----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Dauncey" <peter@dauncey54.freeserve.co.uk> > You also can't assume correct alphabetical order - I remember a forename > Willian coming before William. I have had surnames that were not in alphabetical order - shepperd came after shepphard Lynda

I've done the same as Sheila, and I still think it's the right thing to do. If you can't see it, you can't type it. You also can't assume correct alphabetical order - I remember a forename Willian coming before William. OK, so it was probably a misprint, but Willian is what it said, and if the 'n' had been obscured I believe Willia_ or Willia* would have been 'correct' and William 'incorrect'. Best wishes, Peter Dauncey South London, UK ----- Extract from Original Message ----- From: <SRILEY145@aol.com> I recently had a scan which had a line running down the first column mostly through the forenames. For instance in the name 'William' the first letters 'Wi' were missing leaving 'lliam'. I could figure out that this ought to be 'William' but because I could not see the first two letters I TWYS, thus the first column had either * or _ inserted in the forenames down its length. Now of course I can see that I could have typed 'William' because the name was in the right alphabetical order and the 'lliam' bit was sufficient to tell me that the forename was William.

----- Original Message ----- From: <SRILEY145@aol.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:35 AM Subject: TWYS or not! > Working on the basis of what Dave said, i.e. TWYS 'you are allowed to try to > figure out what it must actually say provided that the final step in such a > process is to take a final look and ask yourself "can I actually see what it > does say" is advice which comes a little bit late for me. I recently had a scan > which had a line running down the first column mostly through the forenames. > For instance in the name 'William' the first letters 'Wi' were missing > leaving 'lliam'. I could figure out that this ought to be 'William' but because I > could not see the first two letters I TWYS, thus the first column had either * > or _ inserted in the forenames down its length. Now of course I can see that > I could have typed 'William' because the name was in the right alphabetical > order and the 'lliam' bit was sufficient to tell me that the forename was No you couldn't. Not unless there was at least a bit of the letter there to convince you. That's the trouble with advanced TWYS, it is bloody difficult to explain. It ISN'T sufficient to gain enough clues to convince you of what it must say. You must still be able to actually see it. What is permissible is using clues to direct you towards what to look for. How many times have you experienced a situation where a word appears unreadable, and utterly defeats you, but as soon as someone tells you what it says, you can read it perfectly. That is advanced TWYS, except that it is your detective work that tells you the answer, not another person.

Thank you to everyone for your help Lesley

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:41:12 +1030, you wrote: >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!! You type what you see. HOWEVER.... Type what you see does NOT mean type what you see at the first glance. You are allowed to try to figure out what it must actually say, provided that the final step in such a process is to take a final look and ask yourself "can I actually see that it does say that?" -- Dave Mayall

Working on the basis of what Dave said, i.e. TWYS 'you are allowed to try to figure out what it must actually say provided that the final step in such a process is to take a final look and ask yourself "can I actually see what it does say" is advice which comes a little bit late for me. I recently had a scan which had a line running down the first column mostly through the forenames. For instance in the name 'William' the first letters 'Wi' were missing leaving 'lliam'. I could figure out that this ought to be 'William' but because I could not see the first two letters I TWYS, thus the first column had either * or _ inserted in the forenames down its length. Now of course I can see that I could have typed 'William' because the name was in the right alphabetical order and the 'lliam' bit was sufficient to tell me that the forename was William. I have used 'William' as an example but there were other forenames of course 'lice' (Alice?), 'E_ward' (Edward). However, rightly or wrongly I typed what I saw. It bothered me of course at the time I did the transcription, and bothers me even more now because I feel that I submitted a poor piece of work, perhaps unneccessarily and possibly because I followed the TWYS rule too slavishly. Any comments? I'm sorry if this is a bit longwinded. Sheila

In a message dated 21/03/2004 17:31:34 GMT Standard Time, Klthundow@aol.com writes: > Hoping someone can help, I transcribe for scan 2 syndicate. I have just > amended some files but have been unable to upload them. I copied the files > to > word pad and saved them as xxxxx.sca but when I try to upload they are > rejected > as being xxxxx.sca.txt. files. I have tried various ways but cannot get them > > to upload. Can anyone give me some advice. Have contacted Derek but no > reply > yet, I know he is busy so I can anyone give me some advice, > Thanks, > Lesley > Lesley, It's very simple, all you need to is to rename the files to xxxxx.sca and then upload the renamed files. Regards Terry Barlow Milton Keynes

Lesley If you email me the files I will upload them for you. Allan Raymond FreeBMD Syndicate Co-ordinator -----Original Message----- From: Klthundow@aol.com <Klthundow@aol.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 21 March 2004 17:32 Subject: help with amended files >Hoping someone can help, I transcribe for scan 2 syndicate. I have just >amended some files but have been unable to upload them. I copied the files to >word pad and saved them as xxxxx.sca but when I try to upload they are rejected >as being xxxxx.sca.txt. files. I have tried various ways but cannot get them >to upload. Can anyone give me some advice. Have contacted Derek but no reply >yet, I know he is busy so I can anyone give me some advice, >Thanks, >Lesley > > >============================== >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

Hoping someone can help, I transcribe for scan 2 syndicate. I have just amended some files but have been unable to upload them. I copied the files to word pad and saved them as xxxxx.sca but when I try to upload they are rejected as being xxxxx.sca.txt. files. I have tried various ways but cannot get them to upload. Can anyone give me some advice. Have contacted Derek but no reply yet, I know he is busy so I can anyone give me some advice, Thanks, Lesley

My husband relates no increase in spam either. I should mention though if one searched my full name as stated on the pages, I wouldn't be found so is different in my case as identification is mostly in my husband's name. There is a lot of anonymity in that possibly. I have used my other email address as I keep this one for mailing lists principally. > > I think the data has been > > up about a week now (I am a new transcriber) and I have not received any > > emails to date (no spam on that account actually as it is a secondary > > account - my husband gets all the spam!). -- Elizabeth (Blake) Kipp mailto:kippeeb@magma.ca webpage: http://www.magma.ca/~kippeeb/

The message says 'This person *may* be doing research related to this name' [my highlighting], so I don't think it's really misleading. My own submissions are a mixture of one-name studies and whole pages, and I did contemplate having separate IDs with different privacy settings, but decided against it. The frequency of e-mails is increasing, but it's still no more than once or twice a month, and if there's no personal connection (as is usually the case) it takes very little time to send a standard reply saying so. This has nearly always generated a follow-up message from the other party, which without exception has been friendly, polite and full of praise/gratitude for the project. In short, I think my privacy settings have resulted in positive feedback rather than spam, but of course it's a personal choice. Peter Dauncey South London, UK ----- Original Message ----- From: Loraine <Lol_barnes@lineone.net> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:37 AM Subject: RE: Submitter details privacy-setting Given that there are loads of opportunities for unscrupulous individuals to 'lift' email addresses and use them for the purposes of sending spam I felt it was correct to remain anonymous. I don't think there was a reveal my name option when I joined. I do feel that the remark 'this person may be doing research related to this name' is misleading, as whilst it applies to those who send in results of their own private researches, surely they are a tiny part of the transcribed index, and therefore the chances of clicking on someone who IS doing research related to a particular name is small. Maybe this message should not appear. Loraine From: "Tony Hall" <tonyh185@hotair.demon.co.uk> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Subject: Submitter details privacy-setting Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:11:40 -0000 When I signed up as a transcriber a few weeks ago, I wasn't sure what Privacy setting to use. I opted for "Show my email address and invite correspondence on the entries I have submitted", thinking that there could be 2 reasons why someone might want to contact a transcriber other than with a correction - either they were seeking clarification of an entry (say a certificate request failed and they come back and ask me to re-check the transcription), or the transcriber is interested in the entries themselves. In my case, the latter does not apply, but I still chose that Privacy setting thinking that it was the most helpful with the former reason in mind. However, I have noticed that the "Transcriber Details" page against my entries says "Note that this person may be doing research relating to this entry." That is much more explicit than I expected, and is misleading in my case. I am therefore inclined to change my setting to "Reveal my name but not my email address". What do others think? -- Tony Hall

