People using FreeBMD might well have access to the source, but .. a) not the time to go through each volume individually b) be finding entries in the index that are variations of the surname, that no amount of searching through the alphabetic indexes would be productive. As an example of my (b) ... I have a cousin whose marriage entry is under HALLAM and whose death entry is under ATTOM. He was born pre-1837 so no birth index (phew). I still checked back with the actual index volumes to confirm the index transcription though. It all depends on how you use and rely on an index though. Even the censuses are far from 100% ... the enumerator often seems to have had problems with accents from other regions. The 1881 LDS CD's keep me busy for hours trying to find people ... or working out who exactly fits the mis-spelling. Also, this message bounced the first time to your address Barrie ... > This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. > > A message that you sent could not be delivered to all of its recipients. > The following address(es) failed: > > [email protected]: > Operation timed out: > retry timeout exceeded Mark Hattam - - >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 > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ray & Diana Nadeau [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 17 September 2001 21:26 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Uncertain information on FreeBMD >> >> >> Hi - I just had a point to bring up and it refers directly to what >> Graham said in a recent message. Quote" Anyone using the site should >> check back the original source anyway as a check." >> >> I think this message should be put on the website under "What >> to do when >> you find the entry you are searching for". I know I have sent for a >> couple of certificates with the wrong reference number (my own mistake >> in reading fiche) and they charge £4.50 without issuing a certificate. >> To avoid this, people should be told to: >> a) doublecheck the reference on scan / film / fiche / whatever >> b) include a comment on the order that if the reference number >> is incorrect, the office should do a search in that quarter >> >> I know that the programmers are busy enough with everything >> they do, but >> this could be put on the wish list for sometime later. >> >> Diana >> >> ______________________________ >> > > >============================== >Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! >http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2

Hi All First rule of Genealogy - NEVER trust an index. ALWAYS refer to the original source. Regards John Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's Conde Salop. Anytime ----- Original Message ----- From: Graham Hart <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:43 PM Subject: Re: Uncertain information on FreeBMD Hi Barrie, 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? Its the general genealogical rule ... where possible check back to originals. FreeBMD is an transcription and will have errors. If possible people should try to check back on fiche or something to see whether they agree with the entry before ordering. I suspect a lot won't and some will not get their certificate. The indexes are available in a lot of libraries worldwide and people can check. Obviously, it would be nice to link to the scans and we intend to do that in the future. But people -should- check if they have a chance. Cheers Graham > > Barrie > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ray & Diana Nadeau [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 17 September 2001 21:26 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Uncertain information on FreeBMD > > > > > > Hi - I just had a point to bring up and it refers directly to what > > Graham said in a recent message. Quote" Anyone using the site should > > check back the original source anyway as a check." > > > > I think this message should be put on the website under "What > > to do when > > you find the entry you are searching for". I know I have sent for a > > couple of certificates with the wrong reference number (my own mistake > > in reading fiche) and they charge £4.50 without issuing a certificate. > > To avoid this, people should be told to: > > a) doublecheck the reference on scan / film / fiche / whatever > > b) include a comment on the order that if the reference number > > is incorrect, the office should do a search in that quarter > > > > I know that the programmers are busy enough with everything > > they do, but > > this could be put on the wish list for sometime later. > > > > Diana > > > > ______________________________ > > > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 ============================== Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

Hi Barrie, 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? Its the general genealogical rule ... where possible check back to originals. FreeBMD is an transcription and will have errors. If possible people should try to check back on fiche or something to see whether they agree with the entry before ordering. I suspect a lot won't and some will not get their certificate. The indexes are available in a lot of libraries worldwide and people can check. Obviously, it would be nice to link to the scans and we intend to do that in the future. But people -should- check if they have a chance. Cheers Graham > > Barrie > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ray & Diana Nadeau [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 17 September 2001 21:26 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Uncertain information on FreeBMD > > > > > > Hi - I just had a point to bring up and it refers directly to what > > Graham said in a recent message. Quote" Anyone using the site should > > check back the original source anyway as a check." > > > > I think this message should be put on the website under "What > > to do when > > you find the entry you are searching for". I know I have sent for a > > couple of certificates with the wrong reference number (my own mistake > > in reading fiche) and they charge £4.50 without issuing a certificate. > > To avoid this, people should be told to: > > a) doublecheck the reference on scan / film / fiche / whatever > > b) include a comment on the order that if the reference number > > is incorrect, the office should do a search in that quarter > > > > I know that the programmers are busy enough with everything > > they do, but > > this could be put on the wish list for sometime later. > > > > Diana > > > > ______________________________ > > > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:05:12 -0400, you wrote: >I'd only re-iterate a point I have made in private complaints about some of >the scans; don't have them double keyed until you have the best quality you >are likely to be able to obtain, because I don't think that would be making >the best use of volunteer time. It is an aim that we ensure so far as is possible that double transcriptions are made from a *different* source to the first transcription. -- Dave Mayall

Hi Ian I downloaded the latest version yesterday and had a couple of instances when the same multile messages queued up, however no error resulted so it's looking good. I'm very happy now with winbmd as it is. Productivity is now I feel equal to speedbmd. good work eddie [email protected] South coast of Hampshire, England

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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray & Diana Nadeau [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 17 September 2001 21:26 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Uncertain information on FreeBMD > > > Hi - I just had a point to bring up and it refers directly to what > Graham said in a recent message. Quote" Anyone using the site should > check back the original source anyway as a check." > > I think this message should be put on the website under "What > to do when > you find the entry you are searching for". I know I have sent for a > couple of certificates with the wrong reference number (my own mistake > in reading fiche) and they charge £4.50 without issuing a certificate. > To avoid this, people should be told to: > a) doublecheck the reference on scan / film / fiche / whatever > b) include a comment on the order that if the reference number > is incorrect, the office should do a search in that quarter > > I know that the programmers are busy enough with everything > they do, but > this could be put on the wish list for sometime later. > > Diana > > ______________________________ >

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 >

Hi, I too have been taking a look at some of these scans - in particular the Qtr currently being transcribed by my syndicate (1861 Q4 Births) and they really are awful. Many of the pages that I looked at had an "unreadable" character on virtually every line, most lines had a number of them. The page numbers and volume numbers seem to suffer the most but many names are equally bad. And yet, despite telling everyone in my syndicate to do so where they feel it is warranted) I have so far only had one page referred back to me for re-scanning and looking at some of the uploaded files there are a surprisingly small number of underscores etc. My conclusion is that most people either have much better monitors than mine (unlikely), much better eyesight (possible but unlikely), or they are taking best guesses and it seems to me that this is the most likely. I suppose that my point is that no matter what anyone says people are going to guess or perhaps perceive a badly reproduced letter as something else without realising, and as such the accuracy for which we strive could well be taking a nosedive. The poorer the quality of the scan the more guesses people are going to make. As accuracy is our goal then maybe Dave M's idea of stopping for a few weeks while better scans are obtained is not such a bad idea. In addition it is possible that such better scans would allow people to work much faster (I have heard many complaints that people's transcription rate has rapidly dropped with the poor quality) and could even make up the lost time. My vote (if we have one) is to stop. Regards Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 12:50 AM Subject: Re: Scan Quality Concerns > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:05:26 +0800, you wrote: > > > >--------------- > >To all Transcribers of 1862 Birth Scans, > > > >I recently complained to Administration about the Quality of the > >scans > >we are using, and advised that I was not willing to upload > >guesses as to > >what I think might be the correct details, suggesting that > >incorrect > >data should not be uploaded, and I got the following replies. > >What is your feeling about the quality of these scans and should > >they be > >rescanned before we progress any further > > I hope that Harry doesn't feel that the answers from Alan and Graham > were in some way a cop-out. > > We are aware that the first batch of Scans from Ancestry are not of > the quality that we would wish (indeed, In loading them to the server > I rejected a whole year as *completely* unusable). > > I would make the following points; > > 1) Moving the discussion here *is* the best thing. We know about the > problem, and clogging up the admins list with it isn't achieving much. > Far better to bring it here and see if we can work out a way round the > problem. > > 2) We don't have (and can't get at short notice) other better > material. What we have isn't the best, but it is all we have. > > 3) The choice is between making what progress we can with these scans > or stopping for several weeks to get better scans > > 4) There is a big difference between incorrect data and incomplete > data. If something is unreadable and we mark it so, that data is > incomplete but correct. We very much do not want people to guess > anything. > > We are seeking to obtain better material, but it will take time. > > -- > Dave Mayall > > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com > >

I'd only re-iterate a point I have made in private complaints about some of the scans; don't have them double keyed until you have the best quality you are likely to be able to obtain, because I don't think that would be making the best use of volunteer time. Keith

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:05:26 +0800, you wrote: >--------------- >To all Transcribers of 1862 Birth Scans, > >I recently complained to Administration about the Quality of the >scans >we are using, and advised that I was not willing to upload >guesses as to >what I think might be the correct details, suggesting that >incorrect >data should not be uploaded, and I got the following replies. >What is your feeling about the quality of these scans and should >they be >rescanned before we progress any further I hope that Harry doesn't feel that the answers from Alan and Graham were in some way a cop-out. We are aware that the first batch of Scans from Ancestry are not of the quality that we would wish (indeed, In loading them to the server I rejected a whole year as *completely* unusable). I would make the following points; 1) Moving the discussion here *is* the best thing. We know about the problem, and clogging up the admins list with it isn't achieving much. Far better to bring it here and see if we can work out a way round the problem. 2) We don't have (and can't get at short notice) other better material. What we have isn't the best, but it is all we have. 3) The choice is between making what progress we can with these scans or stopping for several weeks to get better scans 4) There is a big difference between incorrect data and incomplete data. If something is unreadable and we mark it so, that data is incomplete but correct. We very much do not want people to guess anything. We are seeking to obtain better material, but it will take time. -- Dave Mayall

>Hi, > >We are working on this with Ancestry at the moment to see if we can >get any better rescans. > >We are liaising via the coordinators as we get any change but there is >nothing yet to say. We are aware of it and it is on our list of things >we are pushing for but recently we have had holidays,disk crashes, >car crashes! etc etc... > >Talk to your coordinator about not submitting the information. Any >information is better than no information. You are not necessarily >misleading them. You are giving an interpretation which will be matched >by someone else's interpretation of the same information. Anyone using >the site should check back the original source anyway as a check. >FreeBMD helps them to get there. Having said that, we do undertand >the >concern and we are looking into it... > >Cheers > >Graham Rescanning the microfilm may not improve matters unless the film itself is in good condition. Often it is clear that the film has been badly scored/scratched by previous use before being scanned. Apart from this it should be realised that the quality of the original hand-written index pages can vary considerably from page to page. This may have something to do with the treatment and preparation of the parchment pages as a given page (recto and verso) may be white with unfaded ink whilst the adjacent page may be yellowed with faded ink. It would be difficult to obtain an acceptable copy from such a degraded page even by direct scanning. Maybe a list should be compiled of the worst, unreadable scans _together with_ the corresponding index page number (the vital handwritten number at the top) so that a volunteer team could transcribe the pages from the original indexes at the FRC, London. -- Best regards Dick Jones Leigh-on-Sea Essex UK mailto://[email protected]

Hi - I just had a point to bring up and it refers directly to what Graham said in a recent message. Quote" Anyone using the site should check back the original source anyway as a check." I think this message should be put on the website under "What to do when you find the entry you are searching for". I know I have sent for a couple of certificates with the wrong reference number (my own mistake in reading fiche) and they charge £4.50 without issuing a certificate. To avoid this, people should be told to: a) doublecheck the reference on scan / film / fiche / whatever b) include a comment on the order that if the reference number is incorrect, the office should do a search in that quarter I know that the programmers are busy enough with everything they do, but this could be put on the wish list for sometime later. Diana

