Hi Scribes, I am at present 'doing' the handwritten 1845 births for Morgan, amongst the countless numbers of John, David & Mary I have found one given name that has me totally dumbfounded. It appears after Julia, but, before Lewis, to me it appears to be ; Le___happuck there are approx. three letters in the name that I am not able to decipher! Has anyone any idea what name it is? Tony M

Hi Tony There is a Biblical name Kerenhappuck - various spellings - would this fit? Dafydd ----- Original Message ----- From: Tony Meighan <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 1:07 AM Subject: Assistance required,unknown name > Hi Scribes, > > I am at present 'doing' the handwritten 1845 births for Morgan, amongst the > countless numbers of John, David & Mary I have found one given name that > has me totally dumbfounded. > It appears after Julia, but, before Lewis, to me it appears to be ; > Le___happuck > there are approx. three letters in the name that I am not able to > decipher! > > Has anyone any idea what name it is? > > Tony M > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > >

it may only be the case here in sunny ol England(!!!)......wolverhampton to be exact..... but to check fiches here it cost 60p for half an hour.... Having spent many an hour and pence in the archives centre i am much mire prepared to search on freeBMD and then go and check at a cost of 60p rather than go through years of fiches and crank up the charge. Shell

Hi Peter, Peter Norman wrote: --- lots of snipping ---- > So are there volumes with the whole surname capitalized? On searching I have > several times noticed batches of names where the inputter has capitalized > the surname! A lot of the typeset indexes (sic) have Large captials and then smaller capitals which are not strictly lower case but are not the same size as the others. People see these in different ways, hence the need for the statement in the FAQ Cheers Graham > > Peter Norman > > ============================== > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > your heritage! > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog

----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Hart" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 8:35 AM Subject: Re: Small/Capital Letters in Volume Hi, That's ok .. we have been around this one as well in the past and we have a clear statement about it :)) >From the TKB, we have: "You should transcribe what you see. If you think a letter is a capital then transcribe it as a capital, if you think it is lower case then transcribe it as lower case. If you are not sure which it is, then just pick one and transcribe it. It doesn't matter because the software will correctly cope with upper and lower case letters. You do not need to go back and redo any records just because the capitalisation seems 'wrong'." Although this fits mainly for names, I think it applies to vol numbers as well. Even if the matching doesn't handle this at the moment (I could check the code but its too early and I am only working off half an eye at the moment :) ) it will handle it when we get round to completing its functionality in the future Cheers Graham [email protected] wrote: > > Hello, > I hesitate to bring this up, but I was doing a bit of work for a one-name > study and I noticed that some of the handwritten early 1860 indices have > instances where the original indexer decided, for a few pages, to enter all > the letter b's in the volume numbers as capital B's. All of the other > letters are small (5a, 5c, 6a) and, on most of the pages, the b's are small > b's. Perhaps a new recruit was used to index these pages, or perhaps the > indexer found that a capital B was easier to write than a small b. Who knows? > > 1) To the match logic, is Plymouth 5b the same as Plymouth 5B? > 2) Is 5B (capital B) even a valid volume? > 3) (I tremble to raise the next point!<g>) Could this possibly be another > exception to the 'type EXACTLY what you see' rule? > So are there volumes with the whole surname capitalized? On searching I have several times noticed batches of names where the inputter has capitalized the surname! Peter Norman

Hi Peter, Peter Hendy-Ibbs wrote: > > Recently I 'processed' personal data from a contributor who wondered > whether there were any plans to extend FreeBMD to include military BMDs > and wondered whether the steering committee has considered this. Yes, we have and we do consider it to be part of the project ... however, we need to go through and look at the formats etc and make the necessary additions to the code which time hasn't allowed for yet... Its definitely something we would like to do tho.. I don't believe we have a copy of these in the films purchased by Ancestry tho so we are not able to work by scans at this stage... Cheers Graham > > On the one hand military BMDs are handled separately from the standard > GRO indexes. At the same time they relate to British citizens and their > exclusion would therefore mean that a gap exists in the registration > information. I am not sure what percentage of national events this > represents but presumably it would not be a huge task. I don't know > whether there is source other than at the FRC but would it be reasonable > to have one syndicate dedicated to transcription of these registers in > order to have a more complete database? > > Peter Hendy-Ibbs > > -- > Researching: IBBS from Hunts/Beds and HENDY from Pembrokeshire > > Transcribing and reformatting for FreeBMD (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com) > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history > learning and how-to articles on the Internet. > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library

