Hello You don't need to scroll through the list. Klick Edit. Klick Find on this page. Enter your user name. It finds your files grouped together in each syndicate you've been in. Select the files and copy them. Open word and paste. Print. Maurice ======================================== Message Received: Mar 26 2012, 11:12 AM From: "Keith Simpson" To: "Allan Raymond" , freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Cc: Subject: Re: Suspect File List 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" 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 >> To: philip clarke ; "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 >>> To: 'Allan Raymond' ; >>> 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 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

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

Sent from my iPhone

Maurice   The situation regarding your example file 1916B2B0165 Line 123 highlights why it isn't possible for the Suspect Files Report checking process to deterimine whether or not the entries were on just the one line where a #COMMENT(2) is required or on two lines where a #COMMENT(2) line is not required.   This is also where it is necessary to email the address shown on the Suspect Files Report to request the file to be excluded from the report.   Allan Raymond            From: Maurice Collihole <mauricecollihole@fsmail.net> >To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Sent: Sunday, 25 March 2012, 20:42 >Subject: Re: Suspect File List > >Hello >Can i stick my head up? >I followed the link you quoted and found 16 files on the list under my name. >I found only 3 that were not my errors, 1916B2B0165 Line 123, 1916B2I0287 Line 23 & 1957B3W0390 Line 42. All 3 were double lines and not single lines saying  name1 or name2. All errors have now been adjusted. >Transcribing has changed over the years. And it's the little changes that catch us out. >Maurice > > > > > >======================================== >Message Received: Mar 25 2012, 04:48 PM >From: "Allan Raymond" >To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Cc: >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 >>To: 'Allan Raymond' ; >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 >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >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 > > >

I have checked a further set of random files in the Suspect Report and these are in my list of novel ways of how not to transcribe the #COMMENT(2) line.    Portmann,Anton J.,Meyer,Hertford,3a,3679 #Entry reads Meyer or Büchler for 'Spouse' Portmann,Anton J.,Büchler,Hertford,3a,3679   Required action - COMMENT(2)  needs to be inserted after # in fact it should be transcribed as: #COMMENT(2) entry reads Meyer or Büchler for spouse name ================================== FRANKEL,Fanny,Cochelinskio,Hackney,1b,966 FRANKEL,Fanny,Koch,Hackney,1b,966   Required action - #COMMENT(2) line needs to be added between the two entries  with specified wording ================================== Ward,Edwin,Westaway,Fulham,1a,682 Ward,Edwin,Lewis,Fulham,1a,682 #COMMENT (2)   Required action - The #COMMENT (2) without any description needs to be removed and a #COMMENT(2) with specified wording needs to be added between the two entries ================================== Lee,Maurice S.,Tomlinson,Wolverhampton,6b,788 #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Tomlinson or Simpson for Lee Lee,Maurice S.,Simpson,Wolverhampton,6b,788   The transcriber has correctly included a #COMMENT(2) line but unfortunately the wrong wording. It should read #COMMENT(2) entry reads Tomlinson or Simpson for spouse name. The transcriber has persistently in the files I checked included the name shown in the first field rather than say spouse name.   The suspect system didn't identify the above entry as suspect but I came across it when checking a file which is in the suspect report for a different entry. ================================== Carey,Cecil L.,Carey,Paddington,1a,161 #comment record reads Carey or Powell for Spouse Carey,Cecil L.,Powell,Paddington,1a,161   Required action - (2) needs to be added after #comment, in fact it should be transcribed as: #COMMENT(2) entry reads Caret or Powell for spouse name ================================== Simmons,Norman H.,Fryer,Newport M.,11a,514 Simmons,Norman H.,Rumble,Newport M.,11a,514 #COMMENT either or spouse on lines 141 and 142   Required action - The #COMMENT line needs to be removed and a new #COMMENT(2) line needs to be inserted between the two entries similar to:   #COMMENT(2) entry reads Fryer or Rumble for spouse name   The current wording in the #COMMENT line unfortunately would not be of help to anyone searching our database. ==================================   The above is only meant to give a flavour on the type of errors in files which had to be identified for inclusion in the Suspect Report.   Allan Raymond     From: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: "freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com" <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, 25 March 2012, 2:27 >Subject: Re: Suspect File List > >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

