On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:33:52 +0100, you wrote: >I have an ancestor whose marriage certificate shows her name as >Katherine (Smith - just to make life difficult) > >Her birth certificate shows that she was registered as Catherine. > >A birth search on Katherine does not find her; you have to enter >Catherine. With alternative spellings of Catharine/Catherine/Katherine >etc. this makes searching difficult. There are many other alternative >names such as Philip/Phillip or Sidney/Sydney. > >Is it too difficult to add alternative spellings of forenames as an >option to the search menu, in addition to 'Phonetic search surnames'. >The fact that it is not there suggests that it would place a large load >on the search engine. Not so much that it would put a huge load on the search engine, as that we don't have a robust design for doing the required name mapping. It isn't something that you can do with soundex (Soundex wouldn't help find my gggmother Catherine Grime, who sometimes appears as Kitty) -- Dave Mayall

I have an ancestor whose marriage certificate shows her name as Katherine (Smith - just to make life difficult) Her birth certificate shows that she was registered as Catherine. A birth search on Katherine does not find her; you have to enter Catherine. With alternative spellings of Catharine/Catherine/Katherine etc. this makes searching difficult. There are many other alternative names such as Philip/Phillip or Sidney/Sydney. Is it too difficult to add alternative spellings of forenames as an option to the search menu, in addition to 'Phonetic search surnames'. The fact that it is not there suggests that it would place a large load on the search engine. Peter Beaven

Barry The answer to you query is in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13b which is the link I gave to your earlier query. Perhaps I should have added the link http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13j ? Item 13b in the Transcribers' Knowledge Base was written specifically to cover similar issues to that raised by you? I'm always happy to accept amendments to Item 13b from you or anyone else if this would help to clarify your concerns? Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 29 March 2004 13:14 Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 >Thanks, Allan. That's fair enough. > >I still think it's a mistake to prioritise C20 data, especially where the >marriage entries include the spouses names, over a great gap in the C19, >where the written pages are often difficult to read on microfiches. I've >checked JOHNSON and WARD marriages for all the missing years, and while some >microfiches are unclear, the microfilmed pages are fine. I don't understand >the rationale of leaving these years until later in the project, if maximum >usefulness is the criterion. > >Still, our not to reason why, ours but to .... carry on transcribing. > >Barry > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 8:23 PM >Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 > > >> Barry >> >> In fairness to you, your interpretation isn't too far off the mark. >> >> http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl gives the present state of play >> on allocations made to Syndicates and also those slots which are Free for >> Allocation. >> >> Anyone who emails us regarding a Free for Allocation slot are then advised >> whether or nor scan source exists. >> >> It would be an administration nightmare trying to keep >> http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl fully in Synchronisation with >> scan availability. Also not all Syndicates are working from scans. >> >> Regards >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 28 March 2004 17:20 >> Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 >> >> >> >Thanks, Allan. I obviously misunderstood >> >http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl ("Syndicate Allocation from >> 1861 >> >to 1870" - marriages), taking "Free for Allocation" to mean free for >> >allocation to syndicates, especially as we're invited to "Email us to >start >> >a Syndicate Here". >> > >> >An excusable misunderstanding on my part, I think! >> > >> >Barry >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >> >To: "Barry Johnson" <saint.cybi@virgin.net>; >> ><FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:29 PM >> >Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 >> > >> > >> >> I can't set up Syndicates for your Cinderella periods at present, no >> scans >> >> available. >> >> >> >> Please see: >> >> >> >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html - 7th December 2003. >> >> >> >> An update to the 7 December 2003 Item - >> >> >> >> The films for Marriages 1843, 1845, 1847, 1857, 1861, 1862 & 1863 are >> with >> >> our scanning organisation waiting scanning. >> >> >> >> and also see >> >> >> >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13b >> >> >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> >> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >> Date: 27 March 2004 12:40 >> >> Subject: Marriages 1861 - 63 >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Marriages for the 1860s appear to be the Cinderella of FreeBMD, with >> none >> >> of >> >> >the 1861-63 pages allocated at all. I don't understand why so much >> >effort >> >> >is going into the transcribing of pages from the C20 when the latter >are >> >so >> >> >much easier to look up (more entries per page) and read (printed >rather >> >> than >> >> >handwritten). >> >> > >> >> >I have an interest to declare - a missing marriage from these years, >> >> >possibly involving some very inventive surname spelling. I've >uploaded >> >the >> >> >results of my GRO Index searches from 1854 to 1863, involving some 400 >> >> >entries, but that's the merest drop in the ocean, and the syndicate >I'm >> >> >transcribing for mainly covers births and deaths. >> >> > >> >> >Please someone, start a syndicate for 1861-63 marriages. I'll be your >> >> first >> >> >volunteer! (And in answer to the inevitable - and reasonable - >question: >> >> I'm >> >> >afraid I don't have the time, or probably the expertise, to set up and >> >run >> >> a >> >> >syndicate.) >> >> > >> >> >Barry Johnson >> >> >Monmouthshire .ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

