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

In message <[email protected]>, David Gray <[email protected]> writes >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:02 PM >Subject: Re: Period After Forename > > >> Quoting David Gray <[email protected]>: > > >> > It would seem to me also, that if a period was included, then >> >anyone searching for such a name would have to include the period >> >search criteria as though it was part of the name, otherwise the >> >name would not be found, and how many people would do that? > >Dave Mayall's Response: > > This bit of the argument however is not nearly so > > persuasive. If part of the data causes confusion > > in the search program, we modify the program to > > work around it. We must NEVER change the data to > > fit the search facilities. > >I agree entirely with you on this Dave. We must all strive to transcribe the >records as accurately as possible so that genealogists now and in the future >have the best possible chance of finding the records they are searching for. >Where I might disagree with you however, is what constitutes 'data'. In my >opinion, the period after the forename is not part of the data, and >therefore by not transcribing the period, the original record would not be >compromised. This was somewhat passing me by as all bar the first half dozen scans that I've done have been handwritten 1845 Births. However, I looked back at the early printed scans for 1868 Births and in each legible entry there is quite clearly a single period[0] after the final forename or initial and before the District. To me, these [certainly in the case of a period following a full name] seem like separators but if not then: If these periods should be included, would it not be easier to program an option [configurable] in WinBMD/SpeedBMD to insert a period in the forename field after either the last name or a single letter? Just a thought. 0: the one case where the period was definitely "missing" [clearly due to a scratch on the scan or film] was an initial (-: Philip Powell Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland to The Cheviot

In message <[email protected]>, Dave Mayall <[email protected]> writes >On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:32:42 EDT, you wrote: > >>Hello, >>Okay, I'll add my thoughts (again). >>No, I don't believe the period should be there, except, possibly, for >>initials. >>It slows down transcription and isn't correct anyway. (Do you think your >>ancestors-- those who could write-- signed their name with a period after the >>first name?) > >No, but we are transcribing the index, not the original certificates > >One has to ask "does it have any significance" In the case of an >initial, it serves to indicate that this is an initial. > >"William G." means "G" is an initial >Could "William George." mean that there are other forenames following >George that have been omitted from the index? > >>That said, the entire point (no pun intended) would be mooted if David, or >>one of the programmers, would add two or three lines of code to normalize >>forenames as is already done with first names and district names. The >>periods would be stripped out during the match logic. > >We normalise District names by a lookup table. This doesn't involve >any character stripping (except for leading and trailing spaces). No >other fields are normalised. > >Yes we can get round this in code (we can get round all manner of odd >habits that transcribers have by adding a few lines of code), but it >is better if we can get things right to avoid having to insert such >code. This, along with your answer to my query, seems to beg a couple of further questions (-: [snip] >There is currently a backlog of over a thousand district aliases >awaiting entry into the table. Volunteers for this task are welcome. Emailed off-list. Philip Powell Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland to The Cheviot

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

Nick Tatham wrote: > > I think the key point is the trade-off of accuracy vs cost. I've pointed > this out to a couple of people who have contacted me directly. > > If you find an entry in FreeBMD that hasn't been checked you have two > choices: > > 1. Pay and order the certificate and risk losing your money > > 2. Visit your library etc to double check the entry yourself, then order the > certificate. > > Step 2 has less risk. But then in some parts of the world the cost of > travelling to the "library etc" might be more than the cost of the wasted > money on the certificate. which is why we want to offer option 3! 3. Follow a link to the scanned image of the index page and double check the entry yourself > I think we just need to make it clearer that following up on an unchecked > entry has more risk and then let people decide for themselves. Explain it in > terms of money and most people will see the point immediately! suggestions on wording and where to put it? We already have the "FreeBMD accepts no responsibility...." disclaimer. -- Dave Mayall

I think the key point is the trade-off of accuracy vs cost. I've pointed this out to a couple of people who have contacted me directly. If you find an entry in FreeBMD that hasn't been checked you have two choices: 1. Pay and order the certificate and risk losing your money 2. Visit your library etc to double check the entry yourself, then order the certificate. Step 2 has less risk. But then in some parts of the world the cost of travelling to the "library etc" might be more than the cost of the wasted money on the certificate. I think we just need to make it clearer that following up on an unchecked entry has more risk and then let people decide for themselves. Explain it in terms of money and most people will see the point immediately! And of course they would never have found the entry without FreeBMD in the first place. Nick