Of course on the other hand, if the group felt that the acquisition of such data would be interesting I could do that (as I say this I wonder what I may have committed myself to in that the group is very large). On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Elizabeth Kipp wrote: > > I just checked in on some that I have done to see my name and email > address (which I agreed to because I felt it would be handy for people as > some of the data was not transcribable). I could give a good guess > that might help them - the page number in particular. I am quite cautious > not to put a number unless I am quite certain. I think the data has been > up about a week now (I am a new transcriber) and I have not received any > emails to date (no spam on that account actually as it is a secondary > account - my husband gets all the spam!). This account gets a lot of spam > (about ten a day) but the IP does do a good job of the first cleaning as > my spamblock (which I check periodically) gets probably 100 a day! > > I wonder if spammers would bother doing searches to acquire email > addresses. You can do it just as easily by random searches on the web. > > I actually liked the way you put the message - it would encourage people > to ask if the data entered includes * or _. I think I will keep a list of > how many and from where in a database that I can submit if anyone would > like it. > > On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Peter Dauncey wrote: > > > The message says 'This person *may* be doing research related to this name' > > [my highlighting], so I don't think it's really misleading. My own > > submissions are a mixture of one-name studies and whole pages, and I did > > contemplate having separate IDs with different privacy settings, but decided > > against it. The frequency of e-mails is increasing, but it's still no more > > than once or twice a month, and if there's no personal connection (as is > > usually the case) it takes very little time to send a standard reply saying > > so. This has nearly always generated a follow-up message from the other > > party, which without exception has been friendly, polite and full of > > praise/gratitude for the project. > > > > In short, I think my privacy settings have resulted in positive feedback > > rather than spam, but of course it's a personal choice. > > > > Peter Dauncey > > South London, UK > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Loraine <Lol_barnes@lineone.net> > > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:37 AM > > Subject: RE: Submitter details privacy-setting > > > > Given that there are loads of opportunities for unscrupulous individuals to > > 'lift' email addresses and use them for the purposes of sending spam I felt > > it was correct to remain anonymous. I don't think there was a reveal my name > > option when I joined. I do feel that the remark 'this person may be doing > > research related to this name' is misleading, as whilst it applies to those > > who send in results of their own private researches, surely they are a tiny > > part of the transcribed index, and therefore the chances of clicking on > > someone who IS doing research related to a particular name is small. Maybe > > this message should not appear. > > > > Loraine > > > > From: "Tony Hall" <tonyh185@hotair.demon.co.uk> > > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > > Subject: Submitter details privacy-setting > > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:11:40 -0000 > > > > When I signed up as a transcriber a few weeks ago, I wasn't sure what > > Privacy setting to use. I opted for "Show my email address and invite > > correspondence on the entries I have submitted", thinking that there > > could be 2 reasons why someone might want to contact a transcriber other > > than with a correction - either they were seeking clarification of an > > entry (say a certificate request failed and they come back and ask me to > > re-check the transcription), or the transcriber is interested in the > > entries themselves. In my case, the latter does not apply, but I still > > chose that Privacy setting thinking that it was the most helpful with > > the former reason in mind. > > > > However, I have noticed that the "Transcriber Details" page against my > > entries says "Note that this person may be doing research relating to > > this entry." That is much more explicit than I expected, and is > > misleading in my case. I am therefore inclined to change my setting to > > "Reveal my name but not my email address". What do others think? > > -- > > Tony Hall > > > > > > ============================== > > 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 > > > > > > -- Elizabeth (Blake) Kipp mailto:kippeeb@magma.ca

I just checked in on some that I have done to see my name and email address (which I agreed to because I felt it would be handy for people as some of the data was not transcribable). I could give a good guess that might help them - the page number in particular. I am quite cautious not to put a number unless I am quite certain. I think the data has been up about a week now (I am a new transcriber) and I have not received any emails to date (no spam on that account actually as it is a secondary account - my husband gets all the spam!). This account gets a lot of spam (about ten a day) but the IP does do a good job of the first cleaning as my spamblock (which I check periodically) gets probably 100 a day! I wonder if spammers would bother doing searches to acquire email addresses. You can do it just as easily by random searches on the web. I actually liked the way you put the message - it would encourage people to ask if the data entered includes * or _. I think I will keep a list of how many and from where in a database that I can submit if anyone would like it. On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Peter Dauncey wrote: > The message says 'This person *may* be doing research related to this name' > [my highlighting], so I don't think it's really misleading. My own > submissions are a mixture of one-name studies and whole pages, and I did > contemplate having separate IDs with different privacy settings, but decided > against it. The frequency of e-mails is increasing, but it's still no more > than once or twice a month, and if there's no personal connection (as is > usually the case) it takes very little time to send a standard reply saying > so. This has nearly always generated a follow-up message from the other > party, which without exception has been friendly, polite and full of > praise/gratitude for the project. > > In short, I think my privacy settings have resulted in positive feedback > rather than spam, but of course it's a personal choice. > > Peter Dauncey > South London, UK > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Loraine <Lol_barnes@lineone.net> > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:37 AM > Subject: RE: Submitter details privacy-setting > > Given that there are loads of opportunities for unscrupulous individuals to > 'lift' email addresses and use them for the purposes of sending spam I felt > it was correct to remain anonymous. I don't think there was a reveal my name > option when I joined. I do feel that the remark 'this person may be doing > research related to this name' is misleading, as whilst it applies to those > who send in results of their own private researches, surely they are a tiny > part of the transcribed index, and therefore the chances of clicking on > someone who IS doing research related to a particular name is small. Maybe > this message should not appear. > > Loraine > > From: "Tony Hall" <tonyh185@hotair.demon.co.uk> > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Submitter details privacy-setting > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:11:40 -0000 > > When I signed up as a transcriber a few weeks ago, I wasn't sure what > Privacy setting to use. I opted for "Show my email address and invite > correspondence on the entries I have submitted", thinking that there > could be 2 reasons why someone might want to contact a transcriber other > than with a correction - either they were seeking clarification of an > entry (say a certificate request failed and they come back and ask me to > re-check the transcription), or the transcriber is interested in the > entries themselves. In my case, the latter does not apply, but I still > chose that Privacy setting thinking that it was the most helpful with > the former reason in mind. > > However, I have noticed that the "Transcriber Details" page against my > entries says "Note that this person may be doing research relating to > this entry." That is much more explicit than I expected, and is > misleading in my case. I am therefore inclined to change my setting to > "Reveal my name but not my email address". What do others think? > -- > Tony Hall > > > ============================== > 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 > > -- Elizabeth (Blake) Kipp mailto:kippeeb@magma.ca

The latest update shows an increase of 1,582,835 in the total number of records and 1,270,314 in the number of distinct records. This analysis is based on "distinct" records. There are 745,220 more Births. The big increase is for 1879 with 273,344 but there are 4 other years with increases over 25K: 1887 (77,676); 1878 (67,870); 1886 (54,798) and 1907 (34,199) There are 269,334 more Marriages. The biggest increase is (again) 1907 with 89,696 and there are 2 other years with increases over 25K: 1849 (61,932) and 1872 (29,701) There are 255,760 more Deaths. There are 3 years with increases over 25K: 1852 (29,242); 1910 (27,784) and 1888 (25,423) Happy searching/transcribing Peter Dauncey

And of course referring to Dave as Mayall, rather than Dave or even Mr Mayall was down not right rude was it ?? IF Dave was rude, it was never intended - he is always brief and to the point,which people misconstrue as being rude, however you were deliberately rude!! Sheelagh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnie Iles" <ailes@stny.rr.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:28 PM Subject: I Agree With Sue Smith > I want Sue Smith, wherever she is, to know that I agree with her opinion of our leader Mayall's response to her email a couple days ago. In spite of the fact that two transcribers immediately jumped in to criticize her, Mayall's reply was indeed written in his usual irritating manner. > > > > Yes, I know, this type of email belongs on the discussion list, not this one. > > > > Allan Raymond, please check your email for a note from me that I'm sending today. > > > > Arnie Iles > > > ==== 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 >

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C40AEB.6B0B6E00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As one of the two transcribers who (quote) " jumped in to criticise Sue Smith", may I point out that I did not do this, merely asked how Dave's reply was construed to be impolite? I then went to great pains to explain how the written word could be misinterpreted by people (any people) putting their own inflections on words and reading into a message something that was not intended. It appears that that is what has happened by the person who "criticised" me. I should also point out that this is a multicultural project and what is construed as polite, but plain, speaking in one country may be considered impolite in another, even when those two countries are using varieties of the 'same' language. That is why I asked people to step back and give the benefit of the doubt. It is also possible for the opposite to occur, and what is considered polite speak in one culture to appear to be sycophantic twaddle in another. As Arnie pointed out this should be on the discuss list, so I have copied this to that list as well. Loraine ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C40AEB.6B0B6E00 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment From: "Arnie Iles" <ailes@stny.rr.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Subject: I Agree With Sue Smith Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:28:47 -0000 Message-ID: <000801c40ae5$e0857e10$023a5e18@iles1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-Original-Sender: ailes@stny.rr.com Mon Mar 15 16:35:05 2004 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 X-Mailing-List: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/9354 X-Loop: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Thread-Index: AcQK5jwV9mVipp1KTDG2jFEBJEX8uA== X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine I want Sue Smith, wherever she is, to know that I agree with her opinion of our leader Mayall's response to her email a couple days ago. In spite of the fact that two transcribers immediately jumped in to criticize her, Mayall's reply was indeed written in his usual irritating manner. Yes, I know, this type of email belongs on the discussion list, not this one. Allan Raymond, please check your email for a note from me that I'm sending today. Arnie Iles ==== 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C40AEB.6B0B6E00--

Quoting John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk>: > If..... "The individual has now ceased the practice of systematic > corrections",...... then I wonder why this is? Did you ask them to stop > Allan?? Surely we should have a good system of handling corrections instead > of suppressing a persons drive to increase accuracy of the database? The corrections that were being submitted fell into two distinct classes; 1) True corrections, where the original transcriber had made an error, and was being asked to correct that error 2) Improvements, typically where the transcriber had used the UCF due to unclear source. The latter class are not best dealt with via the corrections route. If a transcriber couldn't read something, and transcribed it accordingly, they are unlikely to be able to make the correction. What has happened is that we have identified a more apropriate way of handling the latter class. We have developed a good system, and nobodies drive to improve the databse is suppressed. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

Quoting John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk>: > If.... "Discussion is still ongoing.", then why not have those discussions > ON this list instead of behind closed doors? Because, once any issue has been flagged up, and we have a measure of the broad feelings about that issue, it is impractical to thrash out the minutiae in a mass discussion. It is in the best interests of the project that issues are resolved quickly and effectively. It is not in the interests of the project that we discuss each one interminably. > It makes it seem like "US" and "THEM" FreeBMD is not a democracy! We do take "views from the floor" into account in all our decision making. It would be foolish to do otherwise, and wasteful of the mass of expertise out there. However, at the end of the day, we do need to manage the project efficiently and coherently. That means that the actual decisions are taken by those to whom responsibility for managing various aspects has been devolved by the trustees. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

If..... "The individual has now ceased the practice of systematic corrections",...... then I wonder why this is? Did you ask them to stop Allan?? Surely we should have a good system of handling corrections instead of suppressing a persons drive to increase accuracy of the database? John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:23 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Correction Requests Jennifer To add to Dave's separate comments. I had my own personal concerns about what appeared to be a systematic approach to multiple error corrections. Following my initial response to your query on 6 March 2004 I've been actively involved with other members of the Project team on the way forward. I've identified the instigator of the large number of systematic corrections and we've finally been in contact with each other within the last couple of days. This individual was working on his own initiative to improve the accuracy of our records and assumed his systematic methodology in identifying and reporting any perceived errors would aid the Project. Whilst the accuracy of his correction reports is not in doubt the method by which he generated them is of concern , based on your and other volunteers comments. The individual has now ceased the practice of systematic corrections and it would be impractical to backtractck on the corrections issued to date. I would however recommend that any corrections which have been sent to volunteers are acted upon if the corrections are deemed to be valid. As Dave mentioned we are still discussing the issue and will report back when we have something more positive. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: CLARK1528@aol.com <CLARK1528@aol.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 14 March 2004 22:00 Subject: Re: Correction Requests >Then, I guess I'm back to my original question: > >Could we please be informed how our records are being checked so that we can >understand why we are getting multiple requests to make corrections to an >individual file rather than one request with multiple corrections. > >I am now up to at least 10 separate requests to correct one particular file. >And, this is happening with multiple files. > >One would think that pages are checked from beginning to end, with errors >noted, then going on to the next page. But, this is not what appears to be >happening. > >Thank you, >Jennifer Clark > >In a message dated 3/14/04 2:39:11 PM Central Standard Time, >david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk writes: >Discussion is still ongoing. > >However, that discussion is centred around whether there are certain >types of correction which are unlikely to result in transcribers >making changes in accordance with TWYS. > >There is a possibility that we will refine the filtering of >corrections to cut out some of the ones that tend simply to waste the >time of transcribers. > >However the advice to transcribers as to how they should deal with >corrections received will not change, and it will not be practical to >tell each transcriber which corrections already sent would not have >been sent under the new guidelines, so there is no point in holding >back from dealing with corrections that you have already received. > >-- >Dave Mayall > > >============================== >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 --- 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

If.... "Discussion is still ongoing.", then why not have those discussions ON this list instead of behind closed doors? It makes it seem like "US" and "THEM" John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Dave Mayall [mailto:david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:37 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Correction Requests On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:10:36 EST, you wrote: >Just wondering if there has been progress on this issue? I've gotten a >number of correction requests this past week and am holding on to them pending a >decision. Discussion is still ongoing. However, that discussion is centred around whether there are certain types of correction which are unlikely to result in transcribers making changes in accordance with TWYS. There is a possibility that we will refine the filtering of corrections to cut out some of the ones that tend simply to waste the time of transcribers. However the advice to transcribers as to how they should deal with corrections received will not change, and it will not be practical to tell each transcriber which corrections already sent would not have been sent under the new guidelines, so there is no point in holding back from dealing with corrections that you have already received. -- Dave Mayall ============================== 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