> Thanks, Allan. That's fair enough. > > I still think it's a mistake to prioritise C20 data, especially where the > marriage entries include the spouses names, over a great gap in the C19, > where the written pages are often difficult to read on microfiches. It hasn't been prioritised. It has been done first to ensure that we don't suffer shortages of source. > I've > checked JOHNSON and WARD marriages for all the missing years, and while some > microfiches are unclear, the microfilmed pages are fine. I don't understand > the rationale of leaving these years until later in the project, if maximum > usefulness is the criterion. As I explained in the previous message that John Fairlie reposted, the source that we had available for the earlier years was of poor quality. In order to produce scans for the earlier years, we have had to obtain new high quality source, and have it scanned. At the point in time where it became clear that we needed to get into buying new source, we were facing an acute shortage of scanned source. It was important to build up a stock of source as quickly as possible. The simple fact is that the fewer the names per page, the more expensive source is, both in terms of the cost of purchase and in terms of the time taken to scan. An early resolution to the scan shortage required us to get a batch of post-1865 films to enable us to build up a stock (and to enable us to get the money together to buy the early years).

Thanks, Allan. That's fair enough. I still think it's a mistake to prioritise C20 data, especially where the marriage entries include the spouses names, over a great gap in the C19, where the written pages are often difficult to read on microfiches. I've checked JOHNSON and WARD marriages for all the missing years, and while some microfiches are unclear, the microfilmed pages are fine. I don't understand the rationale of leaving these years until later in the project, if maximum usefulness is the criterion. Still, our not to reason why, ours but to .... carry on transcribing. Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 8:23 PM Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 > Barry > > In fairness to you, your interpretation isn't too far off the mark. > > http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl gives the present state of play > on allocations made to Syndicates and also those slots which are Free for > Allocation. > > Anyone who emails us regarding a Free for Allocation slot are then advised > whether or nor scan source exists. > > It would be an administration nightmare trying to keep > http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl fully in Synchronisation with > scan availability. Also not all Syndicates are working from scans. > > Regards > > Allan Raymond > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 28 March 2004 17:20 > Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 > > > >Thanks, Allan. I obviously misunderstood > >http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl ("Syndicate Allocation from > 1861 > >to 1870" - marriages), taking "Free for Allocation" to mean free for > >allocation to syndicates, especially as we're invited to "Email us to start > >a Syndicate Here". > > > >An excusable misunderstanding on my part, I think! > > > >Barry > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> > >To: "Barry Johnson" <saint.cybi@virgin.net>; > ><FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > >Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:29 PM > >Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 > > > > > >> I can't set up Syndicates for your Cinderella periods at present, no > scans > >> available. > >> > >> Please see: > >> > >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html - 7th December 2003. > >> > >> An update to the 7 December 2003 Item - > >> > >> The films for Marriages 1843, 1845, 1847, 1857, 1861, 1862 & 1863 are > with > >> our scanning organisation waiting scanning. > >> > >> and also see > >> > >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13b > >> > >> Allan Raymond > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> > >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > >> Date: 27 March 2004 12:40 > >> Subject: Marriages 1861 - 63 > >> > >> > >> > > >> >Marriages for the 1860s appear to be the Cinderella of FreeBMD, with > none > >> of > >> >the 1861-63 pages allocated at all. I don't understand why so much > >effort > >> >is going into the transcribing of pages from the C20 when the latter are > >so > >> >much easier to look up (more entries per page) and read (printed rather > >> than > >> >handwritten). > >> > > >> >I have an interest to declare - a missing marriage from these years, > >> >possibly involving some very inventive surname spelling. I've uploaded > >the > >> >results of my GRO Index searches from 1854 to 1863, involving some 400 > >> >entries, but that's the merest drop in the ocean, and the syndicate I'm > >> >transcribing for mainly covers births and deaths. > >> > > >> >Please someone, start a syndicate for 1861-63 marriages. I'll be your > >> first > >> >volunteer! (And in answer to the inevitable - and reasonable - question: > >> I'm > >> >afraid I don't have the time, or probably the expertise, to set up and > >run > >> a > >> >syndicate.) > >> > > >> >Barry Johnson > >> >Monmouthshire > >> > > >> > > >> >============================== > >> >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > >> >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > >> >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >> > >> > > > > > >============================== > >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > >

Barry In fairness to you, your interpretation isn't too far off the mark. http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl gives the present state of play on allocations made to Syndicates and also those slots which are Free for Allocation. Anyone who emails us regarding a Free for Allocation slot are then advised whether or nor scan source exists. It would be an administration nightmare trying to keep http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl fully in Synchronisation with scan availability. Also not all Syndicates are working from scans. Regards Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 28 March 2004 17:20 Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 >Thanks, Allan. I obviously misunderstood >http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl ("Syndicate Allocation from 1861 >to 1870" - marriages), taking "Free for Allocation" to mean free for >allocation to syndicates, especially as we're invited to "Email us to start >a Syndicate Here". > >An excusable misunderstanding on my part, I think! > >Barry > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: "Barry Johnson" <saint.cybi@virgin.net>; ><FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:29 PM >Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 > > >> I can't set up Syndicates for your Cinderella periods at present, no scans >> available. >> >> Please see: >> >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html - 7th December 2003. >> >> An update to the 7 December 2003 Item - >> >> The films for Marriages 1843, 1845, 1847, 1857, 1861, 1862 & 1863 are with >> our scanning organisation waiting scanning. >> >> and also see >> >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13b >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 27 March 2004 12:40 >> Subject: Marriages 1861 - 63 >> >> >> > >> >Marriages for the 1860s appear to be the Cinderella of FreeBMD, with none >> of >> >the 1861-63 pages allocated at all. I don't understand why so much >effort >> >is going into the transcribing of pages from the C20 when the latter are >so >> >much easier to look up (more entries per page) and read (printed rather >> than >> >handwritten). >> > >> >I have an interest to declare - a missing marriage from these years, >> >possibly involving some very inventive surname spelling. I've uploaded >the >> >results of my GRO Index searches from 1854 to 1863, involving some 400 >> >entries, but that's the merest drop in the ocean, and the syndicate I'm >> >transcribing for mainly covers births and deaths. >> > >> >Please someone, start a syndicate for 1861-63 marriages. I'll be your >> first >> >volunteer! (And in answer to the inevitable - and reasonable - question: >> I'm >> >afraid I don't have the time, or probably the expertise, to set up and >run >> a >> >syndicate.) >> > >> >Barry Johnson >> >Monmouthshire >> > >> > >> >============================== >> >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >> >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >> >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >> >> > > >============================== >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:33:25 -0000, you wrote: >I don't wish to pre-empt what the top table might say, but the following is >what was asked and answered last September. Perhaps all that is needed is >confirmation that the plan is still on schedule. Thanks John, Things are still pretty much working to that plan. The earlier source is on hand, and I expect the first scans from it sometime in April. -- Dave Mayall

