I have been following this discussion and for something which I thought understood I have become very confused (I have a couple of scans for correction due to missing out a #COMMENT but not for the format) however in direct response to your email Barrie how about something like the following including the examples: #COMMENT(x) Entry reads <value1> or <value2> for <value list> Examples: #COMMENT(2) Entry reads SMITH or JONES for spouse name #COMMENT(3) Entry reads SMITH or JONES or BROWN for mothers name #COMMENT(2) Entry reads 1020 or 1020b for page number This probably needs further expansion to include an explanation of where the #COMMENT should be placed and if thought necessary an example line could be given to cover each possible issue. Regards Linda -----Original Message----- From: Barrie Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 8:17 AM To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) (subjectwas-Message Posted on behalf of BillP Well it could, but what is suggested is extremely ambiguous! For example, what does "(or)" mean, why "(2)", and what about page numbers, etc? If anyone can suggest some "English" that conveys the meaning unambiguously (and concisely) then we would be very willing to consider it. The problem is that conversational English is not very good at defining such things. Barrie On 19:59, John Ellwood wrote: > At the risk of appearing as a half-wit, may I suggest that instructions > could > be in English ? > > Could it not read '#Comment(2) Entry reads Name 1 or Name (2) for spouse > (or) > mother's name. ? > > John > > -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 4:36 PM > To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) (subject > was-Message Posted on behalf of BillP > > A task is now on the system with a request to replace the wording of > http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6u which currently reads > > #COMMENT(2) entry reads <alternative> for <field> > > where <alternative> is the alternative from the record > > by wording which will give greater clarity. > > Please hang fire on further discussions regarding this issue until the > Transcribers' Knowledge has been updated. > > Thanks > > Allan Raymond > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins > > FreeBMD http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins FreeBMD http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Well it could, but what is suggested is extremely ambiguous! For example, what does "(or)" mean, why "(2)", and what about page numbers, etc? If anyone can suggest some "English" that conveys the meaning unambiguously (and concisely) then we would be very willing to consider it. The problem is that conversational English is not very good at defining such things. Barrie On 19:59, John Ellwood wrote: > At the risk of appearing as a half-wit, may I suggest that instructions could > be in English ? > > Could it not read '#Comment(2) Entry reads Name 1 or Name (2) for spouse (or) > mother's name. ? > > John > > -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 4:36 PM > To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) (subject > was-Message Posted on behalf of BillP > > A task is now on the system with a request to replace the wording of > http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6u which currently reads > > #COMMENT(2) entry reads <alternative> for <field> > > where <alternative> is the alternative from the record > > by wording which will give greater clarity. > > Please hang fire on further discussions regarding this issue until the > Transcribers' Knowledge has been updated. > > Thanks > > Allan Raymond > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins > > FreeBMD http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

At the risk of appearing as a half-wit, may I suggest that instructions could be in English ? Could it not read '#Comment(2) Entry reads Name 1 or Name (2) for spouse (or) mother's name. ? John -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 4:36 PM To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) (subject was-Message Posted on behalf of BillP A task is now on the system with a request to replace the wording of http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6u which currently reads #COMMENT(2) entry reads <alternative> for <field> where <alternative> is the alternative from the record by wording which will give greater clarity. Please hang fire on further discussions regarding this issue until the Transcribers' Knowledge has been updated. Thanks Allan Raymond FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins FreeBMD http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

A task is now on the system with a request to replace the wording of http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6u which currently reads #COMMENT(2) entry reads <alternative> for <field> where <alternative> is the alternative from the record by wording which will give greater clarity. Please hang fire on further discussions regarding this issue until the Transcribers' Knowledge has been updated. Thanks Allan Raymond

Allen, When I first started transcribing I got stuck on this one, having later found the error of my ways, I corrected these errors. TKB 6(u) can be read: If the alternative name is the surname, check, if you can, to see if it also appears in the index, i.e. is there an entry for CHAPMAN. If so, just transcribe the first name, that is BONUS... and add a line after: #COMMENT Surname has alternative name CHAPMAN. So, if I find - -, John, Bonus or Chapman, Marylebone,1a,521 (a made up expansion of the example) I look for - -, John, Chapman, Marylebone,1a,521 and if I find it I just add a two-line entry: - -, John, Bonus, Marylebone,1a,521 #COMMENT Surname has alternative name CHAPMAN If it is not the surname or you cannot determine if there is an entry for CHAPMAN, transcribe both names using 2 lines (repeating all the other information such as forename, district, etc.) and add a comment after the first line specifying how the original entry reads. For example BONUS alias CHAPMAN,John,Marylebone,1a,521 should be transcribed as BONUS,John,Marylebone,1a,521 #COMMENT(2) entry reads BONUS alias CHAPMAN for surname CHAPMAN,John,Marylebone,1a,521 It then goes on to say: So, in general, the comment should read: #COMMENT(2) entry reads <alternative> for <field> where <alternative> is the alternative from the record and <field> is the field in the record, either surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume or page number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". If there are more than two names, enter one record for each and put in one comment covering all the names, e.g. #COMMENT(3) after the first of three entries. I had difficulties: the first part was about "X or Y", the middle part was about "X alias Y" and the final part was about <alternative>. Only the first and the last section appeared to be about alternative/<alternative>, the middle part seemed to be about ALIAS, so I ignored it. Since I was only working with "X or Y" I typed (using these examples) BONUS,John,Marylebone,1a,521 #COMMENT Surname has alternative name CHAPMAN CHAPMAN,John,Marylebone,1a,521 But, I got a choice of three names right, since that was clear, e.g. BONUS,John,Marylebone,1a,521 #COMMENT(3) entry reads BONUS or CHAPMAN or DOW for surname CHAPMAN,John,Marylebone,1a,521 DOW,John,Marylebone,1a,521 My proposal would be to make a change in the final wording: So, in general, the comment should read: #COMMENT(N) entry reads <alternative> for <field> where <alternative> is entry in the field that has N alternatives (where N is 2, 3, etc), denoted by OR, ALIAS or &, and <field> is the field in the record, either surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume or page number which has an alternative entry. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(N)". Regards, Philip _____ From: freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of freebmd-admins-request@rootsweb.com Sent: 05 April 2012 15:15 To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: FREEBMD-ADMINS Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44

