On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:03:19 +0100 "Martin Cope" <m_cope@btinternet.com> wrote: Hello Martin, > Thanks Brad, You're welcome, Martin. > Took my cue from your 'sig' and on closer inspection, the Ancestry It's one of the reasons I still use it. :-) > "This database was last updated February 2005." So, even more out of date than I thought. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent"

I am transcribing marriages for 1849 from scans. I have come across a character which is not a letter or number which is inserted after the District in a number of cases. A number of examples can be found at: http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1849/Marriages/March/EW-02/P-Z/1849M1-P-0056.jpg On page 57 of this scan after Wolstanton (3 times), Bosmere and Tiverton this unknown character appears. It is NOT an "etc" sign as the places have not been truncated and it does not look like it. So far I have inserted a * (uncertain characters). Should I continue this way or ignore or what? Thanks IvorC

Hello John, Re: > I am a whole hearted supporter of Bob Phillips and his team in > their endeavours to re-photograph the poorer quality images as > long as they confine their efforts to transcriber requested > rescans. Unfortunately they are not doing this and Bob has told > me they are ignoring transcriber rescan requests. From the > evidence of their efforts on behalf of my syndicate, the criteria > they have adopted for selection means they have only picked up a > handful of transcriber requested rescans > I get my syndicate members to do the best they can with what is available. The standard that would be applied to request a rescan is different for every transcriber so I prefer the approach that uses the number of pieces of missing data in a file to decide if the image should be rescanned. I think this is the approach used by Bob. The number of pieces of missing data is something worth debating but I know from experience with some of the scans my group has transcribed that a standard that would make everybody happy results in so many rescans that Bob could never do it. I am happy to either get the original transcriber to update their file or to reallocate the rescan to a new transcriber. Re: > I am convinced that the uploading of non-transcriber rescans > requests must stop immediately. I do not agree with this and I can't see why there is a problem. Re: >The uploading of non-requested rescans places > coordinators in a difficult position. In effect they are forced > to get these unasked-for scans redone. If they are not redone > the likelihood is that the second keying will be done using an > enhanced image with the probability of an increased numbers of > mismatched against the first keying. Second keying should only > be done using the same source material. I obviously disagree with the above. Second keying must be done using the same source but if the image is of better quality what is wrong with that. I am assuming that Bob's photographs are from the same base source. Regards Brian Smart

John To clarify a couple of your points. 1. I requested you raise this issue via the Syndicate List, as your expressed concern that Co-ordinators should have an input into any rescanning processes. I for one would like to have defined rescanning process for all to see, which was the basis of our off list discussions. 2. You are in the realms of discussing Policy which is what the DISCUSS list is for. I would recommend that continuance of the discussion is via the Syndicates list or the DISCUSS list. 3. Second Keying will be done using the best source available at that time. We have previously reported our intention to replace poor quality scans please see our News Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html . 4. You can't possibly be suggesting that where we have supplied pristine new scans that double keying is undertaken using the previous poor quality scans? Regards Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Slann" <john.slann@btinternet.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 24 October 2005 14:16 Subject: Rescanning policy I have been discussing the absence of a rescan policy with Allan Raymond and he has suggested I raise the matter on the Admins list. He told me a fortnight ago that he would take up the matter of a rescan policy with the Team. More recently he advised that he is sill waiting a response from other team members. And added; One of the main players Dave Mayall has been absent for about a fortnight and I understand from a message I received a couple of days ago he will be off for another couple of weeks. I am a whole hearted supporter of Bob Phillips and his team in their endeavours to re-photograph the poorer quality images as long as they confine their efforts to transcriber requested rescans. Unfortunately they are not doing this and Bob has told me they are ignoring transcriber rescan requests. From the evidence of their efforts on behalf of my syndicate, the criteria they have adopted for selection means they have only picked up a handful of transcriber requested rescans I am convinced that the uploading of non-transcriber rescans requests must stop immediately. If this is not done we are piling up confusion and mayhem when the time comes for the second keying. The uploading of non-requested rescans places coordinators in a difficult position. In effect they are forced to get these unasked-for scans redone. If they are not redone the likelihood is that the second keying will be done using an enhanced image with the probability of an increased numbers of mismatched against the first keying. Second keying should only be done using the same source material. I have monitored and had a contingency plan for getting the approximately 3000 transcriber rescans generated by my syndicate members done when the new material was available. By extrapolating the numbers of non-transciber rescans that have been done within one quarter to all the work done by my syndicate, I find that the program that is underway will generate between 8000 and 10000 pages to be transcribed. The work in getting transcriber requested rescans re-done or amended is considerable, but the addition of unasked for rescans creates an unwelcome and unwanted addition. The handling of rescans is more time consuming than allocating and monitoring transcriber progress. The rescanned material is scattered randomly through a series of scans and whilst it is possible to isolate the new material it is also spread amongst (in my case) 40 or 50 transcribers at least. Each needs an e-mail for each batch of rescans to be done.