Recently I 'processed' personal data from a contributor who wondered whether there were any plans to extend FreeBMD to include military BMDs and wondered whether the steering committee has considered this. On the one hand military BMDs are handled separately from the standard GRO indexes. At the same time they relate to British citizens and their exclusion would therefore mean that a gap exists in the registration information. I am not sure what percentage of national events this represents but presumably it would not be a huge task. I don't know whether there is source other than at the FRC but would it be reasonable to have one syndicate dedicated to transcription of these registers in order to have a more complete database? Peter Hendy-Ibbs -- Researching: IBBS from Hunts/Beds and HENDY from Pembrokeshire Transcribing and reformatting for FreeBMD (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com)

I wonder whether we can just step back and take a more objective look at this issue. I was not born Peter. (with a period). So it is clear that the index compilers ADDED the period. If there was a good administrative reason for so doing, which remains true today, then it could be kept. It is difficult to see what reason may exist today. It appears to be just a typographic element similar to those associated with district and volume. I accept Dave's conver that there may be a case where there is some significance to the period. However if so it must be obscure, since it has not been brought to light, and it is difficult to see why the original compilers would have employed a period systematicaly for a rare event. Does common-sense not suggest that this was so? Should we not make a point of putting a stop to this period? (sorry, pun intended!) Peter Hendy-Ibbs -- Researching: IBBS from Hunts/Beds and HENDY from Pembrokeshire Transcribing and reformatting for FreeBMD (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com)

Dave Mayall wrote: >There are 3 Questions that must be considered; >1) Is this easier for transcribers >2) Are we certain that the period is never significant >3) Are we certain that transcribers will not misinterpret this rule in any way You are quite right to be concerned about point 2). I come from a long line of ___________'s. Because of FreeBMD's erroneous assumption that '___________' always indicated a repetition of the surname above I have been deprived of the chance of finding my ancestors. It's fortunate that I have private family papers to inform me of the marriage of Lionel __________ to Dorothy.............. S[mn]i_h (known as Dot) or I would never have found it! Kevin Eyles :-)

Hi, That's ok .. we have been around this one as well in the past and we have a clear statement about it :)) >From the TKB, we have: "You should transcribe what you see. If you think a letter is a capital then transcribe it as a capital, if you think it is lower case then transcribe it as lower case. If you are not sure which it is, then just pick one and transcribe it. It doesn't matter because the software will correctly cope with upper and lower case letters. You do not need to go back and redo any records just because the capitalisation seems ‘wrong’." Although this fits mainly for names, I think it applies to vol numbers as well. Even if the matching doesn't handle this at the moment (I could check the code but its too early and I am only working off half an eye at the moment :) ) it will handle it when we get round to completing its functionality in the future Cheers Graham [email protected] wrote: > > Hello, > I hesitate to bring this up, but I was doing a bit of work for a one-name > study and I noticed that some of the handwritten early 1860 indices have > instances where the original indexer decided, for a few pages, to enter all > the letter b's in the volume numbers as capital B's. All of the other > letters are small (5a, 5c, 6a) and, on most of the pages, the b's are small > b's. Perhaps a new recruit was used to index these pages, or perhaps the > indexer found that a capital B was easier to write than a small b. Who knows? > > 1) To the match logic, is Plymouth 5b the same as Plymouth 5B? > 2) Is 5B (capital B) even a valid volume? > 3) (I tremble to raise the next point!<g>) Could this possibly be another > exception to the 'type EXACTLY what you see' rule? > > Regards, > Rick Elliott > > ============================== > 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

Hello, I hesitate to bring this up, but I was doing a bit of work for a one-name study and I noticed that some of the handwritten early 1860 indices have instances where the original indexer decided, for a few pages, to enter all the letter b's in the volume numbers as capital B's. All of the other letters are small (5a, 5c, 6a) and, on most of the pages, the b's are small b's. Perhaps a new recruit was used to index these pages, or perhaps the indexer found that a capital B was easier to write than a small b. Who knows? 1) To the match logic, is Plymouth 5b the same as Plymouth 5B? 2) Is 5B (capital B) even a valid volume? 3) (I tremble to raise the next point!<g>) Could this possibly be another exception to the 'type EXACTLY what you see' rule? Regards, Rick Elliott