As below, the word 'option' is also singular, implying that only one word or person is required when both options od alternatives are required :=( Trev -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David A Hudson Sent: 05 April 2012 16:08 To: FreeBMD-Admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Message Posted on behalf of BillP Thank you, BillP. You are absolutely correct, have identified a grammatical error and are as pedantic as I. An alternative is, "something that is different from something else, especially from what is usual, and offering the possibility of choice". (Definition of alternative noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/> C Cambridge University Press) In the example you quote of Curphey or Bradley, the alternative is Bradley whilst Curphey or Bradley is an option. So: #COMMENT(2) entry reads<alternative> for<field> Where<alternative> is the alternative from the record and<field> is the field in the record, either surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume of page number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". should read; #COMMENT(2) entry reads<option> for<field> Where<option> is the option from the record and<field> is the field in the record, either surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume or page number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". to be grammatically correct. David FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins FreeBMD http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2409/4915 - Release Date: 04/04/12 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2409/4915 - Release Date: 04/04/12

No, Bill is not right. http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6u gives an example: #COMMENT(2) entry reads BONUS alias CHAPMAN for surname so <alternative> is the alternative names, in the case given <alternative> is "Curphey or Bradley". However, the item will be updated because as has been pointed out "alias" is very uncommon so the whole item should be biased towards "or". At the same time this misunderstanding can be addressed. Barrie On 19:59, Keith Simpson wrote: > Allan, > I have been asked by BillP a transcriber in my group to post this message on > their behalf. They were unable to post the message themselves , some > technical difficulties. > Keith > GANDALF UK > > Message reads, > > Allan, > > I think that you have given conflicting advice for the #COMMENT line when > completing the transcription for alternative names when referencing the FAQ > concerned. > > The final part of the FAQ concerned says: > So, in general, the comment should read: > > #COMMENT(2) entry reads <alternative> for <field> Where <alternative> is the > alternative from the record and <field> is the field in the record, either > surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume of page > number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". > > > For Birth records and a duplicate mothers name you suggest: > #COMMENT(2) entry reads Curphey or Bradley for mother's name. > > Yet my interpretation of the FAQ is: > #COMMENT(2) entry reads Bradley for mother's name. > > Am I right or missing something? > Bill > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Allan Raymond > Date: 01/04/2012 19:41:33 > To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com > Subject: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - > AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records > > This is the sixth in a series of "Tip of the Day" to help volunteers who are > transcribing for the FreeBMD Project. > > This Tip of the Day is being reissued with minor amendments based on recent > feedback from our transcribers and is for the benefit of our new volunteers > plus existing volunteers who may have missed it when last issued. > > Further feedback is welcomed. > > 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. > > We have also recently enhanced our automatic reporting system so that files > containing possible errors in dealing with alternative names are flagged up. > > 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 # and COMMENT or between #COMMENT and (2). > > For standardisation purposes there is no necessity to change the format of > the wording after the #COMMENT(2) shown above and in > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u . The wording describes > accurately the reason for the #COMMENT(2) line. > > If there are more than two alternative names, enter one record for each and > put in one comment covering all the names, e.g. #COMMENT(3) after the first > of three entries. > > It may be useful to remember the usual Windows shortcuts CTRL-C for copy, > CTRL-X for cut and CTRL-V for paste, all work in WinBMD. > > So rather than having to retype the complete #COMMENT(2) line each time it > is required just CTRL-C one of the appropriate lines below > > #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 Bradley for spouse name > or > #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 for mother`s name > > and then CTRL-V to paste in WinBMD not forgetting to change "name1 or name2" > by the actual names. > > The automatic reporting system checks if transcription of alternative name > entries have been transcribed in accordance with the information above and > any files identified as being suspect are listed in > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html . > > It would be appreciated if transcribers in conjunction with their > Coordinators could check http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html > to see if any of their files are listed and where appropriate correct the > files by including the appropriate #COMMENT(2) line. At present there are > over forty four thousand files (i.e. over 44,000) files appearing in the > report creating a huge task for Coordinators and some of their volunteers. > > > > As an aside > > A misplaced #COMMENT(2) line can have the wrong outcome. > > In the example below an invalid #COMMENT(2) line 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 against 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 > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

