphey or Bradley for mother`s name Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697 Please note, the #COMMENT(2) line is located between the two entries under consideration. There should be no space between #COMMENT and (2) although to cater for the large number of previous instances of a space being inserted it is now allowed to include a space. For standardisation purposes there is no neccessity to change the format of the wording after the #COMMENT(2) shown above and in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u . The audit process has recently been enhanced to include alternative spouse name checks and the list of files identified as being suspect is listed in http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesAlias.html . As at 31/10/2008 there were 4225 files in the Suspect Report. It woudl be appreciated if transcribers in conjunction with their Co-ordinators could check http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesAlias.html to see if any of their files are listed and where appropriate correct the files by including the appropriate #COMMENT(2) line. A warning message will be shown against any suspect files when viewed in File Management. As an aside A misplaced #COMMENT(2) line can have the wrong outcome. In the example below the #COMMENT(2) in the file is placed after the two entries under consideration rather than between the two entries. Barbour,John H.,Stephenson,Skipton,9a,79 Barbour,John H.,Mitchell,Skipton,9a,79 #COMMENT(2) - above line has Stephenson or Mitchell as spouse of John H. Barbour The resultant effect from a search is to place a #COMMENT aganst one related entry and one unrelated entry as shown below: Barbour John H Mitchell Skipton 9a 79 (related #COMMENT - above line has Stephenson or Mitchell as spouse of John H. Barbour) Barcinski Philip H Newton Hampstead 1a 1513 (unrelated #COMMENT - above line has Stephenson or Mitchell as spouse of John H. Barbour) Allan Raymond FreeBMD Co-coordinator of Syndicates

Thanks so much for this information, David; it's very helpful. My volunteer reports that when he went back and tried again, this time everything was fine -- so it could well be that he had mistakenly given the wrong filename :-) Thanks again to Jeff and David for their help. I really appreciate it. -- Nowl David Lang wrote on Tue, 4 Nov 2008: >BMDVerify uses either Times New Roman or Courier New when it displays the >transcription. >The actual one used depends on the year - as a rough rule Times New Roman is >used for indexes between 1866Q1 and 1910Q2, otherwise Courier New. > >You can also get the orange box full of strange symbols if when you are >asked to specify the name of the file containing your transcription, you >give it the name of the file containing the image of the scan - but if you >do this you will almost certainly get other warnings.

BMDVerify uses either Times New Roman or Courier New when it displays the transcription. The actual one used depends on the year - as a rough rule Times New Roman is used for indexes between 1866Q1 and 1910Q2, otherwise Courier New. You can also get the orange box full of strange symbols if when you are asked to specify the name of the file containing your transcription, you give it the name of the file containing the image of the scan - but if you do this you will almost certainly get other warnings. David > -----Original Message----- > From: Nowl [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 03 November 2008 18:17 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Problem with BMDVerify and Vista > > > Jeff Coleman wrote on Mon, 3 Nov 2008: > > >This could be because the font BMDVerify uses to match the scans is not > >installed on the computer, and the 'nearest alternative' the computer has > >selected is not alphabetic. He could try something like Word and > look at the > >range of fonts installed, type in something like the top surname > of the file > >he is transcribing, and see if he can match the 'symbols' with one of the > >installed fonts, to verify this. There is also advice in Word Help about > >obtaining extra fonts. > > Jeff, thanks so much for your reply. I'm sure you're right and that it > is a font issue, since there is no problem running the program, just > with the displayed transcription. I'm very grateful for the pointer. > > >If he is abroad and the laptop's 'home language' is not western European > >there may be a very limited range of suitable fonts. > > I believe it's his wife's laptop, so should be set to UK locale. I just > tried to identify which font Verify is using on my (XP) machine (font > size is in the registry, but not which font is being used) and I think > it's the bold variant of Courier New. Wouldn't that be installed as part > of the core Windows set with Vista? It is with XP. > > > >Has he tried the 'restore defaults' option? This is on the starter screen > >where you select the scan image, at the foot of the screen. > > I'm sure he hasn't :-) and I'll get him to try it. > > Thanks again, Jeff, I'll report back for the benefit of the archives if > we solve the problem. > > Best wishes, > -- > Nowl > >