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 21:20:15 +0100, you wrote: >>The best forum is currently to send it to [email protected] >>however, and Dave will correct me if I am wrong because I haven't looked >>at the code for a while, when we do a rebuild, all districts that are >>not in the current matchinglist are pulled out and identified. It is a >>task we do to then identify the relevant real district for >>normalisation. This means that we will catch new districts as >>mis-spellings appear. > >Can you expand on this or is it explained anywhere on the site? I read >that as meaning that all variations are treated as one - which seems >like common sense to me. They are. All known variants are treated as one. We have a big lookup table of known variants, and add to it as new variants appear. >>I know this email sounds like I am rebuffing you on each point, that is >>not the intention ... your feedback is important but you do also need to >>take into account that we have limited time in sorting things out :) >> >>And. of course... if you have Perl and Unix skills .. feel free to join >>the programming team ! :)) > >If I had, I would )-: Actually, maintaining the table requires no Unix or Perl. (Just a willingness to work for hours on end on a thankless task, cursing the fact that some people appear to be very careless in their spelling). The format of the aliases file is slightly esoteric, but quite easy to learn. -- Dave Mayall

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:32:42 EDT, you wrote: >Hello, >Okay, I'll add my thoughts (again). >No, I don't believe the period should be there, except, possibly, for >initials. >It slows down transcription and isn't correct anyway. (Do you think your >ancestors-- those who could write-- signed their name with a period after the >first name?) No, but we are transcribing the index, not the original certificates One has to ask "does it have any significance" In the case of an initial, it serves to indicate that this is an initial. "William G." means "G" is an initial Could "William George." mean that there are other forenames following George that have been omitted from the index? >That said, the entire point (no pun intended) would be mooted if David, or >one of the programmers, would add two or three lines of code to normalize >forenames as is already done with first names and district names. The >periods would be stripped out during the match logic. We normalise District names by a lookup table. This doesn't involve any character stripping (except for leading and trailing spaces). No other fields are normalised. Yes we can get round this in code (we can get round all manner of odd habits that transcribers have by adding a few lines of code), but it is better if we can get things right to avoid having to insert such code. >Another point-- there's that word again-- on this matter is one I have also >raised in the past. For those syndicates which are double-entering names (as >I believe they SHOULD be doing, but that's another discussion), if one >transcriber enters a forename with a period and another transcribes without, >that counts as a 'no match.' Indeed it does, but as you say, we can code around this. As to syndicates double keying their own ranges; yes this is a separate issue. it is also a central principle that in order to ensure that we have maximum accuracy we have INDEPENDENT transcription and resolution. As we proceed to double keying, proper tools will be put in place to ensure that we can track exactly which records have been modified by the adjudicator because the original entries failed to match. Syndicates choosing to double key themselves, the amending both files to be identical does not amount to a proper proveable double keying. >David, respectfully, I disagree to some extent with your statement that we >shouldn't have syndicates making their own rules. It is far more important >that, WITHIN THE SYNDICATE, everyone is following the same rules. No. Because we will insist on independent double keying, it is important that we all work in the same way. >Now, on another matter. Some weeks ago I sent a note asking that entries for >London C and London C. be treated as equivalent. I never received a direct >answer, but judging from the fact that they are still treated as different as >of the current update I gather the answer was 'NO!" >This leads to two further questions >1) Why aren't they treated as aliases of one another? >2) What is the proper forum for making such a request? I have several more. > Anyone who wants to see a few should call up marriages, first quarter, 1867, >surname JONES. You'll see several instances where the district names are >obviously the same but are not treated as such. There is currently a backlog of over a thousand district aliases awaiting entry into the table. Volunteers for this task are welcome. -- Dave Mayall