A task is currently in hand to request a change to the wording to remove any ambiguity.   Allan raymond From: David A Hudson <davidah@blueyonder.co.uk> >To: FreeBMD-Admins@rootsweb.com >Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2012, 16:07 >Subject: Message Posted on behalf of BillP > >Thank you, BillP.  You are absolutely correct, have identified a >grammatical error and are as pedantic as I. > >An alternative is, "something that is different from something else, >especially from what is usual, and offering the possibility of choice".  >(Definition of alternative noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's >Dictionary & Thesaurus ><http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/> © Cambridge >University Press) > >In the example you quote of Curphey or Bradley, the alternative is >Bradley whilst Curphey or Bradley is an option. > >So: > >#COMMENT(2) entry reads<alternative>  for<field>  Where<alternative>  is the >alternative from the record and<field>  is the field in the record, either >surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume of page >number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". > >should read; > >#COMMENT(2) entry reads<option>  for<field>  Where<option>  is the >option from the record and<field>  is the field in the record, either >surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume or page >number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". > >to be grammatically correct. > >David >FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins > >FreeBMD http://www.freebmd.org.uk/

Stick an 's' on <alternative> to pluralise it would also do the trick. That would imply that you require more than one alternative :=) Trev -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David A Hudson Sent: 05 April 2012 16:08 To: FreeBMD-Admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Message Posted on behalf of BillP Thank you, BillP. You are absolutely correct, have identified a grammatical error and are as pedantic as I. An alternative is, "something that is different from something else, especially from what is usual, and offering the possibility of choice". (Definition of alternative noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/> C Cambridge University Press) In the example you quote of Curphey or Bradley, the alternative is Bradley whilst Curphey or Bradley is an option. So: #COMMENT(2) entry reads<alternative> for<field> Where<alternative> is the alternative from the record and<field> is the field in the record, either surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume of page number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". should read; #COMMENT(2) entry reads<option> for<field> Where<option> is the option from the record and<field> is the field in the record, either surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume or page number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". to be grammatically correct. David FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins FreeBMD http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2409/4915 - Release Date: 04/04/12 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2409/4915 - Release Date: 04/04/12

Thank you, BillP. You are absolutely correct, have identified a grammatical error and are as pedantic as I. An alternative is, "something that is different from something else, especially from what is usual, and offering the possibility of choice". (Definition of alternative noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/> © Cambridge University Press) In the example you quote of Curphey or Bradley, the alternative is Bradley whilst Curphey or Bradley is an option. So: #COMMENT(2) entry reads<alternative> for<field> Where<alternative> is the alternative from the record and<field> is the field in the record, either surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume of page number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". should read; #COMMENT(2) entry reads<option> for<field> Where<option> is the option from the record and<field> is the field in the record, either surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume or page number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". to be grammatically correct. David

If the information in our Transcribers' Knowledge Base is unclear hence leading to different interpretations and confusion then there is no problem in me putting a task on the system to have it amended.   We do however give an example of the format for the #COMMENT line i.e.  #COMMENT(2) entry reads BONUS alias CHAPMAN for surname I'm still wondering what led Bill to change his approach from entering initially  #COMMENT(2) entry reads BONUS alias CHAPMAN for surname to  later on entering #COMMENT(2) entry reads BONUS for surname? Allan Raymond     From: D LOWE <derek_lowe@btinternet.com> >To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2012, 14:41 >Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) (subject was- Message Posted on behalf of BillP) > >I suspect the confusion is with the generalisation you included : > >#COMMENT(2) entry reads <alternative> for <field> Where <alternative> is the >  alternative from the record and <field> is the field in the record, either >  surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume of page >  number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". > >The <alternative> suggests that only one of the alternative names is entered >in the comment, i.e. the name other than the one entered in the record to >which the comment applies. This appears to be confirmed by 'the alternative >from the record' definition of <alternative>. > >Derk Lowe > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 1:59 PM >Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) (subject >was- Message Posted on behalf of BillP) > > >> Bill >> >> Thanks for the query, however my information is correct and isn't >> conflicting advice. >> >> I'll see if I can clear up any misunderstanding. >> >> #COMMENT(2) means the comment applies to the entry above the #COMMENT line >> plus the entry which follows it. >> >> If you were to enter #COMMENT(2) entry reads Bradley for mother's name it >> wouldn't really make sense if I can illustrate this by the example I gave >> earlier in my Tip. >> >> My actual advice was: >> >> 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 >> >> Your interpretation is: >> >> Dunn,Charles,Curphey,W.Derby,8b,697 >> >> #COMMENT(2) entry reads Bradley for mother's name >> Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697 >> >> This means you are saying the entry in the index reads Bradley for the >> mother's name. However in actual fact the entry in the index reads Curphey >> or Bradley which is what my #COMMENT(2) says. >> >> You interpretation also means that you are saying for the line showing as: >> >> Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697 that the entry reads Bradley for the >> mother's name. Why would you need say the entry reads Bradley if that is >> what you have transcribed? >> >> What I don't quite understand is that in your file 1959B1B0181 which you >> uploaded to FreeBMD on 23 September 2011 you correctly interpreted the use >> of the #COMMENT(2) line, the following is from your file: >> >> Burt,Peter R.,Close,Yeovil,7c,450 >> #COMMENT(2) entry reads Close or Burt for Mother >> Burt,Peter R.,Burt,Yeovil,7c,450 >> >> Please search FreeBMD for Burt,Peter in Births 1959 March you will see the >> effect of your correctly inserted #COMMENT(2) line? >> >> You continued the correct approach to the #COMMENT(2) line up until your >> file 1959B1H0093 which was uploaded on 28 October 2011. Then for some >> reason for the subsequent files 1959B1H0094 etc you changed to using >> >> Harris,James J.,Harris,Surrey S.W.,5g,1271 >> #COMMENT(2) entry reads Matthews for mothers name >> Harris,James J.,Matthews,Surrey S.W.,5g,1271 >> >> Now please search FreeBMD for Harris,James in Births 1959 March you will >> see the effect of your incorrectly inserted #COMMENT(2) line? >> >> Hope this help with your query? >> >> Regards >> >> Allan Raymond >

I suspect the confusion is with the generalisation you included : #COMMENT(2) entry reads <alternative> for <field> Where <alternative> is the alternative from the record and <field> is the field in the record, either surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume of page number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". The <alternative> suggests that only one of the alternative names is entered in the comment, i.e. the name other than the one entered in the record to which the comment applies. This appears to be confirmed by 'the alternative from the record' definition of <alternative>. Derk Lowe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> To: <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 1:59 PM Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) (subject was- Message Posted on behalf of BillP) > Bill > > Thanks for the query, however my information is correct and isn't > conflicting advice. > > I'll see if I can clear up any misunderstanding. > > #COMMENT(2) means the comment applies to the entry above the #COMMENT line > plus the entry which follows it. > > If you were to enter #COMMENT(2) entry reads Bradley for mother's name it > wouldn't really make sense if I can illustrate this by the example I gave > earlier in my Tip. > > My actual advice was: > > 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 > > Your interpretation is: > > Dunn,Charles,Curphey,W.Derby,8b,697 > > #COMMENT(2) entry reads Bradley for mother's name > Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697 > > This means you are saying the entry in the index reads Bradley for the > mother's name. However in actual fact the entry in the index reads Curphey > or Bradley which is what my #COMMENT(2) says. > > You interpretation also means that you are saying for the line showing as: > > Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697 that the entry reads Bradley for the > mother's name. Why would you need say the entry reads Bradley if that is > what you have transcribed? > > What I don't quite understand is that in your file 1959B1B0181 which you > uploaded to FreeBMD on 23 September 2011 you correctly interpreted the use > of the #COMMENT(2) line, the following is from your file: > > Burt,Peter R.,Close,Yeovil,7c,450 > #COMMENT(2) entry reads Close or Burt for Mother > Burt,Peter R.,Burt,Yeovil,7c,450 > > Please search FreeBMD for Burt,Peter in Births 1959 March you will see the > effect of your correctly inserted #COMMENT(2) line? > > You continued the correct approach to the #COMMENT(2) line up until your > file 1959B1H0093 which was uploaded on 28 October 2011. Then for some > reason for the subsequent files 1959B1H0094 etc you changed to using > > Harris,James J.,Harris,Surrey S.W.,5g,1271 > #COMMENT(2) entry reads Matthews for mothers name > Harris,James J.,Matthews,Surrey S.W.,5g,1271 > > Now please search FreeBMD for Harris,James in Births 1959 March you will > see the effect of your incorrectly inserted #COMMENT(2) line? > > Hope this help with your query? > > Regards > > Allan Raymond > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Bill Thanks for the query, however my information is correct and isn't conflicting advice. I'll see if I can clear up any misunderstanding. #COMMENT(2) means the comment applies to the entry above the #COMMENT line plus the entry which follows it. If you were to enter #COMMENT(2) entry reads Bradley for mother's name it wouldn't really make sense if I can illustrate this by the example I gave earlier in my Tip. My actual advice was: 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 Your interpretation is: Dunn,Charles,Curphey,W.Derby,8b,697 #COMMENT(2) entry reads Bradley for mother's name Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697 This means you are saying the entry in the index reads Bradley for the mother's name. However in actual fact the entry in the index reads Curphey or Bradley which is what my #COMMENT(2) says. You interpretation also means that you are saying for the line showing as: Dunn,Charles,Bradley,W.Derby,8b,697 that the entry reads Bradley for the mother's name. Why would you need say the entry reads Bradley if that is what you have transcribed? What I don't quite understand is that in your file 1959B1B0181 which you uploaded to FreeBMD on 23 September 2011 you correctly interpreted the use of the #COMMENT(2) line, the following is from your file: Burt,Peter R.,Close,Yeovil,7c,450 #COMMENT(2) entry reads Close or Burt for Mother Burt,Peter R.,Burt,Yeovil,7c,450 Please search FreeBMD for Burt,Peter in Births 1959 March you will see the effect of your correctly inserted #COMMENT(2) line? You continued the correct approach to the #COMMENT(2) line up until your file 1959B1H0093 which was uploaded on 28 October 2011. Then for some reason for the subsequent files 1959B1H0094 etc you changed to using Harris,James J.,Harris,Surrey S.W.,5g,1271 #COMMENT(2) entry reads Matthews for mothers name Harris,James J.,Matthews,Surrey S.W.,5g,1271 Now please search FreeBMD for Harris,James in Births 1959 March you will see the effect of your incorrectly inserted #COMMENT(2) line? Hope this help with your query? Regards Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Simpson To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:16 AM Subject: Message Posted on behalf of BillP Allan, I have been asked by BillP a transcriber in my group to post this message on their behalf. They were unable to post the message themselves , some technical difficulties. Keith GANDALF UK Message reads, Allan, I think that you have given conflicting advice for the #COMMENT line when completing the transcription for alternative names when referencing the FAQ concerned. The final part of the FAQ concerned says: So, in general, the comment should read: #COMMENT(2) entry reads <alternative> for <field> Where <alternative> is the alternative from the record and <field> is the field in the record, either surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume of page number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". For Birth records and a duplicate mothers name you suggest: #COMMENT(2) entry reads Curphey or Bradley for mother's name. Yet my interpretation of the FAQ is: #COMMENT(2) entry reads Bradley for mother's name. Am I right or missing something? Bill -------Original Message------- From: Allan Raymond Date: 01/04/2012 19:41:33 To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records This is the sixth in a series of "Tip of the Day" to help volunteers who are transcribing for the FreeBMD Project. This Tip of the Day is being reissued with minor amendments based on recent feedback from our transcribers and is for the benefit of our new volunteers plus existing volunteers who may have missed it when last issued. Further feedback is welcomed. 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. We have also recently enhanced our automatic reporting system so that files containing possible errors in dealing with alternative names are flagged up. 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 # and COMMENT or between #COMMENT and (2). For standardisation purposes there is no necessity to change the format of the wording after the #COMMENT(2) shown above and in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u . The wording describes accurately the reason for the #COMMENT(2) line. If there are more than two alternative names, enter one record for each and put in one comment covering all the names, e.g. #COMMENT(3) after the first of three entries. It may be useful to remember the usual Windows shortcuts CTRL-C for copy, CTRL-X for cut and CTRL-V for paste, all work in WinBMD. So rather than having to retype the complete #COMMENT(2) line each time it is required just CTRL-C one of the appropriate lines below #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 Bradley for spouse name or #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 for mother`s name and then CTRL-V to paste in WinBMD not forgetting to change "name1 or name2" by the actual names. The automatic reporting system checks if transcription of alternative name entries have been transcribed in accordance with the information above and any files identified as being suspect are listed in http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html . It would be appreciated if transcribers in conjunction with their Coordinators could check http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html to see if any of their files are listed and where appropriate correct the files by including the appropriate #COMMENT(2) line. At present there are over forty four thousand files (i.e. over 44,000) files appearing in the report creating a huge task for Coordinators and some of their volunteers. As an aside A misplaced #COMMENT(2) line can have the wrong outcome. In the example below an invalid #COMMENT(2) line 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 against 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