Quoting David Gray <[email protected]>: > Are you suggesting that the search facilities will allow for people to > search for a name with or without a period after it? That would be > extremely > messy. Alternatively, will the search facilities not require a period to > be > input? In this case why transcribe the period in the first place? Hypothetically, I am suggesting that the period will be excluded from the data for search purposes (but may well be retained for display purposes). One possible reason is that the period *may* have some significance that we don't know about. Of course, we can't be > entirely certain why the indexes were written or typed with a period > after > the forenames, but we can make an educated guess that the reason was > because > it was intended to be seen on the printed page, and not searched for > using > computers. The period is no more than an indicator that the words, or > sentences or 'data' has finished, and is not part of the data itself. It is the words "we can make an educated guess" that set the alarm bells ringing. When deciding what goes into the RAW data, there is no room for educated guesses. There is room for making educated guesses in building the database from that raw data. The reasoning is that if we say "don't transcribe that" and it later turns out that it was important, we can't do a thing to get it back. If we say transcribe it, then tell the program to ignore it, then should we ever find out that it is important we can just tell the program to stop ignoring it. > >>We have to deal with people who have been transcribing it up to > now, > who will > > >e-mail us bemoaning this change and wanting to know if they > have to > go through 20,000 > >>entries removing the stray punctuation. > > If I was a betting man, I would put money on the chance that there would > be > far more records transcribed without the period than with. :-) There will still be a lot of transcribers who have done it one way and will be up in arms because they think they have done it wrong and wasted many hours in the process. It doesn't matter how you try to explain it, it would mean a lot of effort soothing troubled brows. >I have > transcribed 19000 records without the period (without realising what > the > official line was, I hasten to add). > > >> There are 3 Questions that must be considered; > >> 2) Are we certain that the period is never significant > > We can never be absolutely certain of anything. As we will all have > seen > when transcribing, there are some very strange names out there. :-) > There > may well be some parents who have been daft enough to insist that a > full-stop be part of their child's name.:-). I was thinking of the possibility that "." may indicate that there are other forenames that have been truncated from the index (as an example) > >> 3) Are we certain that transcribers will not misinterpret this > rule > in any way > > It is difficult to see how it can be misinterpreted, but you can never > be > certain. Quite so. Some people can misinterpret anything. 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 :-) -- Dave Mayall ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through UK Online webmail

Dave Mayall wrote: > >You misread it! Thanks for that Dave. >> The search *will* be enhanced. It is just that (at present) enhancements >> to the search facilities are lower priority than enhancements that aid us >> getting more records on-line. Are you suggesting that the search facilities will allow for people to search for a name with or without a period after it? That would be extremely messy. Alternatively, will the search facilities not require a period to be input? In this case why transcribe the period in the first place? >>That rather depends upon what you consider to be "the data". If you consider >> the original certificates to be the data then you have a point, but from a FreeBMD >> point of view, the indexes are "the data".... If the indexes are the data, why do we not transcribe the period after the age in the death indexes or after the volume number? Or for that matter after the forename in the births? It is quite obvious that the first period in the line of separator dots is a full stop. Of course, we can't be entirely certain why the indexes were written or typed with a period after the forenames, but we can make an educated guess that the reason was because it was intended to be seen on the printed page, and not searched for using computers. The period is no more than an indicator that the words, or sentences or 'data' has finished, and is not part of the data itself. >>We have to deal with people who have been transcribing it up to now, who will > >e-mail us bemoaning this change and wanting to know if they have to go through 20,000 >>entries removing the stray punctuation. If I was a betting man, I would put money on the chance that there would be far more records transcribed without the period than with. :-) I have transcribed 19000 records without the period (without realising what the official line was, I hasten to add). >> There are 3 Questions that must be considered; >> 1) Is this easier for transcribers Absolutely!!! It has already been pointed out that those using SpeedBMD or WinBMD would find it extremely awkward to add the period and it would slow down the transcription rate. I can't speak for those who are not using these utilities, but I would have thought that it would be easier not to include the period as against including it. After all, on the average page, it would mean aprrox. an extra 375 keystrokes. >> 2) Are we certain that the period is never significant We can never be absolutely certain of anything. As we will all have seen when transcribing, there are some very strange names out there. :-) There may well be some parents who have been daft enough to insist that a full-stop be part of their child's name.:-). What is certain however is that the number would be infinitesimal compared to the vast number without. By considering the the period significant because a small number (perhaps none) has it as part of the name ignores the many millions that do not. >> 3) Are we certain that transcribers will not misinterpret this rule in any way It is difficult to see how it can be misinterpreted, but you can never be certain. >> I apologize if my apparent scepticism comes over as an unwillingness to consider change. >> It is nothing of the sort. It is by means of a healthy scepticism that we rigorously test >>change proposals for suitability. No appologies needed Dave. I would like you to know that I am one hundred percent committed to this project and I intend to see it through to the end (of myself or the project whichever comes first) :-) whatever decision you finally come to. I have a great respect for you and your colleagues for the tremendous work you put in and I am proud to be part of it. David Gray Heysham, Lancashire Norton AntiVirus protected

