Thanks. I did something similar -- I got the spouse field back when I opened a new file and invoked the marriages and date in what seemed to be the desired order. (Whatever order I was doing before didn't seem to be the right one.) I think that I didn't have the problem before because I left the file open and just put the Mac to sleep rather than quitting the software. But it is odd that it disappears for completed scans. Regards, Kate McCain Shirley Saunders <shirley@idiom.com> 01/13/2006 02:23 PM To Kate McCain <kate.mccain@cis.drexel.edu> cc FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject Re: entering spouse name in 1913 records with MacBMD At 5:01 AM -0700 12/1/06, Kate McCain wrote: >When I reopened a saved MacBMD file to continue entering 1913 marriage >data, which include the spouse name, I found that the spouse name field >block had disappeared. There are, of course, blocks for potential middle >names. I've tried beginning a new scan twice -- specifying MARRIAGES and >the year (1913) and in neither case does a spouse name field reappear. I've >also opened completed pages for this time frame and they open without >spouse blocks. > >Does anyone have a suggestion? I DID search through the knowledge base but >none of the entries on marriages seemed to deal with this particular issue. I've had problems in the past and usually I just get to where I was in the file and if it doesn't have the right fields open then I click on Entry and (for this case) select Marriages, and then Source and put in the Year. It puts the two lines in the file which I then delete and then carry on my merry way. It sounds to me like you've tried that and it's not working - I would check that the MacBMD that is opening is the latest version - I have version 1.9.1, check under About MacBMD - I assume you're using OS X. It also has written there Ben's email address. If you've tried all this, then I'd recommend re-downloading and re-installing MacBMD. Let us/me know if you still have problems after this. Thanks SHirley Scan2 1440

When doing a search on FreeBMD the actual server which is being queried seems to be shown on the bottom LH corner of the screen. (This is using Mozilla). Quite often it is "ancestry.com". So I wonder if a copy of the database on ancestry is now included in the server network. Christopher Richards ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Callaghan" <BarryC@dsl.pipex.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Ancestry database > Allan > > As a comparative newcomer to the transcriber ranks, my first uploads were > not until March 2005, but I can confirm that none of my transcriptions > have yet made it onto Ancestry. > > However, you are correct to say that their total is much higher than 62 > million. Taking Martin's date of 24 Dec 2004 as a guide, it seems likely > that Ancestry's version of the database dates back to FreeBMD's update of > 27 Dec 2004. At that time there were 92,560,889 distinct records on > FreeBMD. So FreeBMD currently has 19 million more entries than Ancestry, > representing 17% of the total. > > Regards > Barry Callaghan > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martin Cope" <m_cope@btinternet.com> > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:41 AM > Subject: Re: Ancestry database > > >> Allan, >> >> I asked a similar question on this list in October (thread titled >> 'bouquets'). I then searched the Ancestry database for entries from the >> files that I have uploaded to FreeBMD. The most recent entries present >> were ones that I had uploaded on 24 Dec 2004. Entries from my next upload >> on 11 Jan 2005 and more recent uploads were not there. >> >> A quick check today gives the same result! So I think the wording on the >> Ancestry site is still correct. >> >> If FreeBMD is providing updated copies of the data to Ancestry, why are >> they not loading it? Freezing on such an old version can only mislead >> many Ancestry users and reflect poorly on FreeBMD. >> >> Martin Cope >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:28 AM >> Subject: Re: Ancestry database >> >> >>> Barry >>> >>> I haven't gone back into the Ancestry Site to check out the information, >>> but it's more likely the >>> number of records in their database is closer to the 111 million than >>> the 62 million records. >>> >>> I've requested Ancestry on two separate occasions, the last being on 25 >>> August 2005 to update the >>> "wording" on their site so that the 62 million figure is replaced by a >>> more indicative 123 million >>> figure and was advised they would take my request on board at a future >>> date. >>> >>> Allan Raymond >>> FreeBMD Co-ordinator of Syndicates >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Barry Callaghan" <BarryC@dsl.pipex.com> >>> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >>> Sent: 12 January 2006 23:58 >>> Subject: Ancestry database >>> >>> >>> FreeBMD searches, particularly at busy times and whilst the hardware is >>> being upgraded, can result >>> in a message encouraging the free use of a copy of the database on >>> Ancestry.com. >>> >>> Unfortunately, the version Ancestry has is woefully out of date - >>> apparently containing 62 million >>> records and last updated in February 2005. This compares rather >>> unfavourably with the 111 million >>> or so distinct records now on FreeBMD. >>> >>> Does anybody know if or when Ancestry plan to update their version of >>> the database? >>> >>> Barry Callaghan >>> >> >> >> ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >> >> ============================== >> Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the >> areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. >> Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx >> >> > > > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > FreeBMD Transcribers homepage > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml > > ============================== > View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find > marriage announcements and more. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx > > >

At 5:01 AM -0700 12/1/06, Kate McCain wrote: >When I reopened a saved MacBMD file to continue entering 1913 marriage >data, which include the spouse name, I found that the spouse name field >block had disappeared. There are, of course, blocks for potential middle >names. I've tried beginning a new scan twice -- specifying MARRIAGES and >the year (1913) and in neither case does a spouse name field reappear. I've >also opened completed pages for this time frame and they open without >spouse blocks. > >Does anyone have a suggestion? I DID search through the knowledge base but >none of the entries on marriages seemed to deal with this particular issue. I've had problems in the past and usually I just get to where I was in the file and if it doesn't have the right fields open then I click on Entry and (for this case) select Marriages, and then Source and put in the Year. It puts the two lines in the file which I then delete and then carry on my merry way. It sounds to me like you've tried that and it's not working - I would check that the MacBMD that is opening is the latest version - I have version 1.9.1, check under About MacBMD - I assume you're using OS X. It also has written there Ben's email address. If you've tried all this, then I'd recommend re-downloading and re-installing MacBMD. Let us/me know if you still have problems after this. Thanks SHirley Scan2 1440

Allan As a comparative newcomer to the transcriber ranks, my first uploads were not until March 2005, but I can confirm that none of my transcriptions have yet made it onto Ancestry. However, you are correct to say that their total is much higher than 62 million. Taking Martin's date of 24 Dec 2004 as a guide, it seems likely that Ancestry's version of the database dates back to FreeBMD's update of 27 Dec 2004. At that time there were 92,560,889 distinct records on FreeBMD. So FreeBMD currently has 19 million more entries than Ancestry, representing 17% of the total. Regards Barry Callaghan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Cope" <m_cope@btinternet.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:41 AM Subject: Re: Ancestry database > Allan, > > I asked a similar question on this list in October (thread titled > 'bouquets'). I then searched the Ancestry database for entries from the > files that I have uploaded to FreeBMD. The most recent entries present > were ones that I had uploaded on 24 Dec 2004. Entries from my next upload > on 11 Jan 2005 and more recent uploads were not there. > > A quick check today gives the same result! So I think the wording on the > Ancestry site is still correct. > > If FreeBMD is providing updated copies of the data to Ancestry, why are > they not loading it? Freezing on such an old version can only mislead many > Ancestry users and reflect poorly on FreeBMD. > > Martin Cope > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:28 AM > Subject: Re: Ancestry database > > >> Barry >> >> I haven't gone back into the Ancestry Site to check out the information, >> but it's more likely the >> number of records in their database is closer to the 111 million than >> the 62 million records. >> >> I've requested Ancestry on two separate occasions, the last being on 25 >> August 2005 to update the >> "wording" on their site so that the 62 million figure is replaced by a >> more indicative 123 million >> figure and was advised they would take my request on board at a future >> date. >> >> Allan Raymond >> FreeBMD Co-ordinator of Syndicates >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Barry Callaghan" <BarryC@dsl.pipex.com> >> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: 12 January 2006 23:58 >> Subject: Ancestry database >> >> >> FreeBMD searches, particularly at busy times and whilst the hardware is >> being upgraded, can result >> in a message encouraging the free use of a copy of the database on >> Ancestry.com. >> >> Unfortunately, the version Ancestry has is woefully out of date - >> apparently containing 62 million >> records and last updated in February 2005. This compares rather >> unfavourably with the 111 million >> or so distinct records now on FreeBMD. >> >> Does anybody know if or when Ancestry plan to update their version of the >> database? >> >> Barry Callaghan >> > > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > FreeBMD Transcribers homepage > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml > > ============================== > Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the > areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. > Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx > >

Allan, I asked a similar question on this list in October (thread titled 'bouquets'). I then searched the Ancestry database for entries from the files that I have uploaded to FreeBMD. The most recent entries present were ones that I had uploaded on 24 Dec 2004. Entries from my next upload on 11 Jan 2005 and more recent uploads were not there. A quick check today gives the same result! So I think the wording on the Ancestry site is still correct. If FreeBMD is providing updated copies of the data to Ancestry, why are they not loading it? Freezing on such an old version can only mislead many Ancestry users and reflect poorly on FreeBMD. Martin Cope ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:28 AM Subject: Re: Ancestry database > Barry > > I haven't gone back into the Ancestry Site to check out the information, > but it's more likely the > number of records in their database is closer to the 111 million than the > 62 million records. > > I've requested Ancestry on two separate occasions, the last being on 25 > August 2005 to update the > "wording" on their site so that the 62 million figure is replaced by a > more indicative 123 million > figure and was advised they would take my request on board at a future > date. > > Allan Raymond > FreeBMD Co-ordinator of Syndicates > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Barry Callaghan" <BarryC@dsl.pipex.com> > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: 12 January 2006 23:58 > Subject: Ancestry database > > > FreeBMD searches, particularly at busy times and whilst the hardware is > being upgraded, can result > in a message encouraging the free use of a copy of the database on > Ancestry.com. > > Unfortunately, the version Ancestry has is woefully out of date - > apparently containing 62 million > records and last updated in February 2005. This compares rather > unfavourably with the 111 million > or so distinct records now on FreeBMD. > > Does anybody know if or when Ancestry plan to update their version of the > database? > > Barry Callaghan >

At 5:01 AM -0700 12/1/06, Kate McCain wrote: >When I reopened a saved MacBMD file to continue entering 1913 marriage >data, which include the spouse name, I found that the spouse name field >block had disappeared. There are, of course, blocks for potential middle >names. I've tried beginning a new scan twice -- specifying MARRIAGES and >the year (1913) and in neither case does a spouse name field reappear. I've >also opened completed pages for this time frame and they open without >spouse blocks. > >Does anyone have a suggestion? I DID search through the knowledge base but >none of the entries on marriages seemed to deal with this particular issue. I've had problems in the past and usually I just get to where I was in the file and if it doesn't have the right fields open then I click on Entry and (for this case) select Marriages, and then Source and put in the Year. It puts the two lines in the file which I then delete and then carry on my merry way. It sounds to me like you've tried that and it's not working - I would check that the MacBMD that is opening is the latest version - I have version 1.9.1, check under About MacBMD - I assume you're using OS X. It also has written there Ben's email address. If you've tried all this, then I'd recommend re-downloading and re-installing MacBMD. Let us/me know if you still have problems after this. Thanks SHirley Scan2 1440

At 6:40 pm -0500 12/01/06, Kate McCain wrote: >1. Does anyone know where version 1.9.1 of MacBMD went? When I go to Ben >Hines website, all I find is the slightly earlier version (v. 1.9) -- and >no way to contact him for information Hi Kate I'm not familiar with version 1.9 or 1.9.1 but version 1.7.4 didn't have a spouse field. Ben Hines email address was <bhines@alumni.ucsd.edu> -- Regards Dick Jones Leigh-on-Sea Essex UK rcjones@rmplc.co.uk