I have been discussing the absence of a rescan policy with Allan Raymond and he has suggested I raise the matter on the Admins list. He told me a fortnight ago that he would take up the matter of a rescan policy with the Team. More recently he advised that he is sill waiting a response from other team members. And added; One of the main players Dave Mayall has been absent for about a fortnight and I understand from a message I received a couple of days ago he will be off for another couple of weeks. I am a whole hearted supporter of Bob Phillips and his team in their endeavours to re-photograph the poorer quality images as long as they confine their efforts to transcriber requested rescans. Unfortunately they are not doing this and Bob has told me they are ignoring transcriber rescan requests. From the evidence of their efforts on behalf of my syndicate, the criteria they have adopted for selection means they have only picked up a handful of transcriber requested rescans I am convinced that the uploading of non-transcriber rescans requests must stop immediately. If this is not done we are piling up confusion and mayhem when the time comes for the second keying. The uploading of non-requested rescans places coordinators in a difficult position. In effect they are forced to get these unasked-for scans redone. If they are not redone the likelihood is that the second keying will be done using an enhanced image with the probability of an increased numbers of mismatched against the first keying. Second keying should only be done using the same source material. I have monitored and had a contingency plan for getting the approximately 3000 transcriber rescans generated by my syndicate members done when the new material was available. By extrapolating the numbers of non-transciber rescans that have been done within one quarter to all the work done by my syndicate, I find that the program that is underway will generate between 8000 and 10000 pages to be transcribed. The work in getting transcriber requested rescans re-done or amended is considerable, but the addition of unasked for rescans creates an unwelcome and unwanted addition. The handling of rescans is more time consuming than allocating and monitoring transcriber progress. The rescanned material is scattered randomly through a series of scans and whilst it is possible to isolate the new material it is also spread amongst (in my case) 40 or 50 transcribers at least. Each needs an e-mail for each batch of rescans to be done.

Please remove my email address from all lists as I am no longer pursuing genealogy. Thank you David R. Littlehales

Individual should unsubscribe themselves by following the process outlined below or they can go to: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/lists.html for a fuller description. Allan Raymond If people are wishing to unsubscribe from this mailing list the instructions are For -L mode To: FreeBMD-Admins-L-request@rootsweb.com Subject: [body text] unsubscribe Turn off signature. For -D mode To: FreeBMD-Admins-D-request@rootsweb.com Subject: [body text] unsubscribe Turn off signature. If you are not sure of your subscriptions you can get them via http://passwordcentral.rootsweb.com/ Regards Andrew List-admin for FreeBMD-Admins mailing list -> Visit http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com -- Andrew Billinghurst billinghurst@tpg.com.au Genealogy mailing lists: http://lists.rootsweb.com/ New Databases (check often): http://searches.rootsweb.com/ Data Submission Form: http://userdb.rootsweb.com/submit.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "gypsy" <gypsy@sbcglobal.net> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 23 October 2005 21:23 Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE PLEASE REMOVE MY EMAIL ADDRESS FROM ALL LISTS. I NO LONGER AM PURSUIG GENEALOGY. THANK YOU. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE/CONFIRM THIS REQUEST. VAL RENFRO

