Chris Preece asked :- > For the moment quality source material is not always available, but I have > found that a second copy from LDS of the same source is sometimes helpful. Are > there any other ways of obtaining quality material? This may raise a hackle or two, but whenever I use '1837online' I take the opportunity to download any scans which have troubled me. At effectively 10 pence per page this is cheaper than occasional visits to my nearest Records Office which I used to do and often the scans are of better quality; sometimes however they look just the same. I can then edit my uploaded files with corrections especially to any unreadable characters. Ted

Ruth, With single corrections it is far easier to go into your file management, find the file and click on 'View/Edit' and make the correction directly. I upload a large number of processed files from one-name contributors. Since the files are theirs they are asked to accept the corrections first, and I feel this is right. I certainly take your point about whether it is appropriate to make the correction when you still cannot be certain of the character(s). Clearly where the automated checking procedure has identified a mismatch between two transcriptions of the same entry then a third, definitive view should prevail. The question then becomes one of whether the checkers should be able to correct files directly. Peter Hendy-Ibbs >Each one requires me to track down >the image on my C: drive or from the FreeBMD website; find the original >file I keyed; amend it in WinBMD; upload to FreeBMD; upload to Scan2. >Quite a performance for one entry! >

Hiya all Maybe I'm confused about this, but I would have thought that if someone has a better idea of an entry which is based on a different source, then that correction should be made as a separate entry to the Database, quoting the alternative source (i.e. like double keying). Any transcriptions that we are doing are based on a particular source and quote the source in the header, so surely changing these based on a different source would muck up the system? Although if the correction is obvious based on the original scan (typist-error) then I agree that these should be amended... Anyway, that's what occurred to me BFN Angie (Scan2) > -----Original Message----- > From: Homer15king@aol.com [mailto:Homer15king@aol.com] > Sent: 05 March 2004 12:47 > To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Systematic correction requests > > > Hi All, > > I don't really mind receiving the correction requests because > some of them > have shown up my errors. I agree its a bit of a nuisance that > they come in a > piecemeal fashion and I don't suppose anything can be done to > alter that because > of they way that corrections can come to notice in a piecemeal manner. > What concerns me is that someone has obviously found what is presumably a > clearer source and I am asked to check my transcription but I > check against the > less clear source and the characters are still as uncertain as > they have always > been. I am therefore left with a dilemma do I; > i) follow TWYS and leave my transcription as is and > incomplete/"incorrect" or > ii) convince myself that I can see the correction as pointed out > and alter my > transcription in the hope that the database becomes more accurate as a > result. > > (I have been following the first choice as suggested by the > e-mail received) > but perhaps someone with greater oversight of the entire project > can enlighten > us as to whether such correction suggestions will be looked at > again in the > fullness of time having regard to the source quoted by the > corrector with a > view to making our database more accurate which must be the > ultimate aim of us > all. It would seem a shame to lose this 'corrected' data just > because I can't be > sure if it's correct or not. > > Phil E > > > ==== 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 > >