Allan, I have been asked by BillP a transcriber in my group to post this message on their behalf. They were unable to post the message themselves , some technical difficulties. Keith GANDALF UK Message reads, Allan, I think that you have given conflicting advice for the #COMMENT line when completing the transcription for alternative names when referencing the FAQ concerned. The final part of the FAQ concerned says: So, in general, the comment should read: #COMMENT(2) entry reads <alternative> for <field> Where <alternative> is the alternative from the record and <field> is the field in the record, either surname, given name, mother's name, spouse name, district, volume of page number. Note that there is no space between "#COMMENT" and the "(2)". For Birth records and a duplicate mothers name you suggest: #COMMENT(2) entry reads Curphey or Bradley for mother's name. Yet my interpretation of the FAQ is: #COMMENT(2) entry reads Bradley for mother's name. Am I right or missing something? Bill -------Original Message------- From: Allan Raymond Date: 01/04/2012 19:41:33 To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records This is the sixth in a series of "Tip of the Day" to help volunteers who are transcribing for the FreeBMD Project. This Tip of the Day is being reissued with minor amendments based on recent feedback from our transcribers and is for the benefit of our new volunteers plus existing volunteers who may have missed it when last issued. Further feedback is welcomed. 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. We have also recently enhanced our automatic reporting system so that files containing possible errors in dealing with alternative names are flagged up. 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 # and COMMENT or between #COMMENT and (2). For standardisation purposes there is no necessity to change the format of the wording after the #COMMENT(2) shown above and in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#6u . The wording describes accurately the reason for the #COMMENT(2) line. If there are more than two alternative names, enter one record for each and put in one comment covering all the names, e.g. #COMMENT(3) after the first of three entries. It may be useful to remember the usual Windows shortcuts CTRL-C for copy, CTRL-X for cut and CTRL-V for paste, all work in WinBMD. So rather than having to retype the complete #COMMENT(2) line each time it is required just CTRL-C one of the appropriate lines below #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 Bradley for spouse name or #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 for mother`s name and then CTRL-V to paste in WinBMD not forgetting to change "name1 or name2" by the actual names. The automatic reporting system checks if transcription of alternative name entries have been transcribed in accordance with the information above and any files identified as being suspect are listed in http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html . It would be appreciated if transcribers in conjunction with their Coordinators could check http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html to see if any of their files are listed and where appropriate correct the files by including the appropriate #COMMENT(2) line. At present there are over forty four thousand files (i.e. over 44,000) files appearing in the report creating a huge task for Coordinators and some of their volunteers. As an aside A misplaced #COMMENT(2) line can have the wrong outcome. In the example below an invalid #COMMENT(2) line 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 against 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

