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

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

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