Corrections to our typos are always most welcome, but I can understand Volunteer Transcriber (VT) Joe Bloggs getting a little miffed when he has not been given the opportunity of seeing the new improved source from which the corrections are being extracted. When new sources become available it would seem reasonable to advise the VT's involved and give them the chance of resubmitting their ambiguous files! Would this be possible? For the moment quality source material is not always available, but I have found that a second copy from LDS of the same source is sometimes helpful. Are there any other ways of obtaining quality material? Best wishes Chris Preece Barossa South Oz > ---------- > From: Anne Cruise[SMTP:anne.cruise@ntlworld.com] > Sent: 05 March 2004 09:26 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Systematic correction requests > > Hi! > > I don't wish to add much to this debate, but I would like to point out > that Kevin, the Corrections Coordinator, doesn't have a marvellous > insight into how many corrections are going to be reported, by users of > FreeBMD who have information that they report to him to say "our" > transcription is incorrect! > > The process is fairly automated and the email is standardised. If the > correction is one for the District, it may come from the District > Aliasing Team, is likely to be combined with other corrections from the > same file, and will refer only to the last month's uploads. Otherwise > you may receive a whole series of corrections - any outsider can "help" > by submitting the results of their day out at the local LDS! > > The sentence > > "I believe that the source is Valid, and if it is not our scan image, it > is > > possibly a source of better quality than our scan image. This correction > > request has been checked by the correction cordinator and is > > believed to be correct." > > is an attempt to show that the source quoted by the "correction > submitter" refers to a valid source (not "my gran said she was born...") > and the "possibly" tries to indicate that if your "error" is a UCF, then > the quoted source _may_ be a better one. The District Aliasing Team may > refer to the FreeBMD scan, though. Kevin himself does not check out the > source - he checks the validity only, which is the reason he only > "believes" the correction to be worth making! > > The end of the email gives you the opportunity to amend or not amend, > and report to Kevin which choice was yours. > > The files are registered in your name - they are "yours" - and if the > central team tried to amend them all - firstly they could forget about > their normal lives! and secondly, the furore from some trannies would be > immense! ("How dare someone alter..."). > > I hope this has helped in the understanding of the processes at work > here. > > -- > Anne > > > John and Val Turner wrote: > > > > I was contemplating a mail along similar lines when I read this one from > > Ruth. I too am receiving frequent requests for multiple corrections - |I > > have completed about 30 items, and have about another 50 waiting for > > attention. Some of these relate to errors I have made (for which thank you) > > but quite a few are concerned with characters that I couldn't read when I > > downloaded the scan - and still can't be definite about the second time > > around - therefore asking me to make a decision about them seems > pointless. > > The requests are accompanied by the comment > > > > "I believe that the source is Valid, and if it is not our scan image, it is > > possibly a source of better quality than our scan image. This correction > > request has been checked by the correction cordinator and is > > believed to be correct." > > Does this imply that I should "correct" my version even if I still feel the > > character is ambiguous? This seems to go aganst the TWYS guidance. > > > > It is also quite a chore to have to re-visit the same file to check out > > first one uncertainty then another - hence the backlog. > > > > I certainly don't have any problem with correcting genuine errors, but it > > would help enormously if all requests relating to a particular file could > be > > sent together, and if I could also reference the better quality scans that > > the "corrector" appears to have access to. I realise also that this may be > > an issue relating to a particular syndicate rather than a general FREEBMD > > issue. If it's inappropriate for this mailing list I apologise. > > > > Val > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ruth" <subs@history.fslife.co.uk> > > To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 6:51 PM > > Subject: Systematic correction requests > > > > > I'm receiving a large number of correction requests from the FreeBMD > > > Corrections Coordinator. These have all been reported by the same > > > person and relate to scattered pages from 1902 marriages which I keyed > > > many months ago. Some of the corrections are for genuine typing errors > > > - others are for where I've used unreadable character coding. > > > > > > I believe all of the pages involved have been second keyed by another > > > Scan2 member and so assume that someone is systematically going through > > > mismatches and sorting out corrections. > > > > > > Obviously I have no problem with us all trying to make the transcription > > > even more accurate than it currently is, but I have a number of > > > questions which I'm hoping someone can help me with. > > > > > > * Is there a full checking exercise underway? I'm feeling rather picked > > > on at the moment and am sure that cannot be the intention! > > > * If there is a checking exercise underway, I had understood that second > > > keying by Scan2 members didn't count, as we were using the same source > > > material. Has that policy changed? (I certainly think it should be > > > changed, as this comparison is throwing up typing errors and resolving > > > them.) > > > * Is there not a more efficient way of implementing the corrections? > > > I've received several emails. Some have referred to a page which I've > > > already corrected for another entry. Each one requires me to track down > > > the image on my C: drive or from the FreeBMD website; find the original > > > file I keyed; amend it in WinBMD; upload to FreeBMD; upload to Scan2. > > > Quite a performance for one entry! Surely if there's a comprehensive > > > exercise being undertaken by experienced checkers, they should be able > > > to implement the corrections as they go - a much more efficient use of > > > time, especially as currently every correction has to be tracked, > > > presumably in case the transcriber fails to implement it. > > > * Even if it's not possible to implement a more streamlined procedure > > > for most corrections, what is the point in sending me corrections where > > > I've been unable to decipher the character and have had to give two > > > options? I've already given it my best shot. If the person correcting > > > has a clearer source material then surely they should implement the > > > correction? This isn't a question of not being able to decipher > > > handwriting and suddenly seeing it when someone else points it out. > > > This is illegible typescript. > > > > > > Sorry for such a long email, but I haven't seen anyone else raise this > > > and it seems the right time to do so. > > > > > > Ruth > > > ============================== > 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 > >