David Gray wrote: > > Dave, > I have seen a similar thread to this one in the archives from last year and > nothing has been done to make the search work since then. Indeed. The search *will* be enhanced. It is just that (at present) enhancements to the search facilities are lower priority than enhancements that aid us getting more records on-line. There are major work items that involve changes that users will never see. We cannot put these items off, because without them FreeBMD simply will not scale beyond 20 Million records. As resource becomes available, the search enhancements *will* happen. > The data did not originate with a period and so is being corrupted by > including the period, not preserved. That rather depends upon what you consider to be "the data". If you consider the original certificates to be the data then you have a point, but from a FreeBMD point of view, the indexes are "the data".... > You said the other day that you had no profound objection to the change > "*IF* we are sure that we can make the instruction > unambiguous". > > What could be more unambiguous than "Do not transcribe the period after the > forename"? People are more likely to follow this instruction than the > alternative. 1) We have to deal with people who have been transcribing it up to now, who will e-mail us bemoaning this change and wanting to know if they have to go through 20,000 entries removing the stray punctuation. 2) It extends the list of exceptions to the "type what you see" rule 3) We can only say this if we are *convinced* that there will NEVER be a case where there is some significance to the period 4) We need to decide whether the period should be retained after an initial. > You also said: > > 1) Discussion on changing the way things are done should take place on > the DISCUSS list rather than here. > 2) If what we lay down does need changing, it is very important that > it is discussed so that we can establish a common policy for all > syndicates. It is extremely damaging if one syndicate decides that > they will establish their own rules separate from the rest. > > >From giving the impression that you would consider the change if people > wanted it, your most recent response gives the impression that you are not > prepared to consider a change, or perhaps I have misread it. If you are not > prepared to consider a change have we wasted our time in discussing it? You misread it! I (and the final decision is not just mine!) am quite happy to consider a change, but the criteria is not that "people want it". The criteria is (and MUST be) that the change makes transcribing easier without any potential harm to the integrity of the data. There are 3 Questions that must be considered; 1) Is this easier for transcribers 2) Are we certain that the period is never significant 3) Are we certain that transcribers will not misinterpret this rule in any way If the answer to all 3 is "yes" then we can relax the rule (note that we don't reverse the rule, because we would then move to a policy that the period is optional and deal with it in code. I suggest that the answer to question 1 is "yes", and that we need to take a very good look at a wide range of scans to reassure ourselves that we can answer yes to 2 Likewise, we need to ensure that we frame any advice to transcribers so that we are happy that the answer to 3 is "yes" I apologize if my apparent scepticism comes over as an unwillingness to consider change. It is nothing of the sort. It is by means of a healthy scepticism that we rigorously test change proposals for suitability. -- Dave Mayall

Its not a UK example, but USA, but I do know of a case in own discipline where the (19thC) individual is named McGee, WJ and the forename is exactly that - they are not initials!! Needless to say its usually wrong when editors have been over it .... Keith

Dave, You wrote: > No, no, no. > > In considering what we transcribe, it is VITAL that you exclude considerations > as to how the search will work. > > The search will be made to work such that the queries that people enter will > find the data. I have seen a similar thread to this one in the archives from last year and nothing has been done to make the search work since then. The data did not originate with a period and so is being corrupted by including the period, not preserved. You said the other day that you had no profound objection to the change "*IF* we are sure that we can make the instruction unambiguous". What could be more unambiguous than "Do not transcribe the period after the forename"? People are more likely to follow this instruction than the alternative. You also said: 1) Discussion on changing the way things are done should take place on the DISCUSS list rather than here. 2) If what we lay down does need changing, it is very important that it is discussed so that we can establish a common policy for all syndicates. It is extremely damaging if one syndicate decides that they will establish their own rules separate from the rest. >From giving the impression that you would consider the change if people wanted it, your most recent response gives the impression that you are not prepared to consider a change, or perhaps I have misread it. If you are not prepared to consider a change have we wasted our time in discussing it? David Gray Heysham, Lancashire Norton AntiVirus protected ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 9:48 AM Subject: Re: Period > David Gray wrote: > > > > Hi Val, > > > > I have sent this reply via the Discuss list, as the thread somehow had moved > > to the Admin list. > > > > Val Turner wrote: > > > > >Hi David, > > >I was intrigued so went back to look at previous pages I had > > transcribed. > > >However hard I look I can't detect any periods after forenames on > > my > > birth > > >or marriage pages (1893). > > >Val > > > > The births I have transcribed have been from 1872, and there is definitely a > > period after the forename. This just goes to show how much confusion exists > > over this issue. We could have a situation where someone searching for a > > birth would have to enter the name without a period, and anyone searching > > for a death would have to include a period. > We MUST NOT try and modify our transcriptions to make searches > easier. To do so risks compromsing the data, and is based upon false assumptions > (unless you have read the source code to search.pl!) > > > -- > Dave Mayall > > > ============================== > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query! > >

