Geniune question, did you check out the Transcribers' Knowledge Base? http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6g Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Chamberlain" <gc@katiandgraham.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 15 September 2005 22:34 Subject: (Another) Handwritten Addition in Scan I am transcribing 1884, June Marriages, page 219. At the bottom of column 2 there is a handwritten entry commencing '________ Alice'; I can't decipher the second name or initial; the district & volume looks like Leyburn, 9d; the page number looks as if it starts 16 with a third illegible digit. However, there seems to be no clear mark in the typewritten text to indicate where it should be inserted and there are a number of different family names in the column. There could be a mark below Alice Robins (a short 'squiggly' line) but it could also be some dirt on the original. If a mark can not be identified how should such an addition be dealt with? best wishes to all Graham

I am transcribing 1884, June Marriages, page 219. At the bottom of column 2 there is a handwritten entry commencing '________ Alice'; I can't decipher the second name or initial; the district & volume looks like Leyburn, 9d; the page number looks as if it starts 16 with a third illegible digit. However, there seems to be no clear mark in the typewritten text to indicate where it should be inserted and there are a number of different family names in the column. There could be a mark below Alice Robins (a short 'squiggly' line) but it could also be some dirt on the original. If a mark can not be identified how should such an addition be dealt with? best wishes to all Graham

Thanks to all who responded on this. I decided on inserting the hand-written entry with a comment, in alphabetical order (i.e. two lines above the marked, typewritten entry). best wishes to all transcribers Graham Graham Chamberlain wrote: > I have been transcribing 1884 marriages, page 180. There is a > hand-written addition at the bottom of column 2 with a notation I have > not seen before. It seems to indicate a correction rather than an > addition. It is as follows: > Directly to the left of an entry for 'Moore, Lowis, S. Stoneham, 2c, > 78' (not between lines) there is '1.' At the bottom of the column > there is another '1.' and '________ LEWIS S. > STONEHAM 2c. 98' (NOTE: different page number). > > Should I correct the typewritten entry or add an entry at the > appropriate place, in alphabetical order, which would be two lines > above the marked entry? All other hand-written entries I have seen > have an 'X' indicating the point at which the addition should be inserted. > > Comments appreciated (no response to first posting of this query on > 3rd September). > > best wishes to all > Graham

Personally I would put an additional entry immediately above the printed entry. I have come across this before (where the insertion point is directly to the left rather than between lines) so in this case it would seem sensible to put the entry in the logical place alphabetically. I would not correct the typewritten entry. If the person who entered the handwritten comment had intended that, the entry would be crossed out. Unless anyone else comes up with anything else - I think that sticks with "Type what you see". Cheers Veronica -----Original Message----- From: FreeBMD-Admins-L-request@rootsweb.com [mailto:FreeBMD-Admins-L-request@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Graham Chamberlain Sent: 14 September 2005 11:15 To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Handwritten Comment in Scan I have been transcribing 1884 marriages, page 180. There is a hand-written addition at the bottom of column 2 with a notation I have not seen before. It seems to indicate a correction rather than an addition. It is as follows: Directly to the left of an entry for 'Moore, Lowis, S. Stoneham, 2c, 78' (not between lines) there is '1.' At the bottom of the column there is another '1.' and '________ LEWIS S. STONEHAM 2c. 98' (NOTE: different page number). Should I correct the typewritten entry or add an entry at the appropriate place, in alphabetical order, which would be two lines above the marked entry? All other hand-written entries I have seen have an 'X' indicating the point at which the addition should be inserted. Comments appreciated (no response to first posting of this query on 3rd September). best wishes to all Graham ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== Want to help FreeBMD? Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. ============================== View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find marriage announcements and more. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx

(Copied also to the DISCUSS List) Barry Thanks for your comments. However it is important to differentiate between transcribing/uploading the index information and searching the database. The information which I gave regarding transcribing special characters was official FreeBMD policy, not because I gave it but because it was contained either in the FreeBMD documentation or in the speedBMD/WinBMD help guides. Searching the database is down to the programming skills of our experts and I located Dave Mayall's previous advice on 3 Sep 2003 from the DISCUSS List archives. You may wish check out: http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/F/FREEBMD-DISCUSS+2003+3573622+F which quoted: *********************************************************************************** We are (we like to think) pretty good at this programming computers lark, and we can do amazing things with consistent data. [The next bit is a general observation, NOT directed at you] We understand uncertain character formats, and code to allow for them. It isn't a problem. The ONLY thing that causes us problems is when people unilaterally decide that transcribing what they see isn't good enough, and 'improve' on it, usually because "if we transcribe what we see, the search won't find it". Trust me, we will write the code to deal with it consistently across the whole project. If people try to fix things in individual transcriptions, they are wasting their time and effort, because the transcription will have to be re- done. -- Dave Mayall *********************************************************************************** If you feel there is a need to discuss why we do things in a certain way, it should be dealt with on the DISCUSS LIST ( http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/lists.html refers ) Therefore I have copied my response across to the DISCUSS LIST for any follow responses. Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Callaghan" <BarryC@dsl.pipex.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 14 September 2005 10:57 Subject: Re: diphthongs After reading the discussion about diphthongs, and previous correspondence concerning accented characters, (none of which have yet occurred in any of my transcriptions), I am left wondering if the main object of this entire exercise is being overlooked - that is to create a free to use research aid. It is all very well entering special characters to achieve 100% accuracy, but does this help searchability? I think the majority of researchers looking for Phoebe, for example, are going to enter 'oe' as separate characters in their search string; to replace these by a single special character can only confuse the issue. One could always #COMMENT the entry with the original subtleties of spelling if desired. The search mechanisms within FreeBMD may (but I doubt it) sort all this out and automatically match accented characters and diphthongs with their simple equivalents, but even if it does, what about Ancestry.com, whose database search is very efficient, but doesn't operate in quite the same way. Just a thought! Barry Callaghan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:36 PM Subject: Re: diphthongs > The glitch isn't the checking routine to the best of my knowledge. > > Please check out "Entering Special Characters" in the excellent WinBMD > Help Guide. > > Æ is supported and œ isn't supported. > > Also check out Hints and Help For Beginners at: > http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/beginhelp.shtml scroll to > Deviations from "Type What You See" > > I guess if you want to use special characters use the special character > facility in speedBMD or > WinBMD rather than Notepad. > > Allan Raymond > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Hounslow" <billhounslow@f2s.com> > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: 13 September 2005 23:01 > Subject: RE: diphthongs > > > Ray, > > I've tried using notepad to edit the output file and insert an œ > diphthong. > It works, but FreeBMD won't accept the file and reports an illegal > character. > > I don't see any alternative but typing it as 'oe'. > > On the other hand, 'Æ' seems to be acceptable. > > Maybe a glitch in the checking routine? > > Bill Hounslow > > http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-2147.jpg > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Ray Harrowing [mailto:RAY@harrowing.freeserve.co.uk] >>>Sent: 11 September 2005 18:09 >>>To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >>>Subject: diphthongs >>> >>>Can anyone advise on how to preserve a diphthong present in the scan >>>when >>>transcribing? "Phoebe" has the elided "o" and "e", and I would hate to >>>be >>>the one to take it away from her - unless, of course, it was the indexer >>>himself trying to be clever! >>> >>>Thanks. >>> >>>Ray >>> > > > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > FreeBMD - http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com > > ============================== > 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 ==== Want to help FreeBMD? Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. ============================== 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

I have been transcribing 1884 marriages, page 180. There is a hand-written addition at the bottom of column 2 with a notation I have not seen before. It seems to indicate a correction rather than an addition. It is as follows: Directly to the left of an entry for 'Moore, Lowis, S. Stoneham, 2c, 78' (not between lines) there is '1.' At the bottom of the column there is another '1.' and '________ LEWIS S. STONEHAM 2c. 98' (NOTE: different page number). Should I correct the typewritten entry or add an entry at the appropriate place, in alphabetical order, which would be two lines above the marked entry? All other hand-written entries I have seen have an 'X' indicating the point at which the addition should be inserted. Comments appreciated (no response to first posting of this query on 3rd September). best wishes to all Graham

As a suggestion, put it in as 10 with #COMMENT volume entered as 10A in typescript following. When one of my transcribers found a late addition in 99 format to a page in XX format I advised to translate it into XX format and then put in #COMMENT volume entered as 25 ( or whatever volume it was). Someone may have a better idea. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:24 AM Subject: Volume Number in the Format 10A (which normally should be Volume 10) > I've come across an Index Page which has a Vol. 10A rather than the normal > Vol. 10, there's also a > Vol. 15B rather the normal Vol. 15. > > The entries can be found at: > http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1840/Marriages/March/Fiche-051-054/1840m1-W-351.tif . > > The above Vol. (10A and 15B) are the only instances of a combined > numeric/alpha Vol. on the Index > Page. All other Vol. are pure numeric. > > What's the significance of the additional letter and how do you transcribe > such entries when using > say WinBMD if using VOLUME NUMBER FORMAT 99? > > Allan Raymond > > > > ==== 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 > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 > >