Hi! I don't wish to add much to this debate, but I would like to point out that Kevin, the Corrections Coordinator, doesn't have a marvellous insight into how many corrections are going to be reported, by users of FreeBMD who have information that they report to him to say "our" transcription is incorrect! The process is fairly automated and the email is standardised. If the correction is one for the District, it may come from the District Aliasing Team, is likely to be combined with other corrections from the same file, and will refer only to the last month's uploads. Otherwise you may receive a whole series of corrections - any outsider can "help" by submitting the results of their day out at the local LDS! The sentence "I believe that the source is Valid, and if it is not our scan image, it is > possibly a source of better quality than our scan image. This correction > request has been checked by the correction cordinator and is > believed to be correct." is an attempt to show that the source quoted by the "correction submitter" refers to a valid source (not "my gran said she was born...") and the "possibly" tries to indicate that if your "error" is a UCF, then the quoted source _may_ be a better one. The District Aliasing Team may refer to the FreeBMD scan, though. Kevin himself does not check out the source - he checks the validity only, which is the reason he only "believes" the correction to be worth making! The end of the email gives you the opportunity to amend or not amend, and report to Kevin which choice was yours. The files are registered in your name - they are "yours" - and if the central team tried to amend them all - firstly they could forget about their normal lives! and secondly, the furore from some trannies would be immense! ("How dare someone alter..."). I hope this has helped in the understanding of the processes at work here. -- Anne John and Val Turner wrote: > > I was contemplating a mail along similar lines when I read this one from > Ruth. I too am receiving frequent requests for multiple corrections - |I > have completed about 30 items, and have about another 50 waiting for > attention. Some of these relate to errors I have made (for which thank you) > but quite a few are concerned with characters that I couldn't read when I > downloaded the scan - and still can't be definite about the second time > around - therefore asking me to make a decision about them seems pointless. > The requests are accompanied by the comment > > "I believe that the source is Valid, and if it is not our scan image, it is > possibly a source of better quality than our scan image. This correction > request has been checked by the correction cordinator and is > believed to be correct." > Does this imply that I should "correct" my version even if I still feel the > character is ambiguous? This seems to go aganst the TWYS guidance. > > It is also quite a chore to have to re-visit the same file to check out > first one uncertainty then another - hence the backlog. > > I certainly don't have any problem with correcting genuine errors, but it > would help enormously if all requests relating to a particular file could be > sent together, and if I could also reference the better quality scans that > the "corrector" appears to have access to. I realise also that this may be > an issue relating to a particular syndicate rather than a general FREEBMD > issue. If it's inappropriate for this mailing list I apologise. > > Val > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ruth" <subs@history.fslife.co.uk> > To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 6:51 PM > Subject: Systematic correction requests > > > I'm receiving a large number of correction requests from the FreeBMD > > Corrections Coordinator. These have all been reported by the same > > person and relate to scattered pages from 1902 marriages which I keyed > > many months ago. Some of the corrections are for genuine typing errors > > - others are for where I've used unreadable character coding. > > > > I believe all of the pages involved have been second keyed by another > > Scan2 member and so assume that someone is systematically going through > > mismatches and sorting out corrections. > > > > Obviously I have no problem with us all trying to make the transcription > > even more accurate than it currently is, but I have a number of > > questions which I'm hoping someone can help me with. > > > > * Is there a full checking exercise underway? I'm feeling rather picked > > on at the moment and am sure that cannot be the intention! > > * If there is a checking exercise underway, I had understood that second > > keying by Scan2 members didn't count, as we were using the same source > > material. Has that policy changed? (I certainly think it should be > > changed, as this comparison is throwing up typing errors and resolving > > them.) > > * Is there not a more efficient way of implementing the corrections? > > I've received several emails. Some have referred to a page which I've > > already corrected for another entry. Each one requires me to track down > > the image on my C: drive or from the FreeBMD website; find the original > > file I keyed; amend it in WinBMD; upload to FreeBMD; upload to Scan2. > > Quite a performance for one entry! Surely if there's a comprehensive > > exercise being undertaken by experienced checkers, they should be able > > to implement the corrections as they go - a much more efficient use of > > time, especially as currently every correction has to be tracked, > > presumably in case the transcriber fails to implement it. > > * Even if it's not possible to implement a more streamlined procedure > > for most corrections, what is the point in sending me corrections where > > I've been unable to decipher the character and have had to give two > > options? I've already given it my best shot. If the person correcting > > has a clearer source material then surely they should implement the > > correction? This isn't a question of not being able to decipher > > handwriting and suddenly seeing it when someone else points it out. > > This is illegible typescript. > > > > Sorry for such a long email, but I haven't seen anyone else raise this > > and it seems the right time to do so. > > > > Ruth

I was contemplating a mail along similar lines when I read this one from Ruth. I too am receiving frequent requests for multiple corrections - |I have completed about 30 items, and have about another 50 waiting for attention. Some of these relate to errors I have made (for which thank you) but quite a few are concerned with characters that I couldn't read when I downloaded the scan - and still can't be definite about the second time around - therefore asking me to make a decision about them seems pointless. The requests are accompanied by the comment "I believe that the source is Valid, and if it is not our scan image, it is possibly a source of better quality than our scan image. This correction request has been checked by the correction cordinator and is believed to be correct." Does this imply that I should "correct" my version even if I still feel the character is ambiguous? This seems to go aganst the TWYS guidance. It is also quite a chore to have to re-visit the same file to check out first one uncertainty then another - hence the backlog. I certainly don't have any problem with correcting genuine errors, but it would help enormously if all requests relating to a particular file could be sent together, and if I could also reference the better quality scans that the "corrector" appears to have access to. I realise also that this may be an issue relating to a particular syndicate rather than a general FREEBMD issue. If it's inappropriate for this mailing list I apologise. Val ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ruth" <subs@history.fslife.co.uk> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 6:51 PM Subject: Systematic correction requests > I'm receiving a large number of correction requests from the FreeBMD > Corrections Coordinator. These have all been reported by the same > person and relate to scattered pages from 1902 marriages which I keyed > many months ago. Some of the corrections are for genuine typing errors > - others are for where I've used unreadable character coding. > > I believe all of the pages involved have been second keyed by another > Scan2 member and so assume that someone is systematically going through > mismatches and sorting out corrections. > > Obviously I have no problem with us all trying to make the transcription > even more accurate than it currently is, but I have a number of > questions which I'm hoping someone can help me with. > > * Is there a full checking exercise underway? I'm feeling rather picked > on at the moment and am sure that cannot be the intention! > * If there is a checking exercise underway, I had understood that second > keying by Scan2 members didn't count, as we were using the same source > material. Has that policy changed? (I certainly think it should be > changed, as this comparison is throwing up typing errors and resolving > them.) > * Is there not a more efficient way of implementing the corrections? > I've received several emails. Some have referred to a page which I've > already corrected for another entry. Each one requires me to track down > the image on my C: drive or from the FreeBMD website; find the original > file I keyed; amend it in WinBMD; upload to FreeBMD; upload to Scan2. > Quite a performance for one entry! Surely if there's a comprehensive > exercise being undertaken by experienced checkers, they should be able > to implement the corrections as they go - a much more efficient use of > time, especially as currently every correction has to be tracked, > presumably in case the transcriber fails to implement it. > * Even if it's not possible to implement a more streamlined procedure > for most corrections, what is the point in sending me corrections where > I've been unable to decipher the character and have had to give two > options? I've already given it my best shot. If the person correcting > has a clearer source material then surely they should implement the > correction? This isn't a question of not being able to decipher > handwriting and suddenly seeing it when someone else points it out. > This is illegible typescript. > > Sorry for such a long email, but I haven't seen anyone else raise this > and it seems the right time to do so. > > Ruth > > > > ============================== > 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'm receiving a large number of correction requests from the FreeBMD Corrections Coordinator. These have all been reported by the same person and relate to scattered pages from 1902 marriages which I keyed many months ago. Some of the corrections are for genuine typing errors - others are for where I've used unreadable character coding. I believe all of the pages involved have been second keyed by another Scan2 member and so assume that someone is systematically going through mismatches and sorting out corrections. Obviously I have no problem with us all trying to make the transcription even more accurate than it currently is, but I have a number of questions which I'm hoping someone can help me with. * Is there a full checking exercise underway? I'm feeling rather picked on at the moment and am sure that cannot be the intention! * If there is a checking exercise underway, I had understood that second keying by Scan2 members didn't count, as we were using the same source material. Has that policy changed? (I certainly think it should be changed, as this comparison is throwing up typing errors and resolving them.) * Is there not a more efficient way of implementing the corrections? I've received several emails. Some have referred to a page which I've already corrected for another entry. Each one requires me to track down the image on my C: drive or from the FreeBMD website; find the original file I keyed; amend it in WinBMD; upload to FreeBMD; upload to Scan2. Quite a performance for one entry! Surely if there's a comprehensive exercise being undertaken by experienced checkers, they should be able to implement the corrections as they go - a much more efficient use of time, especially as currently every correction has to be tracked, presumably in case the transcriber fails to implement it. * Even if it's not possible to implement a more streamlined procedure for most corrections, what is the point in sending me corrections where I've been unable to decipher the character and have had to give two options? I've already given it my best shot. If the person correcting has a clearer source material then surely they should implement the correction? This isn't a question of not being able to decipher handwriting and suddenly seeing it when someone else points it out. This is illegible typescript. Sorry for such a long email, but I haven't seen anyone else raise this and it seems the right time to do so. Ruth