Assuming that WinBMD will accept it, that would be fine. Barrie > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Cawthrow [mailto:gordon.cawthrow@dsl.pipex.com] > Sent: 22 October 2005 14:13 > To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Page nos. > > I'm currently transcribing 1849 March marriages and have a > query regarding scan 1849M1-Q-0084. > > Page 0084 has no entries, so when I start transcribing, > should the file appear as follows?:- > > +PAGE,0084 > +PAGE,0085 > Quaife, Elizabeth, Eastry V 183 > etc. > > Thanks in advance for advice > > Gordon > > ______________________________ >

Hi Bob, Thank you, I am sure it will prevent problems at the second keying John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Phillips" <robert.ph@ntlworld.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com>; "John Slann" <john.slann@btinternet.com> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:43 PM Subject: Re: Scans in 1863M3 > Hi John > I uploaded the cleaned scan images. > There is no place to point you in the archives as far as I know. > Which scan that is transcribed doesn't matter as the only difference is > readability. > It is not an ongoing change and a criteria for which scans to be cleaned > has > not been laid down as far as I know. > > As the cleaned scans are obviously causing a problem I will remove them > and > I apologise for any distress or inconvenience this has caused to you or to > the transcriber. > regards > Bob Phillips > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Slann" <john.slann@btinternet.com> > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:51 PM > Subject: Scans in 1863M3 > > >> When this set of scans was allocated to my syndicate I was cautioned that > there where some images that had been missed, so there where gaps in the > scan numbering. From time to time I check to see if the gaps have been > filled before bringing the scans into full use for the syndicate at large. > Last time I checked I found some oddly named scans like this > "1863M3-M-0142-cleaned.jpg". One should never be surprised by things like > this, but have I missed something? Could someone please point me to the > right place in the archives? Should this scan be transcribed in > preference > to 1863M3-M-0142.jpg. Is this an on going change and has a criteria for > which scans are to be cleaned laid down? >> >> Cheers >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> ==== 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 >> > >

Hi John I uploaded the cleaned scan images. There is no place to point you in the archives as far as I know. Which scan that is transcribed doesn't matter as the only difference is readability. It is not an ongoing change and a criteria for which scans to be cleaned has not been laid down as far as I know. As the cleaned scans are obviously causing a problem I will remove them and I apologise for any distress or inconvenience this has caused to you or to the transcriber. regards Bob Phillips ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Slann" <john.slann@btinternet.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:51 PM Subject: Scans in 1863M3 > When this set of scans was allocated to my syndicate I was cautioned that there where some images that had been missed, so there where gaps in the scan numbering. From time to time I check to see if the gaps have been filled before bringing the scans into full use for the syndicate at large. Last time I checked I found some oddly named scans like this "1863M3-M-0142-cleaned.jpg". One should never be surprised by things like this, but have I missed something? Could someone please point me to the right place in the archives? Should this scan be transcribed in preference to 1863M3-M-0142.jpg. Is this an on going change and has a criteria for which scans are to be cleaned laid down? > > Cheers > > John > > > > > > ==== 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 >

PLEASE REMOVE MY EMAIL ADDRESS FROM ALL LISTS. I NO LONGER AM PURSUIG GENEALOGY. THANK YOU. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE/CONFIRM THIS REQUEST. VAL RENFRO

When this set of scans was allocated to my syndicate I was cautioned that there where some images that had been missed, so there where gaps in the scan numbering. From time to time I check to see if the gaps have been filled before bringing the scans into full use for the syndicate at large. Last time I checked I found some oddly named scans like this "1863M3-M-0142-cleaned.jpg". One should never be surprised by things like this, but have I missed something? Could someone please point me to the right place in the archives? Should this scan be transcribed in preference to 1863M3-M-0142.jpg. Is this an on going change and has a criteria for which scans are to be cleaned laid down? Cheers John

I'm currently looking after the administration aspects of "The Hundred Acre Group" Syndicate. It would assist me if any transcribers who are active within this Syndicate could contact me off list? This excludes those volunteers who made contact with me as a result of my previous request on 10 October 2005. Thanks Allan Raymond FreeBMD Co-ordinator of Syndicates

