Thanks Philip, Your tip about using BMDVerify to obtain the line numbers is very useful. Unfortunately BMDVerify requires a transcribed file and I lost most of my old copies of transcribed files recently when my backup disc, to which they had been copied, was accidentally erased. (I know! - I'll be more careful in future!). However both Allan Raymond and Derek Lowe have now pointed out to me that by using shift and click on the file in the suspect file list, the transcribed file will appear with the required line already highlighted. Ctrl and click on the same file in the suspect file list then brings up the relevant scan for comparison. This worked very well. Fortunately, the vast majority of the suspect files were perfectly in order and did not, in fact, need any amendments so the job was made much easier and quicker. Thanks again, Frank Hodgson On 03/04/2012 14:29, philip clarke wrote: > Frank, > > In the case of Windows-based computers, opening the transcription file with > BMDVerify gives line numbers and allows quick checking by line number. > > Correcting an error can be done either on FreeBMD with File Management > (which does not show line numbers), or by using FreeBMD (which does) and > (re)-uploading the file to FreeBMD. > > Philip > >

Frank, In the case of Windows-based computers, opening the transcription file with BMDVerify gives line numbers and allows quick checking by line number. Correcting an error can be done either on FreeBMD with File Management (which does not show line numbers), or by using FreeBMD (which does) and (re)-uploading the file to FreeBMD. Philip -----Original Message----- From: Frank Hodgson [mailto:fmhodgson@btinternet.com] Sent: 02 April 2012 14:33 To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com 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) On 01/04/2012 19:41, Allan Raymond wrote: > 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 > 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 > >

Sorry, sent my last from the wrong email account ;=) When will V7 be available on the download page here http://www.freebmd.org.uk/addons/winbmd/ Trev -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Brooke Sent: 03 April 2012 03:14 To: Allan Raymond; freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) -AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records There is a problem in 6.1 when you paste in a #Comment or #Theory but it only happens when using "Number Data Rows" and the only affect is to make the row numbering (in the first box) incorrect. It doesn't happen if you type the # rather than paste it. I've just fixed it in version 7. Ian -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 6:16 PM To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) -AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records Phil Note(1): I'll wait for Ian to advise if adding the # before the COMMENT is causing problems before I amend the information in my Tip of the Day. >From my own experience I can't readily see a problem, the same effect >happens if ether I CTRL-C for example #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 Bradley for spouse name and then CTRL-V to paste in WinBMD or if I physically transcribe #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 Bradley for spouse name. Note(2): My approach to amending name1 or name2 to reflect the actual names is simply to highlight name1 and over-type by the actual name and the same for name2. There is therefore no need to do any deletion since the name1 or name2 are just overwritten. Allan Raymond From: Ian Brooke <ianbrooke@hotmail.com> >To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Sent: Monday, 2 April 2012, 3:53 >Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - >AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records > > >Phil, >Would you please email me asap offlist and explain this problem with >line numbering. I'm not aware of any such problem and I can't >reproduce it but I'd like to fix it. When does it happen? Which line >numbering option are you using when it happens? > >Thanks >Ian > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil >Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 3:41 PM >To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - >AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records > >I wholeheartedly endorse the suggestion that the standard COMMENT text >should be pasted with Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V, but suggest the following, which >works a little better in my experience (replacing "spouse" with >"mother's" as appropriate): > >COMMENT(2) Entry reads or for spouse name > >there is no #. I have found that WinBMD gets its line numbers confused >if a # is pasted rather typed so I always type the # and paste the >rest. >Note(2): names are blank with 2 spaces so that the cursor only needs to >be put in the correct place for typing - no need for deletions. > >Phil 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 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: 2114/4910 - Release Date: 04/02/12

Phil   Note(1): I'll wait for Ian to advise if adding the # before the COMMENT is causing problems before I amend the information in my Tip of the Day.   From my own experience I can't readily see a problem, the same effect happens if ether I CTRL-C for example   #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 Bradley for spouse name   and then CTRL-V to paste in WinBMD   or if I physically transcribe #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 Bradley for spouse name.   Note(2):  My approach to amending name1 or name2 to reflect the actual names is simply to highlight name1 and over-type by the actual name and the same for name2. There is therefore no need to do any deletion since the name1 or name2 are just overwritten.   Allan Raymond From: Ian Brooke <ianbrooke@hotmail.com> >To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Sent: Monday, 2 April 2012, 3:53 >Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records > > >Phil, >Would you please email me asap offlist and explain this problem with line >numbering.  I'm not aware of any such problem and I can't reproduce it but >I'd like to fix it.  When does it happen?  Which line numbering option are >you using when it happens? > >Thanks >Ian > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil >Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 3:41 PM >To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - >AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records > >I wholeheartedly endorse the suggestion that the standard COMMENT text >should be pasted with Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V, but suggest the following, which >works a little better in my experience (replacing "spouse" with >"mother's" as appropriate): > >COMMENT(2) Entry reads  or  for spouse name > >there is no #. I have found that WinBMD gets its line numbers >confused if a # is pasted rather typed so I always type the # and paste >the rest. >Note(2): names are blank with 2 spaces so that the cursor only needs to >be put in the correct place for typing - no need for deletions. > >Phil

There is a problem in 6.1 when you paste in a #Comment or #Theory but it only happens when using "Number Data Rows" and the only affect is to make the row numbering (in the first box) incorrect. It doesn't happen if you type the # rather than paste it. I've just fixed it in version 7. Ian -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 6:16 PM To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) -AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records Phil Note(1): I'll wait for Ian to advise if adding the # before the COMMENT is causing problems before I amend the information in my Tip of the Day. >From my own experience I can't readily see a problem, the same effect >happens if ether I CTRL-C for example #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 Bradley for spouse name and then CTRL-V to paste in WinBMD or if I physically transcribe #COMMENT(2) entry reads name1 or name2 Bradley for spouse name. Note(2): My approach to amending name1 or name2 to reflect the actual names is simply to highlight name1 and over-type by the actual name and the same for name2. There is therefore no need to do any deletion since the name1 or name2 are just overwritten. Allan Raymond From: Ian Brooke <ianbrooke@hotmail.com> >To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Sent: Monday, 2 April 2012, 3:53 >Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - >AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records > > >Phil, >Would you please email me asap offlist and explain this problem with line >numbering. I'm not aware of any such problem and I can't reproduce it but >I'd like to fix it. When does it happen? Which line numbering option are >you using when it happens? > >Thanks >Ian > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil >Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 3:41 PM >To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - >AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records > >I wholeheartedly endorse the suggestion that the standard COMMENT text >should be pasted with Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V, but suggest the following, which >works a little better in my experience (replacing "spouse" with >"mother's" as appropriate): > >COMMENT(2) Entry reads or for spouse name > >there is no #. I have found that WinBMD gets its line numbers >confused if a # is pasted rather typed so I always type the # and paste >the rest. >Note(2): names are blank with 2 spaces so that the cursor only needs to >be put in the correct place for typing - no need for deletions. > >Phil 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

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 > >

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)

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) On 01/04/2012 19:41, Allan Raymond wrote: > 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 > 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 > >

I wholeheartedly endorse the suggestion that the standard COMMENT text should be pasted with Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V, but suggest the following, which works a little better in my experience (replacing "spouse" with "mother's" as appropriate): COMMENT(2) Entry reads or for spouse name Note(1): there is no #. I have found that WinBMD gets its line numbers confused if a # is pasted rather typed so I always type the # and paste the rest. Note(2): names are blank with 2 spaces so that the cursor only needs to be put in the correct place for typing - no need for deletions. Phil

Phil, Would you please email me asap offlist and explain this problem with line numbering. I'm not aware of any such problem and I can't reproduce it but I'd like to fix it. When does it happen? Which line numbering option are you using when it happens? Thanks Ian -----Original Message----- From: Phil Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 3:41 PM To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Tip of the Day (No. 6) (last updated 01 April 2012) - AlternativeSpouse or Mother's Names in Marriage or Birth Records I wholeheartedly endorse the suggestion that the standard COMMENT text should be pasted with Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V, but suggest the following, which works a little better in my experience (replacing "spouse" with "mother's" as appropriate): COMMENT(2) Entry reads or for spouse name Note(1): there is no #. I have found that WinBMD gets its line numbers confused if a # is pasted rather typed so I always type the # and paste the rest. Note(2): names are blank with 2 spaces so that the cursor only needs to be put in the correct place for typing - no need for deletions. Phil 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

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

Am I missing something or did you forget to attach, Misty? :-) Cheers Sue -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Misty Sent: 30 March 2012 15:01 To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Groom occupation in 20 Hi again folks Any ideas what the Groom's occupation in 20 is? I don't think it's Esquire - doesn't look quite right, and father in a gardener! Cheers Misty -- I used to think - now I just type what I see not what I think should be there - isn't transcribing funne!! 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

Sorry Sent to wrong place - please ignore! Misty -- I used to think - now I just type what I see not what I think should be there - isn't transcribing funne!!

Hi again folks Any ideas what the Groom's occupation in 20 is? I don't think it's Esquire - doesn't look quite right, and father in a gardener! Cheers Misty -- I used to think - now I just type what I see not what I think should be there - isn't transcribing funne!!

Hi Mike Thanks for your detailed reply. This is how I thought it should be entered but needed verification. Thanks again. Cheers. Marie. On 29/03/2012 2:10 AM, Mike Thomas wrote: > Hi Marie, > > TWYS. #COMMENT is NOT appropriate as your transcription will match the > scan, and #THEORY is not appropriate either as you've no reason to believe > the scan is wrong - see http://www.freebmd.org.uk/comments-help.html. Any > FreeBMD user who does a search for this entry without specifying the spouse > name will find both entries anyway, so there's no need for you to link them. > > You should transcribe the case (UPPER or lower) of all the letters > carefully - so 5d for the first volume, and 5D for the second. The > handwritten entry has the surname, spouse name and district in large and > small capitals so according to TKB 6(l) > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6l you can transcribe them in UPPER > or Mixed case like this: > > Miller,Violet,Boyce,Southwark,5d,1042C > MILLER,Violet,DOVEY,SOUTHWARK,5D,1042C > > or this: > > Miller,Violet,Boyce,Southwark,5d,1042C > Miller,Violet,Dovey,Southwark,5D,1042C > > You may need to temporarily turn on the WinBMD option Do Not Validate > Districts to achieve that - don't forget to turn it off again afterwards ! > > Cheers, > > Mike > > > > On 29 March 2012 01:46, M. Burger<mburger@rogers.com> wrote: > >> Could someone please tell me the correct way to handle this entry. >> >> 1949M1M0338 >> >> Miller, Violet - Boyce - Southwark 5DC 1042C (in squence) >> >> Miller, Violet - Dovey - Southwark 5D 1042C (handwritten at bottom of page) >> >> Insertion point is shown at first entry. >> >> Does not say Boyce OR Dovey for spouse name. I know we should TWYS and >> not make assumptions although they do appear to belong together. So my >> question is should I be typing Boyce or Dovey for spouse name with a >> #COMMENT(2) or typing two separate lines. >> >> Marie. >> >> >> >> 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 >> > 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 >

Hi Marie, TWYS. #COMMENT is NOT appropriate as your transcription will match the scan, and #THEORY is not appropriate either as you've no reason to believe the scan is wrong - see http://www.freebmd.org.uk/comments-help.html. Any FreeBMD user who does a search for this entry without specifying the spouse name will find both entries anyway, so there's no need for you to link them. You should transcribe the case (UPPER or lower) of all the letters carefully - so 5d for the first volume, and 5D for the second. The handwritten entry has the surname, spouse name and district in large and small capitals so according to TKB 6(l) http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6l you can transcribe them in UPPER or Mixed case like this: Miller,Violet,Boyce,Southwark,5d,1042C MILLER,Violet,DOVEY,SOUTHWARK,5D,1042C or this: Miller,Violet,Boyce,Southwark,5d,1042C Miller,Violet,Dovey,Southwark,5D,1042C You may need to temporarily turn on the WinBMD option Do Not Validate Districts to achieve that - don't forget to turn it off again afterwards ! Cheers, Mike On 29 March 2012 01:46, M. Burger <mburger@rogers.com> wrote: > Could someone please tell me the correct way to handle this entry. > > 1949M1M0338 > > Miller, Violet - Boyce - Southwark 5DC 1042C (in squence) > > Miller, Violet - Dovey - Southwark 5D 1042C (handwritten at bottom of page) > > Insertion point is shown at first entry. > > Does not say Boyce OR Dovey for spouse name. I know we should TWYS and > not make assumptions although they do appear to belong together. So my > question is should I be typing Boyce or Dovey for spouse name with a > #COMMENT(2) or typing two separate lines. > > Marie. > > > > 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 >

Could someone please tell me the correct way to handle this entry. 1949M1M0338 Miller, Violet - Boyce - Southwark 5DC 1042C (in squence) Miller, Violet - Dovey - Southwark 5D 1042C (handwritten at bottom of page) Insertion point is shown at first entry. Does not say Boyce OR Dovey for spouse name. I know we should TWYS and not make assumptions although they do appear to belong together. So my question is should I be typing Boyce or Dovey for spouse name with a #COMMENT(2) or typing two separate lines. Marie.

Barrie, Something along the lines of POSSIBLE ALIAS ENTRY with a link to the TKB section explaining the warning. We already have a warning for page numbers in the format of D/123 which links into the TKB. If this was possible then coordinators could ask individual members to check their file management. It was just something off the top of my head, wasn't really sure if it was possible. Thanks Keith On 27/03/2012 08:26, "Barrie" <freebmd@myarcher.net> wrote: > What would the warning say? > > Barrie > > On 19:59, Keith Simpson wrote: >> Allan, >> Suggestion. >> Would it be possible to add an additional WARNING message to the FILE >> MANAGEMENT PAGE. >> This would save the transcribers and coordinators having to scroll through >> the large list. >> Would this be possible? >> Keith >> >> >> >> On 25/03/2012 02:27, "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> This is a general plea to all our transcribers regarding the Suspect File >>> list >>> at: http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html >>> >>> Please do not start checking your files against the list or even run >>> the report until advised to the contrary by your Coordinator. The file is >>> quite large and it would be more appropriate for Coordinators to carry out >>> random check of files within their Syndicate to see if the report >>> is significantly reporting more erroneous files than non erroneous files in >>> the report. >>> >>> Personally I have just checked 7 files at random from different transcribers >>> and from different syndicates and the report correctly identified the files >>> were erroneous. >>> >>> If transcribers wish to ignore this advice then any abortive work they spend >>> in checking their files shouldn't be blamed on the report. >>> >>> Time precludes me at the moment in checking more random files but I will >>> continue this exercise later today and supply some of the problems the >>> report >>> is flagging up by giving some examples.. >>> >>> Allan Raymond >>> FreeBMD Coordinator of Syndicates >>> >>> >>> From: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >>>> To: philip clarke <pr.clarke@talktalk.net>; "freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com" >>>> <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> >>>> Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2012, 23:01 >>>> Subject: Re: Suspect File List >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> Coordinators were advised there was a problem with the report dated 23 >>>> March >>>> and it was quickly taken down. >>>> >>>> Details of this new reporting system was only communicated to coordinator >>>> in >>>> the first instance so that hopefully and bugs could be reported back to >>>> improve the criteria used to identify possible errant files. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately a number of transcribers come up with their own novel >>>> ideas on inserting #COMMENT or THEORY lines, if they did it correctly then >>>> there would have been no need for the report to be produced >>>> >>>> A lot of effort is being taken by my colleague who looks after this side of >>>> FreeBMD to identify possible errors in files. Whilst the report of 23 March >>>> included files which weren't proper to be include on the flip side they >>>> included many files which were erroneous and would have been hidden away >>>> except for the fact the report system picked them up. >>>> >>>> Emailing QA-Coordinator is the correct approach where correctly >>>> transcribed >>>> files are erroneously shown in the report. >>>> >>>> Perhaps you can advise exactly how you would 100% correctly identify all >>>> erroneous files regarding the use of #COMMENT or #THEORY lines but at the >>>> same time exclude all non erroneous files? >>>> >>>> Allan Raymond >>>> >>>> >>>> From: philip clarke <pr.clarke@talktalk.net> >>>>> To: 'Allan Raymond' <allan_raymond@btinternet.com>; >>>>> freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >>>>> Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2012, 9:30 >>>>> Subject: RE: Suspect File List >>>>> >>>>> Allen, >>>>> >>>>> I had five files listed as suspect on the first list. I checked them and >>>>> agreed that I'd made errors, corrected then and resubmitted them prior to >>>>> Handoff. They will be updated in time, so I have no problems with them >>>>> reappearing in the second list. They will (should) disappear after the >>>>> database has been updated. >>>>> >>>>> However, in the second list, the one dated 23/3/12, I had about 315 files >>>>> of >>>>> mine listed, which is about 75% of what I've submitted. So I started to >>>>> check them newest first. I don't accept that the first four were invalid, >>>>> but I could be wrong, so I emailed QA-cood as stated in the list, stating >>>>> that I regarded them as valid. >>>>> >>>>> On that limited sample of four files, it looked like valid statements such >>>>> as #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out entry, etc, were being >>>>> tagged as erroneous. Possibly a #COMMENT(3) handwritten addition of >>>>> surname. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If I do have another 311 files with erroneous use of #COMMENT in them I >>>>> will >>>>> gladly correct them, but why should I have to manual check that number of >>>>> files just to validate the FreeBMD software. >>>>> >>>>> The facility to check files for invalid use of #COMMENT lines is >>>>> incredibly >>>>> useful/valuable to the project. I fully accept its value. However, it >>>>> aught >>>>> to be reasonably reliable/accurate. >>>>> >>>>> Philip >>>>> >>> 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

What would the warning say? Barrie On 19:59, Keith Simpson wrote: > Allan, > Suggestion. > Would it be possible to add an additional WARNING message to the FILE > MANAGEMENT PAGE. > This would save the transcribers and coordinators having to scroll through > the large list. > Would this be possible? > Keith > > > > On 25/03/2012 02:27, "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> This is a general plea to all our transcribers regarding the Suspect File list >> at: http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html >> >> Please do not start checking your files against the list or even run >> the report until advised to the contrary by your Coordinator. The file is >> quite large and it would be more appropriate for Coordinators to carry out >> random check of files within their Syndicate to see if the report >> is significantly reporting more erroneous files than non erroneous files in >> the report. >> >> Personally I have just checked 7 files at random from different transcribers >> and from different syndicates and the report correctly identified the files >> were erroneous. >> >> If transcribers wish to ignore this advice then any abortive work they spend >> in checking their files shouldn't be blamed on the report. >> >> Time precludes me at the moment in checking more random files but I will >> continue this exercise later today and supply some of the problems the report >> is flagging up by giving some examples.. >> >> Allan Raymond >> FreeBMD Coordinator of Syndicates >> >> >> From: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >>> To: philip clarke <pr.clarke@talktalk.net>; "freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com" >>> <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> >>> Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2012, 23:01 >>> Subject: Re: Suspect File List >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> Coordinators were advised there was a problem with the report dated 23 March >>> and it was quickly taken down. >>> >>> Details of this new reporting system was only communicated to coordinator in >>> the first instance so that hopefully and bugs could be reported back to >>> improve the criteria used to identify possible errant files. >>> >>> Unfortunately a number of transcribers come up with their own novel >>> ideas on inserting #COMMENT or THEORY lines, if they did it correctly then >>> there would have been no need for the report to be produced >>> >>> A lot of effort is being taken by my colleague who looks after this side of >>> FreeBMD to identify possible errors in files. Whilst the report of 23 March >>> included files which weren't proper to be include on the flip side they >>> included many files which were erroneous and would have been hidden away >>> except for the fact the report system picked them up. >>> >>> Emailing QA-Coordinator is the correct approach where correctly transcribed >>> files are erroneously shown in the report. >>> >>> Perhaps you can advise exactly how you would 100% correctly identify all >>> erroneous files regarding the use of #COMMENT or #THEORY lines but at the >>> same time exclude all non erroneous files? >>> >>> Allan Raymond >>> >>> >>> From: philip clarke <pr.clarke@talktalk.net> >>>> To: 'Allan Raymond' <allan_raymond@btinternet.com>; >>>> freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >>>> Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2012, 9:30 >>>> Subject: RE: Suspect File List >>>> >>>> Allen, >>>> >>>> I had five files listed as suspect on the first list. I checked them and >>>> agreed that I'd made errors, corrected then and resubmitted them prior to >>>> Handoff. They will be updated in time, so I have no problems with them >>>> reappearing in the second list. They will (should) disappear after the >>>> database has been updated. >>>> >>>> However, in the second list, the one dated 23/3/12, I had about 315 files of >>>> mine listed, which is about 75% of what I've submitted. So I started to >>>> check them newest first. I don't accept that the first four were invalid, >>>> but I could be wrong, so I emailed QA-cood as stated in the list, stating >>>> that I regarded them as valid. >>>> >>>> On that limited sample of four files, it looked like valid statements such >>>> as #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out entry, etc, were being >>>> tagged as erroneous. Possibly a #COMMENT(3) handwritten addition of surname. >>>> >>>> >>>> If I do have another 311 files with erroneous use of #COMMENT in them I will >>>> gladly correct them, but why should I have to manual check that number of >>>> files just to validate the FreeBMD software. >>>> >>>> The facility to check files for invalid use of #COMMENT lines is incredibly >>>> useful/valuable to the project. I fully accept its value. However, it aught >>>> to be reasonably reliable/accurate. >>>> >>>> Philip >>>> >> 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--

Allan, Unfortunately, my confident words came back and bit me. Two of my suspect files contained the lines of the type #COMMEMT(2) entry reads Smith or Jones for Spouse's name, sandwiched between a Smith and a Jones data line, i.e. "Comment" spelt with three Ms and no N. Possibly, these two uses seem to fall into the heading of novel ideas on insertion of the #COMMENT or #THEORY. One has now file has now been corrected, the other will be soon. I also found some false positives, i.e. of the form: --, John, Jones, Birmingham, 9c, 1066 --, John, Jones-Smith, 9c, 1066 NOT: "--, John, Jones or Jones-Smith, Birmingham, 9C, 1066" keyed as seen or keyed twice with no COMMENT(1) or COMMENT(2) line in between. Since the computer can't read the scan, only the transcripts, it picked up a "valid error" - even if it was in these particular cases wrong. Philip -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] Sent: 25 March 2012 16:43 To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Suspect File List Phil I also wouldn't know how to code the search criteria to ensure we only capture only erroneous files but exclude those which are correct. As you mentioned they aught to be reasonably reliable/accurate I thought you had an inkling of how to disregard correct entries from appearing in the report? I think what I had said was that the report was only conveyed to coordinators so that they feed back any bugs in the reporting system. It was you who mentioned you didn't wish to have to manually check through a large number of files just to validate the FreeBMD software. I was supporting you in this by saying it was why it was first sent to Coordinators so they could carry out a random check of files to see how valid the reporting system was in picking up only erroneous files. Once any bugs had been ironed out the report could be freely available to transcribers so they wouldn't have to check through large numbers of possibly correct files. I would hope later today to provide details of some files which contain novel ideas on insertion of the #COMMENT or #THEORY, I have no reason to suppose any of these files will be yours since I will just look at a random selection of files. Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: philip clarke To: 'Allan Raymond' ; freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 12:41 PM Subject: RE: Suspect File List Allan, Thank you for your detailed reply. In reverse order: I'm sorry, I don't know how to code that search, but what I can do is check parts of an output list that someone else produces. The latest list only has five suspect files against my name, I've previously corrected them, and they will likely appear on the system when the current maintenance cycle is complete. So there is nothing for me to do at present. If there had been a reasonable number of suspect files on the new list I would have happily rechecked them and responded according (see below). However, I would also like to respond to your comments about transcribers' involvement, I don't regard taking any personal action on files listed as "suspect" as time wasting. If the files had been "wrong" I would have corrected them; if the reason for flagging them as suspect was "unclear" I would have asked for clarification, and if they had been "wrong flagged", that might have highlight a QA of suspect files coding problem. All three actions would have resulted in a small improvement in quality. I'm fully supportive of your colleague (Barry) making valiant efforts to improve quality and it was not my intention to criticise the process of improving quality of data, but I can't understand why you wish to exclude transcribers from improving quality. The message seems to be only post holders and coordinators have a role to play. Perhaps that is part of the problem and not part of the solution. I must admit, I did not fully understand the instructions on what to do with a "Smith or Jones" name for several months when I started transcribing 18 months ago. To clarify it was obvious what to do with a "Brown or Smith or Jones" name but not a "Smith or Jones" name. I did what I though the instructions required me to do: not "novel ideas" on the use of #COMMENT, as was suggested. Having later found my errors I started correcting the files three or four per day on top of what I normally transcribe. I supplied the extra resource, so my coordinator was not suffering from any misallocation of resource. I was not asked to do this by the QA coordinator and/or the coordinator, and if I'd waited to be told to make the changes, those errors would still be on the system - since those files are not listed as "suspect" I assume that that they do not have novel ideas on inserting #COMMENT or #THEORY lines. Philip -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] Sent: 24 March 2012 