Barry I haven't gone back into the Ancestry Site to check out the information, but it's more likely the number of records in their database is closer to the 111 million than the 62 million records. I've requested Ancestry on two separate occasions, the last being on 25 August 2005 to update the "wording" on their site so that the 62 million figure is replaced by a more indicative 123 million figure and was advised they would take my request on board at a future date. Allan Raymond FreeBMD Co-ordinator of Syndicates ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Callaghan" <BarryC@dsl.pipex.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 12 January 2006 23:58 Subject: Ancestry database FreeBMD searches, particularly at busy times and whilst the hardware is being upgraded, can result in a message encouraging the free use of a copy of the database on Ancestry.com. Unfortunately, the version Ancestry has is woefully out of date - apparently containing 62 million records and last updated in February 2005. This compares rather unfavourably with the 111 million or so distinct records now on FreeBMD. Does anybody know if or when Ancestry plan to update their version of the database? Barry Callaghan ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== Want to help FreeBMD? Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx

FreeBMD searches, particularly at busy times and whilst the hardware is being upgraded, can result in a message encouraging the free use of a copy of the database on Ancestry.com. Unfortunately, the version Ancestry has is woefully out of date - apparently containing 62 million records and last updated in February 2005. This compares rather unfavourably with the 111 million or so distinct records now on FreeBMD. Does anybody know if or when Ancestry plan to update their version of the database? Barry Callaghan

Two things now that I am hoping someone with Mac experience can help with. (Apologies for the repetition but I don't think my earlier message got out). 1. Does anyone know where version 1.9.1 of MacBMD went? When I go to Ben Hines website, all I find is the slightly earlier version (v. 1.9) -- and no way to contact him for information 2. I am still trying to figure out where the spouse field in MacBMD went as I was transcribing 1913 marriages. If I can't get this cleared up, I won't be able to complete my alottment -- or I'll have to do it all in a text editor which will be really really ugly. Kate McCain #3615

When I reopened a saved MacBMD file to continue entering 1913 marriage data, which include the spouse name, I found that the spouse name field block had disappeared. There are, of course, blocks for potential middle names. I've tried beginning a new scan twice -- specifying MARRIAGES and the year (1913) and in neither case does a spouse name field reappear. I've also opened completed pages for this time frame and they open without spouse blocks. Does anyone have a suggestion? I DID search through the knowledge base but none of the entries on marriages seemed to deal with this particular issue. Regards, Kate McCain #3615

Hallo, Just a small point - I am transcribing 1862M3 0010 onwards and in the index where I download my scans these are shown as D where they should be E. Couldn't see where else to report this, regards, Penny Clear ( Judith Parker syndicate ) PS Keep up the good work !

I would transcribe the lines as it is and add a #note on the next line that the (3) lines above have been crossed through. CharlotteB Wellington NZ c_cbell@paradise.net.nz -----Original Message----- From: KBell26449@aol.com [mailto:KBell26449@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, 7 January 2006 11:26 a.m. To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject: (no subject) Hi Can anyone shed some light on a problem \i have come across? 1861 December Marriages file 021 3 lines are crossed out as Duplicated records do I transcribe them or leave them out? Keith

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 23:00:47 -0000 "Jeff Coleman" <jeff.coleman@ntlworld.com> wrote: Hello Jeff, > I have accessed this image and sent a copy of the relevant part of > the scan to the enquirer. Thanks, but that wasn't really necessary, since I had no pressing need to see the image. It just happened to be an entry that came up in a search I was conducting. > The instructions on the 'Information' page advise that this sort of > message be sent to register@FreeBMD.rootsweb.com Right, thanks. Obviously, I missed that. > If after checking an image and finding a mis-transcription, a viewer > wishes to submit a correction request, this may be done from the Mis-transcription found, correction sent. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent"

http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6z applies. There are answers to many queries in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: <KBell26449@aol.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:26 PM Subject: (no subject) > > Hi > > Can anyone shed some light on a problem \i have come across? > > 1861 December Marriages file 021 > > 3 lines are crossed out as Duplicated records do I transcribe them or > leave > them out? > > Keith >