When using BMDVerify, clicking on the 'Show Statistics' button at the bottom will show you the header details. Jeff

Hi Dorothy Open the WinBMD transcript file in WinBMD. Go to EDIT menu and select HEADER DETAILS. Check you have the right details and change as necessary. Save the file. Job done. Unless ....... you have already uploaded the incorrect file. Then delete the wrong one in File management. There are other ways but this is the easiest to explain. good luck Bob Phillips ----- Original Message ----- From: "DOROTHY LEWIS" <dorothy.dal1@btopenworld.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:39 PM Subject: checking data in Batch ID Box > Hi Team > I was about to do my first checking using BMDVerify. I pressed stage 2 and a message came up that the scanned image and the filename generated by WinBMD were different. I had saved the scan image as 1894 instead of 1874. Easy enough to change just found file - right mouse click chose rename and changed 9 to 7 entered - job done. > However how can I check to see if I've put correct date in the Header Page completed before transcibing began. Q & A explain for SpeedBMD but not WinBMD. Is it same procedure? If not can some one tell me how to do this check. > thanks > Dorothy > > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > FreeBMD Transcribers homepage > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx >

Hi Team I was about to do my first checking using BMDVerify. I pressed stage 2 and a message came up that the scanned image and the filename generated by WinBMD were different. I had saved the scan image as 1894 instead of 1874. Easy enough to change just found file - right mouse click chose rename and changed 9 to 7 entered - job done. However how can I check to see if I've put correct date in the Header Page completed before transcibing began. Q & A explain for SpeedBMD but not WinBMD. Is it same procedure? If not can some one tell me how to do this check. thanks Dorothy

Thanks Brad, Took my cue from your 'sig' and on closer inspection, the Ancestry search page reveals all. "This database was last updated February 2005." Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Rogers" <brad@fineby.me.uk> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 8:18 PM > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:58:45 +0100 > "Martin Cope" <m_cope@btinternet.com> wrote: > > Hello Martin, > >> I guess he's not aware of that and has been fooled by a delay between >> a database update appearing on the FreeBMD site and then being >> transferred to the Ancestry site. >> Does anybody know how long this delay is typically? > > It can be as much as 3 months, I believe. > > -- > Regards _ > / ) "The blindingly obvious is > / _)rad never immediately apparent" > > ______________________________

I'm currently transcribing 1849 March marriages and have a query regarding scan 1849M1-Q-0084. Page 0084 has no entries, so when I start transcribing, should the file appear as follows?:- +PAGE,0084 +PAGE,0085 Quaife, Elizabeth, Eastry V 183 etc. Thanks in advance for advice Gordon

