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