Hello Can i stick my head up? I followed the link you quoted and found 16 files on the list under my name. I found only 3 that were not my errors, 1916B2B0165 Line 123, 1916B2I0287 Line 23 & 1957B3W0390 Line 42. All 3 were double lines and not single lines saying name1 or name2. All errors have now been adjusted. Transcribing has changed over the years. And it's the little changes that catch us out. Maurice ======================================== Message Received: Mar 25 2012, 04:48 PM From: "Allan Raymond" To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Cc: 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 >To: 'Allan Raymond' ; 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 >>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 >> >> >> > > > > > 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

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 >> >> >> > > > > >

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 >> >> >> > > > > >

Assuming that you have kept all the files that you have uploaded (as is recommended) then a quick way of checking the format of COMMENT and THEORY lines is: Open a CMD box and set default to the folder containing the files then findstr /i /c:comment *.* /i means ignore case differences /c: gives the search string Other options that may be useful are documented via findstr /? The output can be redirected to a file for later checking by appending >>filename Ken

Jeff - I notice you use the term "spouse surname" in this e-mail.. TKB at...6(u) uses the term "spouse name". If we are to rigidly follow 6(u) is this matter, is it OK if I say "spouse name" and another transcriber says "spouse surname"? Would this latter term make a file suspect? I ask this question in all sincerity. As I said when I first raised this matter, it is not an attempt to nitpick. Evan S ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Coleman" <Jeff.Coleman@ntlworld.com> To: <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 7:26 PM Subject: Re: Suspect File List >A version of this page was briefly live yesterday which has been withdrawn > and the previous version dated 15th March has been reinstated. > > An explanation was given to the FreeBMD-syndicates list. > > Note that files that have been corrected since the date that the report > was > produced will still be listed, though the links to them will now show the > corrected versions. The date is shown in the fourth paragraph of the > introduction, above the main list of files. > > It appears that some people have problems with opening large web pages > like > this one if using Internet Explorer. However they seem to open without > problem on Google Chrome and Firefox. > > This particular report, aimed initially at syndicate co-ordinators, has > been > produced to attempt to identify transcriptions in which there are > 'alternate > spouse' or 'alternate mother name' entries, but which have not been > transcribed according to the guidance in Transcribers' Knowledge Base > (TKB) > question 6(u). http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6u > > #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Alpha or Beta for spouse surname > > is the way this sort of situation should be reported in Marriage files, > but > some in some files transcribers have been leaving out the (2), and it is > possible that some transcribers have done so on a regular basis. > > Jeff > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phil" <phil.osbourn@ntlworld.com> > To: <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:03 AM > 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 >> >> References >> >> 1. http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html > > 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 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 >>

Lets keep it simple and use the wording shown in  http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6u .   Using surname rather than name wouldn't make the file appear in the Suspect Report.    However, why reinvent the terminology.   In some instances reinventing the terminoly and/or not inserting the #COMMENT(N) or #THEORY(N) (N = 2 or more) in accordance with http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6u could make the file erronous.   Allan Raymond       From: Evan Smith <evanpsmith@bigpond.com> >To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com >Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2012, 23:30 >Subject: Re: Suspect File List > >Jeff - > >I notice you use the term "spouse surname" in this e-mail.. TKB at...6(u) >uses the term "spouse name". If we are to rigidly follow 6(u) is this >matter, is it OK if I say "spouse name" and another transcriber says "spouse >surname"? Would this latter term make a file suspect? I ask this question in >all sincerity. As I said when I first raised this matter, it is not an >attempt to nitpick. > >Evan S > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jeff Coleman" <Jeff.Coleman@ntlworld.com> >To: <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 7:26 PM >Subject: Re: Suspect File List > > >>A version of this page was briefly live yesterday which has been withdrawn >> and the previous version dated 15th March has been reinstated. >> >> An explanation was given to the FreeBMD-syndicates list. >> >> Note that files that have been corrected since the date that the report >> was >> produced will still be listed, though the links to them will now show the >> corrected versions. The date is shown in the fourth paragraph of the >> introduction, above the main list of files. >> >> It appears that some people have problems with opening large web pages >> like >> this one if using Internet Explorer. However they seem to open without >> problem on Google Chrome and Firefox. >> >> This particular report, aimed initially at syndicate co-ordinators, has >> been >> produced to attempt to identify transcriptions in which there are >> 'alternate >> spouse' or 'alternate mother name' entries, but which have not been >> transcribed according to the guidance in Transcribers' Knowledge Base >> (TKB) >> question 6(u). http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6u >> >> #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Alpha or Beta for spouse surname >> >> is the way this sort of situation should be reported in Marriage files, >> but >> some in some files transcribers have been leaving out the (2), and it is >> possible that some transcribers have done so on a regular basis. >> >> Jeff >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Phil" <phil.osbourn@ntlworld.com> >> To: <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:03 AM >> 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   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 >> >> >> > > > > >