I've taken digital photos at the FRC too with no problems - these were pages I'd been allocated where the scans were difficult to read. If you e-mail your photos to Bob Philips he'll see they get added to the FreeBMD website as re-scans so that the second keyer is looking at the same high quality scan (actually now a digi-photo) as you. Cheers, Mike In message <KPEBKKALDPOLJGFDLDAEMEDOCCAA.suenchris@ukonline.co.uk>, Sue Smith <suenchris@ukonline.co.uk> writes >I take photos of scans in the FRC in London, and they were fine about it - >no problems with identification, or proof, just a request that I don't use >flash. > >And as Adrian says, you can print your transcription from either WinBMD or >BMDVerify. If you print from BMDVerify, you can just print your marked >queries - you don't need to print the whole lot if you don't want - and then >just check those against your local FRC scan. > >Regards > >Sue Smith >Family Web Site http://www.harriesfamily.net/ > >-----Original Message----- >From: andyjervisuk@tiscali.co.uk [mailto:andyjervisuk@tiscali.co.uk] >Sent: 21 October 2005 17:09 >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: Photographing Scans > >Dear Keith, Why don't you do what I do when I can't read some entries in >a scan? I print out my transcription ( takes about 7 pages) then take it >to the Family History centre, check my entries with with their film or >fiche, >correct what I need to then go home and make the appropriate corrections. >No problem with copyright laws, just take up a little of your time. I >usually >manage to check 3 or 4 flies in a 2 hour session at the FHC. >Hope thie helps. >Adrian Jervis > >>-- Original Message -- >>From: "Keith Simpson" <Keylotus@ukonline.co.uk> >>Subject: Photographing Scans >>Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:24:01 +0100 >>To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >> >> >>First may I express my thanks to Bob Phillips for his help with this. >>After visiting my local family record centre and asking for permission to >>photograph various scans which my syndicate find hard to decipher. I was >>informed that copyright rules apply and they would need proof that I was >>part FreeBMD. Yet they had no problem with me looking at the scans at any >>time, subject to appointment, but this defeats the object. >> >>I then wrote to the Central Library in Birmingham, who have copies of the >>fiche and received the following reply, >>"Dear Mr. Simpson, >>I am, of course, aware of the good work that you and your colleagues are >>undertaking. >> I think that there are Copyright issues that you need to address. Anyone >>considering giving you access to the indices would require specific written >>approval from the publishers before going forward with the project. As far >>as I know we are only allowed to let people have an extract from the >>indices for "fair dealing" and this specifically excludes publication. >>Have you approached the Family Record Centre and if so what was their >>response? >> >>Best regards >>Robert Ryland" >> >>Has anyone else had this found this, and how did they overcome it. >> >>Keith Simpson >>Gandalf(uk) >>Syndicate coordinator >> >> >> >> >>==== 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 >> > > >___________________________________________________________ > >Unlimited Tiscali Broadband from 14.99! >http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/ > > > > >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml > >============================== >Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. >Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: >http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 > > > >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml > >============================== >Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >New content added every business day. Learn more: >http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > > > -- -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 21/10/2005

I take photos of scans in the FRC in London, and they were fine about it - no problems with identification, or proof, just a request that I don't use flash. And as Adrian says, you can print your transcription from either WinBMD or BMDVerify. If you print from BMDVerify, you can just print your marked queries - you don't need to print the whole lot if you don't want - and then just check those against your local FRC scan. Regards Sue Smith Family Web Site http://www.harriesfamily.net/ -----Original Message----- From: andyjervisuk@tiscali.co.uk [mailto:andyjervisuk@tiscali.co.uk] Sent: 21 October 2005 17:09 To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Photographing Scans Dear Keith, Why don't you do what I do when I can't read some entries in a scan? I print out my transcription ( takes about 7 pages) then take it to the Family History centre, check my entries with with their film or fiche, correct what I need to then go home and make the appropriate corrections. No problem with copyright laws, just take up a little of your time. I usually manage to check 3 or 4 flies in a 2 hour session at the FHC. Hope thie helps. Adrian Jervis >-- Original Message -- >From: "Keith Simpson" <Keylotus@ukonline.co.uk> >Subject: Photographing Scans >Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:24:01 +0100 >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com > > >First may I express my thanks to Bob Phillips for his help with this. >After visiting my local family record centre and asking for permission to >photograph various scans which my syndicate find hard to decipher. I was >informed that copyright rules apply and they would need proof that I was >part FreeBMD. Yet they had no problem with me looking at the scans at any >time, subject to appointment, but this defeats the object. > >I then wrote to the Central Library in Birmingham, who have copies of the >fiche and received the following reply, >"Dear Mr. Simpson, >I am, of course, aware of the good work that you and your colleagues are >undertaking. > I think that there are Copyright issues that you need to address. Anyone >considering giving you access to the indices would require specific written >approval from the publishers before going forward with the project. As far >as I know we are only allowed to let people have an extract from the >indices for "fair dealing" and this specifically excludes publication. >Have you approached the Family Record Centre and if so what was their >response? > >Best regards >Robert Ryland" > >Has anyone else had this found this, and how did they overcome it. > >Keith Simpson >Gandalf(uk) >Syndicate coordinator > > > > >==== 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 > ___________________________________________________________ Unlimited Tiscali Broadband from 14.99! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/ ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== FreeBMD Transcribers homepage http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005