David Gray wrote: > > Hi Val, > > I have sent this reply via the Discuss list, as the thread somehow had moved > to the Admin list. > > Val Turner wrote: > > >Hi David, > >I was intrigued so went back to look at previous pages I had > transcribed. > >However hard I look I can't detect any periods after forenames on > my > birth > >or marriage pages (1893). > >Val > > The births I have transcribed have been from 1872, and there is definitely a > period after the forename. This just goes to show how much confusion exists > over this issue. We could have a situation where someone searching for a > birth would have to enter the name without a period, and anyone searching > for a death would have to include a period. No, no, no. In considering what we transcribe, it is VITAL that you exclude considerations as to how the search will work. The search will be made to work such that the queries that people enter will find the data. We MUST NOT try and modify our transcriptions to make searches easier. To do so risks compromsing the data, and is based upon false assumptions (unless you have read the source code to search.pl!) -- Dave Mayall

Hi Val, I have sent this reply via the Discuss list, as the thread somehow had moved to the Admin list. Val Turner wrote: >Hi David, >I was intrigued so went back to look at previous pages I had transcribed. >However hard I look I can't detect any periods after forenames on my birth >or marriage pages (1893). >Val The births I have transcribed have been from 1872, and there is definitely a period after the forename. This just goes to show how much confusion exists over this issue. We could have a situation where someone searching for a birth would have to enter the name without a period, and anyone searching for a death would have to include a period. It would make more sense in my view to omit the period altogether, particularly as most people who have responded to the thread seem to be doing so in any case. If the official line was to omit the period we would have more uniformity as transcribers would be unlikely to ADD a period if it was not required. David Gray Heysham, Lancashire Norton AntiVirus protected

Best to give them the information found within the index and not elaborate it ... which is another good reason for us to "type what we see" ... even if we know (or think we know) better. Mark - - At 11:29 am -0400 20/9/01, Hugh Wallis wrote: >However - BIG WARNING - don't give them TOO MUCH information if you don't >need to. They are very literal in their interpretation of what you say. As >an example, I once specified a father's name as 'John Charles VAUGHAN' - >they refused to issue the certificate (and charged me £4.50 for the >privilege) because the name was shown only as 'John VAUGHAN'. You have to >look into the bureaucratic government employee mind when specifying things >and give as many alternatives as you can think of or it may cost you more >than you bargained for. > >Hugh Wallis > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of >[email protected] >Sent: September 20, 2001 11:19 >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Uncertain information on FreeBMD > > > > >Just a note to help those who are concerned about ordering certificates with >uncertain information from FreeBMD. The ONS at Southport (available online) >are very accommodating. If you are uncertain about the details then give >them >what you have and they will do a limited search for an additional fee. > >If two transcribers have enterred different values(e.g. 1d 541 and 1d 341 >then >that is checked for a small charge. I recently gave them a choice of two >marriage >entries from the FRC indexes with different years and districts where I >happened >to know the wife's forename. They checked both and sent me the correct >certificate. > > >If you give them as much information as you can you will find they are very >helpful. > >Peter Hendy-Ibbs > > >============================== >Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history >learning and how-to articles on the Internet. >http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library > > >============================== >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

In message <[email protected]>, Dave Mayall <[email protected]> writes >On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 15:55:40 -0600, you wrote: > >>Hi Barrie >> >>Does this make more sense? >> >>I have access to the BMD indexes at a local family history centre, but I find >>FreeBMD much, much easier and faster to use, especially when I don't know the >>exact date of an event. It can take hours of looking through fiche, and only >>seconds on the computer. Marriages are almost impossible to find if you don't >>know both partners, but FreeBMD can help there. Probably many people don't >>have access to the indexes, and they could use the information in b) >>-- ask for >>a search if reference is inaccurate -- to avoid paying the charge. > >It is our intention to provide a link back to images, to enable people >to examine the index themselves before ordering. Hopefully, searchers will use that when it is available and won't then post "error corrections" to the transcribers. I'm expecting to get one when [or perhaps, if] a searcher ever turns up my SMEDLEY, Soseph from 1868 - positioned between a John and a Martha, I assume it was a typesetting error. Philip Powell Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland to The Cheviot