Thanks Barrie. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Archer Barrie" <Barrie.Archer@uk.fujitsu.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 6:34 AM Subject: RE: Alternative spouse surnames > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u applies. > > A #COMMENT would be useful. After the FIRST entry: > #COMMENT(2) Spouse name is given as Morgan or Gray > > Barrie > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeff Coleman [mailto:jeff.coleman@ntlworld.com] >> Sent: 13 September 2005 11:05 >> To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Alternative spouse surnames >> >> An issue arises in the 1912 marriages, where the spouse's >> surname is entered, if the spouse has an alias. >> >> An example is near the top of 1912M2-A-0013 where a Mr >> Altfuldisch married, and the spouse's name is given as >> 'Morgan or Gray' . >> >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u would seem to >> indicate that separate entries for each name are desirable. >> >> So in this case one line would have Altfuldisch,Joseph >> O.,Morgan and the next >> Altfuldisch,Joseph O.,Gray . >> >> Would a #COMMENT line be helpful or necessary? >> >> Any suggestions? >> >> Jeff >> >> ______________________________ >> > > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > Subscribe/Unsubscribe instructions and Archives > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/FreeUK/FreeBMD-Admins.html > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 > >

After reading the discussion about diphthongs, and previous correspondence concerning accented characters, (none of which have yet occurred in any of my transcriptions), I am left wondering if the main object of this entire exercise is being overlooked - that is to create a free to use research aid. It is all very well entering special characters to achieve 100% accuracy, but does this help searchability? I think the majority of researchers looking for Phoebe, for example, are going to enter 'oe' as separate characters in their search string; to replace these by a single special character can only confuse the issue. One could always #COMMENT the entry with the original subtleties of spelling if desired. The search mechanisms within FreeBMD may (but I doubt it) sort all this out and automatically match accented characters and diphthongs with their simple equivalents, but even if it does, what about Ancestry.com, whose database search is very efficient, but doesn't operate in quite the same way. Just a thought! Barry Callaghan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:36 PM Subject: Re: diphthongs > The glitch isn't the checking routine to the best of my knowledge. > > Please check out "Entering Special Characters" in the excellent WinBMD > Help Guide. > > Æ is supported and œ isn't supported. > > Also check out Hints and Help For Beginners at: > http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/beginhelp.shtml scroll to > Deviations from "Type What You See" > > I guess if you want to use special characters use the special character > facility in speedBMD or > WinBMD rather than Notepad. > > Allan Raymond > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Hounslow" <billhounslow@f2s.com> > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: 13 September 2005 23:01 > Subject: RE: diphthongs > > > Ray, > > I've tried using notepad to edit the output file and insert an œ > diphthong. > It works, but FreeBMD won't accept the file and reports an illegal > character. > > I don't see any alternative but typing it as 'oe'. > > On the other hand, 'Æ' seems to be acceptable. > > Maybe a glitch in the checking routine? > > Bill Hounslow > > http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-2147.jpg > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Ray Harrowing [mailto:RAY@harrowing.freeserve.co.uk] >>>Sent: 11 September 2005 18:09 >>>To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >>>Subject: diphthongs >>> >>>Can anyone advise on how to preserve a diphthong present in the scan >>>when >>>transcribing? "Phoebe" has the elided "o" and "e", and I would hate to >>>be >>>the one to take it away from her - unless, of course, it was the indexer >>>himself trying to be clever! >>> >>>Thanks. >>> >>>Ray >>> > > > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > FreeBMD - http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com > > ============================== > 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 >

http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u applies. A #COMMENT would be useful. After the FIRST entry: #COMMENT(2) Spouse name is given as Morgan or Gray Barrie > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Coleman [mailto:jeff.coleman@ntlworld.com] > Sent: 13 September 2005 11:05 > To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Alternative spouse surnames > > An issue arises in the 1912 marriages, where the spouse's > surname is entered, if the spouse has an alias. > > An example is near the top of 1912M2-A-0013 where a Mr > Altfuldisch married, and the spouse's name is given as > 'Morgan or Gray' . > > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u would seem to > indicate that separate entries for each name are desirable. > > So in this case one line would have Altfuldisch,Joseph > O.,Morgan and the next > Altfuldisch,Joseph O.,Gray . > > Would a #COMMENT line be helpful or necessary? > > Any suggestions? > > Jeff > > ______________________________ >

I have just downloaded my latest scan 1913 marriages and notice that there is an extra 'spouse name' field. How can this be transcribed using MacBMD software? Thanks Elizabeth

