Trish You can be on both lists if you wish, they serve different purposes. 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: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 23 October 2001 08:07 Subject: unsubscribe i seem to be on both lists ============================== Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

I've been following this string with interest because for the first time I've started transcribing deaths & have noticed the period after the forename. I thought that it was there to separate names from ages in the columns. (And yes I'm a guilty party who has omitted them, sorry) Being an incredible hoarder of 'rubbish' I also have most of my previous transcription photocopies (marriages & a few births) so I looked at them & except for the cases where the middle name is an initial can't see a period for the forenames used. Would we expect to see them in marriages & Births too? Regards Susannah Miles PS I normally do obey the 'Type What You See' rule - honest.

i seem to be on both lists

Hello, This is not a moot "point" (ahem), I have actually seen it... What if the period after the name on the page is MISSING? Should I add it? Of course not; I can't just '"assume" there's one there, can I? Rick Elliott

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:58:04 +0100, you wrote: >Sheelagh, > >before you accuse people of twisting words, please make sure of your facts. > >>However in the meantime, we should be doing >> exactly what the golden rule says TYPING WHAT WE SEE - therefore that >> includes the PERIOD. > >Does this include the seperator dots? and the commas after the Christian >name? and have you transcribed the period in all of your transcriptions? No, it doesn't include separator dots and commas, because there is a project wide policy of omitting them as being field separators. There is no project wide policy of omitting a period following a forename. We are reviewing whether to relax that rule to allow for the difficulties encountered in discerning this character in some cases, and to deal with a large number of incorrect files cause by well-meant but incorrect advice in this respect. -- Dave Mayall

Entered:- James (no period) James William. (with period) No out of sequence error message. James. (both with period) James William. Out of sequence error message displayed. The above situation is only encountered if the first two forenames are the same and the second forename has an added forename. Roger J. Legg Surname Interests:- CARR Broom Hill, Northumberland, England HEAD / HEDE Kintbury, Berkshire, England LEGG Saint Giles, Camberwell, Surrey, England SHIELD South Shields, County Durham, England WOODS Gorleston on Sea, Suffolk, England, Pre 1889 WOODS Gorleston on Sea, Norfolk, England Post1889 ICQ 129377740

Hi David, As dave has implied, we haven't ignored the discussion. In fact, quite the opposite. As long as the database can handle the change (and that is a serious matter) then we will look seriously at saying the period is optional. It would be silly of us to give the answer tho before we have checked things out. As you might imagine, things have been fairly fraught recently with the Ancestry announcement and that has taken our focus a bit. We are dealing with it and will give an answer as soon as we can... Cheers Graham David Gray wrote: > > In a (probably) vain attempt to help you to understand, > > > 4) If you believe that any discussion that ultimately ends up not > coming to a conclusion > > that you agree with is a waste of time, then I really can't help. > > The reason for my earlier posting was not to continue to try to persuade you > (you cannot persuade people who are not open to persuasion) but to point out > that you had allowed the discussion to continue, knowing that you had no > intention of even considering any change. > > David Gray > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> > To: "David Gray" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:32 AM > Subject: Re: Period Drama > > > David Gray wrote: > > > > > > On 21st September, Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > > > >FWIW, I am at present somewhat persuaded of the > > > >merits of this argument, and I'm going to spend a > > > >couple of days looking at some images. > > > > > > >This is despite the fact that life would be > > > >easier for me if I stuck to the present line, and > > > >told those who were advised to omit the periods > > > >to complain to those who gave them the advice :-) > > > > > > On 30th September Graham Hart wrote: > > > > > > >We had people awayfor the past few weeks .. we should be back > toa > > > full > > > >complement this week and so we willtry to get this sorted out > > > >definiteively and let you know. > > > > > > On 21st October Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > > > >We are busy evaluating how many files have been affected by the > > > >confusion caused by unofficial policies being developed. Once > we > > > have > > > >worked out how best to fix the problem caused, we will offer > > > further > > > >advice. > > > > > > On 22nd October Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > > > >The position is that failing to include a period that is in the > > > index > > > >is WRONG. We are looking into how we can deal with the large > number > > > of > > > >incorrect files that already exist. It isn't something that you > can > > > >choose. > > > > > > It seems from this last message that all the previous correspondence on > the > > > subject has been a complete waste of time. > > > > There are times when I think that I should give up on actually providing > > informative responses to queries. I could just as easily say "We are > looking into > > this and will say nothing until we have decided! > > > > In a (probably vain) attempt to explain the position, I will try and set > it out. > > > > 1) Omitting to transcribe the period is not typing what you see, so it is > in a > > strict sense WRONG. > > > > > -- > > Dave Mayall > > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