23:02 To: philip clarke; freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Suspect File List Phil Coordinators were advised there was a problem with the report dated 23 March and it was quickly taken down. Details of this new reporting system was only communicated to coordinator in the first instance so that hopefully and bugs could be reported back to improve the criteria used to identify possible errant files. Unfortunately a number of transcribers come up with their own novel ideas on inserting #COMMENT or THEORY lines, if they did it correctly then there would have been no need for the report to be produced A lot of effort is being taken by my colleague who looks after this side of FreeBMD to identify possible errors in files. Whilst the report of 23 March included files which weren't proper to be include on the flip side they included many files which were erroneous and would have been hidden away except for the fact the report system picked them up. Emailing QA-Coordinator is the correct approach where correctly transcribed files are erroneously shown in the report. Perhaps you can advise exactly how you would 100% correctly identify all erroneous files regarding the use of #COMMENT or #THEORY lines but at the same time exclude all non erroneous files? Allan Raymond From: philip clarke <pr.clarke@talktalk.net> >To: 'Allan Raymond' <allan_raymond@btinternet.com>; freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2012, 9:30 >Subject: RE: Suspect File List > >Allen, > >I had five files listed as suspect on the first list. I checked them and >agreed that I'd made errors, corrected then and resubmitted them prior to >Handoff. They will be updated in time, so I have no problems with them >reappearing in the second list. They will (should) disappear after the >database has been updated. > >However, in the second list, the one dated 23/3/12, I had about 315 files of >mine listed, which is about 75% of what I've submitted. So I started to >check them newest first. I don't accept that the first four were invalid, >but I could be wrong, so I emailed QA-cood as stated in the list, stating >that I regarded them as valid. > >On that limited sample of four files, it looked like valid statements such >as #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out entry, etc, were being >tagged as erroneous. Possibly a #COMMENT(3) handwritten addition of surname. > > >If I do have another 311 files with erroneous use of #COMMENT in them I will >gladly correct them, but why should I have to manual check that number of >files just to validate the FreeBMD software. > >The facility to check files for invalid use of #COMMENT lines is incredibly >useful/valuable to the project. I fully accept its value. However, it aught >to be reasonably reliable/accurate. > >Philip > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >Sent: 23 March 2012 15:37 >To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: Suspect File List > >Phil > >To some extent this report is being tested before making it live. > >Details of the new report was sent to Coordinators only on 16 March with >various advice given on the purpose of the report and what to do if files >such as yours were shown in error. I'm not aware the report was >generally made known to our transcribers, how did you get to know about the >report? > >We have identified some of our transcribers are not following >the instructions on how to deal with alias or alternative names and this >report was produced for that reason. Whilst the report include some files >which are compliant with our instructions and hence are shown in the report >in error, these are far outweighed by the number of files which are >correctly included because they are errant. > >The size of the report being so large and causing problems has been >mentioned by some of coordinators (myself included) seems to be due to the >type of browser being used. This should be a short term problem once the >number of files in the report start reducing due to them being corrected or >excluded if they were shown in the report in error. > >Allan Raymond > > > > >From: Phil <phil.osbourn@ntlworld.com> >>To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >>Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 9:03 >>Subject: Suspect File List >> >> >> I have just checked the comments-suspect file list at >> [1]http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html and find that it >> erroneously includes all my files with correct alias comments; i.e. it >has >> picked out all my "#COMMENT(2)" lines and included the message "Alias >> comment on only one entry at line". >> Not only that but the page is so huge that it took ages to load and >crashed >> my browser on the first load attempt. Aren't changes tested before making >> them live? >> Phil >> >> >> > > > > >