Hello I transcribe the crossed out records. Then put a comment line saying the above line has been crossed out on the original. maurice #1550 ----- Original Message ----- From: <KBell26449@aol.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:26 PM Subject: (no subject) > > Hi > > Can anyone shed some light on a problem \i have come across? > > 1861 December Marriages file 021 > > 3 lines are crossed out as Duplicated records do I transcribe them or leave > them out? > > Keith > > > > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > Subscribe/Unsubscribe instructions and Archives > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/FreeUK/FreeBMD-Admins.html > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.12/220 - Release Date: 03/01/06 > >

I have accessed this image and sent a copy of the relevant part of the scan to the enquirer. The instructions on the 'Information' page advise that this sort of message be sent to register@FreeBMD.rootsweb.com If after checking an image and finding a mis-transcription, a viewer wishes to submit a correction request, this may be done from the 'spectacles' link or the 'info' link on the search result, when a paragraph comes up like this "If you have a correction to this entry, please click here. Please note that you can view the scan from which this entry was transcribed - see below. Please examine this image to verify that any correction you submit is the same as in the GRO index. The objective of FreeBMD is to provide online access to this index and entries are aligned to the GRO index, not to other sources." The 'click here' is adjusted to match the details of the search result, and leads to a form to submit suggested correction, indicating a source such as the FreeBMD scan image. Hope this helps Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Rogers" <brad@fineby.me.uk> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:07 PM Subject: Error produced when tryign to view image at FreeBMD > Hello All, > > Whilst trying to view an image at the FreeBMD site, I received the > following error message; > > read_file > '/usr/imagelink/GUS/Live-GUS/1898/Marriages/March/DB-04/1898M1-C-0040.tif' > - sysopen: No such file or directory > at /home/apache/hosts/images/cgi/choose.pl line 335 on images1 at Fri, > 06 Jan 2006 21:51:33 GMT > > There then followed a message "mail us", but no contact address. As > all the contacts on the "Who's who of FreeBMD" resolve to register@, I > thought I'd post here, in the hope that somebody knows what to do with > the above info. > > The image I was trying to view was selected by clicking on the glasses > next to Frederick John Churchouse, Married in qtr Mar 1898, > Christchurch v2b p974. The reason for viewing was to try to resolve a > spelling problem; The entry has been double-keyed, but with different > spellings of the surname; Churchouse/Churchhouse. > > -- > Regards _ > / ) "The blindingly obvious is > / _)rad never immediately apparent" > > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > Need to get a fast answer to your transcribing problems? Go to the > Transcribers Knowledge Base at http://FreeBMD.RootsWeb.com/vol_faq.html > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > >

Hello All, Whilst trying to view an image at the FreeBMD site, I received the following error message; read_file '/usr/imagelink/GUS/Live-GUS/1898/Marriages/March/DB-04/1898M1-C-0040.tif' - sysopen: No such file or directory at /home/apache/hosts/images/cgi/choose.pl line 335 on images1 at Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:51:33 GMT There then followed a message "mail us", but no contact address. As all the contacts on the "Who's who of FreeBMD" resolve to register@, I thought I'd post here, in the hope that somebody knows what to do with the above info. The image I was trying to view was selected by clicking on the glasses next to Frederick John Churchouse, Married in qtr Mar 1898, Christchurch v2b p974. The reason for viewing was to try to resolve a spelling problem; The entry has been double-keyed, but with different spellings of the surname; Churchouse/Churchhouse. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent"

Hi Can anyone shed some light on a problem \i have come across? 1861 December Marriages file 021 3 lines are crossed out as Duplicated records do I transcribe them or leave them out? Keith

Post nominal letters means letters after the name, James! :-) I have some too: B.A. (Hons); PGCE(Secondary) MFL; ISTC; ASTA. Does this make me a better transcriber? NO!