In March 1864 scanned page #765 the second entry shows "See MA 26" instead of a page #. Does anyone know what this means and how it should be entered. Tony McHugh.

Hi Tony I bet you knew that I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to point you in the direction of our Transcribers Knowledge Base (TKB) Web Page for an answer. Try http://FreeBMD.RootsWeb.com/vol_faq.html#10h Out of interest I'm the individual who asked the question which is shown in the TKB when I first started transcribing. Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony McHugh" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 10 August 2001 13:37 Subject: Unusual page no. In March 1864 scanned page #765 the second entry shows "See MA 26" instead of a page #. Does anyone know what this means and how it should be entered. Tony McHugh. ============================== Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 Source for Family History Online. Go to: http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB

Hi John Sorry for the long response and delay in replying. I should make it clear that the comments are mine personally and not anyone else involved in the FreeBMD Project. I may be unique in the following approach, but it is the way I have always worked. I wish to retain complete control of any files which I upload (albeit not many these days) and be responsible for the correction of any errors within them. The company in which I previously worked took a very serious view of individuals giving their password to other individuals and I have carried this approach forward in my life of leisure. I belong to John Mellors Syndicate and he works in an identical way to your Syndicate. I adopt a simple approach to the problem by using a facility in Norton Utilities (called File Compare). Any amended files returned by John are checked against my original file by using Norton Utilities, if I agree with any errors my file is updated. Where I can't agree on the errors I send a report back to John as I have done earlier today. The amended file is then uploaded to replace the existing file on FreeBMD. Unfortunately, I adopt a double standard regarding passwords. In the past I have helped individuals to amend and upload their files where they were experiencing problems, to do this I request the individual's password and give them warning about handing over the password with a categorical assurance that the password would be deleted from my PC or any other records once I had completed the task. On the wider issue I totally agree with all your comments. The work you and John Mellors (and other co-ordinators) undertake to ensure the accuracy of the records uploaded by your volunteers is to be applauded. There should be a formal process in place, by which files of volunteers who have flown the roost can be amended/deleted at the request of the co-ordinator. I am also aware of your previous comments to the team about this aspect and will pursue off line to try and get a speedy response. My recollection is that you were requested to send a list of "offending files with missing volunteers" to the team for them to chase up and delete where appropriate, you may wish to contact me off list with this information or let me know who you sent it to? Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Pain" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 05 August 2001 18:18 Subject: Re: double keying >Allan Said -Syndicate >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process Why not??? I have corrected many files and uploaded to transcriber'sID. Those transcribers that have not been forthcoming with their ID and passwords, in many cases do not upload the corrected file, so to get corrected data into the database the files are uploaded to a neutral ID so that correct info is in the database. If the transcriber does not upload the corrected files ( and in 1 case 30% of transcriptions were in error) should I not upload the corrected data, but leave just the crap data in the database? Then as far as the database is concerned the data has been transcribed twice by different transcribers and therefore the records can be taken as accurate. I have a few transcribers that do not respond to requests to upload corrected files, and in one case as a trial, I have asked twice for the offending original files to be deleted by the team, or transferred to me so that I can delete them. I have not had any response to that request yet. There needs to be a procedure whereby co-ordinators can authorise the move/removal of files from transcribers that do not respond to e-mails to correct their data. The next question regarding those original 'uncorrected' files is - Who is responsible for responding to queries about the accuracy of the data? The transcriber who is linked to the record? But if they no longer respond to e-mails where does the researcher go for clarification? Regards John Researching Hykin - Anywhere - Anytime Pain - Kent - Ashford Area Conde - Shropshire ----- Original Message ----- From: Philip Powell <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: Re: double keying > In message <[email protected]>, Allan Raymond > <[email protected]> writes > >Double keying by the same individual is not part of our process. > > > >Chances are that the individual uploaded their file and the Syndicate > >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original > >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process. > > Shouldn't a corrected file simply replace the original if the same > Submitter ID is used? > > PP > > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com > ============================== Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2

Well spotted on the change of list,finger trouble on my part. I'll have to check that Tony is aware we have changed lists. You thought correctly, I had already mentioned in an earlier email on this thread that the information was also available on the individual graphs. I'm not quite certain if this automatic notification is what Tony is looking for, but he'll be able to confirm this . Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Hart" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 06 August 2001 01:55 Subject: Re: Coverage graphs . . . Allan, Just moving this to discuss :) you moved to the wrong list :)) And to add to it .... The facility we are looking at is for notification when the information you are interested in changes ... this should negate the need to see the change in the coverage, I think... The information for each year and event is available in the individual graphs for that year which shows the change already. Cheers Graham Allan Raymond wrote: > > Hi Tony > > I have transferred this topic across to the Discuss list rather than continuing it > on the Admin list as we are talking about proposed changes to FreeBMD. > > I'm sorry but I still cannot see that including the % addition during the month > (or since the last update) on the bar chart will do much to assist people in their > searches. Neither can I see the tie up with ordering fiche whether it is > births,deaths or deaths or for that matter the Census Index fiche. > > The bar charts currently show the % coverage on a yearly basis so this should > adequately indicate to searchers the possibility of finding an entry for that > year. For example if somebody was searching for a marriage record for 1883 to 1886 > (inclusive) they would have at least a 95% chance of finding the entry. On the > other hand somebody searching for a marriage record 1860 to 1866 (inclusive) will > have about a 1 to 2% chance of finding the entry. > > You are quite correct the progress on some years is more advanced than others, > this is due to a combination of what source we have for transcribing and some > co-ordinators opt to do an event/period. However in my role as "Syndicate > co-ordinator" I would like to see a year completed before moving onto another, but > this a little bit utopian. > > I assume it is possible to have a two coloured split bar chart to include the > monthly increase, but again I wonder what it would indicate to a searcher. For > example if coverage for 1883 was 70% and during the month (or since the last > update) it had increased by 3% what help would this be to the searcher? > > Allan Raymond > [email protected] > http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm > FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet > http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Jebson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: 05 August 2001 15:59 > Subject: Re: Coverage graphs . . . > > Allan Raymond wrote: > > I am not sure how this would be useful. > > Well, I'm sure there are many people out there who know the > name they're searching for, but are *very* unsure of the date > making it difficult to order appropriate fiches from the LDS > (their family history centre here in Austin has *none* of the Census > Index fiches so everything is a new order. Ho hum). > > This makes the FreeBMD search facility extremely useful, however > given the current coverage, it doesn't often yield results. > > Now, if FreeBMD moves to regular monthly updates, knowing > which years had significantly more data would be useful -- my > suspicion is that progress proceeds irregularly and is concentrated > on a few years / events at a time rather than being uniform across > all years and events. > > > Would you like to elaborate a little more on what format the graphs > > should take to show the changes. > > The format I was thinking of was to make each vertical bar split into > two differently coloured sections, with the top section indicating > new data . . . > > --- Tony Jebson > > ============================== > 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 ============================== Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate your heritage! http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog

Allan, Just moving this to discuss :) you moved to the wrong list :)) And to add to it .... The facility we are looking at is for notification when the information you are interested in changes ... this should negate the need to see the change in the coverage, I think... The information for each year and event is available in the individual graphs for that year which shows the change already. Cheers Graham Allan Raymond wrote: > > Hi Tony > > I have transferred this topic across to the Discuss list rather than continuing it > on the Admin list as we are talking about proposed changes to FreeBMD. > > I'm sorry but I still cannot see that including the % addition during the month > (or since the last update) on the bar chart will do much to assist people in their > searches. Neither can I see the tie up with ordering fiche whether it is > births,deaths or deaths or for that matter the Census Index fiche. > > The bar charts currently show the % coverage on a yearly basis so this should > adequately indicate to searchers the possibility of finding an entry for that > year. For example if somebody was searching for a marriage record for 1883 to 1886 > (inclusive) they would have at least a 95% chance of finding the entry. On the > other hand somebody searching for a marriage record 1860 to 1866 (inclusive) will > have about a 1 to 2% chance of finding the entry. > > You are quite correct the progress on some years is more advanced than others, > this is due to a combination of what source we have for transcribing and some > co-ordinators opt to do an event/period. However in my role as "Syndicate > co-ordinator" I would like to see a year completed before moving onto another, but > this a little bit utopian. > > I assume it is possible to have a two coloured split bar chart to include the > monthly increase, but again I wonder what it would indicate to a searcher. For > example if coverage for 1883 was 70% and during the month (or since the last > update) it had increased by 3% what help would this be to the searcher? > > Allan Raymond > [email protected] > http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm > FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet > http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Jebson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: 05 August 2001 15:59 > Subject: Re: Coverage graphs . . . > > Allan Raymond wrote: > > I am not sure how this would be useful. > > Well, I'm sure there are many people out there who know the > name they're searching for, but are *very* unsure of the date > making it difficult to order appropriate fiches from the LDS > (their family history centre here in Austin has *none* of the Census > Index fiches so everything is a new order. Ho hum). > > This makes the FreeBMD search facility extremely useful, however > given the current coverage, it doesn't often yield results. > > Now, if FreeBMD moves to regular monthly updates, knowing > which years had significantly more data would be useful -- my > suspicion is that progress proceeds irregularly and is concentrated > on a few years / events at a time rather than being uniform across > all years and events. > > > Would you like to elaborate a little more on what format the graphs > > should take to show the changes. > > The format I was thinking of was to make each vertical bar split into > two differently coloured sections, with the top section indicating > new data . . . > > --- Tony Jebson > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB

Hi Anne, All you say is fine except that some people will and do use their FreeBMD password as being the same as they use for other things and so we don't want to know it :) The ability to change password is supplied on the login page and I would suggest that peple change their passwords to something agreed between them and John temporarily to get access .. As a project we will always advise that the password you use should not be given out .. clearly we can't stop ti ! .. but we would not expect it to happen. Both Ben and I work in the security area of computers and Ben is an expert in field of Security :)) As an individual you may feel ok to give out your passwrod, that is your prerogative, but we should provide alternate methods so it is not necessary. There are people who are uncomfortable about it and we have lost transcribers because of it ... Apart from that, I agree with the email :)) and thanks for the work you are doing :) Cheers Graham Anne Cruise wrote: > > Good day all. > > I am coming in here at the end of a hard day's decorating and reading 93 > e-mails (ouch) and can't see what the fuss is about re: passwords and IDs. > > I "work" for John Pain's syndicate. I completed my first set of > transcriptions and sent the files off for checking against the originals. > I pride myself on very few typos but the unreadables and doubtfuls when > reading from photocopies can be as many as one whole column of page numbers > - yeah, I hate them, but what can one do except type what you see, or don't > see, as the case may be? These files were then returned just so I could > spend an hour online ( and at that time I was paying normal 'phone bill > rates on my internet access) in order to replace them on F/BMD. > > Now, the process is different. I provide my ID and password and after > checking, the checker replaces the files on F/BMD with the corrected ones. > I don't provide my bank account details, my PIN, my National Insurance or > National Health numbers, or any other details that could result in any > damage to my well-being. The other thing I don't do is use a password that > I use for something else either at work or at home. That would be - let us > just say - a bit daft! The good part of all this is I don't have to spend > transcribing time replacing files on F/BMD either. Mind you, I will regret > not seeing my typing-error rate per page, but that's minor. > > (If there is a concern that individual transcribers are not mindful of the > security purpose of passwords for computers and you fear they may be using > their single, universal password, perhaps a warning sentence in the welcome > page might not go amiss. After that, it's their problem.) > > I am transcribing because I enjoy the task for itself, and for that lovely > warm feeling of doing something good for one's fellow genealogists. Who > knows, one day I may even find the way through my own brick wall on F/BMD. > > I also ascribe similar feelings to my fellow transcribers. Just in case > there is anyone who signed up to put a proverbial spanner in the works, I > restrict access to my ID and password to those few people who need to know > it for the reasons above. If I can't trust them, who can I trust in this > project? > > With due apologies for being neither brief nor funny - the last few mails > on figments of imagination cheered me up no end! > > Best wishes > > Anne Cruise > > problems with the address? personal replies to > [email protected] > > Graham Hart wrote: > What I > > personally don't like is people giving out their passwords. I would > > prefer that they changed them to something for you in this case. Some > > people will use their normal password for FreeBMD and so they should be > > kept secure. > > > > John Pain wrote: > > > > > > >Allan Said -Syndicate > > > >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original > > > >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process > > > > > > Why not??? > > > > > > I have corrected many files and uploaded to transcriber'sID. > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com