Hi Anne, The original discussion on this subject I believe started in the context of just the "death" pages in which there is usually (but not always) a period separating the forename and the Age at death. So the question arose do we/do we not transcibe this period (which some treat as a separator rather than a part of the forename). I agree with you that on the printed Birth and Marriage pages it is impossible to differentiate between a period after an abbreviated forename e.g. "Anne W." and the row of separator dots. I, like you, made a subconscious decison not to follow an initial with a period if it was the last character of the forename field on a births/marriages page Val ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Cruise" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:21 PM Subject: Re: Period After Forename > Good day. > > I am not sure how I can possibly edit the previous mailings on this point > (sorry,bad pun) so have left it all in as it all seems relevant. > > I transcribe from photocopies using SpeedBMD. > > I try to adhere to the "type what you see" mantra. I find it *impossible* > to decipher a period/point/full stop after abbreviated forenames when there > then follows the separator dots - in fact, looking back I think I must have > made a subconscious assumption (I know, I know) that the modern practice of > omitting points was as prevalent then as now. I do know that the > abbreviations of District names have points sometimes but not always, and > they *are* visible. I therefore follow "TWYS" and put them in or omit as > appropriate. For example, I have London C AND London C. in my modified > District Picklist. I check *very* carefully as to which one I should > input. > > If I cannot see any difference between the point and the separator dots in > the forenames HOW do I decide what I should be typing? There surely must > either be a hard-and-fast rule that ALL abbreviated names have points *or* > the search engine must ignore all punctuation in that field so those who > *can* see the difference type as they see. > > Best wishes > > Anne Cruise > > > > Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > Quoting David Gray <[email protected]>: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Although the discussion list is supposed to be > > for experienced > > > transcribers > > > and I have been transcribing for only a few > > weeks, I hope you will > > > excuse my > > > input as I feel that I have enough experience > > to make a contribution. > > > > Experienced is a moveable target! Some people > > know what they are talking about after a very > > short time, others never get there :-) > > > > > Taking Dave Mayall's advice to move the thread > > from the Admin list, I > > > would > > > like to request that the period following a > > forename be omitted from > > > the > > > transcription. Val Turner has already pointed > > out that including the > > > period > > > when using WinBMD (also SpeedBMD) causes > > considerable problems and so > > > transcribing a page will take much longer that > > it would otherwise do. > > > > > > Of course the time factor would be irrelevant > > if the information was > > > important and needed to be transcribed. > > However, in this case the period > > > is > > > quite obviously just a separator, and not part > > of the name itself. > > > > This bit of what you say seems persuasive, > > provided we can be sure that we can easily > > explain what is and is not a separator. As soon > > as you put an "except" into the transcribe what > > you see rules somebody starts sulking about their > > own pet wish to put something different ("Well if > > you can omit a dot why can't I correct that > > spelling" kind of thing). > > > > Are there any cases that would be a "but you do > > include it here" > > > > > It would seem to me also, that if a period was > > included, then anyone > > > searching for such a name would have to > > include the period in the > > > search > > > criteria as though it was part of the name, > > otherwise the name would not > > > be > > > found, and how many people would do that? > > > > This bit of the argument however is not nearly so > > persuasive. If part of the data causes confusion > > in the search program, we modify the program to > > work around it. We must NEVER change the data to > > fit the search facilities. > > > > > Taking everything on balance, it seems to me > > that the period after the > > > forename is not needed, although others may > > disagree. Could we please > > > have > > > some input so we can get a definitive answer to > > this? > > > > The one area that you haven't considered is that > > in changing the way we do things, the matching > > routines will have to be changed to account for > > the fact that people will have done it both ways. > > > > Of course, the fact that some syndicates have > > been advising transcribers to do it this way > > already means that we a stuck with having to make > > these changes anyway, so the issue goes away. > > > > *IF* we are sure that we can make the instruction > > unambiguous, then I have no profound objection to > > the change. > > > > What I *do* have a problem with is an apparently > > never ending stream of "local" instructions > > issued by syndicate co-ordinators to their > > transcribers that conflict with the official > > position agreed for all syndicates, or at best > > attempt to issue advice on matters that have > > never been considered project-wide. > > > > Syndicate Co-ordinators have a vital part to play > > in using their extensive experience to direct > > transcribers to the correct answers to questions > > that they might have. They also have an important > > role to play by contributing to discussions on > > setting policy. That role cannot extend to making > > policy decisions on the hoof without discussion. > > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com > >