Hi In the light of recent discussions it may be appropriate to remind everyone that FreeBMD have 3 general mailing lists serving different purposes. In summary (i) if you require an answer regarding a transcribing problem, post to the ADMIN list and (ii) if you want to discuss or have an opinion on the way forward of the FreeBMD Project post to the DISCUSS list The scope of the 3 lists: ADMINS - Question and answer forum. Answers will come from experienced transcribers who are familiar with the *whole* project. Answers that reflect practice within a particular syndicate or which reflect the opinion of a transcriber as to a better way of doing things are not allowed. Volunteers should use this list if their query is typically "What do I do if I can't read a character? etc etc SYNDICATES - Forum for syndicate co-ordinators. Discussion of strategic direction in allocating quarters to syndicates, and policy regarding error correction. The mutual help and advice list for co-ordinators. Hopefully, self explanatory. DISCUSS - General FreeBMD discussion. Not for new transcribers and volunteers looking for help, everything said here is opinion. This list is for those transcribers who are fully conversant with FreeBMD to discuss what we *should* be doing. Ideas discussed on this list will form a major input to the decision making process. Volunteers should use this list if their query is typically "Why do we do things this way? etc etc Full details of all the mailing lists is on our Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/lists.html 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/

Dave, Perhaps you would share your reply to Sue to the list as she expressed my confusion very well. I am not arguing your position - just trying to understand from someone more experienced in genealogy than I am what the "qualitative" difference is between the comma or period that always follow the surname and vol field, and the period that follows the forename list. If, in your experience, you have seen index entries that lead you to suppose or suspect that the period following the forename conveys information, while the other punctuation doesn't (and it appears from your earlier replies that you have) could you please share your knowledge. My experience of indices is limited to the 100 or so pages that I have transcribed and the odd look up for my own family. It had never occcurred to me that a period that wasn't indicating an abbreviation could be carrying additional information. My apologies to others who see this discussion as squabbling. It was not intended as such - I would like to understand the background that informs the instruction - not least in case others can apply the knowledge to their own research. Val ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 5:04 PM Subject: Re: Period Drama > Quoting Sue Burton <[email protected]>: > > > OK - so when I'm going back to add all the full stops after the > > forenames in > > Death records, shall I also add the commas after the surnames and the > > full > > stops after the volume numbers? I can see them too! And shall I add > > the > > last two to Birth and Marriage records as well? I can see them there > > as > > well. > > Replied direct [As already stated, this topic is NOT APPROPRIATE for the Admins list. > > > > -- > Dave Mayall > > ------------------------------------------------- > This mail sent through UK Online webmail > > > ==== 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 > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > >

Sheelagh, before you accuse people of twisting words, please make sure of your facts. >However in the meantime, we should be doing > exactly what the golden rule says TYPING WHAT WE SEE - therefore that > includes the PERIOD. Does this include the seperator dots? and the commas after the Christian name? and have you transcribed the period in all of your transcriptions? David Gray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sheelagh Hawkins" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 2:40 PM Subject: Re: Period Drama > I never cease to be amazed at how people twist words and make something out > of nothing. As far as I can see the debate has been worthwhile as all the > views have been aired, and they are now being considered by the management. > They have not yet made a decision, but when they do, it will be explained to > us in full and no doubt there will be those who feel the need to re-air > their views all over again. However in the meantime, we should be doing > exactly what the golden rule says TYPING WHAT WE SEE - therefore that > includes the PERIOD. > > Now where is the difficulty in that ???? > Sheelagh > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Gray" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:20 AM > Subject: Period Drama > > > > On 21st September, Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > >FWIW, I am at present somewhat persuaded of the > > >merits of this argument, and I'm going to spend a > > >couple of days looking at some images. > > > > >This is despite the fact that life would be > > >easier for me if I stuck to the present line, and > > >told those who were advised to omit the periods > > >to complain to those who gave them the advice :-) > > > > > > On 30th September Graham Hart wrote: > > > > >We had people awayfor the past few weeks .. we should be back toa > > full > > >complement this week and so we willtry to get this sorted out > > >definiteively and let you know. > > > > On 21st October Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > >We are busy evaluating how many files have been affected by the > > >confusion caused by unofficial policies being developed. Once we > > have > > >worked out how best to fix the problem caused, we will offer > > further > > >advice. > > > > On 22nd October Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > >The position is that failing to include a period that is in the > > index > > >is WRONG. We are looking into how we can deal with the large > number > > of > > >incorrect files that already exist. It isn't something that you > can > > >choose. > > > > It seems from this last message that all the previous correspondence on > the > > subject has been a complete waste of time. > > > > David Gray > > > > > > > > ============================== > > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 > > > > > > > ============================== > 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/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB > >

Hi Having been tolled that the forename period for burials must be inserted I have gone ahead and entered them in the file that I am transcribing at the moment this is easy when you use the vertical tab setting in the windows version of speedBMD but not so easy when using the pick list for the forenames I find that you have to backspace after selecting from the pick list to remove the space placed there by the default in the program. Is it possible to remove the default space and allow this to be entered manually or is there another setting that can be changed to eliminate this situation. Roger J. Legg Surname Interests:- CARR Broom Hill, Northumberland, England HEAD / HEDE Kintbury, Berkshire, England LEGG Saint Giles, Camberwell, Surrey, England SHIELD South Shields, County Durham, England WOODS Gorleston on Sea, Suffolk, England, Pre 1889 WOODS Gorleston on Sea, Norfolk, England Post1889 ICQ 129377740

I never cease to be amazed at how people twist words and make something out of nothing. As far as I can see the debate has been worthwhile as all the views have been aired, and they are now being considered by the management. They have not yet made a decision, but when they do, it will be explained to us in full and no doubt there will be those who feel the need to re-air their views all over again. However in the meantime, we should be doing exactly what the golden rule says TYPING WHAT WE SEE - therefore that includes the PERIOD. Now where is the difficulty in that ???? Sheelagh ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gray" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:20 AM Subject: Period Drama > On 21st September, Dave Mayall wrote: > > >FWIW, I am at present somewhat persuaded of the > >merits of this argument, and I'm going to spend a > >couple of days looking at some images. > > >This is despite the fact that life would be > >easier for me if I stuck to the present line, and > >told those who were advised to omit the periods > >to complain to those who gave them the advice :-) > > > On 30th September Graham Hart wrote: > > >We had people awayfor the past few weeks .. we should be back toa > full > >complement this week and so we willtry to get this sorted out > >definiteively and let you know. > > On 21st October Dave Mayall wrote: > > >We are busy evaluating how many files have been affected by the > >confusion caused by unofficial policies being developed. Once we > have > >worked out how best to fix the problem caused, we will offer > further > >advice. > > On 22nd October Dave Mayall wrote: > > >The position is that failing to include a period that is in the > index > >is WRONG. We are looking into how we can deal with the large number > of > >incorrect files that already exist. It isn't something that you can > >choose. > > It seems from this last message that all the previous correspondence on the > subject has been a complete waste of time. > > David Gray > > > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 > >

