At 08:59 01/11/01 +0000, Graham Hart wrote on the Admin list: >I answered him privately once and then again after yesterday's post to >correct misunderstandings. I believe he went to his local registrar >with the numbers. > >He also believes we are a professional organisation etcetcetc .. I have >tried to correct this .. not sure there is much that can be done. I don't think we need be too defensive about the nature of the FreeBMD exercise. If this were a professional (by which I suspect is implied commercial) operation, leaders and syndicate coordinators would have more power over the more incompetent or troublesome of us, and I can imagine how you might long for that. But years ago I was involved in the computerisation of a modest (750,000) population index, and a certain level of error had to be accepted as part of the contract. When we consider the amount of time that transcribers are often spending poring over faint or damaged copies, or struggling with difficult manuscript, it is evident that this could not be justified if it had to be paid for. >I >don't sub to the Yorksgen list but I think enough do to explain things >to him .. but, if someone doesn't want to listen then there's not a lot >that can be done in the end. Genealogy attracts a very varied collection of individuals and we shouldn't take criticism too personally. But there is the risk that if the project gets too much flak transcribers will be demoralised and the whole project will suffer. I repeat my view that many people genuinely don't understand the imperfections in the original register, why creating a new one from scratch isn't an obvious solution, or that transcription can't be perfect. We have come to take computerised indexes for granted, but people who really ought to know better still regard the IGI as a reliable source, or believe that the 1881 British census transcription is wholly accurate, for example. We can't win because the more we emphasise the inevitable imperfections in the BMB index transcription, the less people will value it, and if we don't try and point them out the more justified they will feel in complaining if they have 'wasted' their money seeking a certificate that is not as described. One thing to do in the longer run is to work on the FreeBMD website to try and make sure that these various misunderstandings are explained at the appropriate points. Then that those who take the trouble to read get the message, and those who don't can be quickly pointed to it. >Jean Spence wrote: > > > > Recently on a Genealogy list I am on a member was very angry because he had > > sent for 5 certificates to various registration offices and they were all > > incorrect. Someone suggested the references numbers are only for the GRO > > and you only need name and quarter but no number for the registration > > offices. Are the numbers we transcribe only for the GRO. > > > > We had quite a bit of discussion on the list, it seems unlikely that anyone > > transcribed 5 numbers incorrectly so can anyone explain what probably > > happened. The writer still seems critical of our efforts to transcribe > > correctly. and our policy of transcribing exactly what we see. > > jean in S. australia. Andrew Hingston <http://www.amhinja.demon.co.uk>

Hi Guys And further to this discussion - if we did use the #THEORY (as I feel this could well be one of those cases where it would fit in well) I presume we add that right under the 2 entries concerned? But if there's more than one of these 'theories' to a page, we use #THEORY for each one? And I dont mean for both of the WARREN's but a completely different entry on the page. Thanks Teri -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 156 Release Date: 25/10/2001

The typist has not moved the carriage down correctly. Lets be logical WARREN Walter Frederick Kensington 1a 159 WARREN Walter James Pancras 1b 128 And to cover the illogical thinkers; #THEORY the above two need further checking (reason?, I can't think of one) What's the alternative WARREN Walter Frederick * * * * * Kensington 1a 159 WARREN Walter James * * * * * Pancras 1b 128 What next?? :-) Garry KIWIZ Syndicate ----- Original Message ----- | The other entries are different. | My example,| | WARREN Walter Frederick | WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 | Pancras 1b 128 | | isn't the same as the example below, which presumable is what you are referring to | when a name overflows into the District field. | | WARREN Walter Frederick | Kensington 1a 159 | WARREN Walter James Pancras 1b 128 | | For the entries you are referring to the District overflows to the next line and | you would type as one line. | | Referring back to my example, as I mentioned in my earlier response, logic would | say move the name down one. But how can we be sure that WARREN Walter James | doesn't belong to Kensington 1a 159, after all it is on the same line? | | Your suggestion about comments lines may possible be the answer. My understanding | is that we would use #THEORY perhaps the experts in these matters Dave or Graham | may wish to offer their views? | | After the +PAGE and full stop discussions, I shudder to think about introducing | #THEORY. I don't think this is covered in our "Data Format" Web Page.