Ruth you are definitely not alone. I get one or two a week and it is a relatively labourious process. I agree with your comments Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ruth" <subs@history.fslife.co.uk> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:51 PM Subject: Systematic correction requests > I'm receiving a large number of correction requests from the FreeBMD > Corrections Coordinator. These have all been reported by the same > person and relate to scattered pages from 1902 marriages which I keyed > many months ago. Some of the corrections are for genuine typing errors > - others are for where I've used unreadable character coding. > > I believe all of the pages involved have been second keyed by another > Scan2 member and so assume that someone is systematically going through > mismatches and sorting out corrections. > > Obviously I have no problem with us all trying to make the transcription > even more accurate than it currently is, but I have a number of > questions which I'm hoping someone can help me with. > > * Is there a full checking exercise underway? I'm feeling rather picked > on at the moment and am sure that cannot be the intention! > * If there is a checking exercise underway, I had understood that second > keying by Scan2 members didn't count, as we were using the same source > material. Has that policy changed? (I certainly think it should be > changed, as this comparison is throwing up typing errors and resolving > them.) > * Is there not a more efficient way of implementing the corrections? > I've received several emails. Some have referred to a page which I've > already corrected for another entry. Each one requires me to track down > the image on my C: drive or from the FreeBMD website; find the original > file I keyed; amend it in WinBMD; upload to FreeBMD; upload to Scan2. > Quite a performance for one entry! Surely if there's a comprehensive > exercise being undertaken by experienced checkers, they should be able > to implement the corrections as they go - a much more efficient use of > time, especially as currently every correction has to be tracked, > presumably in case the transcriber fails to implement it. > * Even if it's not possible to implement a more streamlined procedure > for most corrections, what is the point in sending me corrections where > I've been unable to decipher the character and have had to give two > options? I've already given it my best shot. If the person correcting > has a clearer source material then surely they should implement the > correction? This isn't a question of not being able to decipher > handwriting and suddenly seeing it when someone else points it out. > This is illegible typescript. > > Sorry for such a long email, but I haven't seen anyone else raise this > and it seems the right time to do so. > > Ruth > > > > ============================== > 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 > >

The latest update shows increases of 2,619,750 in the total number of records; 2,088,796 in the number of distinct records; and 2,048,754 in the number of unique records. As explained last time, I have based this analysis on "distinct" records. There are 1,344,466 more Births. The big increases are for 1878 with 498,687, 1907 with 136,542, 1887 with 128,505 and 1879 with 115,062 but there 5 other years with increases over 25K: 1886 (63,952); 1844 (60,607); 1891 (54,284); 1842 (29,993) and 1861 (26,381) There are 245,998 more Marriages. The biggest increase is (again) 1907 with 154,495 and there is only 1 other year with an increase in excess of 13K records: 1897 (22,719) There are 498,332 more Deaths. The big increase is again for 1910 with 81,138 but there 7 other years with increases over 20K: 1888 (58,811); 1886 (53,499); 1852 (51,918); 1847 (31,239); 1865 (27,877); 1853 (25,197) and 1859 (24,954) A good example of the difference between Total and Distinct records this time is 1871 Births - total records have increased by 156,141 (from 1,223,450 to 1,379,591) but distinct records have only increased by 12,140 (from 832,361 to 844,501). Obviously second keying is making rapid progress here. Happy searching/transcribing Peter Dauncey

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 05:03:51 -0700, you wrote: >Great Site >To prevent unnecessary searches when site has been updated why not disclose >:- >Which events ie B M or D years and quarters NOT updated since the previous >update. >This will prevent people accessing the events and years where nothing has >happened since the last update We always update the WHOLE database. There are no bits that aren't updated. -- Dave Mayall

Great Site To prevent unnecessary searches when site has been updated why not disclose :- Which events ie B M or D years and quarters NOT updated since the previous update. This will prevent people accessing the events and years where nothing has happened since the last update All the best John Phillips

Quoting Frank Hodgson <frank@hodgson76.freeserve.co.uk>: > My trancriber page is showing an error for 1902B1 0299 - "The volume cannot > be the same on consecutive lines, got '11a' (JOHN, Elizabeth, > Pontypridd,11a,587" > > Column two of this page quite clearly lists a great many entries for volume > 11a, including groups, on consecutive lines, of 18, 3, 6, 12, 20, 14, 5, and > 2,plus some single entries. The page numbers are all different. > > As I have typed what I saw this does not seem to be an error. I remember > seeing some mention of this type of error message on this list in the past > but I'm afraid I can't recall the outcome. How do I deal with this, please? You don't! The error is ours (discovered earlier today), and we will fix it. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

My trancriber page is showing an error for 1902B1 0299 - "The volume cannot be the same on consecutive lines, got '11a' (JOHN, Elizabeth, Pontypridd,11a,587" Column two of this page quite clearly lists a great many entries for volume 11a, including groups, on consecutive lines, of 18, 3, 6, 12, 20, 14, 5, and 2,plus some single entries. The page numbers are all different. As I have typed what I saw this does not seem to be an error. I remember seeing some mention of this type of error message on this list in the past but I'm afraid I can't recall the outcome. How do I deal with this, please? Frank Hodgson North Yorkshire

Hi Lorraine, It is already possible to do that very search, and I have found several relatives that way - but don't put a space between the * and the name or it won't work. You can test it out on Clark, first name *Leaver - you'll get 3 results. Regards Sue Smith Family Web Site: http://www.harriesfamily.net/index.html -----Original Message----- From: Loraine [mailto:Lol_barnes@lineone.net] Sent: 19 February 2004 21:50 To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Middle Name search Hi.. Some while ago, as a result of a link from Sue Burton's postings to this and the admins list I visited a site that allowed one to trawl through the Latter Day Saints genealogical website (www.familysearch.org) searching on the middle name. Is it, or would it be, possible to enable that sort of search on FreeBMD? We have a very distinctive middle name in one branch of my family, used in either second or third place, but although I have tried searching for ' * McClellan + surname ' I do not get any results returned. I am sure there are others like me who would wish to search on middle names, perhaps because the ancestor was only ever called by their middle name and everyone has forgotten the first, except perhaps the initial., or even that detail has been lost in the mists of time but a reasonable approximation of DoB and district is known. It would help pin down some elusive relatives. Any chance, please Loraine ============================== 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

Hi.. Some while ago, as a result of a link from Sue Burton's postings to this and the admins list I visited a site that allowed one to trawl through the Latter Day Saints genealogical website (www.familysearch.org) searching on the middle name. Is it, or would it be, possible to enable that sort of search on FreeBMD? We have a very distinctive middle name in one branch of my family, used in either second or third place, but although I have tried searching for ' * McClellan + surname ' I do not get any results returned. I am sure there are others like me who would wish to search on middle names, perhaps because the ancestor was only ever called by their middle name and everyone has forgotten the first, except perhaps the initial., or even that detail has been lost in the mists of time but a reasonable approximation of DoB and district is known. It would help pin down some elusive relatives. Any chance, please Loraine

Hi everyone, I'm a newbie and haven't been transcribing very long. It bothers me that there are numbers or letters that I simply can't see clearly enough, so I'll be very happy with corrections. I know how I'd feel if I got the wrong information from the site. When I first started transcribing I noticed there was a tool that sort of hovered over the page and you could enlarge a small section....... well, it seems to have gone walkabout almost from the first day. Is there any way I can retrieve it from wherever it went? :) margaret in curl curl . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Preece" <Chris.Preece@unisa.edu.au> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Corrections > I was pleased and dismayed to receive a correction request recently!! > Dismayed to learn that I had made an idiot mistake and pleased to know that the > feed back > system is actually working. > The scans may at times be less than best, but if corrections can be made from > clearer sources, then > I don't find that a problem! > I looked at the scan that Kevin had been working on and agree that without > spiritual guidance it > is very difficult to produce a "perfect" entry. > I then turned to an alternative source (which I suspect was exactly the method > adopted by the alias > team) and I was able to read the whole page perfectly!! > Yes! The alias team's correction is exactly right. > Well Done! > Keep the corrections coming! > > Best wishes Chris Preece > Barossa South Oz > > > > ---------- > > From: Dave Mayall[SMTP:david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk] > > Sent: 09 February 2004 22:43 > > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: RE: Corrections > > > > Quoting Brian Smart <brian.smart@blueyonder.co.uk>: > > > > > Hello Dave and Kevin, > > > I am sorry but I do not agree with what is happening. > > > > If there are specific problems, then they can be addressed, but those > > specific > > problems don't IMO negate the value of carrying out corrections. > > > > Also, as I said in my original message, discussion of the rights and wrongs > > of > > how we do things does NOT belong on the syndicates list. Can any further > > discussion please be directed to the DISCUSS list. > > > > > Most of the > > > corrections are coming from the District alias group and as far as I can > > see > > > they are doing what transcribers are told not to do. Assumptions are being > > > made about volumes based on the districts. Some clearly cannot be read but > > > miraculously they are specified in full. There other examples where I would > > > not agree with what is indicated. Look at scan: > > > > > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/GUS/1849/Births/September/UKD-02/I-R/1849B3-R-09 > > > 54.tif > > > > Many corrections come from the District Alias Team, but I don't think "most" > > would be an accurate analysis. > > > > Yes, the team use all the information available to them to try and assist > > with > > their reading of the entries, but at the end of the day, that must be backed > > up by a scan that fits with the extrapolated information. > > > > > and the change proposed below. > > > > > > Current Entry: RABY,Lucy,_landf* _r,XIV,571 > > > Proposed Entry: RABY,Lucy,Glandford B,XIV,371 > > > > > > While 'Glandford B' may be correct, it certainly can't be read, and the > > > correction to the page number is clearly wrong. > > > > I agree that the page number correction seems wrong (although looking at > > other "3"s and "5"s on this page, it isn't as obvious as all that). > > > > As to the reading of the District, I believe that the initial "G" can be made > > > > out quite easily, as can the distinctly separate terminal "B", so what is in > > dispute is "ord" > > > > I see 3 characters, all incomplete, consisting of; > > a small stroke which moves right as it ascends > > a small, heavy stroke which has a uniform right lean > > a longish, light stroke with a more pronounced right lean > > > > Now, looking at the spacing of the marks, it is clear that the first two form > > > > the left of a character, and that the third is the right part of a character. > > > > For each character, it is now necessary to consider which characters the > > extant mark could possibly be a part of. > > > > Worked this way, I don't believe that reading those 3 mards as "ord" is > > unreasonable. > > > > > I know that transcribers have the option of not making the changes but most > > > will believe that if the change comes from an 'official' source, it must be > > > correct. > > > > In which case, part of what must be done is to disabuse them of that notion! > > > > > Most of the changes are the removal of doubt from the entry. You stated: > > > "If we do (leave the errors), it could lead to adverse reactions from > > > searchers who would lose confidence in the FreeBMD database." > > > This is more likely if doubt is removed. At least an incomplete entry will > > > ensure that the entry is fully checked before money is spent on > > > certificates. > > > > I agree that removal of doubt where there is doubt is a bad thing. > > > > > I repeat what I said before, I have serious doubts about this process and > > > changes which are the result of the district alias team seem to be the most > > > questionable. > > > > Where there is a problem, we will fix it. > > > > -- > > Dave Mayall > > > > ---------------------------------------------- > > This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net > > > > > > ============================== > > 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 >

I was pleased and dismayed to receive a correction request recently!! Dismayed to learn that I had made an idiot mistake and pleased to know that the feed back system is actually working. The scans may at times be less than best, but if corrections can be made from clearer sources, then I don't find that a problem! I looked at the scan that Kevin had been working on and agree that without spiritual guidance it is very difficult to produce a "perfect" entry. I then turned to an alternative source (which I suspect was exactly the method adopted by the alias team) and I was able to read the whole page perfectly!! Yes! The alias team's correction is exactly right. Well Done! Keep the corrections coming! Best wishes Chris Preece Barossa South Oz > ---------- > From: Dave Mayall[SMTP:david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk] > Sent: 09 February 2004 22:43 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: RE: Corrections > > Quoting Brian Smart <brian.smart@blueyonder.co.uk>: > > > Hello Dave and Kevin, > > I am sorry but I do not agree with what is happening. > > If there are specific problems, then they can be addressed, but those > specific > problems don't IMO negate the value of carrying out corrections. > > Also, as I said in my original message, discussion of the rights and wrongs > of > how we do things does NOT belong on the syndicates list. Can any further > discussion please be directed to the DISCUSS list. > > > Most of the > > corrections are coming from the District alias group and as far as I can > see > > they are doing what transcribers are told not to do. Assumptions are being > > made about volumes based on the districts. Some clearly cannot be read but > > miraculously they are specified in full. There other examples where I would > > not agree with what is indicated. Look at scan: > > > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/GUS/1849/Births/September/UKD-02/I-R/1849B3-R-09 > > 54.tif > > Many corrections come from the District Alias Team, but I don't think "most" > would be an accurate analysis. > > Yes, the team use all the information available to them to try and assist > with > their reading of the entries, but at the end of the day, that must be backed > up by a scan that fits with the extrapolated information. > > > and the change proposed below. > > > > Current Entry: RABY,Lucy,_landf* _r,XIV,571 > > Proposed Entry: RABY,Lucy,Glandford B,XIV,371 > > > > While 'Glandford B' may be correct, it certainly can't be read, and the > > correction to the page number is clearly wrong. > > I agree that the page number correction seems wrong (although looking at > other "3"s and "5"s on this page, it isn't as obvious as all that). > > As to the reading of the District, I believe that the initial "G" can be made > > out quite easily, as can the distinctly separate terminal "B", so what is in > dispute is "ord" > > I see 3 characters, all incomplete, consisting of; > a small stroke which moves right as it ascends > a small, heavy stroke which has a uniform right lean > a longish, light stroke with a more pronounced right lean > > Now, looking at the spacing of the marks, it is clear that the first two form > > the left of a character, and that the third is the right part of a character. > > For each character, it is now necessary to consider which characters the > extant mark could possibly be a part of. > > Worked this way, I don't believe that reading those 3 mards as "ord" is > unreasonable. > > > I know that transcribers have the option of not making the changes but most > > will believe that if the change comes from an 'official' source, it must be > > correct. > > In which case, part of what must be done is to disabuse them of that notion! > > > Most of the changes are the removal of doubt from the entry. You stated: > > "If we do (leave the errors), it could lead to adverse reactions from > > searchers who would lose confidence in the FreeBMD database." > > This is more likely if doubt is removed. At least an incomplete entry will > > ensure that the entry is fully checked before money is spent on > > certificates. > > I agree that removal of doubt where there is doubt is a bad thing. > > > I repeat what I said before, I have serious doubts about this process and > > changes which are the result of the district alias team seem to be the most > > questionable. > > Where there is a problem, we will fix it. > > -- > Dave Mayall > > ---------------------------------------------- > This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net > > > ============================== > 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 > >

----- Original Message ----- From: "Sue Smith" <suenchris@ukonline.co.uk> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:16 PM Subject: Wrong district numbers > You shouldn't assume that the District number is wrong - it may well be the > District Name. I spent some time looking for the birth of a "relative" in > Rotherhithe, and it took 3 revisits to the ledger before I realised that the > entry I wanted was there, with a district name of Rotherham, but with a > district number of 1d. Exactly so! My clasic example (real) is Hayfield 3a The transcriber was troubled by TWYS, and wondered whether it wouldn't be better to "correct" the volume to 7b That would have been disasterous, as it was actually the district that was wrong (proved by looking at page ranges), and a more appropriate correction would have been Hatfield 3a Making corrections based on a theory of what was right would in that case, have made the entry even more incorrect.

You shouldn't assume that the District number is wrong - it may well be the District Name. I spent some time looking for the birth of a "relative" in Rotherhithe, and it took 3 revisits to the ledger before I realised that the entry I wanted was there, with a district name of Rotherham, but with a district number of 1d. Sue Smith

Quoting Brian Smart <brian.smart@blueyonder.co.uk>: > Hello Dave and Kevin, > I am sorry but I do not agree with what is happening. If there are specific problems, then they can be addressed, but those specific problems don't IMO negate the value of carrying out corrections. Also, as I said in my original message, discussion of the rights and wrongs of how we do things does NOT belong on the syndicates list. Can any further discussion please be directed to the DISCUSS list. > Most of the > corrections are coming from the District alias group and as far as I can see > they are doing what transcribers are told not to do. Assumptions are being > made about volumes based on the districts. Some clearly cannot be read but > miraculously they are specified in full. There other examples where I would > not agree with what is indicated. Look at scan: > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/GUS/1849/Births/September/UKD-02/I-R/1849B3-R-09 > 54.tif Many corrections come from the District Alias Team, but I don't think "most" would be an accurate analysis. Yes, the team use all the information available to them to try and assist with their reading of the entries, but at the end of the day, that must be backed up by a scan that fits with the extrapolated information. > and the change proposed below. > > Current Entry: RABY,Lucy,_landf* _r,XIV,571 > Proposed Entry: RABY,Lucy,Glandford B,XIV,371 > > While 'Glandford B' may be correct, it certainly can't be read, and the > correction to the page number is clearly wrong. I agree that the page number correction seems wrong (although looking at other "3"s and "5"s on this page, it isn't as obvious as all that). As to the reading of the District, I believe that the initial "G" can be made out quite easily, as can the distinctly separate terminal "B", so what is in dispute is "ord" I see 3 characters, all incomplete, consisting of; a small stroke which moves right as it ascends a small, heavy stroke which has a uniform right lean a longish, light stroke with a more pronounced right lean Now, looking at the spacing of the marks, it is clear that the first two form the left of a character, and that the third is the right part of a character. For each character, it is now necessary to consider which characters the extant mark could possibly be a part of. Worked this way, I don't believe that reading those 3 mards as "ord" is unreasonable. > I know that transcribers have the option of not making the changes but most > will believe that if the change comes from an 'official' source, it must be > correct. In which case, part of what must be done is to disabuse them of that notion! > Most of the changes are the removal of doubt from the entry. You stated: > "If we do (leave the errors), it could lead to adverse reactions from > searchers who would lose confidence in the FreeBMD database." > This is more likely if doubt is removed. At least an incomplete entry will > ensure that the entry is fully checked before money is spent on > certificates. I agree that removal of doubt where there is doubt is a bad thing. > I repeat what I said before, I have serious doubts about this process and > changes which are the result of the district alias team seem to be the most > questionable. Where there is a problem, we will fix it. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net