Thanks, Allan. I obviously misunderstood http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl ("Syndicate Allocation from 1861 to 1870" - marriages), taking "Free for Allocation" to mean free for allocation to syndicates, especially as we're invited to "Email us to start a Syndicate Here". An excusable misunderstanding on my part, I think! Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> To: "Barry Johnson" <saint.cybi@virgin.net>; <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:29 PM Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 > I can't set up Syndicates for your Cinderella periods at present, no scans > available. > > Please see: > > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html - 7th December 2003. > > An update to the 7 December 2003 Item - > > The films for Marriages 1843, 1845, 1847, 1857, 1861, 1862 & 1863 are with > our scanning organisation waiting scanning. > > and also see > > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13b > > Allan Raymond > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 27 March 2004 12:40 > Subject: Marriages 1861 - 63 > > > > > >Marriages for the 1860s appear to be the Cinderella of FreeBMD, with none > of > >the 1861-63 pages allocated at all. I don't understand why so much effort > >is going into the transcribing of pages from the C20 when the latter are so > >much easier to look up (more entries per page) and read (printed rather > than > >handwritten). > > > >I have an interest to declare - a missing marriage from these years, > >possibly involving some very inventive surname spelling. I've uploaded the > >results of my GRO Index searches from 1854 to 1863, involving some 400 > >entries, but that's the merest drop in the ocean, and the syndicate I'm > >transcribing for mainly covers births and deaths. > > > >Please someone, start a syndicate for 1861-63 marriages. I'll be your > first > >volunteer! (And in answer to the inevitable - and reasonable - question: > I'm > >afraid I don't have the time, or probably the expertise, to set up and run > a > >syndicate.) > > > >Barry Johnson > >Monmouthshire > > > > > >============================== > >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >

I can't set up Syndicates for your Cinderella periods at present, no scans available. Please see: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html - 7th December 2003. An update to the 7 December 2003 Item - The films for Marriages 1843, 1845, 1847, 1857, 1861, 1862 & 1863 are with our scanning organisation waiting scanning. and also see http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13b Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 27 March 2004 12:40 Subject: Marriages 1861 - 63 > >Marriages for the 1860s appear to be the Cinderella of FreeBMD, with none of >the 1861-63 pages allocated at all. I don't understand why so much effort >is going into the transcribing of pages from the C20 when the latter are so >much easier to look up (more entries per page) and read (printed rather than >handwritten). > >I have an interest to declare - a missing marriage from these years, >possibly involving some very inventive surname spelling. I've uploaded the >results of my GRO Index searches from 1854 to 1863, involving some 400 >entries, but that's the merest drop in the ocean, and the syndicate I'm >transcribing for mainly covers births and deaths. > >Please someone, start a syndicate for 1861-63 marriages. I'll be your first >volunteer! (And in answer to the inevitable - and reasonable - question: I'm >afraid I don't have the time, or probably the expertise, to set up and run a >syndicate.) > >Barry Johnson >Monmouthshire > > >============================== >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

I don't wish to pre-empt what the top table might say, but the following is what was asked and answered last September. Perhaps all that is needed is confirmation that the plan is still on schedule. Where do the scans come from and why don't they come through in ascending order of year? Answer: Various sources! 1866-1900 Marriages - largely from Darryl Bonk of Canada who scanned films held by his FHS. 1866-1900 Births/Deaths - films bought by FreeBMD and scanned by our contacts. 1837-1865 second hand films bought by Ancestry and Scanned by them. Many of the films in this range are poor quality and unsuitable for scanning. They will eventually be replaced by FreeBMD purchased films. Early films contain 40/80 names per page, as opposed to 325 for later years, which means that it cost a LOT more to buy them and longer to scan them. We are embarking on a project *NOW* to complete scanning in a logical order. We can do this now because we are in a sufficiently stable financial position to do so. The plan is; 1) Install additional hardware to handle the extra scans 2) Complete scanning of all years all events from 1910 to 1866 working backwards. 3) Complete scanning of all years marriages 1865 to 1837 marriages working backwards, including replacing scans of poor quality 4) Likewise for Births and Deaths 5) Start to work forwards from 1911. This may seem a slightly odd order, but it is designed to ensure that we keep a sufficient stock of scanned images on hand at all times. Time-scales are always difficult, but current guess is new hardware on-line by end October 03, Source 1866-1910 on-hand by same time 1866-1910 scans available gradually from November to January 04 1837-1856 marriage source on hand by early January 04 1837-1856 scans available February - June 2004 Beyond that time-scales are too vague to be useful John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Barry Johnson [mailto:saint.cybi@virgin.net] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 12:36 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Marriages 1861 - 63 Marriages for the 1860s appear to be the Cinderella of FreeBMD, with none of the 1861-63 pages allocated at all. I don't understand why so much effort is going into the transcribing of pages from the C20 when the latter are so much easier to look up (more entries per page) and read (printed rather than handwritten). I have an interest to declare - a missing marriage from these years, possibly involving some very inventive surname spelling. I've uploaded the results of my GRO Index searches from 1854 to 1863, involving some 400 entries, but that's the merest drop in the ocean, and the syndicate I'm transcribing for mainly covers births and deaths. Please someone, start a syndicate for 1861-63 marriages. I'll be your first volunteer! (And in answer to the inevitable - and reasonable - question: I'm afraid I don't have the time, or probably the expertise, to set up and run a syndicate.) Barry Johnson Monmouthshire ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004

Marriages for the 1860s appear to be the Cinderella of FreeBMD, with none of the 1861-63 pages allocated at all. I don't understand why so much effort is going into the transcribing of pages from the C20 when the latter are so much easier to look up (more entries per page) and read (printed rather than handwritten). I have an interest to declare - a missing marriage from these years, possibly involving some very inventive surname spelling. I've uploaded the results of my GRO Index searches from 1854 to 1863, involving some 400 entries, but that's the merest drop in the ocean, and the syndicate I'm transcribing for mainly covers births and deaths. Please someone, start a syndicate for 1861-63 marriages. I'll be your first volunteer! (And in answer to the inevitable - and reasonable - question: I'm afraid I don't have the time, or probably the expertise, to set up and run a syndicate.) Barry Johnson Monmouthshire

Thank you for your various suggestions regarding Kat4, I agree that Kate is more likely. Perhaps I should have expanded on my attempts to save and upload. It was in the uploading stage that Kat4 was rejected. Previously, in such situations, I have uploaded data which was acceptable to the upload process checking, and then gone to the file management web page where I have been able to edit the data to my satisfaction. This time, with Kat4, I am unable to save my edit - error message: "Unexpected characters in first names 'Kat4' at line 50 (HENWOOD,Kat4,Liskeard,5c,55)" I have also tried uploading Kat4 using the Replace button on the file management page, but the same error is identified. So, I'm left with Kat_ which is NOT TWYS. Keith Rose www.krose.plus.com

I agree it's probably Kate ... They hit the 4 instead of the E. But TWYS requires you to submit Kat4 Can you exit from WinBMD change the file name from *.BMD to *.TXT then open in Notepad and insert the 4 save the text file then rename back to *.BMD? Instead of uploading from WinBMD go to <http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/bmd-files.pl> and perform the file transfer from there! Does that all make sense? Best wishes Chris Barossa South Oz > ---------- > From: John Fairlie[SMTP:john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk] > Reply To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk > Sent: 24 March 2004 06:02 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: RE: TWYS or not! > > Could be Kate or Kath. > > Never assume. Kat_ covers all. > > > John Fairlie > Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk > Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: krose@krose.plus.com [mailto:krose@krose.plus.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:47 PM > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: TWYS or not! > > > I've just come across a forename of "Kat4", presumably a misstype > for "Kath". This is on Sept 1964 Births, page 483. I photocopy > these pages from fiche in our local library because scans have > not been available. The quality of the fiche is excellent and > there is no ambiguity, the fourth character is definitely a > number four. > > My problem comes when I try to save and upload to BMD. It of > course refuses to accept to upload with an "Unexpected > characters in first names given at line n (line)" error message. > If TWYS is mandatory, then surely the rest of the system must > be prepared to accept these variations ? > > What should I do ? I tried Kat[4_] but this too was rejected. I > eventually settled for Kat_ > > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004 > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004 > > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >

Chris Preece <Chris.Preece@unisa.edu.au> wrote on Wed, 24 Mar 2004: >I agree it's probably Kate ... They hit the 4 instead of the E. > In which case it _is_ Kat4. :) >But TWYS requires you to submit Kat4 >Can you exit from WinBMD change the file name from *.BMD to *.TXT then open in >Notepad and insert the 4 save the text file then rename back to *.BMD? Yes, it's just a plain text file. No need even to change name. Left click the file in Explorer to select it, then press Shift and right click, select Open With... from the menu, and choose Notepad from the options (taking care not to tick the 'Always open using this program' box). -- Iain Archer

Chris I tested a similar approach out when I first saw the initial query. I don't think the problem lies with WinBMD? You can change the file as your recommend but it is FreeBMD that doesn't like the number 4 in the Kat. The error message "Unexpected characters in first names given at line n (line)" is that reported by FreeBMD and not from WinBMD. To quote further the FreeBMD error message The characters in the first names were incorrect. Each character must be a letter (including accented letters) or a punctuation character ( & ( ) ' . , : ) or space. So it doesn't make any difference if you try to upload the file via : http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/bmd-files.pl Dave/Barrie will have to advise if this can be overcome. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Chris Preece <Chris.Preece@unisa.edu.au> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 24 March 2004 00:40 Subject: RE: TWYS or not! >I agree it's probably Kate ... They hit the 4 instead of the E. > >But TWYS requires you to submit Kat4 >Can you exit from WinBMD change the file name from *.BMD to *.TXT then open in >Notepad and insert the 4 save the text file then rename back to *.BMD? >Instead of uploading from WinBMD go to ><http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/bmd-files.pl> and perform the file transfer >from there! >Does that all make sense? > >Best wishes >Chris >Barossa South Oz > > > > >> ---------- >> From: John Fairlie[SMTP:john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk] >> Reply To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> Sent: 24 March 2004 06:02 >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: RE: TWYS or not! >> >> Could be Kate or Kath. >> >> Never assume. Kat_ covers all. >> >> >> John Fairlie >> Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: krose@krose.plus.com [mailto:krose@krose.plus.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:47 PM >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: TWYS or not! >> >> >> I've just come across a forename of "Kat4", presumably a misstype >> for "Kath". This is on Sept 1964 Births, page 483. I photocopy >> these pages from fiche in our local library because scans have >> not been available. The quality of the fiche is excellent and >> there is no ambiguity, the fourth character is definitely a >> number four. >> >> My problem comes when I try to save and upload to BMD. It of >> course refuses to accept to upload with an "Unexpected >> characters in first names given at line n (line)" error message. >> If TWYS is mandatory, then surely the rest of the system must >> be prepared to accept these variations ? >> >> What should I do ? I tried Kat[4_] but this too was rejected. I >> eventually settled for Kat_ >> >> >> >> ============================== >> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >> >> >> --- >> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004 >> >> --- >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004 >> >> >> >> ============================== >> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >> >> > > >============================== >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

Could be Kate or Kath. Never assume. Kat_ covers all. John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: krose@krose.plus.com [mailto:krose@krose.plus.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:47 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: TWYS or not! I've just come across a forename of "Kat4", presumably a misstype for "Kath". This is on Sept 1964 Births, page 483. I photocopy these pages from fiche in our local library because scans have not been available. The quality of the fiche is excellent and there is no ambiguity, the fourth character is definitely a number four. My problem comes when I try to save and upload to BMD. It of course refuses to accept to upload with an "Unexpected characters in first names given at line n (line)" error message. If TWYS is mandatory, then surely the rest of the system must be prepared to accept these variations ? What should I do ? I tried Kat[4_] but this too was rejected. I eventually settled for Kat_ ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004

I've just come across a forename of "Kat4", presumably a misstype for "Kath". This is on Sept 1964 Births, page 483. I photocopy these pages from fiche in our local library because scans have not been available. The quality of the fiche is excellent and there is no ambiguity, the fourth character is definitely a number four. My problem comes when I try to save and upload to BMD. It of course refuses to accept to upload with an "Unexpected characters in first names given at line n (line)" error message. If TWYS is mandatory, then surely the rest of the system must be prepared to accept these variations ? What should I do ? I tried Kat[4_] but this too was rejected. I eventually settled for Kat_

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:21:46 -0000, you wrote: >The danger is that you type what you think you see, but the important thing to my mind is that a >database is only of use if you can extract usable information from it. > >Would a search for William find all the ocurrences of *illiam or _illiam ? Today, no. In the future, yes. It is vital that transcribers stick to the principle of TWYS, and are *never* swayed by considerations of "if I do this, it will be easier to search for". Never try to second guess how the search engine will eventually work. Such transcriptions will, ultimately, be scrapped. -- Dave Mayall

The danger is that you type what you think you see, but the important thing to my mind is that a database is only of use if you can extract usable information from it. Would a search for William find all the ocurrences of *illiam or _illiam ? Would anybody think to use wildcards in this case? The following appeared in "The Times" a few months back - "Aoccdrnig to rseearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro. That'll **** the splelchekcer." Corin Mills

There was a query on the Admin list recently (see below), which raises the question whether we should really type what we see or what we ought to see!! The transcriber thought she saw "_ _ OL A" for a page number. TWYS says this is what she should type! Allan with his vast experience (and I mean that) knew darn well that it must be a page number and he saw "_ _ 06 A" Someone may then decide to look at the page range for Burnley and discover that the first digit had to be "2". On return to the scan EVERYONE CAN SEE that it's "206A" with a white line dividing the 2. The question is: do we really type what we see, or type what we see by deduction? All answers, with and without insults, shall be read circumspectly!! Best wishes Chris Barossa South Oz > ---------- > From: Allan Raymond[SMTP:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] > Sent: 21 March 2004 01:48 > To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: QUERY - PAGE NUMBER > > I assume it's Page 247 rather than 277? > > I also think it's Burnley 8c (rather than 8e). > > My interpretation of the page number is that there are 5 characters. > > The first character is a blob followed by a squiggly vertical line, after > which comes possibly a 0 (zero rather letter O) followed by possibly a 6 > (rather than letter L) followed by an A. > > In this uncertain situation I would insert " _{0,1}_{0,1}[0O}[6L]A. > > I'm sure somebody will come up with a less complicated and more feasible > interpretation of the page number? > > Allan Raymond > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henry & Linda Dueck <hldueck@mb.sympatico.ca> > To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 20 March 2004 14:16 > Subject: QUERY - PAGE NUMBER > > > >Hello all! I'm transcribing 1879 B2 Page 277 and have a handwritten entry > at the bottom of column 3. > > > >HIGGS, Rowland Taylor > >Burnley 8e > > > >The page number looks like something OLA - should I transcribe it as > "_OLA"? > > > >Linda Dueck > >Manitoba, Canada > > > > > > > >==== 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 > > > >============================== > >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > ______________________________ >