Phew! Well, thank heavens for that! When Allan Raymond offered me the job, for a moment I thought he was serious!! 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: Monday, January 26, 2004 3:47 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Target setting etc > If there is any suggestion of target setting for transcribers I for one will > quit. Well, there might well be suggestions of it from some, but there is no prospect whatsoever of those suggestions being acted on. ============================== 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

Hear ! Hear ! I spend any spare time transcribing but I do like to know how I'm doing after an update. Victor Patricia Blackburn wrote: >I usually try to steer clear of these discussion because they seem to become bogged down in personal opinions (which I agree we are all entitled to). But this time I feel I need to put in my twopenth worth. > >When did this become a competition to see who could transcribe the most. When I joined this project a good few years back the incentive was to get the records out to a public domain. I still see this as the object of the project and 'personally' don't need 'reward stickers' for what I have contributed. > >And now for the 'Grr! Who does she think she is part.' > >A little less time spent on this forum or checking stats, could be more time spent on transcribing ;-) > >Having said that I would like to give 'a pat on the back' to all involved in the project, the Team who keep this project ticking over so well, all of those that transcribe (lots or little), and any others involved in ways we are not aware of. > >Patricia Blackburn (nee Kitching) >a Yorkshire lass transplanted to the Colonies (Canada) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Fairlie > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 7:22 AM > Subject: RE: Was.. comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > > > FreeBMD is a BIG project and as such, some transcribers may wane from time > to time, as even the largest of contributions can be lost in the sheer size > of the task. I am not therefore surprised that some transcribers may look > for ways to give themselves incentives, and league tables of who did what > each month, may appear on the surface, to be one such incentive method. > > But as has been seen on the list, this method is likely to dis-incentivise > as many as it would incentivise others, and should therefore NOT be adopted. > Anyone who wants to make a league from the data currently available, and > then compare this months to last months, to see who is active and how much > so, can do it if they want for themselves. But FreeBMD should NOT do it > centrally. > > But I do believe that the central management should consider incentive > systems. All projects, whether it is constructing the channel tunnel, or > putting landers on Mars, have targets set and time-scales to meet other than > the final one of project completion. Why not have a target to get Marriage > years 18xx to 18yy done by a certain month? Then ANY contribution, however > small, that helps towards this goal, may be done with an incentive to > achieve that goal. Doing all years, all events, and first and second > keying - all at the same time, means there is currently only one target - > project completion - so far in the future - that this is not a target that > serves any incentive purposes at all for most day to day subscribers. > > Secondly ANY transcriber can set their own goal of how many records they > want to transcribe each month. For some, it may be tens of thousands of > records, for others a challenging incentive may be just a few dozen records. > I see no problem in that. The latter is a valuable contribution. > > Even though the project is moving forward fast, and everyone is doing > brilliantly, I still fell the oil of incentive can (and should) be applied > from time to time, in the RIGHT way. > > 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: Saturday, January 24, 2004 7:57 PM > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > > > I've moved this to the DISCUSS list as the topic is discussing the "what we > should be doing" aspects of FreeBMD. > > Almost anything is possible regarding production of new progress graphs. > > I still think we are getting away from the main reasons for the existence of > FreeBMD, one of these isn't the production of more graphs. > > Those transcribers who produce a small number of records shouldn't feel any > pressure by checking to see how well they are doing compared to other > transcribers. They should be allowed to go at their own speed (within > reason) unhindered by thinking or knowing they are in the bottom x% of > transcribers. > > Allan Raymond > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Cruddace <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> > To: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com>; > FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 24 January 2004 12:45 > Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > > > >Allan, > > > >I think David Jones has raised a valid point about producing some > statistics > >based on the latest update to the database. Would it not be possible to > >produce a graph/chart based on individual uploads in particular bands? ie. > >Numbers of transcribers submitting - (say) <10 records, 10 -99, 100-199, > >etc. > > > >It would give an interesting picture of transcription resources without > >reflecting on any particular individual, and would give us all an idea of > >how we fitted into the overall scheme. It might also re-assure those not > >able to contribute very much that they are not alone, and ALL contributions > >are important. > > > >Perhaps something like this is already available, but I haven't seen it. > >Not that I spend a lot of time browsing! > > > >Regards, > >Colin > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> > >To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > >Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 11:07 AM > >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > > > > > >> Helen > >> > >> I hope you are not assuming I agree we should compare the output of one > >> individual with another? > >> > >> I did say in my response "Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business > >of > >> transcribing the index rather than statistic production" > >> > >> If there is anything in my previous response which indicate otherwise > >please > >> let me know? > >> > >> I answered a specific query about adding the the numerical total > somewhere > >> on the progress graph for individuals. This was the situation pre the > >> automatic production of the graphs following the last update. > >> > >> Quality is far more important than quantity. > >> > >> I only use the progress graphs as part of my own administration functions > >to > >> establish if a volunteer is active or not , rather than how many records > >> have been uploaded per se. > >> > >> I have copied my response across to the Discuss list as this is the > >correct > >> list should others have any follow up queries on how we present progress > >> graphs. > >> > >> Allan Raymond > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Helen Verrall <hverrall@ihug.co.nz> > >> To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > >> Date: 24 January 2004 07:21 > >> Subject: RE: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > >> > >> > >> >Alan > >> > > >> >This information being made available to all, concerns me, not all of us > >> >are able to transcribe on a regular basis, as have other commitments in > >> >transcription of records, but do what they when they can. If the amount > >> >a transcriber has uploaded each upgrade, is going to be made available > >> >for others, than your Syndicate Leader, I for one will pull out > >> >entirely. I do what I can when I can, as have other commitments besides > >> >BMD, and will not allow my work quantity to be judged by others . > >> >Surely it is the quality rather than the quantity which more important. > >> >Please note I have also sent a copy of this to my Syndicate Leader. > >> > > >> >Helen Verrall > >> >New Zealand > >> > > >> > > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] > >> >Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 1:30 PM > >> >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com > >> >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > >> > > >> >If I understand the first question, you would like to see the actual > >> >number > >> >of records uploaded by a volunteer to be shown on their progress graph? > >> >At > >> >present they have to read the total from the y-axis of their graph. > >> > > >> >I assume this can be done and I have put a task on the system to cover > >> >this > >> >requirement. > >> > > >> >Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business of transcribing the index > >> >rather than statistic production, although it is still important that we > >> >have sight of statistical information to see how FreeBMD is progressing > >> >. On > >> >this basis the current progress graphs provide an indication of how well > >> >a > >> >volunteer is doing regarding their uploads and negates the need for > >> >separate > >> >information on the number of records transcribed since the last update. > >> > > >> >I think it is impossible to produce Syndicate graphs for a number of > >> >reasons. The main reason which comes to mind is that some volunteers > >> >belong > >> >to more than one Syndicate and hence it wouldn't be possible to > >> >attribute > >> >their efforts to the correct Syndicate especially where the volunteer > >> >belongs to the two Syndicates involved in double keying the same > >> >event/period. > >> > > >> >Allan Raymond > >> > > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: David Jones <underowl@yahoo.co.uk> > >> >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > >> >Date: 23 January 2004 07:43 > >> >Subject: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > >> > > >> > > >> >>Hi, > >> >> Its a great site thanks to all your hard work but I > >> >>noticed after the last update (Dec 2003) the total of > >> >>number of records transcribed vanished from the > >> >>submitters progress graph. Yes the upward line is > >> >>positive reinforcement but for those with a large > >> >>number of entries the scale does not enable one to > >> >>compare monthly productivity. Yes I appreciate the > >> >>individual total of records transcribed is available > >> >>in the public area but time spent going to locate it > >> >>could be better used transcribing. > >> >> > >> >>As new transcribers are daunted by others totals a > >> >>list of individual total records transcribed since the > >> >>last update might encourage them to complete that > >> >>extra page. > >> >> > >> >>Also an update on the progress of the new syndicates > >> >>would inspire their members. Possibly syndicate graphs > >> >>to encourage group identity. > >> >> > >> >>BW's > >> >>Julie2 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>_______________________________________________________________________ > >> >_ > >> >>Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" > >> >>your friends today! Download Messenger Now > >> >>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe instructions and Archives > >> >>http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/FreeUK/FreeBMD-Admins.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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > >> >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage > >> >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml > >> > > >> >============================== > >> >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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > >> >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage > >> >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml > >> > > >> >============================== > >> >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 > >> > >> > >> > >> ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > >> FreeBMD Transcribers homepage > >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml > >> > >> ============================== > >> 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 > > ______________________________ > > >============================== >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 > > > > -- Victor I transcribe for FreeBMD at http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ *********************************************************** All incoming & outgoing mail is virus checked by Norton AV ***********************************************************