I've come across an Index Page which has a Vol. 10A rather than the normal Vol. 10, there's also a Vol. 15B rather the normal Vol. 15. The entries can be found at: http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1840/Marriages/March/Fiche-051-054/1840m1-W-351.tif . The above Vol. (10A and 15B) are the only instances of a combined numeric/alpha Vol. on the Index Page. All other Vol. are pure numeric. What's the significance of the additional letter and how do you transcribe such entries when using say WinBMD if using VOLUME NUMBER FORMAT 99? Allan Raymond

The glitch isn't the checking routine to the best of my knowledge. Please check out "Entering Special Characters" in the excellent WinBMD Help Guide. Æ is supported and œ isn't supported. Also check out Hints and Help For Beginners at: http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/beginhelp.shtml scroll to Deviations from "Type What You See" I guess if you want to use special characters use the special character facility in speedBMD or WinBMD rather than Notepad. Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Hounslow" <billhounslow@f2s.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 13 September 2005 23:01 Subject: RE: diphthongs Ray, I've tried using notepad to edit the output file and insert an œ diphthong. It works, but FreeBMD won't accept the file and reports an illegal character. I don't see any alternative but typing it as 'oe'. On the other hand, 'Æ' seems to be acceptable. Maybe a glitch in the checking routine? Bill Hounslow http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-2147.jpg >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ray Harrowing [mailto:RAY@harrowing.freeserve.co.uk] >>Sent: 11 September 2005 18:09 >>To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >>Subject: diphthongs >> >>Can anyone advise on how to preserve a diphthong present in the scan when >>transcribing? "Phoebe" has the elided "o" and "e", and I would hate to be >>the one to take it away from her - unless, of course, it was the indexer >>himself trying to be clever! >> >>Thanks. >> >>Ray >>

At 10:27 pm +0100 12/09/05, Mark Hattam wrote: >I foresee that your suggested approach is going to be jumped on from >on high ... you must "Type What You See" from your source ... > >If nothing else, making changes from TWYS is going to wreak havoc >when the source is entered by a second transcriber, and there are >then differences between you to reconcile/arbitrate. Surely the insertion of a comment line stating that the source was the original handwritten index would reconcile the differences. -- Regards Dick Jones Leigh-on-Sea Essex UK rcjones@rmplc.co.uk

The "oe" case is covered in the "Hints and Help For Beginners" http://www.freebmd.org.uk/beginhelp.shtml Type it as two separate letters ... oe Mark At 23:01 +0100 13/9/05, Bill Hounslow wrote: >Ray, > >I've tried using notepad to edit the output file and insert an ¦ diphthong. >It works, but FreeBMD won't accept the file and reports an illegal >character. > >I don't see any alternative but typing it as 'oe'. > >On the other hand, 'Æ' seems to be acceptable. > >Maybe a glitch in the checking routine? > >Bill Hounslow > >http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-2147.jpg > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Ray Harrowing [mailto:RAY@harrowing.freeserve.co.uk] >>>Sent: 11 September 2005 18:09 >>>To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >>>Subject: diphthongs >>> >>>Can anyone advise on how to preserve a diphthong present in the scan when >>>transcribing? "Phoebe" has the elided "o" and "e", and I would hate to be >>>the one to take it away from her - unless, of course, it was the indexer >>>himself trying to be clever! >>> >>>Thanks. >>> > >>Ray

Ray, I've tried using notepad to edit the output file and insert an œ diphthong. It works, but FreeBMD won't accept the file and reports an illegal character. I don't see any alternative but typing it as 'oe'. On the other hand, 'Æ' seems to be acceptable. Maybe a glitch in the checking routine? Bill Hounslow http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-2147.jpg >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ray Harrowing [mailto:RAY@harrowing.freeserve.co.uk] >>Sent: 11 September 2005 18:09 >>To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >>Subject: diphthongs >> >>Can anyone advise on how to preserve a diphthong present in the scan when >>transcribing? "Phoebe" has the elided "o" and "e", and I would hate to be >>the one to take it away from her - unless, of course, it was the indexer >>himself trying to be clever! >> >>Thanks. >> >>Ray >> >> >>==== 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 Anti-Virus. >>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.23/99 - Release Date: 12/09/2005 >> -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.23/99 - Release Date: 12/09/2005

An issue arises in the 1912 marriages, where the spouse's surname is entered, if the spouse has an alias. An example is near the top of 1912M2-A-0013 where a Mr Altfuldisch married, and the spouse's name is given as 'Morgan or Gray' . http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u would seem to indicate that separate entries for each name are desirable. So in this case one line would have Altfuldisch,Joseph O.,Morgan and the next Altfuldisch,Joseph O.,Gray . Would a #COMMENT line be helpful or necessary? Any suggestions? Jeff

