Seems to me that some people are more concerned with their reputation for accuracy rather than the accuracy of the transcribed index. Obviously the best possible scans should be used for each keying. If a better scan becomes available after I have keyed a scan and the rekeyer gets a better result than me then it is for the benefit of all of us. It does not diminish the work put in on the original keying. Regards Peter Goggin -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, 24 October 2005 11:56 PM To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Rescanning policy John To clarify a couple of your points. 1. I requested you raise this issue via the Syndicate List, as your expressed concern that Co-ordinators should have an input into any rescanning processes. I for one would like to have defined rescanning process for all to see, which was the basis of our off list discussions. 2. You are in the realms of discussing Policy which is what the DISCUSS list is for. I would recommend that continuance of the discussion is via the Syndicates list or the DISCUSS list. 3. Second Keying will be done using the best source available at that time. We have previously reported our intention to replace poor quality scans please see our News Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html . 4. You can't possibly be suggesting that where we have supplied pristine new scans that double keying is undertaken using the previous poor quality scans? Regards Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Slann" <john.slann@btinternet.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 24 October 2005 14:16 Subject: Rescanning policy I have been discussing the absence of a rescan policy with Allan Raymond and he has suggested I raise the matter on the Admins list. He told me a fortnight ago that he would take up the matter of a rescan policy with the Team. More recently he advised that he is sill waiting a response from other team members. And added; One of the main players Dave Mayall has been absent for about a fortnight and I understand from a message I received a couple of days ago he will be off for another couple of weeks. I am a whole hearted supporter of Bob Phillips and his team in their endeavours to re-photograph the poorer quality images as long as they confine their efforts to transcriber requested rescans. Unfortunately they are not doing this and Bob has told me they are ignoring transcriber rescan requests. From the evidence of their efforts on behalf of my syndicate, the criteria they have adopted for selection means they have only picked up a handful of transcriber requested rescans I am convinced that the uploading of non-transcriber rescans requests must stop immediately. If this is not done we are piling up confusion and mayhem when the time comes for the second keying. The uploading of non-requested rescans places coordinators in a difficult position. In effect they are forced to get these unasked-for scans redone. If they are not redone the likelihood is that the second keying will be done using an enhanced image with the probability of an increased numbers of mismatched against the first keying. Second keying should only be done using the same source material. I have monitored and had a contingency plan for getting the approximately 3000 transcriber rescans generated by my syndicate members done when the new material was available. By extrapolating the numbers of non-transciber rescans that have been done within one quarter to all the work done by my syndicate, I find that the program that is underway will generate between 8000 and 10000 pages to be transcribed. The work in getting transcriber requested rescans re-done or amended is considerable, but the addition of unasked for rescans creates an unwelcome and unwanted addition. The handling of rescans is more time consuming than allocating and monitoring transcriber progress. The rescanned material is scattered randomly through a series of scans and whilst it is possible to isolate the new material it is also spread amongst (in my case) 40 or 50 transcribers at least. Each needs an e-mail for each batch of rescans to be done. ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== Need to get a fast answer to your transcribing problems? Go to the Transcribers Knowledge Base at http://FreeBMD.RootsWeb.com/vol_faq.html ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/147 - Release Date: 24/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/147 - Release Date: 24/10/2005

I would like to support Peter Coggin's view Would it be possible that if, where there are considerable differences between the a) transcription and the b) transcription AND the b) transcription was done from a higher quality scan that a c) transcription be instigated. Speaking personally, I would rather increase the workload on the transcribers (ie me) to ensure a higher level of accuracy. As Peter rightly says, the sterling efforts of the original a) copy transciber would not have been wasted. Regards Roger Cookson -----Original Message----- From: Peter Goggin [mailto:prgoggin@swiftdsl.com.au] Sent: 25 October 2005 01:18 To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Rescanning policy Seems to me that some people are more concerned with their reputation for accuracy rather than the accuracy of the transcribed index. Obviously the best possible scans should be used for each keying. If a better scan becomes available after I have keyed a scan and the rekeyer gets a better result than me then it is for the benefit of all of us. It does not diminish the work put in on the original keying. Regards Peter Goggin -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, 24 October 2005 11:56 PM To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Rescanning policy John To clarify a couple of your points. 