Of course, what has been not mentioned is that TKB 6(u) has also been applied ... correctly I believe. TKB 6(d) has now been amended to correct the error and cover the issue of multiple fields. The amendments is somewhat simpler than suggested in order to avoid making the explanation look complicated for a comparatively rare case. One has to take into account that people can be "turned off" if it all looks too complicated. The remaining issue is what to do if one has both a crossed out and and a non-crossed out amendment. I would have thought that in the absence of specific guidance the use of two separate comments would be expected. However, I don't think it matters which is chosen and so I am reluctant to further complicate the explanation to give specific instruction for such a rare case. Regards Barrie On 19:59, philip clarke wrote: > Keith, > > I'm really glad that you brought that up. I'd planned to raise a similar > question on this page and you got in first; it would be good to get a > definitive answer. > > > There are two things happening with this entry (1942B1M0145): > > (1)handwritten replacement of Mother's name "Ward" with "Howard or Murray", > which on its own is covered by TKB 6(d) - entry crossed out. > > (2) handwritten addition of "B" to Page No. 793, which on its own is covered > by TKB 6(d) - entry not crossed out. > > The first change on its own would be typed as (I think): > > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by > Murray or Howard. > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > > But that is not a strict interpretation of TBK guidance (see below). > > The second change on its own involves typing the relevant entry (see later) > firstly with District/page no. Liverpool N.,8b,793 and secondly with > Liverpool N.,8b,793B. > > > So overall I would type it slightly different to Phil, i.e. > > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by > Murray or Howard. Letter B added to page number as a handwritten amendment > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,L'pool N.,8B,793B > #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Murray or Howard for mother's name > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,L'pool N.,8B,793B > > There are some "problems" that need resolving/clarifying: > > (1) TKB 6(d) - entry crossed out has a definition > > #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out <fieldname> <fieldvalue> where > <fieldname> is the name of the field (surname, page number, etc.) and > <fieldvalue> is the original page number. > > That is slightly misleading, it should be: > > #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out <fieldname> <fieldvalue> > where <fieldname> is the name of the field (surname, page number, etc.) and > <fieldvalue> is the original field (surname, page number, etc.). > > However, no mention made of more than one change. So is the following a > suitable and acceptable definition for changes to more than one field? > > #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out <fieldname1> <fieldvalue1> and > <fieldname2> <fieldvalue2> where <fieldname1> is the name of the field1 > (surname, page number, etc.); <fieldvalue1> is the original field1 (surname, > page number, etc.); <fieldname2> is the name of the field2 (surname, page > number, etc.) and <fieldvalue2> is the original field2 (surname, page > number, etc.), etc. > > > > (2) TKB 6(d) - entry not crossed out has a definition > > #COMMENT(2) original <fieldname> of <orginalvalue> had a handwritten > amendment of <newvalue> where <fieldname> is the name of the field (surname, > page number, etc.), <originalvalue> is the original value of the field and > <newvalue> the amendment. > > Similar comment to above in respect of more than one change to a field. > > (3) If the definitions can't be altered, then is the entry to be typed as? > > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by > Murray or Howard. > #COMMENT(2) original Pager No. 793 has a handwritten amendment of 793B > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,L'pool N.,8B,793B > #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Murray or Howard for mother's name > #COMMENT(2) original Pager No. 793 has a handwritten amendment of 793B > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,L'pool N.,8B,793B > > I'd like to think at Phil's or my version above is correct with the use of a > "compound" #COMMENT(2) line, OK we have a minor divergence of opinion on how > to handle the amendment of Page no. but that is all. > > Like Keith, I've also recently (1954 & 1956 entries) transcribed birth > entries that have both a handwritten change to both name and to page number, > but in all my cases so far its been changes to Page No, and Forename(s) not > "X or Y " changes to Page No and Mother's name. > > I'd like to see some definitive agreement from the Project on what is a > relatively minor (on paper) set of changes. > > Best Regards, > > Philip > > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil [mailto:phil.osbourn@ntlworld.com] > Sent: 03 April 2012 20:13 > To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Problem Entry > > Keith, I think you mean 1942 not 1924... > > Anyway here is how I would transcribe it: > > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793B > #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by > Murray or Howard. Letter B added to page number as a handwritten amendment > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793B > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,L'pool N.,8B,793B > #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Murray or Howard for mother's name > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,L'pool N.,8B,793B > > Phil > > > >

Keith, I'm really glad that you brought that up. I'd planned to raise a similar question on this page and you got in first; it would be good to get a definitive answer. There are two things happening with this entry (1942B1M0145): (1)handwritten replacement of Mother's name "Ward" with "Howard or Murray", which on its own is covered by TKB 6(d) - entry crossed out. (2) handwritten addition of "B" to Page No. 793, which on its own is covered by TKB 6(d) - entry not crossed out. The first change on its own would be typed as (I think): Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793 #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by Murray or Howard. Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793 But that is not a strict interpretation of TBK guidance (see below). The second change on its own involves typing the relevant entry (see later) firstly with District/page no. Liverpool N.,8b,793 and secondly with Liverpool N.,8b,793B. So overall I would type it slightly different to Phil, i.e. Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793 #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by Murray or Howard. Letter B added to page number as a handwritten amendment Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793 Murray,Marjorie,Murray,L'pool N.,8B,793B #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Murray or Howard for mother's name Murray,Marjorie,Howard,L'pool N.,8B,793B There are some "problems" that need resolving/clarifying: (1) TKB 6(d) - entry crossed out has a definition #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out <fieldname> <fieldvalue> where <fieldname> is the name of the field (surname, page number, etc.) and <fieldvalue> is the original page number. That is slightly misleading, it should be: #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out <fieldname> <fieldvalue> where <fieldname> is the name of the field (surname, page number, etc.) and <fieldvalue> is the original field (surname, page number, etc.). However, no mention made of more than one change. So is the following a suitable and acceptable definition for changes to more than one field? #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out <fieldname1> <fieldvalue1> and <fieldname2> <fieldvalue2> where <fieldname1> is the name of the field1 (surname, page number, etc.); <fieldvalue1> is the original field1 (surname, page number, etc.); <fieldname2> is the name of the field2 (surname, page number, etc.) and <fieldvalue2> is the original field2 (surname, page number, etc.), etc. (2) TKB 6(d) - entry not crossed out has a definition #COMMENT(2) original <fieldname> of <orginalvalue> had a handwritten amendment of <newvalue> where <fieldname> is the name of the field (surname, page number, etc.), <originalvalue> is the original value of the field and <newvalue> the amendment. Similar comment to above in respect of more than one change to a field. (3) If the definitions can't be altered, then is the entry to be typed as? Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793 #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by Murray or Howard. #COMMENT(2) original Pager No. 793 has a handwritten amendment of 793B Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793 Murray,Marjorie,Murray,L'pool N.,8B,793B #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Murray or Howard for mother's name #COMMENT(2) original Pager No. 793 has a handwritten amendment of 793B Murray,Marjorie,Howard,L'pool N.,8B,793B I'd like to think at Phil's or my version above is correct with the use of a "compound" #COMMENT(2) line, OK we have a minor divergence of opinion on how to handle the amendment of Page no. but that is all. Like Keith, I've also recently (1954 & 1956 entries) transcribed birth entries that have both a handwritten change to both name and to page number, but in all my cases so far its been changes to Page No, and Forename(s) not "X or Y " changes to Page No and Mother's name. I'd like to see some definitive agreement from the Project on what is a relatively minor (on paper) set of changes. Best Regards, Philip -----Original Message----- From: Phil [mailto:phil.osbourn@ntlworld.com] Sent: 03 April 2012 20:13 To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Problem Entry Keith, I think you mean 1942 not 1924... Anyway here is how I would transcribe it: Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793B #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by Murray or Howard. Letter B added to page number as a handwritten amendment Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793B Murray,Marjorie,Murray,L'pool N.,8B,793B #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Murray or Howard for mother's name Murray,Marjorie,Howard,L'pool N.,8B,793B Phil