Hi All, The new version of WinBMD is now available to download from http://winbmd.rmhh.co.uk Please download this file into a separate folder (DO NOT NOT NOT download into your current WinBMD folder - anywhere but there!) then double-click it to install (you can (and should) safely install it into your existing WinBMD folder - ie normally accept all the default answers unless you originally installed it elsewhere). It had been my intention to release this as version 2.1 and a number of people are expecting that version, however the number of changes in this release made it seem more sensible to jump to version 3. There are some 25 changes or bug fixes in this release and some of these are significant - particularly for transcribers from Fiche or Film. Here is a complete list (not in any particular order) which I suggest everyone reads (especially number 25 for Fiche/Film). 1. Introduced the new scan viewer. It's worth downloading just to get this!! 2. Blank lines are now allowed in the District files and invalid lines no longer cause the program to crash. 3. Fixed bug where 2nd +PAGE was always invalid. 4. Changed forename box so that a tab when the box is empty copies the field above rather than the 1st Picklist entry. 5. Fixed bug where a District/Volume entered as ",*" generated too many commas in output file. 6. Apostrophe added to characters allowed in Forename. 7. Forenames Male and Female no longer count as sequence errors. 8. Sequence checking now allows for special characters. 9. Introduced Fill-Up. 10. Fixed problem with right mouse button not working correctly. 11. Improved validation of Districts. 12. Fixed problem that didn't allow 9z format in the Page field 13. Fixed problem that district format ",x" didn't match properly. 14. Fixed problem with Edit Header when Romans wrongly changed to Arabic. 15. Program now remembers the scan zoom factor and the size of the scan view window. 16. Removed Fiche/Film Menu and Scan-Start New Batch, Added File>New Page. 17. Tab in an empty Surname now ignores previous lines that are Comments or +PAGE when copying the preceding name. 18. () now allowed in forename. 19. Fixed problem where ending the program while the scan view was minimized would cause incorrect sizes to be remembered for the scanview which could cause a later crash. 20. Default is now to not show auto-complete text. 21. Changed the way Save reminders are generated - this fixes a crash in Windows NT. 22. Changed AaD to allow yy-yy (a year range) and/or a trailing "m". 23. Fixed problem where a Tab in an empty Aad copied the surname. 24. (Hopefully!) fixed problem where 2 messages could appear at once (eg New Forename + 10 minute warning) which caused the program to crash. 25. For Fiche/Film the value you type in the Header Form "PAGE" field is now entered both in the first +PAGE line and in the filename. The Header Form field "Batch" is now ONLY used if/when generating SpeedBMD format filenames. The Header Form field "Fiche/Film Number" is now NEVER used (although something needs to be entered in it) and will be removed in the next version (sorry - there was too much to do to get it done in this version). If anyone has suggestions for changes I am always happy to receive them - I still have a number that people have requested and these will appear in the next version. Regards Ian

Dear LIST I for one just sit and take note of everyone's comments good and bad, but this issue of scans should be re addressed. I have been slowed down to a crawl on these awful scans. No amount of cleaning them up helps if nothing is there in the first place like the down stroke. Nice and quick to download the images but thats it. That 1845 Births black thick boarder uses the ink if printed. So I re-cut and size. But its what we have for the now and its head down glasses on and do my best. I am sure if the process of the images could be change it would. We are all doing a mighty job! In the collective. I am just please to be part it. Cheers Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gypsy" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 9:05 AM Subject: Scan Quality Concerns > G'day All > > One of my transcribers who isn't subbed to this List has asked > that I send the following email for him. > > If anyone wants to contact him directly, his name is Harry Crowe > [email protected] or I will pass any comments on to him that may > come from this List. > > Cheers > Teri > > --------------- > To all Transcribers of 1862 Birth Scans, > > I recently complained to Administration about the Quality of the > scans > we are using, and advised that I was not willing to upload > guesses as to > what I think might be the correct details, suggesting that > incorrect > data should not be uploaded, and I got the following replies. > What is your feeling about the quality of these scans and should > they be > rescanned before we progress any further > > A concerned Harry Crowe. > > Hi Harry > > I appreciate the problems and have already asked the rest of the > team > what are we > going to do about it. > > Unfortunately I don't have the hands control on scanning and it > would be > far > better if you could raise your concerns on our Discuss mailing > list. > This will > enable other members of the team to offer their own comments and > for > other > volunteers to contribute to any debate. > > Sorry if it appears I am ducking the issue, but the best > response would > be > obtained via the Discuss list. > > Sorry I can't be of more help. > > Allan Raymond > > > Hi, > > We are working on this with Ancestry at the moment to see if we > can get > any better rescans. > > We are liaising via the coordinators as we get any change but > there is > nothing yet to say. We are aware of it and it is on our list of > things > we are pushing for but recently we have had holidays,disk > crashes, car > crashes! etcetc... > > Talk to your coordinator about not submitting the information. > Any > information is better than no information. You are not > necessarily > misleading them . you are giving an interpretation which will be > matched > > by someone else's interpretation of the same information. Anyone > using > the site should check back the original source anyway as a > check. > FreeBMD helps them to get there. Having said that, we do > undertand the > concern and we are looking into it... > > Cheers > > Graham > > > > > -- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 147 - Release Date: > 11/09/2001 > > > ============================== > 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 > >

G'day All One of my transcribers who isn't subbed to this List has asked that I send the following email for him. If anyone wants to contact him directly, his name is Harry Crowe [email protected] or I will pass any comments on to him that may come from this List. Cheers Teri --------------- To all Transcribers of 1862 Birth Scans, I recently complained to Administration about the Quality of the scans we are using, and advised that I was not willing to upload guesses as to what I think might be the correct details, suggesting that incorrect data should not be uploaded, and I got the following replies. What is your feeling about the quality of these scans and should they be rescanned before we progress any further A concerned Harry Crowe. Hi Harry I appreciate the problems and have already asked the rest of the team what are we going to do about it. Unfortunately I don't have the hands control on scanning and it would be far better if you could raise your concerns on our Discuss mailing list. This will enable other members of the team to offer their own comments and for other volunteers to contribute to any debate. Sorry if it appears I am ducking the issue, but the best response would be obtained via the Discuss list. Sorry I can't be of more help. Allan Raymond Hi, We are working on this with Ancestry at the moment to see if we can get any better rescans. We are liaising via the coordinators as we get any change but there is nothing yet to say. We are aware of it and it is on our list of things we are pushing for but recently we have had holidays,disk crashes, car crashes! etcetc... Talk to your coordinator about not submitting the information. Any information is better than no information. You are not necessarily misleading them . you are giving an interpretation which will be matched by someone else's interpretation of the same information. Anyone using the site should check back the original source anyway as a check. FreeBMD helps them to get there. Having said that, we do undertand the concern and we are looking into it... Cheers Graham -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 147 - Release Date: 11/09/2001

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C1388B.3740FCA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I recently received this email from a happy FreeBMD user. It was just luck that I transcribed his/her entry and not you, so for those of you who have never received any email as a result of your transcription activities, it can happen and it isn't necessarily someone disputing an entry! Mary Trevan -----Original Message----- From: Terry Hampton <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 05 September, 2001 3:56 AM Subject: Marriage Record >Dear Mary, > > You have helped me find a long lost ancestor. Your volunteer work >with BMD Free has helped me immensely. > Thank you very much! > >Terry Hampton >USA > ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C1388B.3740FCA0 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset="iso-8859-1"; name="thampton.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Terry Hampton Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="thampton.vcf" begin:vcard n:Hampton;Terry x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:[email protected] fn:Terry Hampton end:vcard ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C1388B.3740FCA0--

On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:18:14 +0100, you wrote: >Hi > >What about appointing some adjudicators that have access to FRC and have >them check disputed records from the actual indexes. > >These can then be taken as the definitive records and the respective >transcribers can then amend their records accordingly. People with access to the books would be ideal as adjudicators! BUT maintaining accountability for who transcribed what means that it is preferable (in the *formal* checking phase) to separate the corrections from the original transcriptions. That way we get maximum accuracy, whilst retaining maximum information about how we arrived at that reading. -- Dave Mayall

Dave Mayall wrote..... >"As transcription and more formal checking proceeds, the people who are given >responsibility for deciding between 2 variant readings by different transcribers will be given >appropriate access to flag entries as incorrect (although they STILL can't alter what you have >transcribed)" Don't know if there may be some technical, philosophical, or logical) reason against this idea..... if people go to all the trouble to look at the variant readings and decide which one is *definitely* correct; then wouldn't it be better that they be given access to alter what is incorrect and and have *their* id placed against the corrected entry? Steve