1. I requested you raise this issue via the Syndicate List, as your expressed concern that Co-ordinators should have an input into any rescanning processes. I for one would like to have defined rescanning process for all to see, which was the basis of our off list discussions. 2. You are in the realms of discussing Policy which is what the DISCUSS list is for. I would recommend that continuance of the discussion is via the Syndicates list or the DISCUSS list. 3. Second Keying will be done using the best source available at that time. We have previously reported our intention to replace poor quality scans please see our News Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html . 4. You can't possibly be suggesting that where we have supplied pristine new scans that double keying is undertaken using the previous poor quality scans? Regards Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Slann" <john.slann@btinternet.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 24 October 2005 14:16 Subject: Rescanning policy I have been discussing the absence of a rescan policy with Allan Raymond and he has suggested I raise the matter on the Admins list. He told me a fortnight ago that he would take up the matter of a rescan policy with the Team. More recently he advised that he is sill waiting a response from other team members. And added; One of the main players Dave Mayall has been absent for about a fortnight and I understand from a message I received a couple of days ago he will be off for another couple of weeks. I am a whole hearted supporter of Bob Phillips and his team in their endeavours to re-photograph the poorer quality images as long as they confine their efforts to transcriber requested rescans. Unfortunately they are not doing this and Bob has told me they are ignoring transcriber rescan requests. From the evidence of their efforts on behalf of my syndicate, the criteria they have adopted for selection means they have only picked up a handful of transcriber requested rescans I am convinced that the uploading of non-transcriber rescans requests must stop immediately. If this is not done we are piling up confusion and mayhem when the time comes for the second keying. The uploading of non-requested rescans places coordinators in a difficult position. In effect they are forced to get these unasked-for scans redone. If they are not redone the likelihood is that the second keying will be done using an enhanced image with the probability of an increased numbers of mismatched against the first keying. Second keying should only be done using the same source material. I have monitored and had a contingency plan for getting the approximately 3000 transcriber rescans generated by my syndicate members done when the new material was available. By extrapolating the numbers of non-transciber rescans that have been done within one quarter to all the work done by my syndicate, I find that the program that is underway will generate between 8000 and 10000 pages to be transcribed. The work in getting transcriber requested rescans re-done or amended is considerable, but the addition of unasked for rescans creates an unwelcome and unwanted addition. The handling of rescans is more time consuming than allocating and monitoring transcriber progress. The rescanned material is scattered randomly through a series of scans and whilst it is possible to isolate the new material it is also spread amongst (in my case) 40 or 50 transcribers at least. Each needs an e-mail for each batch of rescans to be done. ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== Need to get a fast answer to your transcribing problems? Go to the Transcribers Knowledge Base at http://FreeBMD.RootsWeb.com/vol_faq.html ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/147 - Release Date: 24/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/147 - Release Date: 24/10/2005 ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== Need to get a fast answer to your transcribing problems? Go to the Transcribers Knowledge Base at http://FreeBMD.RootsWeb.com/vol_faq.html ============================== Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx

We are in the realms of discussing about policy which is not proper to the Admins List. However to put this particular slant to bed. Official policy is to use double keying as the norm for checking accuracy. However where the error rate is high we may request a third keying to take place. However let's not worry too much at this stage of play as we still have a lot of single keying to complete followed by second keying. I should add we already have done quite a lot of second keying Allan Raymond FreeBMD Co-ordinator of Syndicates ----- Original Message ----- From: "LH ARC FBMD" <RCooksonFBMD@dsl.pipex.