Good day all. I am coming in here at the end of a hard day's decorating and reading 93 e-mails (ouch) and can't see what the fuss is about re: passwords and IDs. I "work" for John Pain's syndicate. I completed my first set of transcriptions and sent the files off for checking against the originals. I pride myself on very few typos but the unreadables and doubtfuls when reading from photocopies can be as many as one whole column of page numbers - yeah, I hate them, but what can one do except type what you see, or don't see, as the case may be? These files were then returned just so I could spend an hour online ( and at that time I was paying normal 'phone bill rates on my internet access) in order to replace them on F/BMD. Now, the process is different. I provide my ID and password and after checking, the checker replaces the files on F/BMD with the corrected ones. I don't provide my bank account details, my PIN, my National Insurance or National Health numbers, or any other details that could result in any damage to my well-being. The other thing I don't do is use a password that I use for something else either at work or at home. That would be - let us just say - a bit daft! The good part of all this is I don't have to spend transcribing time replacing files on F/BMD either. Mind you, I will regret not seeing my typing-error rate per page, but that's minor. (If there is a concern that individual transcribers are not mindful of the security purpose of passwords for computers and you fear they may be using their single, universal password, perhaps a warning sentence in the welcome page might not go amiss. After that, it's their problem.) I am transcribing because I enjoy the task for itself, and for that lovely warm feeling of doing something good for one's fellow genealogists. Who knows, one day I may even find the way through my own brick wall on F/BMD. I also ascribe similar feelings to my fellow transcribers. Just in case there is anyone who signed up to put a proverbial spanner in the works, I restrict access to my ID and password to those few people who need to know it for the reasons above. If I can't trust them, who can I trust in this project? With due apologies for being neither brief nor funny - the last few mails on figments of imagination cheered me up no end! Best wishes Anne Cruise problems with the address? personal replies to [email protected] Graham Hart wrote: What I > personally don't like is people giving out their passwords. I would > prefer that they changed them to something for you in this case. Some > people will use their normal password for FreeBMD and so they should be > kept secure. > > John Pain wrote: > > > > >Allan Said -Syndicate > > >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original > > >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process > > > > Why not??? > > > > I have corrected many files and uploaded to transcriber'sID.

Hi After following the discussion on double keying, I would like to offer an opinion on the ownership of transcribed files. For myself, I would consider them to be the property of FreeBMD once they are uploaded. After I have done the best I can with typing, doublechecking and correcting the information, they can be passed on to the team doing the verifying or whatever. I shouldn't need to ever deal with them again, and indeed never do, so I don't care if I own them or have any access to them other than searching through FreeBMD. (I do keep the originals on my computer anyway for backup.) Once the files are verified, I could only mess them up by opening them again. Is there a reason for leaving them in the name of each transcriber? Diana N.

The simple is yes, in the normal course of events the old file should have been replaced. However on this occasion two files which held the same information had different file names. The individual concerned is now aware of the problem and deleted the errant file earlier today. Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Powell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 05 August 2001 12:23 Subject: Re: double keying In message <[email protected]>, Allan Raymond <[email protected]> writes >Double keying by the same individual is not part of our process. > >Chances are that the individual uploaded their file and the Syndicate >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process. Shouldn't a corrected file simply replace the original if the same Submitter ID is used? PP

Hi, This discussion is on discuss .. rather than admins :) can we keep it on there, pls :) Cheers Graham Derek C Hopkins wrote: > > Hi > > The not replying to emails is one thing, there is also those email > addresses that are no longer valid. This is becoming a problem in Scan2 > Syndicate as we now have a team doing corrections.. We need a way for > coordinators to update/access/transfer pages from these ID's. A special > coordinators password or something (limited to members of a that specific > syndicate). > > At 06:18 PM 8/5/01 +0100, you wrote: > > >Allan Said -Syndicate > > >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original > > >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process > > > >Why not??? > > > >I have corrected many files and uploaded to transcriber'sID. > > > >Those transcribers that have not been forthcoming with their ID and > >passwords, in many cases do not upload the corrected file, so to get > >corrected data into the database the files are uploaded to a neutral ID so > >that correct info is in the database. > > > >If the transcriber does not upload the corrected files ( and in 1 case 30% > >of transcriptions were in error) should I not upload the corrected data, but > >leave just the crap data in the database? > > > >Then as far as the database is concerned the data has been transcribed twice > >by different transcribers and therefore the records can be taken as > >accurate. > > > >I have a few transcribers that do not respond to requests to upload > >corrected files, and in one case as a trial, I have asked twice for the > >offending original files to be deleted by the team, or transferred to me so > >that I can delete them. > > > >I have not had any response to that request yet. > > > >There needs to be a procedure whereby co-ordinators can authorise the > >move/removal of files from transcribers that do not respond to e-mails to > >correct their data. > > > >The next question regarding those original 'uncorrected' files is - Who is > >responsible for responding to queries about the accuracy of the data? The > >transcriber who is linked to the record? > > > >But if they no longer respond to e-mails where does the researcher go for > >clarification? > > > >Regards > > > >John > > > >Researching > > > >Hykin - Anywhere - Anytime > >Pain - Kent - Ashford Area > >Conde - Shropshire > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Philip Powell <[email protected]> > >To: <[email protected]> > >Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:23 PM > >Subject: Re: double keying > > > > > > > In message <[email protected]>, Allan Raymond > > > <[email protected]> writes > > > >Double keying by the same individual is not part of our process. > > > > > > > >Chances are that the individual uploaded their file and the Syndicate > > > >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original > > > >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process. > > > > > > Shouldn't a corrected file simply replace the original if the same > > > Submitter ID is used? > > > > > > PP > > > > > > > > > ============================== > > > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > > > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > > > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com > > > > > > > > >============================== > >Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > >http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 > > 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> > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > Need to get a fast answer to your transcribing problems? Go to the > Transcribers Knowledge Base at http://FreeBMD.RootsWeb.com/vol_faq.html > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com

Hi John, I think the concern is more with these being counted as double entered data ... I have no problem with you correcting entries so they match the film/fiche/scans but they shuoldn't be gone to the point where they are corrected to be improved upon on the originals. As long as you are not doing that, and I don't believe you are, then there isn't really a problem. We do need to sort out the issue of files that are still left around when a complete section has been verified. It is important. What I personally don't like is people giving out their passwords. I would prefer that they changed them to something for you in this case. Some people will use their normal password for FreeBMD and so they should be kept secure. From the project point of view .. the double keying comes from two syndicates, of course ... but that doesn't stop you checking your syndicate transcriptions against the originals :) As for the quetion of who deals with corections in the long term... we would hope to 1) Have the scan linked to the entry so people can check themselves .. and they should be encouraged to check against originals anyway ! 2) We intend to have the ability for people register theories and corrections automatically and have these apear next to the records concerned and be searchable in their own right ... The searcher could check the orignal scan and make their own mind up. These are all valid questins that will need to be completely addressed as the project goes on Cheers Graham John Pain wrote: > > >Allan Said -Syndicate > >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original > >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process > > Why not??? > > I have corrected many files and uploaded to transcriber'sID. > > Those transcribers that have not been forthcoming with their ID and > passwords, in many cases do not upload the corrected file, so to get > corrected data into the database the files are uploaded to a neutral ID so > that correct info is in the database. > > If the transcriber does not upload the corrected files ( and in 1 case 30% > of transcriptions were in error) should I not upload the corrected data, but > leave just the crap data in the database? > > Then as far as the database is concerned the data has been transcribed twice > by different transcribers and therefore the records can be taken as > accurate. > > I have a few transcribers that do not respond to requests to upload > corrected files, and in one case as a trial, I have asked twice for the > offending original files to be deleted by the team, or transferred to me so > that I can delete them. > > I have not had any response to that request yet. > > There needs to be a procedure whereby co-ordinators can authorise the > move/removal of files from transcribers that do not respond to e-mails to > correct their data. > > The next question regarding those original 'uncorrected' files is - Who is > responsible for responding to queries about the accuracy of the data? The > transcriber who is linked to the record? > > But if they no longer respond to e-mails where does the researcher go for > clarification? > > Regards > > John > > Researching > > Hykin - Anywhere - Anytime > Pain - Kent - Ashford Area > Conde - Shropshire > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Philip Powell <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:23 PM > Subject: Re: double keying > > > In message <[email protected]>, Allan Raymond > > <[email protected]> writes > > >Double keying by the same individual is not part of our process. > > > > > >Chances are that the individual uploaded their file and the Syndicate > > >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original > > >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process. > > > > Shouldn't a corrected file simply replace the original if the same > > Submitter ID is used? > > > > PP > > > > > > ============================== > > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com > > > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2

Surely as these would appear on the database as two separate entries, this would not be the case at all. The entry I was querying was one single entry with two transcribers names beside it - thereby indicating double keying, but in this instance the two transcribers were the same person. As it happens one of our resident geniuses (should that be genii?) the lovely Allan sorted the problem in minutes, so a big thanks to him. Sheelagh ----- Original Message ----- From: "eddie allen" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 3:04 PM Subject: Re: double keying > Just a thought but on many occasions the same entry appears twice in the > index, and on the basis of type what you see it would be transcribed twice > and therefor it may appear that double keying has taken place by the same > person. > > regards > > eddie > [email protected] > > South coast of Hampshire, England > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Allan Raymond" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 11:37 AM > Subject: Re: double keying > > > > Double keying by the same individual is not part of our process. > > > > Chances are that the individual uploaded their file and the Syndicate > co-ordinator > > uploaded a corrected file but using the original Submitter's ID. > Personally I am > > never happy with that process. > > > > If you would like to give me some details of the actual entries off list I > should > > be able to give you chapter and verse on why there is duplication? > > > > Allan Raymond > > [email protected] > > http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm > > FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet > > http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sheelagh Hawkins" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: 05 August 2001 09:10 > > Subject: double keying > > > > > > Whilst browsing through the data base looking for my brick walls, I came > > across some entries that are double keyed by the same person. Whilst not > > wanting to question the ability and accuracy of our transcribers in any > way > > at all, I thought that the idea of double keying was to have two > > independently transcribed entries so that they could then be matched for > > accuracy. Surely there is potential inaccuracies if the same person double > > keys entries. > > Sheelagh > > > > > > > > ============================== > > Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history > > learning and how-to articles on the Internet. > > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library > > > > > > > > ============================== > > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query! > > > > > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > >

>Allan Said -Syndicate >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process Why not??? I have corrected many files and uploaded to transcriber'sID. Those transcribers that have not been forthcoming with their ID and passwords, in many cases do not upload the corrected file, so to get corrected data into the database the files are uploaded to a neutral ID so that correct info is in the database. If the transcriber does not upload the corrected files ( and in 1 case 30% of transcriptions were in error) should I not upload the corrected data, but leave just the crap data in the database? Then as far as the database is concerned the data has been transcribed twice by different transcribers and therefore the records can be taken as accurate. I have a few transcribers that do not respond to requests to upload corrected files, and in one case as a trial, I have asked twice for the offending original files to be deleted by the team, or transferred to me so that I can delete them. I have not had any response to that request yet. There needs to be a procedure whereby co-ordinators can authorise the move/removal of files from transcribers that do not respond to e-mails to correct their data. The next question regarding those original 'uncorrected' files is - Who is responsible for responding to queries about the accuracy of the data? The transcriber who is linked to the record? But if they no longer respond to e-mails where does the researcher go for clarification? Regards John Researching Hykin - Anywhere - Anytime Pain - Kent - Ashford Area Conde - Shropshire ----- Original Message ----- From: Philip Powell <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: Re: double keying > In message <[email protected]>, Allan Raymond > <[email protected]> writes > >Double keying by the same individual is not part of our process. > > > >Chances are that the individual uploaded their file and the Syndicate > >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original > >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process. > > Shouldn't a corrected file simply replace the original if the same > Submitter ID is used? > > PP > > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com >

And how do you think up all these ridiculous problems and questions you send me by email and I spend all my time sorting out! I would have thought by now you'd KNOW how to fill in a header so the file will upload - I've told you enough times!!!!! - and do you really need to ask the one about handwritten entries three times a week! - and the one about adding Districts twice a week! - and how to open Notepad - and how to make the Speedbmd window smaller (or bigger) - and how to get your allocation and use a split screen - and don't forget the problem with Quick Time - I've told you that twice now! Good - I'm out of a job now we've sorted that one!!!! Sue :-)) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sheelagh Hawkins" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 05 August 2001 13:39 PM Subject: Re: How Many Syndicates > Hmmmmm does that make me a figment of my own imagination, or of yours?? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Graham Hart" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:54 PM > Subject: Re: How Many Syndicates > > > > Hi Teri, > > > > Gypsy wrote: > > > > > > G'day All > > > > > > Just to satisfy my own curiosity, can anyone tell me how many > > > Syndicates there are please. > > > > > > There is actually only yours. We have made up all the others so you > > don't feel so alone :) Most posts on this lists are fictitious but you > > are doing a great job :) > > > > seriously, Allan is the one who'll have the answer to that ... I'll let > > him answer it seriously :) > > > > Cheers > > > > Graham > > > > > > Cheers > > > Teri > > > > > > ============================== > > > 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 > > > > > > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 > >

G'day All Just to satisfy my own curiosity, can anyone tell me how many Syndicates there are please. Cheers Teri

Just a thought but on many occasions the same entry appears twice in the index, and on the basis of type what you see it would be transcribed twice and therefor it may appear that double keying has taken place by the same person. regards eddie [email protected] South coast of Hampshire, England ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 11:37 AM Subject: Re: double keying > Double keying by the same individual is not part of our process. > > Chances are that the individual uploaded their file and the Syndicate co-ordinator > uploaded a corrected file but using the original Submitter's ID. Personally I am > never happy with that process. > > If you would like to give me some details of the actual entries off list I should > be able to give you chapter and verse on why there is duplication? > > Allan Raymond > [email protected] > http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm > FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet > http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sheelagh Hawkins" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: 05 August 2001 09:10 > Subject: double keying > > > Whilst browsing through the data base looking for my brick walls, I came > across some entries that are double keyed by the same person. Whilst not > wanting to question the ability and accuracy of our transcribers in any way > at all, I thought that the idea of double keying was to have two > independently transcribed entries so that they could then be matched for > accuracy. Surely there is potential inaccuracies if the same person double > keys entries. > Sheelagh > > > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history > learning and how-to articles on the Internet. > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library > > > > ============================== > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query! > >

Hmmmmm does that make me a figment of my own imagination, or of yours?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Hart" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:54 PM Subject: Re: How Many Syndicates > Hi Teri, > > Gypsy wrote: > > > > G'day All > > > > Just to satisfy my own curiosity, can anyone tell me how many > > Syndicates there are please. > > > There is actually only yours. We have made up all the others so you > don't feel so alone :) Most posts on this lists are fictitious but you > are doing a great job :) > > seriously, Allan is the one who'll have the answer to that ... I'll let > him answer it seriously :) > > Cheers > > Graham > > > > Cheers > > Teri > > > > ============================== > > 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 > >

Hi Teri, Gypsy wrote: > > G'day All > > Just to satisfy my own curiosity, can anyone tell me how many > Syndicates there are please. There is actually only yours. We have made up all the others so you don't feel so alone :) Most posts on this lists are fictitious but you are doing a great job :) seriously, Allan is the one who'll have the answer to that ... I'll let him answer it seriously :) Cheers Graham > > Cheers > Teri > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

In message <[email protected]>, Allan Raymond <[email protected]> writes >Double keying by the same individual is not part of our process. > >Chances are that the individual uploaded their file and the Syndicate >co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original >Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process. Shouldn't a corrected file simply replace the original if the same Submitter ID is used? PP

Double keying by the same individual is not part of our process. Chances are that the individual uploaded their file and the Syndicate co-ordinator uploaded a corrected file but using the original Submitter's ID. Personally I am never happy with that process. If you would like to give me some details of the actual entries off list I should be able to give you chapter and verse on why there is duplication? Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sheelagh Hawkins" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 05 August 2001 09:10 Subject: double keying Whilst browsing through the data base looking for my brick walls, I came across some entries that are double keyed by the same person. Whilst not wanting to question the ability and accuracy of our transcribers in any way at all, I thought that the idea of double keying was to have two independently transcribed entries so that they could then be matched for accuracy. Surely there is potential inaccuracies if the same person double keys entries. Sheelagh ============================== Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history learning and how-to articles on the Internet. http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library