In message <[email protected]>, Dave Mayall <[email protected]> writes >On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:18:49 +0800, you wrote: > >>Hi Guys >> >>And further to this discussion - if we did use the #THEORY (as I >>feel this could well be one of those cases where it would fit in >>well) I presume we add that right under the 2 entries >>concerned? >> >>But if there's more than one of these 'theories' to a page, we >>use #THEORY for each one? And I dont mean for both of the >>WARREN's but a completely different entry on the page. > >#THEORY is just a comment line to remind us that there is something in >the file that wants looking at. > >Position of the record isn't too important. Could you clarify this please, Dave? What I've done is add a #THEORY line immediately under the affected entry - eg: HAVERS,Jabez,Mutford,4b,285 #THEORY Line 89 Vol/Page No. indicate this should be Mitford not Mutford /Sometimes/ I've omitted the Line number. Is this ok or should it be something like: HAVERS,Jabez,Mutford,4b,285 #THEORY Line 89 - Vol 4b Page 285 indicate this should be Mitford not Mutford Very obvious problems seem to arise far more with the typed sheets than handwritten or printed - 14 out of c4500 against 2 from c18000 in my case. -- Philip Powell

On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:18:49 +0800, you wrote: >Hi Guys > >And further to this discussion - if we did use the #THEORY (as I >feel this could well be one of those cases where it would fit in >well) I presume we add that right under the 2 entries >concerned? > >But if there's more than one of these 'theories' to a page, we >use #THEORY for each one? And I dont mean for both of the >WARREN's but a completely different entry on the page. #THEORY is just a comment line to remind us that there is something in the file that wants looking at. Position of the record isn't too important. -- Dave Mayall

Thanks Allan, On the particular page in question (1862B1-1344) there are at least 2 other instances where the forenames *don't* overflow into the district field, yet the district is moved down a line. They are:- WARRINGTON, Emma Constantine & VASEL*S, Matilda Elizabeth; as well as quite a number of cases where the first line against the surname is blank and the first forename/s are down a line. Sorry if this is being a pain - as you say we can't be *sure* that Walter James doesn't belong in Kensington, and at the same time I think we can't be sure he doesn't belong in Pancras either. cheers........ Steve *Original Message* >The other entries are different. >My example, >WARREN Walter Frederick >WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 Pancras 1b 128 >isn't the same as the example below, which presumable is what you are referring to >when a name overflows into the District field. >WARREN Walter Frederick Kensington 1a 159 <WARREN Walter James Pancras 1b 128 >For the entries you are referring to the District overflows to the next line and >you would type as one line. >Referring back to my example, as I mentioned in my earlier response, logic would >say move the name down one. But how can we be sure that WARREN Walter James >doesn't belong to Kensington 1a 159, after all it is on the same line? >Your suggestion about comments lines may possible be the answer. My understanding >is that we would use #THEORY perhaps the experts in these matters Dave or Graham >may wish to offer their views? >After the +PAGE and full stop discussions, I shudder to think about introducing >#THEORY. I don't think this is covered in our "Data Format" Web Page. >Regards >Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 30 October 2001 19:51 Subject: Re: Can You Help Please I just had a look at the page in question and there are several places where the names and districts are on separate lines. Are all of these going to be treated in the way you suggest? It seems to me that *if* the district has been moved down one line because of a longish forename then to treat them as separate lines will be incorporating incorrect info into the database. Specifically, Walter James Warren's descendant will be thinking their ancestor was born in Kensington when he was *probably* born in Pancras. Would the use of "comment" lines be another option? Steve - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------------------------------------- *ORIGINAL MESSAGE* Hi Teri I see what you mean. Logically, you should move the 2 names down one line so that they line up with the rest of the information. However, you would be second guessing. My advice is to consider the 3 lines as three separate entries and to insert a "?" where the information is blank. In case anyone is confused by my response, the entries on the Index are thus. WARREN Walter Frederick WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 Pancras 1b 128 i.e District,Vol and Page are missing on first line and Surname and Forename are missing on the third line Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gypsy" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 29 October 2001 10:49 Subject: Can you help please Hi 1862B1-1344.tif has I believe 2 names out of place. Now usually we'd just enter them as is but I'm wondering if this is one of those anomalies. The names are WARREN Walter Frederick & WARREN Walter James. I'd appreciate your advice. ============================== Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp ______________________________

Read my previous responses, where I said logically it should be as you suggested (the logical not the alternative suggestion). However, what happens if this hypothesis is incorrect? Your alternative can't be correct as it means you have managed to get 4 lines where only 3 lines exists. Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kiwiz Syndicate" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 31 October 2001 20:44 Subject: WARREN misalignment problem The typist has not moved the carriage down correctly. Lets be logical WARREN Walter Frederick Kensington 1a 159 WARREN Walter James Pancras 1b 128 And to cover the illogical thinkers; #THEORY the above two need further checking (reason?, I can't think of one) What's the alternative WARREN Walter Frederick * * * * * Kensington 1a 159 WARREN Walter James * * * * * Pancras 1b 128 What next?? :-) Garry KIWIZ Syndicate ----- Original Message ----- | The other entries are different. | My example,| | WARREN Walter Frederick | WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 | Pancras 1b 128 | | isn't the same as the example below, which presumable is what you are referring to | when a name overflows into the District field. | | WARREN Walter Frederick | Kensington 1a 159 | WARREN Walter James Pancras 1b 128 | | For the entries you are referring to the District overflows to the next line and | you would type as one line. | | Referring back to my example, as I mentioned in my earlier response, logic would | say move the name down one. But how can we be sure that WARREN Walter James | doesn't belong to Kensington 1a 159, after all it is on the same line? | | Your suggestion about comments lines may possible be the answer. My understanding | is that we would use #THEORY perhaps the experts in these matters Dave or Graham | may wish to offer their views? | | After the +PAGE and full stop discussions, I shudder to think about introducing | #THEORY. I don't think this is covered in our "Data Format" Web Page. ============================== Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 Source for Family History Online. Go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=702&sourceid=1237

Hi Steve I wasn't 100% clear in my earlier response. The new examples which you quoted, e.g WARRINGTON, Emma Constantine Chorlton 8c 660 to my mind should be treated as one line even though the name doesn't actually overflow into the District Field. They still don't follow the example which Teri mentioned, viz. WARREN Walter Frederick WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 Pancras 1b 128 I agree we can't be sure which District belongs to WARREN Walter James which is why I concurred that perhaps we should be using the #THEORY process. However, I would like the views of Dave or Graham whether this is the correct use of #THEORY. Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 31 October 2001 19:51 Subject: Re:Can You Help Please Thanks Allan, On the particular page in question (1862B1-1344) there are at least 2 other instances where the forenames *don't* overflow into the district field, yet the district is moved down a line. They are:- WARRINGTON, Emma Constantine & VASEL*S, Matilda Elizabeth; as well as quite a number of cases where the first line against the surname is blank and the first forename/s are down a line. Sorry if this is being a pain - as you say we can't be *sure* that Walter James doesn't belong in Kensington, and at the same time I think we can't be sure he doesn't belong in Pancras either. cheers........ Steve *Original Message* >The other entries are different. >My example, >WARREN Walter Frederick >WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 Pancras 1b 128 >isn't the same as the example below, which presumable is what you are referring to >when a name overflows into the District field. >WARREN Walter Frederick Kensington 1a 159 <WARREN Walter James Pancras 1b 128 >For the entries you are referring to the District overflows to the next line and >you would type as one line. >Referring back to my example, as I mentioned in my earlier response, logic would >say move the name down one. But how can we be sure that WARREN Walter James >doesn't belong to Kensington 1a 159, after all it is on the same line? >Your suggestion about comments lines may possible be the answer. My understanding >is that we would use #THEORY perhaps the experts in these matters Dave or Graham >may wish to offer their views? >After the +PAGE and full stop discussions, I shudder to think about introducing >#THEORY. I don't think this is covered in our "Data Format" Web Page. >Regards >Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 30 October 2001 19:51 Subject: Re: Can You Help Please I just had a look at the page in question and there are several places where the names and districts are on separate lines. Are all of these going to be treated in the way you suggest? It seems to me that *if* the district has been moved down one line because of a longish forename then to treat them as separate lines will be incorporating incorrect info into the database. Specifically, Walter James Warren's descendant will be thinking their ancestor was born in Kensington when he was *probably* born in Pancras. Would the use of "comment" lines be another option? Steve - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------------------------------------- *ORIGINAL MESSAGE* Hi Teri I see what you mean. Logically, you should move the 2 names down one line so that they line up with the rest of the information. However, you would be second guessing. My advice is to consider the 3 lines as three separate entries and to insert a "?" where the information is blank. In case anyone is confused by my response, the entries on the Index are thus. WARREN Walter Frederick WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 Pancras 1b 128 i.e District,Vol and Page are missing on first line and Surname and Forename are missing on the third line Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gypsy" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 29 October 2001 10:49 Subject: Can you help please Hi 1862B1-1344.tif has I believe 2 names out of place. Now usually we'd just enter them as is but I'm wondering if this is one of those anomalies. The names are WARREN Walter Frederick & WARREN Walter James. I'd appreciate your advice. ============================== Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp ______________________________ ============================== Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2