That doesn't negate my argument - if the index books themselves are unreadable and our records are annotated as such, then another action is required - but it does mean that our transcription is still as accurate as possible. Also it will stop any arguments as to the 'correctness' of any of the transcriptions if the record is noted as unreadable in the index books. Regards John Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's Conde Salop. Anytime ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Hattam <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:38 PM Subject: Re: Suspect entries > Some of the index books on the shelves at the FRC have exactly the > same unreadable details as the scans. Looks like some books are > prints of film copies of the originals which have > blotches/spots/whatever. > > When we've done our best, it probably should be possible to > "re-create" the index and suggest the likelist match given analysis > of "missing" entries. > > Mark Hattam > > - - > > >Hi > > > >What about appointing some adjudicators that have access to FRC and have > >them check disputed records from the actual indexes. > > > >These can then be taken as the definitive records and the respective > >transcribers can then amend their records accordingly. > > > >Otherwise we will be in the area of decreasing circles until an orifice > >appears to disappear into. > > > >Regards > > > >John > > > >Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) > >Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's > >Conde Salop. Anytime > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Dave Mayall <[email protected]> > >To: <[email protected]> > >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:01 PM > >Subject: Re: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-D Digest V01 #98 > > > > > >> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:01:55 +1000, you wrote: > >> > >> > Dave Mayall wrote..... > >> >>"As transcription and more formal checking proceeds, the people who are > >given >responsibility for deciding between 2 variant readings by different > >transcribers will be given >appropriate access to flag entries as incorrect > >(although they STILL can't alter what you have > >> >>transcribed)" > >> > > >> >Don't know if there may be some technical, philosophical, or logical) > >reason against this idea..... > >> >if people go to all the trouble to look at the variant readings and > >decide which one is *definitely* correct; then wouldn't it be better that > >they be given access to alter what is incorrect and and have *their* id > >placed against the corrected entry? > >> > >> We want to recognise that even the person resolving the differences > >> might be wrong, so; > >> > >> 1) They *will* enter the correction under their ID. > >> 2) The site will show the "adjudication" as the "favoured" reading, > >> but will still note that there was doubt and that transcriber "abc123" > >> felt it should read "1234" > >> > >> -- > >> Dave Mayall > >> > >> > >> ============================== > >> Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > >> http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 > >> > > > > > >============================== > >Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > > ============================== > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > your heritage! > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog >

Some of the index books on the shelves at the FRC have exactly the same unreadable details as the scans. Looks like some books are prints of film copies of the originals which have blotches/spots/whatever. When we've done our best, it probably should be possible to "re-create" the index and suggest the likelist match given analysis of "missing" entries. Mark Hattam - - >Hi > >What about appointing some adjudicators that have access to FRC and have >them check disputed records from the actual indexes. > >These can then be taken as the definitive records and the respective >transcribers can then amend their records accordingly. > >Otherwise we will be in the area of decreasing circles until an orifice >appears to disappear into. > >Regards > >John > >Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) >Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's >Conde Salop. Anytime >----- Original Message ----- >From: Dave Mayall <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:01 PM >Subject: Re: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-D Digest V01 #98 > > >> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:01:55 +1000, you wrote: >> >> > Dave Mayall wrote..... >> >>"As transcription and more formal checking proceeds, the people who are >given >responsibility for deciding between 2 variant readings by different >transcribers will be given >appropriate access to flag entries as incorrect >(although they STILL can't alter what you have >> >>transcribed)" >> > >> >Don't know if there may be some technical, philosophical, or logical) >reason against this idea..... >> >if people go to all the trouble to look at the variant readings and >decide which one is *definitely* correct; then wouldn't it be better that >they be given access to alter what is incorrect and and have *their* id >placed against the corrected entry? >> >> We want to recognise that even the person resolving the differences >> might be wrong, so; >> >> 1) They *will* enter the correction under their ID. >> 2) The site will show the "adjudication" as the "favoured" reading, >> but will still note that there was doubt and that transcriber "abc123" >> felt it should read "1234" >> >> -- >> Dave Mayall >> >> >> ============================== >> Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! >> http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 >> > > >============================== >Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp