Tony Meighan wrote: > > Hi All, > > Whilst trying to upload 1838M4G049.bmd, I have struck a problem. > > The second entry on this page is written using two lines. > > Hickford .........Mary Ann.............Kingston,4......251 > .................................................................... &250A > > When I have tried to upload, I get a message telling me that it is invalid > So, what do I do? Transcribe the line twice, Hickford,Mary Ann,Kingston,4,251 Hickford,Mary Ann,Kingston,4,250A -- Dave Mayall

The task to amend this area is in my hands, I am afraid! I hope, in the not too distant future, to deploy a change that will allow submitters to a) completely hide their identity (except the submmitter id) b) reveal their name but not email address c) reveal their email address (with an indication they researching the name) Separately submitters will be able to say if they are willing to accept corrections. This they will be able to do without revealing their email address. It was a bigger job than I thought when I started it, but it's nearly there! Barrie -----Original Message----- From: Peter Hendy-Ibbs [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 06 October 2001 15:25 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Corrections I understand Janet's concern about the availability of email addresses on the site. In fact this subject was discussed a year ago. On the one hand it is useful to have feedback and corrections where appropriate. But it is not that long ago that one transcriber had a less than pleasant exchange with a determined user. On the other hand all those submitting personal and one-name study data would generally welcome contacts from users who may turn out to be related or have further family information. We are, after all providing a service for family historians. A year ago I suggested that a pragmatic solution would be a choice for systematic transcribers to conceal their email addresses and one-namers to reveal them, if they wish. If so there would need to be an option on the Transcriber's page to show or conceal one's email address. If the address is concealed then a default FreeBMD address would be necessary for corrections (perhaps routed to Virginia if she has not had second thoughts!) Peter Hendy-Ibbs -- Researching: IBBS from Hunts/Beds and HENDY from Pembrokeshire Transcribing and reformatting for FreeBMD (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com) ______________________________

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:54:17 +0100, you wrote: >I have received on a few occasions now, e-mails telling me I have wrongly entered information, and after going to the trouble of rechecking my files, it turns out they are correctly transcribed. > >Surely we haven't got to amend our entries, I thought the whole point was to use the Transcripts. Can't something to this effect be stressed on the Programme. We try to stress it to people. Sadly there are many people who refuse to read. I know of many cases where somebody will say they know we are wrong, but our transcription is accurate. If your transcription is correct then no matter how convinced somebody is that it should be different , you should stick to what is in the index. I do a nice line in explaining this to those who are too lazy to read :-) >Also, is it necessary for our e-mail address to be on view to all and sundry, as I am seriously considering stopping transcribing if this problem persists. Work is in progress to deal with this issue. -- Dave Mayall

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:18:56 EDT, you wrote: > >Hello, > >What, exactly, is the format of this #Theory record? >Also, if I see what I believe to be a suspect entry in someone else's >transcription >can I enter a #Theory record for that even though I may not know the exact >page number? > >Here's an example: >Surname entered is "BROCE," but both logically and alphabetically I believe >it ought to be "BROCK". I didn't enter the original. Can I enter a #Theory? Not at present. In future we will have facilities for you to upload amendment files. At present #THEORY (all upper case please) is just a comment to remind us to put in a proper correction record in due course. -- Dave Mayall

Looking through our "tasks to do " basket there is already an entry to cover this very situation which appears to go back 12 months or so ago. However this task is vying for the expertise of Dave, Barrie, Graham or Ben to implement. All these individuals are already working flat out completing other tasks in the queue. However this doesn't mean that the appropriate task can't be raised in the Priority list, I'll leave Dave and Co to offer their comments. 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: "Peter Hendy-Ibbs" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 06 October 2001 15:24 Subject: Re: Corrections I understand Janet's concern about the availability of email addresses on the site. In fact this subject was discussed a year ago. On the one hand it is useful to have feedback and corrections where appropriate. But it is not that long ago that one transcriber had a less than pleasant exchange with a determined user. On the other hand all those submitting personal and one-name study data would generally welcome contacts from users who may turn out to be related or have further family information. We are, after all providing a service for family historians. A year ago I suggested that a pragmatic solution would be a choice for systematic transcribers to conceal their email addresses and one-namers to reveal them, if they wish. If so there would need to be an option on the Transcriber's page to show or conceal one's email address. If the address is concealed then a default FreeBMD address would be necessary for corrections (perhaps routed to Virginia if she has not had second thoughts!) Peter Hendy-Ibbs -- Researching: IBBS from Hunts/Beds and HENDY from Pembrokeshire Transcribing and reformatting for FreeBMD (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com) ============================== Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

Hi Linda The simple answer is no, you are not wasting your time. The more accurate you can get your transcription the better it will be for the Project. Just out of interest you may wish to check out our "Transcription and Verification Process" guide at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/process.html (don't worry at this stage about the bulk of the content) Almost at the top of the page is the following quote: The primary methods of ensuring accuracy will be; Vigilance and accuracy from transcribers Hope this will put your mind at ease. 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: "Linda Pattinson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 06 October 2001 15:20 Subject: RE: File Owning Hi All, I've been reading comments on this subject with interest. I usually just keep my head down and get on with transcribing but I'd like to ask a question. I go to the FRC four times a year to do research, and since I joined FreeBMD I have taken prints of my allocations with me and amended the unreadable bits by checking the indexes. There are still many outstanding but I felt pleased that I had achieved at least some improvement to my uploaded data. My question is....Am I wasting my time as this is going to be done in due course by syndicate leaders and co-ordinators? Linda ______________________________________________ Linda Pattinson Email : [email protected] Genealogy Web Site : www.stevenwillingale.com -----Original Message----- From: Ian Brooke [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 October 2001 22:23 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: File Owning Hi All, Many thanks for your comments Dave - I've interspersed a few comments. Regards Ian >The idea of file ownership does bring advantages! >1) You can load a page with some unreadable stuff, then replace it later once you have had chance to look at entries again. >2) When a query comes in, it is quite likely that somebody central will not have a copy of the fiche to check the transcription. >3) Splitting the files out by transcriber allows us to identify any potential cases of seriously suspect files and to discard them. >4) Identifying by transcriber ensures that we can show that double keying was truly independent. >5) Ownership ensures that at the stage where we apply corrections to the data, there is no prospect of a "rogue" checker overwriting the data held. Most of these (except #2) seem to relate to tying the file back to the original transcriber. But it doesn't sound too difficult to store this info in the header of the record when it was moved to a central store. ?>Much of the problem seems to result from people not appreciating the data model. I disagree with this entirely. The problems I was trying to address are (1) that no-one (excluding yourself and maybe 3 others) other than the original transcriber has access to the data to make legitimate changes/corrections. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be able to change files but there is surely a case for providing access to either syndicate coordinators and/or a person appointed for that task. (2) That questions/comments etc are being sent to people who have in the past uploaded files but now are no longer associated with the project and don't wish to receive them. In some cases, where the email address stored in the FreeBMD record is no longer valid then these questions are coming in to Virginia and in some cases to the Admins list. Neither of these has anything to do with the data model. >The path of asking a transcriber to correct his data is very much part of the early process in the months immediately after transcription, prior to double transcription. Why? Surely questions can arise from someone querying the database and this can happen at anytime. Facilities are already being developed for the later stages of the project, where corrections to records will be applied by other people. These facilities will NOT involve editing the submitted files. The last point here is well taken but what about data that needs to be corrected in the early stages? Personally I would like to see a facility whereby syndicate coordinators 'own' data uploaded by their syndicate and can access it as though it were theirs - this would certainly solve the problem that I am currently experiencing. Regards Ian ______________________________ ============================== Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com