Dave wrote in part: "Well, the only complete explanation of how it works is the code. Do you understand perl?" Well I for one now understand a lot more from Dave's explaination of how things work and it now makes much more sense in my mind. I was able (in simplified terms - as neither I nor the person asking the question understand Perl) to explain why we needed the +PAGE so much and how it works. Tbank you! Teri -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 156 Release Date: 25/10/2001

I just had a look at the page in question and there are several places where the names and districts are on separate lines. Are all of these going to be treated in the way you suggest? It seems to me that *if* the district has been moved down one line because of a longish forename then to treat them as separate lines will be incorporating incorrect info into the database. Specifically, Walter James Warren's descendant will be thinking their ancestor was born in Kensington when he was *probably* born in Pancras. Would the use of "comment" lines be another option? Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *ORIGINAL MESSAGE* Hi Teri I see what you mean. Logically, you should move the 2 names down one line so that they line up with the rest of the information. However, you would be second guessing. My advice is to consider the 3 lines as three separate entries and to insert a "?" where the information is blank. In case anyone is confused by my response, the entries on the Index are thus. WARREN Walter Frederick WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 Pancras 1b 128 i.e District,Vol and Page are missing on first line and Surname and Forename are missing on the third line Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gypsy" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 29 October 2001 10:49 Subject: Can you help please Hi 1862B1-1344.tif has I believe 2 names out of place. Now usually we'd just enter them as is but I'm wondering if this is one of those anomalies. The names are WARREN Walter Frederick & WARREN Walter James. I'd appreciate your advice.