Good day. I am not sure how I can possibly edit the previous mailings on this point (sorry,bad pun) so have left it all in as it all seems relevant. I transcribe from photocopies using SpeedBMD. I try to adhere to the "type what you see" mantra. I find it *impossible* to decipher a period/point/full stop after abbreviated forenames when there then follows the separator dots - in fact, looking back I think I must have made a subconscious assumption (I know, I know) that the modern practice of omitting points was as prevalent then as now. I do know that the abbreviations of District names have points sometimes but not always, and they *are* visible. I therefore follow "TWYS" and put them in or omit as appropriate. For example, I have London C AND London C. in my modified District Picklist. I check *very* carefully as to which one I should input. If I cannot see any difference between the point and the separator dots in the forenames HOW do I decide what I should be typing? There surely must either be a hard-and-fast rule that ALL abbreviated names have points *or* the search engine must ignore all punctuation in that field so those who *can* see the difference type as they see. Best wishes Anne Cruise Dave Mayall wrote: > > Quoting David Gray <[email protected]>: > > > Hi all, > > > > Although the discussion list is supposed to be > for experienced > > transcribers > > and I have been transcribing for only a few > weeks, I hope you will > > excuse my > > input as I feel that I have enough experience > to make a contribution. > > Experienced is a moveable target! Some people > know what they are talking about after a very > short time, others never get there :-) > > > Taking Dave Mayall's advice to move the thread > from the Admin list, I > > would > > like to request that the period following a > forename be omitted from > > the > > transcription. Val Turner has already pointed > out that including the > > period > > when using WinBMD (also SpeedBMD) causes > considerable problems and so > > transcribing a page will take much longer that > it would otherwise do. > > > > Of course the time factor would be irrelevant > if the information was > > important and needed to be transcribed. > However, in this case the period > > is > > quite obviously just a separator, and not part > of the name itself. > > This bit of what you say seems persuasive, > provided we can be sure that we can easily > explain what is and is not a separator. As soon > as you put an "except" into the transcribe what > you see rules somebody starts sulking about their > own pet wish to put something different ("Well if > you can omit a dot why can't I correct that > spelling" kind of thing). > > Are there any cases that would be a "but you do > include it here" > > > It would seem to me also, that if a period was > included, then anyone > > searching for such a name would have to > include the period in the > > search > > criteria as though it was part of the name, > otherwise the name would not > > be > > found, and how many people would do that? > > This bit of the argument however is not nearly so > persuasive. If part of the data causes confusion > in the search program, we modify the program to > work around it. We must NEVER change the data to > fit the search facilities. > > > Taking everything on balance, it seems to me > that the period after the > > forename is not needed, although others may > disagree. Could we please > > have > > some input so we can get a definitive answer to > this? > > The one area that you haven't considered is that > in changing the way we do things, the matching > routines will have to be changed to account for > the fact that people will have done it both ways. > > Of course, the fact that some syndicates have > been advising transcribers to do it this way > already means that we a stuck with having to make > these changes anyway, so the issue goes away. > > *IF* we are sure that we can make the instruction > unambiguous, then I have no profound objection to > the change. > > What I *do* have a problem with is an apparently > never ending stream of "local" instructions > issued by syndicate co-ordinators to their > transcribers that conflict with the official > position agreed for all syndicates, or at best > attempt to issue advice on matters that have > never been considered project-wide. > > Syndicate Co-ordinators have a vital part to play > in using their extensive experience to direct > transcribers to the correct answers to questions > that they might have. They also have an important > role to play by contributing to discussions on > setting policy. That role cannot extend to making > policy decisions on the hoof without discussion.

In message <[email protected]>, Graham Hart <[email protected]> writes >Hi Richard, > > >Dave has already answered the objection with regards to the periods and >I'll let that one continue on that thread for the moment ... > >I'll address the other points within the email.. > >[email protected] wrote: [snip] >> 2) What is the proper forum for making such a request? I have several more. > >The best forum is currently to send it to [email protected] >however, and Dave will correct me if I am wrong because I haven't looked >at the code for a while, when we do a rebuild, all districts that are >not in the current matchinglist are pulled out and identified. It is a >task we do to then identify the relevant real district for >normalisation. This means that we will catch new districts as >mis-spellings appear. Can you expand on this or is it explained anywhere on the site? I read that as meaning that all variations are treated as one - which seems like common sense to me. >I know this email sounds like I am rebuffing you on each point, that is >not the intention ... your feedback is important but you do also need to >take into account that we have limited time in sorting things out :) > >And. of course... if you have Perl and Unix skills .. feel free to join >the programming team ! :)) If I had, I would )-: -- Philip Powell Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland to The Cheviot

Hi Derek, John Mellor & Administrators I am a member of scan2 & John Mellors syndicates. Regarding Derek's statement > We DO type a period with an Initial or abbreviation in the Forename and > District name fields (They are there). The occurence of a period after an initial is totally inconsistent in the index and most of the time it is impossible to work out if there is one there or not. I decided NOT to include the period as I felt it did nothing to invalidate the data, and spending time on working out if it was there or not was totally wasted. If it is now decided that a period MUST be included after initials if it is there then I am afraid I am going to bow out of this exercise as this IMHO falls totally in the area of 'formatting tools' and I have no wish to waste my time pouring over the data working out if a period is there or not. Please let me know if you wish me to continue. regards eddie [email protected] South coast of Hampshire, England ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek C Hopkins" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: "116 Sue Burton" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:22 AM Subject: What you see... and Periods. > Hi All scan2 members. > > Please do NOT type the periods in the DEATH FORENAME fields except > with an initial. Exactly as we have been doing in the Births and Marriages. > > We have over 300 pages already typed in the DEATH indexes that do > not have the period. And I believe it is wrong for the following > reasons. Until it is resolved we will continue with NO period with > Forenames only with initials. > > We have some confusion over "Type what you see" and periods. > > There is true data in the indexes and there are some formatting > tools there also. > > In Births and Marriages we Type what we see except for the following. > We do not type the "," (comma) that follows the Surname. > We do not type the row of dots between the Forenames and the District name. > We do not type the "." (period) between the district and the page number. > We DO type a period with an Initial or abbreviation in the Forename and > District name fields (They are there). > > In Deaths we Type what we see except for the following. > We do not type the "," (comma) that follows the Surname. > We do not type the row of dots between the Age and the District name. > We do not type the "." (period) between the district code and the page number. > We DO type a period with an Initial or abbreviation in the Forename and > District name fields (They are there). > > We should NOT TYPE the "." (period) between the Forename and the Age It is > there for the same reason, as a separator that we do not type. Otherwise > it would be shown in the Births and marriages as well.. > > If we do type it then we must also type a period after each > district code and the comma with each Surname. Otherwise we are not > consistent. > > > Cheers Derek > > Derek C Hopkins, Phone +1(450)678-7768 > 6640, Biarritz, Fax +1(450)678-4252 > Brossard, E-Mail [email protected] > QC, Canada, J4Z-2A2. > > ==== FreeBMD - England and Wales - Birth - Marriage and Death Transcriptions > <http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com> > > ==== Check out FreeBMD Scan2 Syndicate page (revised weekly) > <http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/scan2.html> > > Check out my web page (22jan1997) Last Revised 28 May 1998 > <http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/index.html> > > Check out Abney Park Indexing Project (revised 14 MAR 2000, 195,000 names) > <http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/abney.html> > > Check out my web Ramsgate page > <http://members.adept.co.uk/hopkde> > > Check out the Quebec Family History web page > <http://www.cam.org/~qfhs/index.html> > >

Hi Richard, Dave has already answered the objection with regards to the periods and I'll let that one continue on that thread for the moment ... I'll address the other points within the email.. [email protected] wrote: > > Hello, > Okay, I'll add my thoughts (again). > No, I don't believe the period should be there, except, possibly, for > initials. > It slows down transcription and isn't correct anyway. (Do you think your > ancestors-- those who could write-- signed their name with a period after the > first name?) > That said, the entire point (no pun intended) would be mooted if David, or > one of the programmers, would add two or three lines of code to normalize > forenames as is already done with first names and district names. The > periods would be stripped out during the match logic. The simple point is that we have limited resource otherwise we would look at normalising firstnames. It isnot possible for you to say whether it is one line or 40 lines of code to achieve this wihtout eeing our code and knowing the implications of it. We are aware of the requirement and no doubt will achieve it at some point in the future. We have some things which are currently higher priority taking our time up and we do need to stick to a priority list. The district name normalisation takes a lot of work to keep up to date, although it is now reasonably complete... > Another point-- there's that word again-- on this matter is one I have also > raised in the past. For those syndicates which are double-entering names (as > I believe they SHOULD be doing, but that's another discussion), Whether a syndicate chooses to double enter within their own syndicate is their choice but it will NOT be considered as a double keying from the point of view of FreeBMD. > if one > transcriber enters a forename with a period and another transcribes without, > that counts as a 'no match.' > David, respectfully, I disagree to some extent with your statement that we > shouldn't have syndicates making their own rules. It is far more important > that, WITHIN THE SYNDICATE, everyone is following the same rules. No, it really isn't. There are two ways to run a project like this. One is to allow the syndicates to double enter and guarantee the quality that route, the other is to centrally double enter and match. Because of the variation in source and quality of source we took the decision at the start to double key and match centrally. In that scenario it is very important that the rules that affect matching are central and not distributed amongst Syndicates otherwise the matcing software will continually throw up matches between the two sets of double keyed data. I do understand that IF we double keyed witin syndicates then your point would be true but we are 18 million records into the project and are not going to change now :) > Now, on another matter. Some weeks ago I sent a note asking that entries for > London C and London C. be treated as equivalent. I never received a direct > answer, but judging from the fact that they are still treated as different as > of the current update I gather the answer was 'NO!" No, the answer would be a yes .. but we have to get around todealing with it. It requires a change to a file in our CVS repository and then that code moved live. It will then be available at the rebuild following that. As I said earlier, the problem is one of resource. With holidays and Dave's car crash and the like this has been restricted recently. > This leads to two further questions > 1) Why aren't they treated as aliases of one another? Because we need to make them that way and we haven't added it as one yet... > 2) What is the proper forum for making such a request? I have several more. The best forum is currently to send it to [email protected] however, and Dave will correct me if I am wrong because I haven't looked at the code for a while, when we do a rebuild, all districts that are not in the current matchinglist are pulled out and identified. It is a task we do to then identify the relevant real district for normalisation. This means that we will catch new districts as mis-spellings appear. I know this email sounds like I am rebuffing you on each point, that is not the intention ... your feedback is important but you do also need to take into account that we have limited time in sorting things out :) And. of course... if you have Perl and Unix skills .. feel free to join the programming team ! :)) Cheers Graham > Anyone who wants to see a few should call up marriages, first quarter, 1867, > surname JONES. You'll see several instances where the district names are > obviously the same but are not treated as such. > > Regards, > Rick Elliott > > ============================== > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query!

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:02 PM Subject: Re: Period After Forename > Quoting David Gray <[email protected]>: > > It would seem to me also, that if a period was > included, then anyone > > searching for such a name would have to > include the period in the > > search > > criteria as though it was part of the name, > otherwise the name would not > > be > > found, and how many people would do that? Dave Mayall's Response: > This bit of the argument however is not nearly so > persuasive. If part of the data causes confusion > in the search program, we modify the program to > work around it. We must NEVER change the data to > fit the search facilities. I agree entirely with you on this Dave. We must all strive to transcribe the records as accurately as possible so that genealogists now and in the future have the best possible chance of finding the records they are searching for. Where I might disagree with you however, is what constitutes 'data'. In my opinion, the period after the forename is not part of the data, and therefore by not transcribing the period, the original record would not be compromised. David Gray Heysham, Lancashire Norton AntiVirus protected

I understand Dave Mayall's concern about conformity - like any group of talented individuals I know we would be an undisciplined lot if left to our own devices ;o) In this instance I agree with the logic expressed below by Richard. Where punctuation is clearly part of the fields - e.g hyphens in double barelled surnames, apostrophes in Irish surnames, or apostrophes, commas or periods in abbreviated forms of district names such as " scarbro' " or " Newport, M. " it seems absolutely right/natural to use the "Type what you see" direction. However where the symbols are separators - commas after surnames, period between forename and age, periods preceeding the district field, and the period following the volume field, it seems an unnecessary complication to add punctuation - and more likely to add work and errors than to minimise them. I find it hard to see understand why the official guidance is to type the period after the forename when we specifically do NOT type the period after the volume number. I note by the way that notwithstanding how they may have been transcribed the period is not actually displayed on any death records I've retrieved to date from FREEBMD (and I've tried to look at a pretty wide sample of those that havebeen loaded to date) - so I assume they were either not typed, or stripped off in the loading or retrieval stage. Val Val ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 3:32 PM Subject: Period after Forename > Hello, > Okay, I'll add my thoughts (again). > No, I don't believe the period should be there, except, possibly, for > initials. > It slows down transcription and isn't correct anyway. (Do you think your > ancestors-- those who could write-- signed their name with a period after the > first name?) > That said, the entire point (no pun intended) would be mooted if David, or > one of the programmers, would add two or three lines of code to normalize > forenames as is already done with first names and district names. The > periods would be stripped out during the match logic. > Another point-- there's that word again-- on this matter is one I have also > raised in the past. For those syndicates which are double-entering names (as > I believe they SHOULD be doing, but that's another discussion), if one > transcriber enters a forename with a period and another transcribes without, > that counts as a 'no match.' > David, respectfully, I disagree to some extent with your statement that we > shouldn't have syndicates making their own rules. It is far more important > that, WITHIN THE SYNDICATE, everyone is following the same rules. > > Now, on another matter. Some weeks ago I sent a note asking that entries for > London C and London C. be treated as equivalent. I never received a direct > answer, but judging from the fact that they are still treated as different as > of the current update I gather the answer was 'NO!" > This leads to two further questions > 1) Why aren't they treated as aliases of one another? > 2) What is the proper forum for making such a request? I have several more. > Anyone who wants to see a few should call up marriages, first quarter, 1867, > surname JONES. You'll see several instances where the district names are > obviously the same but are not treated as such. > > Regards, > Rick Elliott > > > > ============================== > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query! > >

Diana, Thanks, yes I understand your "modus operandi"! Having looked at the "offending" page (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Certificates.html) it is certainly rather sparse in the way of advice! It also does not cover getting certificates from local offices. There have been a number of discussions about certificates (e.g. whether they are original or not) and it would be good to give some better advice. All we need is someone to summarise what has been discussed! Any volunteers out there?! Barrie > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray & Diana Nadeau [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 18 September 2001 22:56 > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Uncertain information on FreeBMD > > > 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. > > Diana > > Archer Barrie wrote: > > > I don't understand "check back with original source" or > your point a). If > > people have found a reference from a search on FreeBMD they > don't have > > access to the original source - at least not unless we > implement references > > to the scans. > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > Barrie > > > > ______________________________ >

Quoting David Gray <[email protected]>: > Hi all, > > Although the discussion list is supposed to be for experienced > transcribers > and I have been transcribing for only a few weeks, I hope you will > excuse my > input as I feel that I have enough experience to make a contribution. Experienced is a moveable target! Some people know what they are talking about after a very short time, others never get there :-) > Taking Dave Mayall's advice to move the thread from the Admin list, I > would > like to request that the period following a forename be omitted from > the > transcription. Val Turner has already pointed out that including the > period > when using WinBMD (also SpeedBMD) causes considerable problems and so > transcribing a page will take much longer that it would otherwise do. > > Of course the time factor would be irrelevant if the information was > important and needed to be transcribed. However, in this case the period > is > quite obviously just a separator, and not part of the name itself. This bit of what you say seems persuasive, provided we can be sure that we can easily explain what is and is not a separator. As soon as you put an "except" into the transcribe what you see rules somebody starts sulking about their own pet wish to put something different ("Well if you can omit a dot why can't I correct that spelling" kind of thing). Are there any cases that would be a "but you do include it here" > It would seem to me also, that if a period was included, then anyone > searching for such a name would have to include the period in the > search > criteria as though it was part of the name, otherwise the name would not > be > found, and how many people would do that? This bit of the argument however is not nearly so persuasive. If part of the data causes confusion in the search program, we modify the program to work around it. We must NEVER change the data to fit the search facilities. > Taking everything on balance, it seems to me that the period after the > forename is not needed, although others may disagree. Could we please > have > some input so we can get a definitive answer to this? The one area that you haven't considered is that in changing the way we do things, the matching routines will have to be changed to account for the fact that people will have done it both ways. Of course, the fact that some syndicates have been advising transcribers to do it this way already means that we a stuck with having to make these changes anyway, so the issue goes away. *IF* we are sure that we can make the instruction unambiguous, then I have no profound objection to the change. What I *do* have a problem with is an apparently never ending stream of "local" instructions issued by syndicate co-ordinators to their transcribers that conflict with the official position agreed for all syndicates, or at best attempt to issue advice on matters that have never been considered project-wide. Syndicate Co-ordinators have a vital part to play in using their extensive experience to direct transcribers to the correct answers to questions that they might have. They also have an important role to play by contributing to discussions on setting policy. That role cannot extend to making policy decisions on the hoof without discussion. -- Dave Mayall ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through UK Online webmail

Hi all, Although the discussion list is supposed to be for experienced transcribers and I have been transcribing for only a few weeks, I hope you will excuse my input as I feel that I have enough experience to make a contribution. Taking Dave Mayall's advice to move the thread from the Admin list, I would like to request that the period following a forename be omitted from the transcription. Val Turner has already pointed out that including the period when using WinBMD (also SpeedBMD) causes considerable problems and so transcribing a page will take much longer that it would otherwise do. Of course the time factor would be irrelevant if the information was important and needed to be transcribed. However, in this case the period is quite obviously just a separator, and not part of the name itself. It would seem to me also, that if a period was included, then anyone searching for such a name would have to include the period in the search criteria as though it was part of the name, otherwise the name would not be found, and how many people would do that? Taking everything on balance, it seems to me that the period after the forename is not needed, although others may disagree. Could we please have some input so we can get a definitive answer to this? Regards David Gray Heysham, Lancashire Norton AntiVirus protected David Gray Heysham, Lancashire Norton AntiVirus protected

Hello, Okay, I'll add my thoughts (again). No, I don't believe the period should be there, except, possibly, for initials. It slows down transcription and isn't correct anyway. (Do you think your ancestors-- those who could write-- signed their name with a period after the first name?) That said, the entire point (no pun intended) would be mooted if David, or one of the programmers, would add two or three lines of code to normalize forenames as is already done with first names and district names. The periods would be stripped out during the match logic. Another point-- there's that word again-- on this matter is one I have also raised in the past. For those syndicates which are double-entering names (as I believe they SHOULD be doing, but that's another discussion), if one transcriber enters a forename with a period and another transcribes without, that counts as a 'no match.' David, respectfully, I disagree to some extent with your statement that we shouldn't have syndicates making their own rules. It is far more important that, WITHIN THE SYNDICATE, everyone is following the same rules. Now, on another matter. Some weeks ago I sent a note asking that entries for London C and London C. be treated as equivalent. I never received a direct answer, but judging from the fact that they are still treated as different as of the current update I gather the answer was 'NO!" This leads to two further questions 1) Why aren't they treated as aliases of one another? 2) What is the proper forum for making such a request? I have several more. Anyone who wants to see a few should call up marriages, first quarter, 1867, surname JONES. You'll see several instances where the district names are obviously the same but are not treated as such. Regards, Rick Elliott

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. -- Dave Mayall