Hi, Can someone please enlighten me as to why we are transcribing records well into the 20th century while there remain a number of 'holes' in the 19th century transcriptions? For example there are almost no births transcribed for the period 1854 to 1858 - and I'm sure I'm not the only one whose research is handicapped by this sort of gap. When I began transcribing, I had the impression that the first priority for FreeBMD was to complete the pre-1901 data - has this changed? Thanks Mike --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

Quoting Michael Canny <mcanny1931@yahoo.co.uk>: > Hi, > > Can someone please enlighten me as to why we are transcribing records well > into the 20th century while there remain a number of 'holes' in the 19th > century transcriptions? For example there are almost no births transcribed > for the period 1854 to 1858 - and I'm sure I'm not the only one whose > research is handicapped by this sort of gap. When I began transcribing, I had > the impression that the first priority for FreeBMD was to complete the > pre-1901 data - has this changed? Priorities are a complex business, and what comes next is rarely as simple as we might wish! Broadly, we have three things which guide us; 1) In general, we want to transcribe earlier stuff first. 2) We must ensure that we always have new source available. 3) We need to get source available without vast cost. Earlier source (at 40 entries per page) as compared to later source (at 325 entries per page) is expensive in both time and money. Our strategy has centred on utilising the free scanning that has been made available by ACDB to best effect with a mix of older and newer source so as to minimise the amount of source that has had to be scanned commecially. I expect that this year will see us opening up some of the older years. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

Thanks to Jeff, Dave and Allan for very informative replies. I can live with the situation knowing it's 'in hand'. Mike Dave Mayall <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> wrote: Quoting Michael Canny : > Hi, > > Can someone please enlighten me as to why we are transcribing records well > into the 20th century while there remain a number of 'holes' in the 19th > century transcriptions? For example there are almost no births transcribed > for the period 1854 to 1858 - and I'm sure I'm not the only one whose > research is handicapped by this sort of gap. When I began transcribing, I had > the impression that the first priority for FreeBMD was to complete the > pre-1901 data - has this changed? Priorities are a complex business, and what comes next is rarely as simple as we might wish! Broadly, we have three things which guide us; 1) In general, we want to transcribe earlier stuff first. 2) We must ensure that we always have new source available. 3) We need to get source available without vast cost. Earlier source (at 40 entries per page) as compared to later source (at 325 entries per page) is expensive in both time and money. Our strategy has centred on utilising the free scanning that has been made available by ACDB to best effect with a mix of older and newer source so as to minimise the amount of source that has had to be scanned commecially. I expect that this year will see us opening up some of the older years. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== Want to help FreeBMD? Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. ============================== View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find marriage announcements and more. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx --------------------------------- Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.