The other entries are different. My example, WARREN Walter Frederick WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 Pancras 1b 128 isn't the same as the example below, which presumable is what you are referring to when a name overflows into the District field. WARREN Walter Frederick Kensington 1a 159 WARREN Walter James Pancras 1b 128 For the entries you are referring to the District overflows to the next line and you would type as one line. Referring back to my example, as I mentioned in my earlier response, logic would say move the name down one. But how can we be sure that WARREN Walter James doesn't belong to Kensington 1a 159, after all it is on the same line? Your suggestion about comments lines may possible be the answer. My understanding is that we would use #THEORY perhaps the experts in these matters Dave or Graham may wish to offer their views? After the +PAGE and full stop discussions, I shudder to think about introducing #THEORY. I don't think this is covered in our "Data Format" Web Page. Regards Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 30 October 2001 19:51 Subject: Re: Can You Help Please I just had a look at the page in question and there are several places where the names and districts are on separate lines. Are all of these going to be treated in the way you suggest? It seems to me that *if* the district has been moved down one line because of a longish forename then to treat them as separate lines will be incorporating incorrect info into the database. Specifically, Walter James Warren's descendant will be thinking their ancestor was born in Kensington when he was *probably* born in Pancras. Would the use of "comment" lines be another option? Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- *ORIGINAL MESSAGE* Hi Teri I see what you mean. Logically, you should move the 2 names down one line so that they line up with the rest of the information. However, you would be second guessing. My advice is to consider the 3 lines as three separate entries and to insert a "?" where the information is blank. In case anyone is confused by my response, the entries on the Index are thus. WARREN Walter Frederick WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 Pancras 1b 128 i.e District,Vol and Page are missing on first line and Surname and Forename are missing on the third line Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gypsy" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 29 October 2001 10:49 Subject: Can you help please Hi 1862B1-1344.tif has I believe 2 names out of place. Now usually we'd just enter them as is but I'm wondering if this is one of those anomalies. The names are WARREN Walter Frederick & WARREN Walter James. I'd appreciate your advice. ============================== Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:56:49 -0800, you wrote: >I was just thinking and couldn't you just upload a file like the following >to deal with these pages: > >+PAGE,0039 >#BLANK >+PAGE,0040 >#BLANK >+PAGE,0041 >#B (as in has a large capital B) >This way the computer can find the blank pages. This would depend on >someone finding all the blank pages which isn't too difficult if you >download each of the images. This is known as "overloading" a construct. # is a comment field, and it isn't wise to add meaning to it. We will be able to deal with these blank pages without a major problem. -- Dave Mayall

Hi Keith This is an easy one to answer. The Indexes for 1840 marriages 1st Qrt are transcribed by a one person Syndicate (this is almost unique and goes back before I came on the scene). The individual concerned is actually transcribing from microfiche in a local LDS and has transcribed up to letter I (not L) at the moment, hence William ROUND has not yet been transcribed. Sarah HILL has been transcribed, in fact there are more than 2 shown. Now for the bad news, there appears to be a fundamental error in all the entries in the files uploaded to FreeBMD which again would appear to make the search facility null and void for any records in these files. The good news, is that it has nothing to do with missing pages. Now I have to break the bad news to this very prolific and industrious volunteer, I'll be sure to mention you name?? Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Tinkler" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 29 October 2001 17:39 Subject: probable problem in 1840 marriages 1st Qrt around "HILL" ->missing pages? I recently had occasion to order the marriage certificate. William ROUND and Sarah HILL. 1840 Dudley 18 331 1st Qrt I obtained the details, which I checked for both parties, from fiche of the handwritten entries in the BMD records at my local LDS centre. I also have the marriage details (17 Mar 1840) independently from family documents. I was surprised to hear back from the agent that when he checked in the indexes that there was no sign of Sarah Hill. In fact I know there are two Sarah Hills - the other has a page entry different to the one matching William Round. A month or two ago I realised in transcribing 1845 4th Qrt births (including DRAKE to DUNN) that every other physical page was missing from the posted tif images .. (I realised the problem from an obvious break in the forenames in long list with the same surname - the handwritten pages numbers confirmed the missing page.) I went to my local LDS and found that the fiche records that they had were complete - and obtained the missing pages from that source. So - I guess this is to alert you to the possible problem - although it is not hard to spot - and to ask just how common this is? (I see that 1840 was 80% complete as of October 11th) Keith ============================== Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history learning and how-to articles on the Internet. http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library

Hi John Thanks for pointing out anomalies between my page and that on the FreeBMD site. I was already aware of these plus I need to ensure that our "Transcribers Knowledge Base" and "Hints and "Help For Beginners Guide" also speak from the hymn sheet. We are not so much short of an Editor, but somebody who is experienced in CVS (please don't ask, what's CVS?) to enable the changes to be made in a controlled fashion. I think my colleagues at "Head Office" will concur that I keep badgering away to ensure that the various documents are fit for purpose. However, whilst I can quite happily amend the Web Pages I am not proficient in CVS and this is one of the prerequisites of being able to amend the FreeBMD Web Pages. The easy part is the editorial side, the difficult part is the CVS side. Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Slann" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 29 October 2001 12:53 Subject: +PAGE Instruction - Temporary Web page Dear Allan, An erstwhile member of my syndicate has made a valuable contribution to the good work you are doing here, but it widens the thing out he wrote to me as follows: "Dear John Here is an extract from the FreeBMD site Start/End Of Page This can only occur in a SEQUENCED or ONENAME dataset. The page referred to is the page in the indexes rather than a page in the actual register. This data is used to assist in collation of entries and to estimate completeness. It is optional. +PAGE,PageNumber Insert one at the beginning/end of each page. The optional page number, if present, should be the number of the page that follows. If it is at the end of the dataset, it should be the page number of the following page anyway. If it is at the end of a volume, it should be 1 greater than the highest page number. On the new +PAGE site twice it says that +PAGE was compulsory. The red bit shows it wasn't. The blue bit states that both the first and last +PAGE should be n+1 Just trivial stuff but the new page is suggesting that we have been ignoring a requirement. Cheers" I assume that someone will change this as well, otherwise all your good work will come to nought. It does throw up a wider question though, the FreeBMD site continues to grow in terms of content and while I guess someone at Head Office is supposed to keep a eye on the content, isn't it time to recruit someone to act as editor so that anomalies like this can be prevented as far as possible. We probably have someone in one of the syndicates with the editorial skills to take on the task. Cheers John ============================== Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate your heritage! http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:24:05 -0000, you wrote: >Hello Dave, >You said regarding the way the system works: > >> We will try and explain how it works to those who feel the need to >> know (provided they understand that some of it isn't written yet, and >> is more in our heads than in reality). The majority wouldn't want to >> know though (trust me on this one!!) > >I feel the need to know. Thus as good an explanation as exists would be >welcome. Well, the only complete explanation of how it works is the code. Do you understand perl? Building an quarter up (the noddy guide) 1) The data for the quarter as submitted is grouped into "Accessions". An accession is a single contiguous batch of records (e.g. a page) 2) We build a map of which accessions contain records that are common, and go through an alignment process. This results in groups of matched contiguous data, known as Chunks. A chunk may contain one or more Accessions. [Everything after this doesn't happen yet!] 3) We use the +PAGE,nnn lines at the beginning and end of chunks (along with a bit of sense checking on name distributions) to build "superchunks", a series of chunks that we are happy to regard as contiguous. So if Smith, John is at the end of a chunk followed by +PAGE,123 and we have a chunk that starts +PAGE,123 then Smith, John Arthur, we would take that as contiguous. If we have +PAGE,123 Smith, Mary we wouldn't 4) We flag up the start and end points of the superchunks and a human decides whether or not there are missing records or not. If we are happy that there are not, we submit a special record that forces the superchunk to merge. Ultimately, the native sense check and the submitted superchunk forcing records will lead to the whole quarter being a single superchunk. -- Dave Mayall

I have now tried WinBMD under WindowsXP and can confirm that there are no signs of any problems. DOS programs like SpeedBMD ought to run satisfactorily but I haven't tried it and I agree that WinBMD will probably be the program of choice under WindowsXP and Windows2000, especially for those who lack confidence in computer matters. Andrew Hingston <http://www.amhinja.demon.co.uk>

Hello Dave, You said regarding the way the system works: > We will try and explain how it works to those who feel the need to > know (provided they understand that some of it isn't written yet, and > is more in our heads than in reality). The majority wouldn't want to > know though (trust me on this one!!) I feel the need to know. Thus as good an explanation as exists would be welcome. Regards Brian Smart >

Hi Freebies, one of the reasons that WinBMD was developed was because we could see the end of the road for DOS under Windows and I have a horrible feeling that XP has fulfilled the prophecy. In fact I did a quick web search and came up with this news item which seems to confirm my fears. Gates: Hello XP, Goodbye DOS By Michelle Delio 10:35 a.m. Oct. 25, 2001 PDT NEW YORK -- Windows XP's official launch Thursday was punctuated by patriotism, a bright future for this city and the entire nation ... and a ceremonious end to a vestige of the past: the venerable but clunky disk operating system, or DOS. This being the case, SpeedBMD will not function under XP and you will have to migrate to WinBMD. Cheers Peter

Hi Allan and All, I just thought that I should point out that at the moment (and for the foreseeable future - its too big a change to even think about!) you can't create a file using WinBMD without an opening +PAGE - you would have to edit it out using Notepad after creation and once you did that WinBMD would fail to open it again (not a problem if you just want to upload it manually and forget about it). The next version of WinBMD (4.0) also checks for the closing +PAGE and if not found asks if it should insert it for you. Regards Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 2:15 PM Subject: Re: +PAGE Instruction - Temporary Web page > Hi John > > Thanks for pointing out anomalies between my page and that on the FreeBMD site. > > I was already aware of these plus I need to ensure that our "Transcribers > Knowledge Base" and "Hints and "Help For Beginners Guide" also speak from the > hymn sheet. > > We are not so much short of an Editor, but somebody who is experienced in CVS > (please don't ask, what's CVS?) to enable the changes to be made in a controlled > fashion. > > I think my colleagues at "Head Office" will concur that I keep badgering away to > ensure that the various documents are fit for purpose. However, whilst I can quite > happily amend the Web Pages I am not proficient in CVS and this is one of the > prerequisites of being able to amend the FreeBMD Web Pages. > > The easy part is the editorial side, the difficult part is the CVS side. > > Allan Raymond > [email protected] > http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm > FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet > http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Slann" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: 29 October 2001 12:53 > Subject: +PAGE Instruction - Temporary Web page > > > Dear Allan, > > An erstwhile member of my syndicate has made a valuable contribution to the good > work you are doing here, but it widens the thing out he wrote to me as follows: > > "Dear John > > Here is an extract from the FreeBMD site > Start/End Of Page > This can only occur in a SEQUENCED or ONENAME dataset. The page referred to is > the page in the indexes rather than a page in the actual register. This data is > used to assist in collation of entries and to estimate completeness. It is > optional. > > +PAGE,PageNumber > > Insert one at the beginning/end of each page. The optional page number, if > present, should be the number of the page that follows. If it is at the end of the > dataset, it should be the page number of the following page anyway. If it is at > the end of a volume, it should be 1 greater than the highest page number. > > On the new +PAGE site twice it says that +PAGE was compulsory. The red bit > shows it wasn't. > > The blue bit states that both the first and last +PAGE should be n+1 > > Just trivial stuff but the new page is suggesting that we have been ignoring a > requirement. > > Cheers" > > I assume that someone will change this as well, otherwise all your good work will > come to nought. > > It does throw up a wider question though, the FreeBMD site continues to grow in > terms of content and while I guess someone at Head Office is supposed to keep a > eye on the content, isn't it time to recruit someone to act as editor so that > anomalies like this can be prevented as far as possible. We probably have someone > in one of the syndicates with the editorial skills to take on the task. > > Cheers > > John > > > > > > > > ============================== > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > your heritage! > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog > > > > ============================== > Ancestry.com--Your #1 Source for Family History Online--FREE for 14 Days > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=702&sourceid=1238 > >

Dear Allan, An erstwhile member of my syndicate has made a valuable contribution to the good work you are doing here, but it widens the thing out he wrote to me as follows: "Dear John Here is an extract from the FreeBMD site Start/End Of Page This can only occur in a SEQUENCED or ONENAME dataset. The page referred to is the page in the indexes rather than a page in the actual register. This data is used to assist in collation of entries and to estimate completeness. It is optional. +PAGE,PageNumber Insert one at the beginning/end of each page. The optional page number, if present, should be the number of the page that follows. If it is at the end of the dataset, it should be the page number of the following page anyway. If it is at the end of a volume, it should be 1 greater than the highest page number. On the new +PAGE site twice it says that +PAGE was compulsory. The red bit shows it wasn't. The blue bit states that both the first and last +PAGE should be n+1 Just trivial stuff but the new page is suggesting that we have been ignoring a requirement. Cheers" I assume that someone will change this as well, otherwise all your good work will come to nought. It does throw up a wider question though, the FreeBMD site continues to grow in terms of content and while I guess someone at Head Office is supposed to keep a eye on the content, isn't it time to recruit someone to act as editor so that anomalies like this can be prevented as far as possible. We probably have someone in one of the syndicates with the editorial skills to take on the task. Cheers John