Jeff   I'm using exactly the same technique when in File Management but via the more old fashion route of selecting the "Edit" option and then "Find on this page".   It's opportune to give you credit for the inclusion in my Tip of the Day (No. 6) the use of  CTRL-C for copy, CTRL-X for cut and CTRL-V for paste, all work in WinBMD. This is something you mentioned a while ago and was worthy to include in the Tip of the Day.   AllanRaymond     >Adding to Allan's technique for dealing with these files, at least using >Chrome as browser: > >In File management once you open a file for editing you can use CTRL-F to >search for  # , which takes you quickly to each #COMMENT line in turn. > >Jeff > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Frank Hodgson" <fmhodgson@btinternet.com> >To: <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:35 PM >Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April >2012) -AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records > > >> Thanks Allen.  You have obviously informed my syndicate coordinator, who >> has now also given me similar information.  That will teach me to read >> instructions properly. >> >> Regards >> Frank Hodgson >> >> On 02/04/2012 16:02, Allan Raymond wrote: >>> Frank >>> >>> You are totally correct in your assumption. >>> >>> If the actual index page shows an alternative format such as >>> >>> Richardson, William A., Barker or Barber, Doncaster,9a,1826 >>> >>> Then you insert a #COMMENT(2) line >>> >>> if the actual index page shows two distinct entries such as >>> >>> Richardson, William A., Barker, Doncaster,9a,1826 >>> Richardson, William A., Barber, Doncaster,9a,1826 >>> >>> Then you DO NOT insert a #COMMENT(2) line. >>> >>> If any of your files are listed in the report and you believe they are a >>> correct transcription and/or compliant with FreeBMD rules then email the >>> address which is shown at the top of the Report. This will then result in >>> the exclusion of the files from future updates to the Report. >>> >>> My personal technique for dealing with files in the report is to first >>> Shift+click on the file in the report to to view the file (which comes up >>> in show file) which will also highlight the actual suspect lines in the >>> file and then ctrl+click to bring up the corresponding scan. >>> >>> If the transcription lines up with the index page shown in the scan then >>> no further action is required other than to advise the address at the top >>> of the Suspect Report. >>> >>> If the transcription DOES NOT line up up with the index page and requires >>> correction I simply open up the file in the File Management in a new >>> Window and check the corresponding show file and index page which are are >>> already open in two other windows. >>> >>> Allan Raymond >>> >>> >>>    ----- Original Message ----- >>>    From: Frank Hodgson >>>    To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >>>    Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:33 PM >>>    Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - >>> AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records >>> >>> >>>    Allan, >>> >>>    I have checked about half of the 60 odd files on my suspect list so >>>    far.  This is a time consuming task which is made more difficult >>>    because, although the suspect file list quotes line numbers, neither >>> the >>>    scan images or my File Management pages show line numbers so it is >>> quite >>>    a search trying to find the offending entries and hoping they are the >>>    ones being referred to. >>> >>>    So far the entries seem to fall into three categories.  I provide >>>    samples as follows:- >>> >>>    1912B3S0110 >>>    Stinchcombe, Emily B., Lewis, Pontypool,11a,332 >>>    Stinchcombe, Mabel F., Lewis, Pontypool,11a,332 >>>    The forenames are different and possibly indicate twins. >>> >>>    1912B4R0338 >>>    Richardson, William A., Barker, Doncaster,9a,1826 >>>    Richardson, William A., Barber, Doncaster,9a,1826 >>>    The mother's name is spelled slightly differently and may indicate >>> that >>>    the clerk couldn't read the entry so typed it twice. >>> >>>    1912M1A0003 >>>    Adkins, Thomas, Bentley, Tonbridge,2a,1136 >>>    Adkins, Thomas, Fuggles, Tonbridge,2a,1136 >>>    The spouse names are clearly different and may indicate that this is >>> an >>>    alternative name which could have been recorded in the register as >>>    Bentley or Fuggles. >>> >>>    None of these samples indicate the alternative "name" or "name" >>>    situation.  They all appear on two separate lines. I originally >>>    transcribed them by typing what I saw, exactly as shown on the scan. >>>    Was this correct please or am I now being asked to interpret what I >>> see >>>    and add a #COMMENT line? >>> >>>    If the entries I have mentioned are correct should I be submitting >>> some >>>    kind of a report to that effect or will they remain on the suspected >>>    file list for ever? >>> >>>    I fully appreciate your efforts to get us all to be more accurate in >>> our >>>    transcriptions but I would like to be re-assured that I am on the >>> right >>>    track before I continue with the rest of my checks.  So far I have >>> found >>>    only one instance of an incorrect #COMMENT entry which I have >>> corrected. >>> >>>    Best Wishes >>>    Frank Hodgson (Submitter ID - fhodgson, John Pain Syndicate) > >FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins > >FreeBMD http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > From: Jeff Coleman <Jeff.Coleman@ntlworld.com> To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, 3 April 2012, 22:23 Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) -AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records

Adding to Allan's technique for dealing with these files, at least using Chrome as browser: In File management once you open a file for editing you can use CTRL-F to search for # , which takes you quickly to each #COMMENT line in turn. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Hodgson" <fmhodgson@btinternet.com> To: <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:35 PM Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) -AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records > Thanks Allen. You have obviously informed my syndicate coordinator, who > has now also given me similar information. That will teach me to read > instructions properly. > > Regards > Frank Hodgson > > On 02/04/2012 16:02, Allan Raymond wrote: >> Frank >> >> You are totally correct in your assumption. >> >> If the actual index page shows an alternative format such as >> >> Richardson, William A., Barker or Barber, Doncaster,9a,1826 >> >> Then you insert a #COMMENT(2) line >> >> if the actual index page shows two distinct entries such as >> >> Richardson, William A., Barker, Doncaster,9a,1826 >> Richardson, William A., Barber, Doncaster,9a,1826 >> >> Then you DO NOT insert a #COMMENT(2) line. >> >> If any of your files are listed in the report and you believe they are a >> correct transcription and/or compliant with FreeBMD rules then email the >> address which is shown at the top of the Report. This will then result in >> the exclusion of the files from future updates to the Report. >> >> My personal technique for dealing with files in the report is to first >> Shift+click on the file in the report to to view the file (which comes up >> in show file) which will also highlight the actual suspect lines in the >> file and then ctrl+click to bring up the corresponding scan. >> >> If the transcription lines up with the index page shown in the scan then >> no further action is required other than to advise the address at the top >> of the Suspect Report. >> >> If the transcription DOES NOT line up up with the index page and requires >> correction I simply open up the file in the File Management in a new >> Window and check the corresponding show file and index page which are are >> already open in two other windows. >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Frank Hodgson >> To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:33 PM >> Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - >> AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records >> >> >> Allan, >> >> I have checked about half of the 60 odd files on my suspect list so >> far. This is a time consuming task which is made more difficult >> because, although the suspect file list quotes line numbers, neither >> the >> scan images or my File Management pages show line numbers so it is >> quite >> a search trying to find the offending entries and hoping they are the >> ones being referred to. >> >> So far the entries seem to fall into three categories. I provide >> samples as follows:- >> >> 1912B3S0110 >> Stinchcombe, Emily B., Lewis, Pontypool,11a,332 >> Stinchcombe, Mabel F., Lewis, Pontypool,11a,332 >> The forenames are different and possibly indicate twins. >> >> 1912B4R0338 >> Richardson, William A., Barker, Doncaster,9a,1826 >> Richardson, William A., Barber, Doncaster,9a,1826 >> The mother's name is spelled slightly differently and may indicate >> that >> the clerk couldn't read the entry so typed it twice. >> >> 1912M1A0003 >> Adkins, Thomas, Bentley, Tonbridge,2a,1136 >> Adkins, Thomas, Fuggles, Tonbridge,2a,1136 >> The spouse names are clearly different and may indicate that this is >> an >> alternative name which could have been recorded in the register as >> Bentley or Fuggles. >> >> None of these samples indicate the alternative "name" or "name" >> situation. They all appear on two separate lines. I originally >> transcribed them by typing what I saw, exactly as shown on the scan. >> Was this correct please or am I now being asked to interpret what I >> see >> and add a #COMMENT line? >> >> If the entries I have mentioned are correct should I be submitting >> some >> kind of a report to that effect or will they remain on the suspected >> file list for ever? >> >> I fully appreciate your efforts to get us all to be more accurate in >> our >> transcriptions but I would like to be re-assured that I am on the >> right >> track before I continue with the rest of my checks. So far I have >> found >> only one instance of an incorrect #COMMENT entry which I have >> corrected. >> >> Best Wishes >> Frank Hodgson (Submitter ID - fhodgson, John Pain Syndicate)

Keith, I think you mean 1942 not 1924... Anyway here is how I would transcribe it: Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793B #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by Murray or Howard. Letter B added to page number as a handwritten amendment Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793B Murray,Marjorie,Murray,L'pool N.,8B,793B #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Murray or Howard for mother's name Murray,Marjorie,Howard,L'pool N.,8B,793B Phil

I would like advice on the correct method to transcribe an entry on file 1924B1M0145. The entry in question refers to MURRAY MARJORIE Murray or Ward Howard Liverpool N.,8b 793 Ward is crossed out and there is a handwritten entry at the bottom of the page with the same details. Thank-you Keith