There appears to be an intermittent problem which I reported a short while ago. I'm currently able to access File Management. It would be appreciated if further reports regarding access to File Management are held in abeyance until the technical experts can identify the problem. Allan Raymond FreeBMD Co-ordinator of Syndicates ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Moody" <chrismm@magma.ca> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 13 September 2005 01:10 Subject: File Management Is there a problem with the File Management page? http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/bmd-files.pl fails to load. Chris

I agree with Mark Hattam that we are here to trancribe the pages as they are written. Not to make our own "corrections" My view is that the handwritten pages are the "primary" source Any subsequently produced typewritten pages are a "secondary" source. Where a difference exists between the primary and secondary sources, then the primary source should be taken in preference. A word of caution on double entries: Whilst researching my Mother's family I came accross two entries for the same name, in the same District with the same Page number. I applied for both Certificates and confirmed that they were for two Marriages. Both father and son (both widowed) were married in the same church on the same day with the same witnesses. Regards Jeremy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Hattam" <mark@dxradio.demon.co.uk> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:27 PM Subject: Re: HAND WRITTEN SCANS WHICH ARE TYPED IN FRC. > Hi John > > I foresee that your suggested approach is going to be jumped on from on > high ... you must "Type What You See" from your source ... > > If nothing else, making changes from TWYS is going to wreak havoc when the > source is entered by a second transcriber, and there are then differences > between you to reconcile/arbitrate. > > We know that the GRO transcriptions of the hand written pages contain lots > of mistakes. But the object of the FreeBMD project is (initially at least) > to transcribe the indexes, not to attempt correction of them. > Transcription not interpretation. > > Mark > > -- > > At 16:00 +0100 9/9/05, John Mills wrote: >>I am currently transcribing hand written scans 1846m1-H-0172 through to >>1846m1-H-192. >> >>As usual with hand written scans I print them out and take them to the FRC >>and check against >>the "originals". With the above scans however I find that they have been >>retyped and compressed into >>fewer pages. >> >>The problem I have is that it is obvious that the typist has "corrected" >>some of the entries and >>also made errors in the transcriptions. >> >>For Instance >> >>Page 175 >>Hodge Mary Ann Tiverton x 473 >>has been transcribed as Hodge Nary Ann >> >>Page 186 >> >>Holloway William Kidderminster xviii 390 >>is entered twice on hand written scans but only once on typed scan. >> >>Furthermore several of the page numbers are different where the scan is >>quite clear. >> >>I intend to do the following and would like confirmation that what I am >>doing is right. >> >>1. Where I am absolutely satisfied that the hand written scan is correct >>use that information. >> >>2. Where the hand written scan is unclear but I am absolutely satisfied >>that the typed version is >>a correct interpretation use that. >> >>3. Where I am in any way unsure use the normal underscore, brackets, >>asterisk etc. >> >>Would someone up on high please confirm that I am doing the right thing >>before I upload >>these files >> >> >>John Mills >> >>jmills > > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > Want to help FreeBMD? > Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 > > >

Hi John I foresee that your suggested approach is going to be jumped on from on high ... you must "Type What You See" from your source ... If nothing else, making changes from TWYS is going to wreak havoc when the source is entered by a second transcriber, and there are then differences between you to reconcile/arbitrate. We know that the GRO transcriptions of the hand written pages contain lots of mistakes. But the object of the FreeBMD project is (initially at least) to transcribe the indexes, not to attempt correction of them. Transcription not interpretation. Mark -- At 16:00 +0100 9/9/05, John Mills wrote: >I am currently transcribing hand written scans 1846m1-H-0172 through >to 1846m1-H-192. > >As usual with hand written scans I print them out and take them to >the FRC and check against >the "originals". With the above scans however I find that they have >been retyped and compressed into >fewer pages. > >The problem I have is that it is obvious that the typist has >"corrected" some of the entries and >also made errors in the transcriptions. > >For Instance > >Page 175 >Hodge Mary Ann Tiverton x 473 >has been transcribed as Hodge Nary Ann > >Page 186 > >Holloway William Kidderminster xviii 390 >is entered twice on hand written scans but only once on typed scan. > >Furthermore several of the page numbers are different where the scan >is quite clear. > >I intend to do the following and would like confirmation that what I >am doing is right. > >1. Where I am absolutely satisfied that the hand written scan is >correct use that information. > >2. Where the hand written scan is unclear but I am absolutely >satisfied that the typed version is >a correct interpretation use that. > >3. Where I am in any way unsure use the normal underscore, >brackets, asterisk etc. > >Would someone up on high please confirm that I am doing the right >thing before I upload >these files > > >John Mills > >jmills