David Gray wrote: > > In a (probably) vain attempt to help you to understand, > > > 4) If you believe that any discussion that ultimately ends up not > coming to a conclusion > > that you agree with is a waste of time, then I really can't help. > > The reason for my earlier posting was not to continue to try to persuade you > (you cannot persuade people who are not open to persuasion) but to point out > that you had allowed the discussion to continue, knowing that you had no > intention of even considering any change. Sorry David, but upon this point you are simply wrong. If people are going down a path that cannot result in a change, I'll tell them up front that they are wasting their time. If I say that there is merit in discussing something, then that is no guarantee that change will result. On the particular issue. there are various options that we could consider; 1) Omitting Periods is wrong and not acceptable. 2) Omitting Periods is wrong, but acceptable. 3) Omitting Periods is right, but including them is acceptable. 4) Omitting Periods is right and including them is not acceptable. That seems to cover the options that are open to us. I am saying that options 3 and 4 are discounted. It *is* wrong to omit the periods. We are however strongly persuaded that omitting a period is not sufficiently wrong to warrant rejecting affected files. Effectively, the position is that the period should be included, but that we will accept files where it has been omitted. We are just scoping the work involved to ensure that the database load can work round the problem. -- Dave Mayall

In a (probably) vain attempt to help you to understand, > 4) If you believe that any discussion that ultimately ends up not coming to a conclusion > that you agree with is a waste of time, then I really can't help. The reason for my earlier posting was not to continue to try to persuade you (you cannot persuade people who are not open to persuasion) but to point out that you had allowed the discussion to continue, knowing that you had no intention of even considering any change. David Gray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: "David Gray" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:32 AM Subject: Re: Period Drama > David Gray wrote: > > > > On 21st September, Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > >FWIW, I am at present somewhat persuaded of the > > >merits of this argument, and I'm going to spend a > > >couple of days looking at some images. > > > > >This is despite the fact that life would be > > >easier for me if I stuck to the present line, and > > >told those who were advised to omit the periods > > >to complain to those who gave them the advice :-) > > > > On 30th September Graham Hart wrote: > > > > >We had people awayfor the past few weeks .. we should be back toa > > full > > >complement this week and so we willtry to get this sorted out > > >definiteively and let you know. > > > > On 21st October Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > >We are busy evaluating how many files have been affected by the > > >confusion caused by unofficial policies being developed. Once we > > have > > >worked out how best to fix the problem caused, we will offer > > further > > >advice. > > > > On 22nd October Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > >The position is that failing to include a period that is in the > > index > > >is WRONG. We are looking into how we can deal with the large number > > of > > >incorrect files that already exist. It isn't something that you can > > >choose. > > > > It seems from this last message that all the previous correspondence on the > > subject has been a complete waste of time. > > There are times when I think that I should give up on actually providing > informative responses to queries. I could just as easily say "We are looking into > this and will say nothing until we have decided! > > In a (probably vain) attempt to explain the position, I will try and set it out. > > 1) Omitting to transcribe the period is not typing what you see, so it is in a > strict sense WRONG. > > > -- > Dave Mayall >

David Gray wrote: > > On 21st September, Dave Mayall wrote: > > >FWIW, I am at present somewhat persuaded of the > >merits of this argument, and I'm going to spend a > >couple of days looking at some images. > > >This is despite the fact that life would be > >easier for me if I stuck to the present line, and > >told those who were advised to omit the periods > >to complain to those who gave them the advice :-) > > On 30th September Graham Hart wrote: > > >We had people awayfor the past few weeks .. we should be back toa > full > >complement this week and so we willtry to get this sorted out > >definiteively and let you know. > > On 21st October Dave Mayall wrote: > > >We are busy evaluating how many files have been affected by the > >confusion caused by unofficial policies being developed. Once we > have > >worked out how best to fix the problem caused, we will offer > further > >advice. > > On 22nd October Dave Mayall wrote: > > >The position is that failing to include a period that is in the > index > >is WRONG. We are looking into how we can deal with the large number > of > >incorrect files that already exist. It isn't something that you can > >choose. > > It seems from this last message that all the previous correspondence on the > subject has been a complete waste of time. There are times when I think that I should give up on actually providing informative responses to queries. I could just as easily say "We are looking into this and will say nothing until we have decided! In a (probably vain) attempt to explain the position, I will try and set it out. 1) Omitting to transcribe the period is not typing what you see, so it is in a strict sense WRONG. 2) I am somewhat persuaded by the argument that the period imparts no useful information. 3) Even if the period imparts no information, failing to transcribe it would still be wrong. It would just be a form of wrong that wasn't too big a problem, and that we could allow for. 4) If you believe that any discussion that ultimately ends up not coming to a conclusion that you agree with is a waste of time, then I really can't help. -- Dave Mayall

On 21st September, Dave Mayall wrote: >FWIW, I am at present somewhat persuaded of the >merits of this argument, and I'm going to spend a >couple of days looking at some images. >This is despite the fact that life would be >easier for me if I stuck to the present line, and >told those who were advised to omit the periods >to complain to those who gave them the advice :-) On 30th September Graham Hart wrote: >We had people awayfor the past few weeks .. we should be back toa full >complement this week and so we willtry to get this sorted out >definiteively and let you know. On 21st October Dave Mayall wrote: >We are busy evaluating how many files have been affected by the >confusion caused by unofficial policies being developed. Once we have >worked out how best to fix the problem caused, we will offer further >advice. On 22nd October Dave Mayall wrote: >The position is that failing to include a period that is in the index >is WRONG. We are looking into how we can deal with the large number of >incorrect files that already exist. It isn't something that you can >choose. It seems from this last message that all the previous correspondence on the subject has been a complete waste of time. David Gray

Hi Garry, Yo uare not subbed to the discuss list, in case you didn't realise... Kiwiz Syndicate wrote: > > Ancestry claim EXCLUSIVE rights on their website page, do they have this?. The only > way I can see them having it is, if they own FreeBMD, or the team is now part of > Ancestry?. > http://www.ancestry.com/library/view/news/articles/4741.asp > They do NOT have exclusive rigts to FreeBMD and I don't believe they are saying so on their site .. their collection may be exclusive, but FreeBMD is not. They sponsor us and that is all. They have no control over the project at all. > They are blatantly exploiting the FreeBMD data for money!. I'm not happy working on > this project to help them!. The main objection I have with Ancestry is they are > racing around with bottomless pockets buying up any Genealogical resource they can > get their hands on and then charge to access it. We would not have got the project this far without their sponsorship ... its one of those things we have to bear or not do projects like this, unfortunately. They are commercial, but they are not allowed to sell out records and they are not. > This is anti to the whole philosophy > of why I help Freebmd, they want to charge to the max for everything, I want it free. Unfortunately, its not gonna be possible to get them all for free :( even the PRO sites will charge. We are doing what we can but we would be blind to ignore commercial organisations for sponsorships. > It's frustrating going to their site and seeing all the NEW databases they have > bought!!. Once they have them the only way you'll see them is to pay. That's what > EXCLUSIVE means. No, the exclusive in a lot of theirs would be the format .. thay may have exclusive access for Pallots on the Web, for example, but I am sure it will continue to be available via the SOG as it has always been .... Parish registers will continue to be available via record offices and FreeREG can continue .. > The simple fix: They should state on every page mentioning the FreeBMD data that it > is provided by FreeBMD and available FREE. They do give us the credit .. and it is Free ... and has to remain that way ... Cheers Graham > > Garry > KIWIZ Syndicate Co-ordinator

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 15:36:23 +1000, you wrote: >Hi all, > >A simple question, 1845B4-S-Z-0001 consists of an image of the letter S, >nothing else on the page, what action should I take regarding uploading >this page? Don't transcribe it. Just move on to the next page. -- Dave Mayall

On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:32:40 +0100, you wrote: >One other consideration though is that the number of records they >quote appears to be the total number of entries, with no double >keying consideration. And without the last months records (they are a month behind us!) -- Dave Mayall

Dave I too would like a copy of errors for my Syndicate (Western Oz) if possible so all can be fixed up. Teri -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 152 Release Date: 09/10/2001