I understand Janet's concern about the availability of email addresses on the site. In fact this subject was discussed a year ago. On the one hand it is useful to have feedback and corrections where appropriate. But it is not that long ago that one transcriber had a less than pleasant exchange with a determined user. On the other hand all those submitting personal and one-name study data would generally welcome contacts from users who may turn out to be related or have further family information. We are, after all providing a service for family historians. A year ago I suggested that a pragmatic solution would be a choice for systematic transcribers to conceal their email addresses and one-namers to reveal them, if they wish. If so there would need to be an option on the Transcriber's page to show or conceal one's email address. If the address is concealed then a default FreeBMD address would be necessary for corrections (perhaps routed to Virginia if she has not had second thoughts!) Peter Hendy-Ibbs -- Researching: IBBS from Hunts/Beds and HENDY from Pembrokeshire Transcribing and reformatting for FreeBMD (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com)

Hi All, I've been reading comments on this subject with interest. I usually just keep my head down and get on with transcribing but I'd like to ask a question. I go to the FRC four times a year to do research, and since I joined FreeBMD I have taken prints of my allocations with me and amended the unreadable bits by checking the indexes. There are still many outstanding but I felt pleased that I had achieved at least some improvement to my uploaded data. My question is....Am I wasting my time as this is going to be done in due course by syndicate leaders and co-ordinators? Linda ______________________________________________ Linda Pattinson Email : [email protected] Genealogy Web Site : www.stevenwillingale.com -----Original Message----- From: Ian Brooke [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 October 2001 22:23 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: File Owning Hi All, Many thanks for your comments Dave - I've interspersed a few comments. Regards Ian >The idea of file ownership does bring advantages! >1) You can load a page with some unreadable stuff, then replace it later once you have had chance to look at entries again. >2) When a query comes in, it is quite likely that somebody central will not have a copy of the fiche to check the transcription. >3) Splitting the files out by transcriber allows us to identify any potential cases of seriously suspect files and to discard them. >4) Identifying by transcriber ensures that we can show that double keying was truly independent. >5) Ownership ensures that at the stage where we apply corrections to the data, there is no prospect of a "rogue" checker overwriting the data held. Most of these (except #2) seem to relate to tying the file back to the original transcriber. But it doesn't sound too difficult to store this info in the header of the record when it was moved to a central store. ?>Much of the problem seems to result from people not appreciating the data model. I disagree with this entirely. The problems I was trying to address are (1) that no-one (excluding yourself and maybe 3 others) other than the original transcriber has access to the data to make legitimate changes/corrections. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be able to change files but there is surely a case for providing access to either syndicate coordinators and/or a person appointed for that task. (2) That questions/comments etc are being sent to people who have in the past uploaded files but now are no longer associated with the project and don't wish to receive them. In some cases, where the email address stored in the FreeBMD record is no longer valid then these questions are coming in to Virginia and in some cases to the Admins list. Neither of these has anything to do with the data model. >The path of asking a transcriber to correct his data is very much part of the early process in the months immediately after transcription, prior to double transcription. Why? Surely questions can arise from someone querying the database and this can happen at anytime. Facilities are already being developed for the later stages of the project, where corrections to records will be applied by other people. These facilities will NOT involve editing the submitted files. The last point here is well taken but what about data that needs to be corrected in the early stages? Personally I would like to see a facility whereby syndicate coordinators 'own' data uploaded by their syndicate and can access it as though it were theirs - this would certainly solve the problem that I am currently experiencing. Regards Ian ______________________________

Hi, one of my syndicate members is having the following problem: ----- I have started transcribing & I am going ok except that I can't get the District Picklist to work.Every time I use it it shuts down the Program & I have to reopen it.The Forename Picklist works ok.Do you have any ideas? ----- He has reinstalled WinBMD but this has not helped the problem. Are there any suggestions? Bye for now Mary Muir [email protected] http://www.genealogy.bc.ca/