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 28 October 2005 08:44 Subject: RE: Rescanning policy I would like to support Peter Coggin's view Would it be possible that if, where there are considerable differences between the a) transcription and the b) transcription AND the b) transcription was done from a higher quality scan that a c) transcription be instigated. Speaking personally, I would rather increase the workload on the transcribers (ie me) to ensure a higher level of accuracy. As Peter rightly says, the sterling efforts of the original a) copy transciber would not have been wasted. Regards Roger Cookson -----Original Message----- From: Peter Goggin [mailto:prgoggin@swiftdsl.com.au] Sent: 25 October 2005 01:18 To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Rescanning policy Seems to me that some people are more concerned with their reputation for accuracy rather than the accuracy of the transcribed index. Obviously the best possible scans should be used for each keying. If a better scan becomes available after I have keyed a scan and the rekeyer gets a better result than me then it is for the benefit of all of us. It does not diminish the work put in on the original keying. Regards Peter Goggin -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, 24 October 2005 11:56 PM To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Rescanning policy John To clarify a couple of your points. 1. I requested you raise this issue via the Syndicate List, as your expressed concern that Co-ordinators should have an input into any rescanning processes. I for one would like to have defined rescanning process for all to see, which was the basis of our off list discussions. 2. You are in the realms of discussing Policy which is what the DISCUSS list is for. I would recommend that continuance of the discussion is via the Syndicates list or the DISCUSS list. 3. Second Keying will be done using the best source available at that time. We have previously reported our intention to replace poor quality scans please see our News Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html . 4. You can't possibly be suggesting that where we have supplied pristine new scans that double keying is undertaken using the previous poor quality scans? Regards Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Slann" <john.slann@btinternet.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 24 October 2005 14:16 Subject: Rescanning policy I have been discussing the absence of a rescan policy with Allan Raymond and he has suggested I raise the matter on the Admins list. He told me a fortnight ago that he would take up the matter of a rescan policy with the Team. More recently he advised that he is sill waiting a response from other team members. And added; One of the main players Dave Mayall has been absent for about a fortnight and I understand from a message I received a couple of days ago he will be off for another couple of weeks. I am a whole hearted supporter of Bob Phillips and his team in their endeavours to re-photograph the poorer quality images as long as they confine their efforts to transcriber requested rescans. Unfortunately they are not doing this and Bob has told me they are ignoring transcriber rescan requests. From the evidence of their efforts on behalf of my syndicate, the criteria they have adopted for selection means they have only picked up a handful of transcriber requested rescans I am convinced that the uploading of non-transcriber rescans requests must stop immediately. If this is not done we are piling up confusion and mayhem when the time comes for the second keying. The uploading of non-requested rescans places coordinators in a difficult position. In effect they are forced to get these unasked-for scans redone. If they are not redone the likelihood is that the second keying will be done using an enhanced image with the probability of an increased numbers of mismatched against the first keying. Second keying should only be done using the same source material. I have monitored and had a contingency plan for getting the approximately 3000 transcriber rescans generated by my syndicate members done when the new material was available. By extrapolating the numbers of non-transciber rescans that have been done within one quarter to all the work done by my syndicate, I find that the program that is underway will generate between 8000 and 10000 pages to be transcribed. The work in getting transcriber requested rescans re-done or amended is considerable, but the addition of unasked for rescans creates an unwelcome and unwanted addition. The handling of rescans is more time consuming than allocating and monitoring transcriber progress. The rescanned material is scattered randomly through a series of scans and whilst it is possible to isolate the new material it is also spread amongst (in my case) 40 or 50 transcribers at least. Each needs an e-mail for each batch of rescans to be done. ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== Need to get a fast answer to your transcribing problems? Go to the Transcribers Knowledge Base at http://FreeBMD.RootsWeb.com/vol_faq.html ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/147 - Release Date: 24/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/147 - Release Date: 24/10/2005 ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== Need to get a fast answer to your transcribing problems? Go to the Transcribers Knowledge Base at http://FreeBMD.RootsWeb.com/vol_faq.html ============================== Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== List archives http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins ============================== Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. New content added every business day. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx