Something I would like to mention because it is troubling my conscience - I have just encountered, on the same fiche, two cases of a wrong district number. One puts Teesdale in 10b - it should be 10a - and the other puts Whitechapel into 8c - should be 1c. I have TWYSed both - therefore wrongly. But what happens if someone searches on the correct district number - would they find these entries? Maybe you programmers have this point covered but I wondered if I could just check? __________________________________________________________ Keith Sayers, Canberra, Australia kmsayers@pcug.org.au Mail : 6 Clambe Place, CHARNWOOD, ACT 2615 http://www.pcug.org.au/~kmsayers ----------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- > Sorry, Dave, you have the example wrong! > > The results would be: > 80 total > 43 distinct > 40 unique > > Your juxtaposition of the meaning of 'distinct' and 'unique' is probably > more logical, but 'distinct' was being used already in the current sense. :-) You are correct! Which also sorts out Allan's question :-) _________end of Original Message _____________________ This explanation seems to imply that "distinct" should always be larger than "unique" And in most cases this is indeed the case - see http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/db-stats.html I'm now struggling to think of an explanation for the exceptions - eg. marriages 1839, 1841, 1848, 1850, 1852; and births 1840. It seems to imply that the normal code (ie the code that produces the "distinct" count) sometimes over-combines, ie. it combines entries which look similar but are in fact different. Presumably if Jo Bloggs and his widowed dad, also Jo Bloggs, both decide to get married on the same day in the same church and appear on the same page in the marriage register, this should create two identical index entries. If these two entries are then transcribed by two different people, it would be virtually impossible for the code to distinguish these transcriptions from a double-keying of the same record. But if that's the explanation, how does the new "unique-count" code pick it up? Andrew Gough ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Visit the web site of the Financial Times at http://www.ft.com

At 08:00 PM 3/02/04 -0700, Shirley Serdar wrote: >Hi, is there any syndicate out there still using hard copy pages for transcribing. I do. (I seem to have become a one person syndicate ... ) But I imagine I am a bit far from you - ? :-(= __________________________________________________________ Keith Sayers, Canberra, Australia kmsayers@pcug.org.au Mail : 6 Clambe Place, CHARNWOOD, ACT 2615 http://www.pcug.org.au/~kmsayers ----------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fear not, as soon as I've sorted out another Syndicate where the Co-ordinator has gone missing I will be picking up the Craig Brooks Syndicate to try and get some volunteers on board to complete the allocations given to Craig. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Keith Sayers <kmsayers@pcug.org.au> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 05 February 2004 22:11 Subject: Re: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-D Digest V04 #21 >At 08:00 PM 3/02/04 -0700, Shirley Serdar wrote: > >>Hi, is there any syndicate out there still using hard copy pages for >transcribing. > > I do. (I seem to have become a one person syndicate ... ) But I >imagine I am a bit far from you - ? :-(= > > >__________________________________________________________ >Keith Sayers, Canberra, Australia kmsayers@pcug.org.au >Mail : 6 Clambe Place, >CHARNWOOD, ACT 2615 http://www.pcug.org.au/~kmsayers >---------------------------------------------------------- > > >============================== >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

Shirley The only Syndicate I'm aware that was sending out paper hard copies was John Mellors/John Pain Syndicate. John Mellors will be able to speak for himself on this topic, but from my perspective it is extermely time consuming and expensive to have to send our paper copies by snail mail. I'm aware that John has gone partly if not fully across to the scan format by email to his volunteers. If you can use email you should have no problem in extracting the scan format either direct from the FreeBMD site or via email and printing out a copy at your PC. If you are still having problems, I'm sure we can find somebody who can lead you through the process. Please email me off list or via vol-coord@freebmd.rootsweb.com if you still need help? Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Shirley Serdar <serdars@interhop.net> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 03 February 2004 14:11 Subject: Pages for Transcribing >Hi, is there any syndicate out there still using hard copy pages for transcribing. My syndicate seems to have gone totally scans and I cannot get the hang of it. As a touch typist, I prefer the hard copy. > >If anyone can use a good typist, I already have over 32,000 entries, please respond. > >Shirley Serdar > > >============================== >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: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:55 AM Subject: Re: Latest update > Your explanation has almost clarified it for me. > > Without complicating the issue and to get a better understanding, under what > circumstances would the number of distinct records be greater than the > number of unique records? > > The Database statistics in general for each year/event shows the number of > distinct records to be greater than the unique records. I got my terms wrong! Switch distinct and unique in my explanation, and it should make sense :-)

----- Original Message ----- From: "Archer Barrie" <Barrie.Archer@services.fujitsu.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:14 AM Subject: RE: Latest update > Sorry, Dave, you have the example wrong! > > The results would be: > 80 total > 43 distinct > 40 unique > > Your juxtaposition of the meaning of 'distinct' and 'unique' is probably > more logical, but 'distinct' was being used already in the current sense. :-) You are correct! Which also sorts out Allan's question :-)

Sorry, Dave, you have the example wrong! The results would be: 80 total 43 distinct 40 unique Your juxtaposition of the meaning of 'distinct' and 'unique' is probably more logical, but 'distinct' was being used already in the current sense. Barrie > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Mayall [mailto:dave@research-group.co.uk] > Sent: 03 February 2004 08:35 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Latest update > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Fairlie" <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> > To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 5:50 PM > Subject: RE: Latest update > > > > OK, I give up. Please explain "distinct" records as opposed to > > "Unique" records. > > :-) > > We implemented a solution to solve the overcounting that you > identified! > > Consider a page of 40 entries, double keyed, with 3 entries > transcribed differently by the transcribers. > > That would be 80 total records, it would also be 43 unique > records, giving an overcount of 3 records to the total, and > messing the stats up. > > We now analyse the alignment of unmatched records, and do an > additional count on records which don't actually match, but > which (because of their > sequence) are obviously different transcriptions of the same > entry, and in the distinct records count, onlyu count them > once, thus there would be 40 distinct records. > > This achieves two things; > 1) More accurate stats > 2) Data that tells us about the degree of mismatch between > double keyings (the difference between Unique and distinct is > the number of mismatches) > > ______________________________ >

Your explanation has almost clarified it for me. Without complicating the issue and to get a better understanding, under what circumstances would the number of distinct records be greater than the number of unique records? The Database statistics in general for each year/event shows the number of distinct records to be greater than the unique records. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Dave Mayall <dave@research-group.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 03 February 2004 08:36 Subject: Re: Latest update >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Fairlie" <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 5:50 PM >Subject: RE: Latest update > > >> OK, I give up. Please explain "distinct" records as opposed to "Unique" >> records. > >:-) > >We implemented a solution to solve the overcounting that you identified! > >Consider a page of 40 entries, double keyed, with 3 entries transcribed >differently by the transcribers. > >That would be 80 total records, it would also be 43 unique records, giving >an overcount of 3 records to the total, and messing the stats up. > >We now analyse the alignment of unmatched records, and do an additional >count on records which don't actually match, but which (because of their >sequence) are obviously different transcriptions of the same entry, and in >the distinct records count, onlyu count them once, thus there would be 40 >distinct records. > >This achieves two things; >1) More accurate stats >2) Data that tells us about the degree of mismatch between double keyings >(the difference between Unique and distinct is the number of mismatches) > > > >============================== >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: "John Fairlie" <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: "'Dave Mayall'" <dave@research-group.co.uk>; <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 5:29 PM Subject: RE: Latest update > Dave, (and the masses), > > I've got it, by George, I think I've got it!! > > So, does this mean you are now in a good position to extract those double > keyed records that sort of match up, in as much that they are probably the > same record but with differences, and to put them into the stage where > someone decides the real data and arbitrates?? It is a step along the road to that, yes, but not the complete job. We still need quite a bit more code to handle applying the abitration to the data. > If so, that would reduce the number of unique records closer to the number > of distinct records - yes?? Yes. > So, George, have I got it?? It looks like it.

Shirley, Have you thought of simply printing the scans and then using them as hard copy? Just a suggestion :-)) Loraine

Dave, (and the masses), I've got it, by George, I think I've got it!! So, does this mean you are now in a good position to extract those double keyed records that sort of match up, in as much that they are probably the same record but with differences, and to put them into the stage where someone decides the real data and arbitrates?? If so, that would reduce the number of unique records closer to the number of distinct records - yes?? So, George, have I got it?? 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:dave@research-group.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 8:35 AM To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Latest update ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Fairlie" <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 5:50 PM Subject: RE: Latest update > OK, I give up. Please explain "distinct" records as opposed to "Unique" > records. :-) We implemented a solution to solve the overcounting that you identified! Consider a page of 40 entries, double keyed, with 3 entries transcribed differently by the transcribers. That would be 80 total records, it would also be 43 unique records, giving an overcount of 3 records to the total, and messing the stats up. We now analyse the alignment of unmatched records, and do an additional count on records which don't actually match, but which (because of their sequence) are obviously different transcriptions of the same entry, and in the distinct records count, onlyu count them once, thus there would be 40 distinct records. This achieves two things; 1) More accurate stats 2) Data that tells us about the degree of mismatch between double keyings (the difference between Unique and distinct is the number of mismatches)

I, too, was interested to see what data may have changed with the latest update so I reran some of my saved searches. I was surprised to find that the search displayed many entries already in my saved search as new entries. Secondly when I clicked on 'Show All' to check on deleted entries I found that the 513 deleted entries of one search all seemed to have the same page number 1268. With another two files the 5 deletions in one and 192 in another were all in lower case. Is there any certainty that the file checking facility is only removing dud data? Can you also explain why it was routing some requests through www.legacyfamilytree.com?

----- Original Message ----- From: "John Fairlie" <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 5:50 PM Subject: RE: Latest update > OK, I give up. Please explain "distinct" records as opposed to "Unique" > records. :-) We implemented a solution to solve the overcounting that you identified! Consider a page of 40 entries, double keyed, with 3 entries transcribed differently by the transcribers. That would be 80 total records, it would also be 43 unique records, giving an overcount of 3 records to the total, and messing the stats up. We now analyse the alignment of unmatched records, and do an additional count on records which don't actually match, but which (because of their sequence) are obviously different transcriptions of the same entry, and in the distinct records count, onlyu count them once, thus there would be 40 distinct records. This achieves two things; 1) More accurate stats 2) Data that tells us about the degree of mismatch between double keyings (the difference between Unique and distinct is the number of mismatches)

Hi, is there any syndicate out there still using hard copy pages for transcribing. My syndicate seems to have gone totally scans and I cannot get the hang of it. As a touch typist, I prefer the hard copy. If anyone can use a good typist, I already have over 32,000 entries, please respond. Shirley Serdar

Never give up! Distinct is the number of records counting multiple keyings of a record only once (i.e. this is the number of records that would be returned from a search) Unique is an estimate of the number of unique records, i.e. excluding records that have been keyed more than once but which are nevertheless different. Please check out Index of Graphs at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/statgraphs/ and then click on "See here for an explanation of the different record counts". Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 02 February 2004 17:53 Subject: RE: Latest update >OK, I give up. Please explain "distinct" records as opposed to "Unique" >records. > >John Fairlie >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter Dauncey [mailto:peter@dauncey54.freeserve.co.uk] >Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 12:37 PM >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Latest update > > >The latest update shows increases of 2,594,684 in the total number of >records; 1,122,605 in the number of distinct records; and 1,160,379 in the >number of unique records. > >The Year/Event showing the largest increase in total records is 1875 Births, >but it would be misleading to highlight this as the area most likely to >contain a missing ancestor. Although total records have increased by >452,909 (from 904,599 to 1,357,508), the distinct records have increased by >61,804 (from 824,721 to 886,525) and unique records have increased by just >32,579 (from 815,309 to 847,888). The bulk of the "new" records are second >keying. I have therefore based my analysis on "distinct" records. > >There are 726,701 more Births. The big increases are for 1907 with 180,147 >and 1891 with 121,882 but there are 9 other years with increases over 20K: >1878 (69,939); 1875 (61,804); 1842 (50,092); 1873 (42,956); 1844 (41,035); >1887 (31,564); 1890 (26,017); 1861 (26,004) and 1871 (23,644). > >There are 86,264 less Marriages than before. The only year with a sizeable >increase is 1907 with 43,754. >The major reduction is 1849 with -33,965, but there are 4 other years with >reductions in excess of 10K records. > >There are 482,168 more Deaths. The big increases are for 1910 with 180,147 >and 1888 with 92,860 but there are 4 other years with increases over 16K: >1852 (64,301); 1886 (41,522); 1847 (35,538) and 1841 (32,060) > >Happy searching/transcribing >Peter Dauncey > > >============================== >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 Mon, 02 Feb 2004 15:24:29 +0000, you wrote: >Hi all >While transcribing I have come across some strange forenames but this >one I must share > >MARSHALL Sarah Window >Makes me wonder? Possible explanation - WINDOW is not unknown as a surname, particularly around Gloucestershire/Somerset. Maybe it's just the mother's maiden name or the name of the father of an illegitimate infant. Steve

I have been trying for a couple of weeks to find the ( 3 pages allotted to me) ,but so far without success. I'm pleased to find I'm not alone in this. Tom Rylance

OK, I give up. Please explain "distinct" records as opposed to "Unique" records. John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Peter Dauncey [mailto:peter@dauncey54.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 12:37 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Latest update The latest update shows increases of 2,594,684 in the total number of records; 1,122,605 in the number of distinct records; and 1,160,379 in the number of unique records. The Year/Event showing the largest increase in total records is 1875 Births, but it would be misleading to highlight this as the area most likely to contain a missing ancestor. Although total records have increased by 452,909 (from 904,599 to 1,357,508), the distinct records have increased by 61,804 (from 824,721 to 886,525) and unique records have increased by just 32,579 (from 815,309 to 847,888). The bulk of the "new" records are second keying. I have therefore based my analysis on "distinct" records. There are 726,701 more Births. The big increases are for 1907 with 180,147 and 1891 with 121,882 but there are 9 other years with increases over 20K: 1878 (69,939); 1875 (61,804); 1842 (50,092); 1873 (42,956); 1844 (41,035); 1887 (31,564); 1890 (26,017); 1861 (26,004) and 1871 (23,644). There are 86,264 less Marriages than before. The only year with a sizeable increase is 1907 with 43,754. The major reduction is 1849 with -33,965, but there are 4 other years with reductions in excess of 10K records. There are 482,168 more Deaths. The big increases are for 1910 with 180,147 and 1888 with 92,860 but there are 4 other years with increases over 16K: 1852 (64,301); 1886 (41,522); 1847 (35,538) and 1841 (32,060) Happy searching/transcribing Peter Dauncey ============================== 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 all While transcribing I have come across some strange forenames but this one I must share MARSHALL Sarah Window Makes me wonder? -- Victor I transcribe for FreeBMD at http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ *********************************************************** All incoming & outgoing mail is virus checked by Norton AV ***********************************************************