Hi John, Go to the bottom of the class for not reading your source correctly - the lady (Janet) said the after checking her transcription was correct. Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Pain" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 12:09 PM Subject: Re: Corrections > Janet > > Surely if your transcription is incorrect then it must be corrected - and > from the discussion on this list lately it appears that the only person with > the 'real' authority to correct your transcription is You. > > There will always be some people that will dispute the index, I have had > several where it is alleged that the certificate purchased has a slightly > different name to that in the index eg transcription = Parkes, Certificate = > Parker. The transcription being correct as Parkes. > > Every other suggested correction has been valid and meant correcting the > original files. > > This means that the database is just that little bit more accurate ( or in > modern parlance 'accurater'). > > Regards > > John > > Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) > Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's > Conde Salop. Anytime > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Janet <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 6:54 PM > Subject: Corrections > > > > I have received on a few occasions now, e-mails telling me I have wrongly > entered information, and after going to the trouble of rechecking my files, > it turns out they are correctly transcribed. > > > > Surely we haven't got to amend our entries, I thought the whole point was > to use the Transcripts. Can't something to this effect be stressed on the > Programme. > > > > Also, is it necessary for our e-mail address to be on view to all and > sundry, as I am seriously considering stopping transcribing if this problem > persists. > > > > From a very disgruntled > > > > Janet > > > > > > ============================== > > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > >

The ability to add a # comment has *always* been available in SpeedBMD. If the # is the first character on the line any text can be entered. Such text (a remark, comment, theory or whatever) is stored but is ignored by the database as I understand it. Geo. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 10:18 PM Subject: Re: Theory > > Hello, > > What, exactly, is the format of this #Theory record? > Also, if I see what I believe to be a suspect entry in someone else's > transcription > can I enter a #Theory record for that even though I may not know the exact > page number? > > Here's an example: > Surname entered is "BROCE," but both logically and alphabetically I believe > it ought to be "BROCK". I didn't enter the original. Can I enter a #Theory? > > Rick Elliott > > > > > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > >

Forwarding to main list cheers Graham [email protected] wrote: > > Small plea for those reading on line, please could people snip the necessary bits from their replies. Due to a problem with my hard disk, I'm currently reading messages on line at work. As a result, I'm suddley aware of how long some of the messages are with copies of four or five earlier messages that started the thread, but are not not relevent. It is very frustrating and timeconsuming to have to scroll through these old messages containing to get to the next one. I receive my e-mails in digest format. > > I'm sure others feel the same. > > Ellen Duffy > Lost of London (without her computer)

As an aside. Just in case anyone was wondering about Barrie's comment "raising a task". Believe it ot not, we have a formal "Problem Tracking System" on FreeBMD, this allows members of the FreeBMD Project Team to raise tasks for action by the most appropriate members of the Team. Some of these tasks come from discussions on the FreeBMD-Discuss list or ideas mailed in to members of the Team. 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: "Archer Barrie" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 05 October 2001 09:48 Subject: RE: Syndicate leaders owning data > I tend to agree with Ian - is there some reason why a > transcriber *and* his > or her coordinator can't jointly own data? I am sure Dave M > will correct us > if Ian and I have missed the point, but I wouldn't have a > problem with my > coordinator altering my uploaded files (if he had the time) - > as I see it, it > cuts down the number of people to blame (and I use the word 'blame' > advisedly) when an individual record is wrong! It would also > cut the amount > of time we spend chasing AWOL volunteers. .... > Virginia I have been thinking for a while that a facility like this would be useful. The question of who "owns" the data is a bit philosophical. The files are currently stored in a way that is related to the user id and in that sense the *computer* ownership is with the user id. As such it is relatively easy (in a programming sense) to limit access to that user id. To allow access to selected other user ids (presumably a user who is marked as a co-ordinator for the syndicate that the user belongs to - IYSWIM) would be possible but would take a little thought and effort. I believe it would be important to maintain an audit log for such activities. This would allow us to find out who modified a file and when. This not so much for the usual security reason (finding someone to blame - I am a bit of a security cynic!) but just so we don't have to rely on grey cells when a user asks why one of their files has changed! I think someone should raise a task. Someone who would be prepared to test the facility! Barrie

Janet Surely if your transcription is incorrect then it must be corrected - and from the discussion on this list lately it appears that the only person with the 'real' authority to correct your transcription is You. There will always be some people that will dispute the index, I have had several where it is alleged that the certificate purchased has a slightly different name to that in the index eg transcription = Parkes, Certificate = Parker. The transcription being correct as Parkes. Every other suggested correction has been valid and meant correcting the original files. This means that the database is just that little bit more accurate ( or in modern parlance 'accurater'). Regards John Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's Conde Salop. Anytime ----- Original Message ----- From: Janet <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 6:54 PM Subject: Corrections > I have received on a few occasions now, e-mails telling me I have wrongly entered information, and after going to the trouble of rechecking my files, it turns out they are correctly transcribed. > > Surely we haven't got to amend our entries, I thought the whole point was to use the Transcripts. Can't something to this effect be stressed on the Programme. > > Also, is it necessary for our e-mail address to be on view to all and sundry, as I am seriously considering stopping transcribing if this problem persists. > > From a very disgruntled > > Janet > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp >

I have received on a few occasions now, e-mails telling me I have wrongly entered information, and after going to the trouble of rechecking my files, it turns out they are correctly transcribed. Surely we haven't got to amend our entries, I thought the whole point was to use the Transcripts. Can't something to this effect be stressed on the Programme. Also, is it necessary for our e-mail address to be on view to all and sundry, as I am seriously considering stopping transcribing if this problem persists. >From a very disgruntled Janet

Good day, all. Haven't we been here sometime recently before? I am sure John Pain is also smiling smugly - either that or fuming from the ears. John is my syndicate coordinator and has a record of my submitter ID and my password, which is a password that is so easily broken by those who KNOW me that I never, ever use it in my workplace (for the government). I transcribe and send the files to him as well as uploading them, and he checks against originals for my underscores and asterisks. He then has the facility to correct by replacement on F/BMD the files I uploaded. They do not get loaded twice as that would be most misleading, but the files searchable on the database are as correct as can be with four eyes looking at them. When this was discussed previously we as a syndicate - well, I was at least, and John's responses had the same tone as my thoughts - felt a little put down. We signed up to get the data accessible. This is a truly charitable project and if Dave's reassurances regarding retention of data from *deleted* files is correct then who *@%* gives a care as to who has access to the data if those people are seen by the project to be reliable enough to be syndicate coordinators? I don't really want aan apology from anyone for previous remarks about password security, I can be as paranoid as anyone, but please accept that the previous paranoia was just that. And try asking John if you want a testing of such a system as he and his syndicate already practise!!! Best wishes Anne Cruise Archer Barrie wrote: > > > I tend to agree with Ian - is there some reason why a > > transcriber *and* his > > or her coordinator can't jointly own data? I am sure Dave M > > will correct us > > if Ian and I have missed the point, but I wouldn't have a > > problem with my > > coordinator altering my uploaded files (if he had the time) - > > as I see it, it > > cuts down the number of people to blame (and I use the word 'blame' > > advisedly) when an individual record is wrong! It would also > > cut the amount > > of time we spend chasing AWOL volunteers. > .... > > Virginia > > I have been thinking for a while that a facility like this would be useful. > > The question of who "owns" the data is a bit philosophical. The files are > currently stored in a way that is related to the user id and in that sense > the *computer* ownership is with the user id. As such it is relatively easy > (in a programming sense) to limit access to that user id. > > To allow access to selected other user ids (presumably a user who is marked > as a co-ordinator for the syndicate that the user belongs to - IYSWIM) would > be possible but would take a little thought and effort. > > I believe it would be important to maintain an audit log for such > activities. This would allow us to find out who modified a file and when. > This not so much for the usual security reason (finding someone to blame - I > am a bit of a security cynic!) but just so we don't have to rely on grey > cells when a user asks why one of their files has changed! > > I think someone should raise a task. Someone who would be prepared to test > the facility! > > Barrie