Philip as you will probably have seen, the list you refer to dated 23/3/12 was withdrawn shortly after it was put on the web site and the page dated 15/3/12. with only four files of yours listed, put back in its place. If you click to 'refresh' in your browser you will see that http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html is dated 15/3/12 http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/FreeBMD-Admins/2012-03/1332494791 refers to this. At the moment transcribers should not worry about this report unless their syndicate co-ordinators choose to bring specific parts of it to their attention. Jeff list admin ----- Original Message ----- From: "philip clarke" <pr.clarke@talktalk.net> To: "'Allan Raymond'" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com>; <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:30 AM 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 > > > 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

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 > > >

Hi Allan The link to the report was sent to me by someone who, I suspect, is the coordinator of one of the syndicates for which I did some of the orphan syndicate transcribing for you - no names, no pack drill. I did not realise it was a coordinators' "Special" otherwise I would not have pointed out the error - and in this case it clearly was a major error. Nevertheless the initial version of the report was useful as it allowed me identify one file where I had omitted the "(2)" from my alias comment. Regards Phil On 23/03/2012 15:37, Allan Raymond wrote: 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 variou s advice given on the purpose of the report and what to do if files such as you rs were shown in error. I'm not aware the report was generally made known to ou r 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 outweig hed 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 b y 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 th e report start reducing due to them being corrected or excluded if they were sh own in the report in error. Allan Raymond From: Phil [1]<phil.osbourn@ntlworld.com> To: [2]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][3]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 FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive [4]http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/ freebmd-admins FreeBMD [5]http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [6]FREEBMD-ADMINS-request @rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message References 1. mailto:phil.osbourn@ntlworld.com 2. mailto:freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com 3. http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html 4. http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins 5. http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ 6. mailto:FREEBMD-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com

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 > > >

Colin WinBMD has known problems with Vista / Windows7 - see http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#3b I would suggest the following. Un-install WinBMD Use Windows Explorer to ensure all traces of the directory have been removed (usually installed in C:/Programs/WinBMD unless you changed the install path). Re-boot your PC Ensure UAC is turned on Login to an Administrator account (or right click on the install .exe and "Run as Administrator") During the install change the install path to c:/WinBMD Once installed (but before running) re-boot your PC Hope this helps Brian On 22 Mar 2012 at 14:50, AliFH CDIzzard wrote: > > > Request for help please > > I recently lost my windows compatible desktop and so have replaced > with new laptop on which i can use windows > > This however is supplied with windows 7 and I admit I am not perfectly > au fait with it, was xp user, too many dialogues about administrator > etc > > anyhow, have made attempts to upload win bmd 5 and I keep getting a > run-time error 75 Path/File access error > when trying to run the programme > > Does anyone know how to fix this please > > regards > > Colin >

I've been going through the files listed for the Ian Brooke syndicate, and the only correct ones that I can see have been uploaded after the date shown near the top of the Suspect Files page (currently 16/3/2012). When you're looking at a "correct" file scroll up to the top and check the last modified date - if it's after 16/3/2012 then the transcriber has corrected it. Cheers, Mike On 23 March 2012 09:47, Brian Smart <brian.smart@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Hi I can see exactly the same problem. Files that I can see are correct are > being listed. > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Phil > Sent: 23 March 2012 09:04 > To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com > Subject: [!! SPAM] 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 > > References > > 1. http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html > 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 I can see exactly the same problem. Files that I can see are correct are being listed. Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Phil Sent: 23 March 2012 09:04 To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: [!! SPAM] 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 References 1. http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesComments.html 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