Dear Janet I leave the project management to explain the reasons behind having e-mail addresses available against uploaded records but........... The short answer is **no** you do not have to make 'corrections' just because somebody tells you their Grandmother always said her maiden name was JOINES and you have read JONES on your source. The whole idea is to reproduce the GRO index as it stands (warts and all). More helpfully, please, please, do not give up transcribing because of a couple of annoying e-mails. Anyone who receives these is welcome to forward them to me and I will reply - all I need is: a) the e-mail address of the enquirer (and preferably a copy of the message they sent you) b) an assurance that you have checked your source and stand by your original transcription. That can be two words and a comma - checked, fine. I will happily send a short (but polite) message to the enquirer explaining why we can't alter the uploaded transcription . I Can't promise not to try and sign these people up as a vounteers but there you go.......... Please contact me using my personal e-mail address and not the list - that could get very trying for all concerned :-) Best Wishes Virginia Gretton FreeBMD Volunteer Coordinator ____________________________________________________________________ I have received on a few occasions now, e-mails telling me I have wrongly entered information, and after going to the trouble of rechecking my files, it turns out they are correctly transcribed. Surely we haven't got to amend our entries, I thought the whole point was to use the Transcripts. Can't something to this effect be stressed on the Programme. Also, is it necessary for our e-mail address to be on view to all and sundry, as I am seriously considering stopping transcribing if this problem persists. >From a very disgruntled Janet

Dave Mayall wrote: > The bottom line is that for so long as someone remains a transcriber, > they retain responsibility for their files. Once they leave, the files > belong to the project and we will assign them to somebody else to look > after. I'm relieved to read this and hope that it can be incorporated for new (and old!) transcribers somewhere on the site. > > Our corrections will be of 2 types; > > CORRECTION - A checker has decided that the original transcription is > in error. The checker's transcription will be displayed in favour of > the transcriber's. The original transcription will be hidden from the > public view (but we will be able to see what we corrected) This answers both the concern over apparent duplicates and 'authenticated' data. > THEORY - The transcription is correct, but we think the index is wrong > (we of course could be mistaken). These records will be found whether > searching for the original index term or the correction, and will be > displayed something like; > > SMITH Joseph London C 1c 123 > {Record amended by FreeBMD from original > SMITH Soseph London C 1c 123} > And a useful refinement even if it's a diversion from the 'type what you see credo. But it does depend on transcribers being aware of that possibility and being able to make suspect entries with the #THEORY flag. As far as I am aware this is not possible in Speed/Win/MacBMD. It has been a very useful discussion topic but one which has helped others in the project understand more of what is going in te steering group. Perhaps some form of occasional update on technical & organisational issues may help to keep the embership better informed? :-) Peter Hendy-Ibbs -- Researching: IBBS from Hunts/Beds and HENDY from Pembrokeshire Transcribing and reformatting for FreeBMD (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com)

[email protected] wrote: > > Dear All > > Ian Brooke wrote: > > Personally I would like to see a facility whereby syndicate coordinators > 'own' data uploaded by their syndicate and can access it as though it were > theirs - this would certainly solve the problem that I am currently > experiencing. > > I tend to agree with Ian - is there some reason why a transcriber *and* his > or her coordinator can't jointly own data? I am sure Dave M will correct us > if Ian and I have missed the point, but I wouldn't have a problem with my > coordinator altering my uploaded files (if he had the time) - as I see it, it > cuts down the number of people to blame (and I use the word 'blame' > advisedly) when an individual record is wrong! It would also cut the amount > of time we spend chasing AWOL volunteers. 1) It is difficult to implement. Some people have files in a single account that represent work for more than one syndicate. 2) It could represent a data integrity problem. With many transcribers, one person doing things badly wrong is a small problem. If we get a Co-ordinator who makes a real mess of things it becomes a nightmare. The security model that we have adopted is to give people as much access as they NEED. Neither more nor less than that. Syndicate Coordinators do not NEED write access to all their syndicate's files. They do need access to some files in certain circumstances. That access is granted on a case by case basis. -- Dave Mayall

[email protected] wrote: > > Dear All > > I have resisted this discussion so far because I only read Ian's initial > message (many hours late) after being at work yesterday night. I totally > understand the frustration of locating AWOL volunteers but I have been > persuaded by Dave M's recent arguments. > > However, it scares me silly that one day, I might fall out with the FreeBMD > management (yes, I know, a *very* funny idea) and remove my files - just > because I can. I could do this over and over (after each update) if I felt > so inclined (and angry) - would there be a point where my access to 'my' > files would be prevented? Yes. The project leadership can quite easily lock out an account. -- Dave Mayall