> If there is any suggestion of target setting for transcribers I for one will > quit. Well, there might well be suggestions of it from some, but there is no prospect whatsoever of those suggestions being acted on.

I completely agree that the target setting, whip cracking, work type environment is not appropriate for this project. I also understand that asking our hardworking resources to do more things is also not useful. My suggestion is as follows: if one of the syndicate leaders, one day, happens to notice that a particular quarter for a particular event has been completed that they send an email saying this to the list. Nothing formal, no records kept or graphs, just a little 'hey, just noticed we'd finished this'. That way I'm not waiting for the eternity when the entire indices are transcribed, double typed and completely accurate, but I am getting a good feeling that progress is being made. And for me there's nothing like knowing that such and such has been done, finito, the end, to get that feeling. (and believe me, I understand about the 100% on the graphs being a probability) My two cents. Shirley

If there is any suggestion of target setting for transcribers I for one will quit. I had quite enough of that when I was working thankyou very much. To my mind setting targets can sometimes only be achieved at the expense of accuracy. I transcribe because I want to and how much I manage to do during a week or a month depends on what other interests/committments I have as well as running a house and I am quite happy with my own output and couldn't care less about what other people's output is - it strikes me that too many people want to make things more complicated for those transcribing - forgive the sarcasm but could those wanting to make life difficult be managers in another life! Sheila, Scan 2 Syndicate

I usually try to steer clear of these discussion because they seem to become bogged down in personal opinions (which I agree we are all entitled to). But this time I feel I need to put in my twopenth worth. When did this become a competition to see who could transcribe the most. When I joined this project a good few years back the incentive was to get the records out to a public domain. I still see this as the object of the project and 'personally' don't need 'reward stickers' for what I have contributed. And now for the 'Grr! Who does she think she is part.' A little less time spent on this forum or checking stats, could be more time spent on transcribing ;-) Having said that I would like to give 'a pat on the back' to all involved in the project, the Team who keep this project ticking over so well, all of those that transcribe (lots or little), and any others involved in ways we are not aware of. Patricia Blackburn (nee Kitching) a Yorkshire lass transplanted to the Colonies (Canada) ----- Original Message ----- From: John Fairlie To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 7:22 AM Subject: RE: Was.. comment re changes to submitters progress graphs FreeBMD is a BIG project and as such, some transcribers may wane from time to time, as even the largest of contributions can be lost in the sheer size of the task. I am not therefore surprised that some transcribers may look for ways to give themselves incentives, and league tables of who did what each month, may appear on the surface, to be one such incentive method. But as has been seen on the list, this method is likely to dis-incentivise as many as it would incentivise others, and should therefore NOT be adopted. Anyone who wants to make a league from the data currently available, and then compare this months to last months, to see who is active and how much so, can do it if they want for themselves. But FreeBMD should NOT do it centrally. But I do believe that the central management should consider incentive systems. All projects, whether it is constructing the channel tunnel, or putting landers on Mars, have targets set and time-scales to meet other than the final one of project completion. Why not have a target to get Marriage years 18xx to 18yy done by a certain month? Then ANY contribution, however small, that helps towards this goal, may be done with an incentive to achieve that goal. Doing all years, all events, and first and second keying - all at the same time, means there is currently only one target - project completion - so far in the future - that this is not a target that serves any incentive purposes at all for most day to day subscribers. Secondly ANY transcriber can set their own goal of how many records they want to transcribe each month. For some, it may be tens of thousands of records, for others a challenging incentive may be just a few dozen records. I see no problem in that. The latter is a valuable contribution. Even though the project is moving forward fast, and everyone is doing brilliantly, I still fell the oil of incentive can (and should) be applied from time to time, in the RIGHT way. 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: Saturday, January 24, 2004 7:57 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs I've moved this to the DISCUSS list as the topic is discussing the "what we should be doing" aspects of FreeBMD. Almost anything is possible regarding production of new progress graphs. I still think we are getting away from the main reasons for the existence of FreeBMD, one of these isn't the production of more graphs. Those transcribers who produce a small number of records shouldn't feel any pressure by checking to see how well they are doing compared to other transcribers. They should be allowed to go at their own speed (within reason) unhindered by thinking or knowing they are in the bottom x% of transcribers. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Colin Cruddace <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> To: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com>; FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 24 January 2004 12:45 Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >Allan, > >I think David Jones has raised a valid point about producing some statistics >based on the latest update to the database. Would it not be possible to >produce a graph/chart based on individual uploads in particular bands? ie. >Numbers of transcribers submitting - (say) <10 records, 10 -99, 100-199, >etc. > >It would give an interesting picture of transcription resources without >reflecting on any particular individual, and would give us all an idea of >how we fitted into the overall scheme. It might also re-assure those not >able to contribute very much that they are not alone, and ALL contributions >are important. > >Perhaps something like this is already available, but I haven't seen it. >Not that I spend a lot of time browsing! > >Regards, >Colin >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 11:07 AM >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > > >> Helen >> >> I hope you are not assuming I agree we should compare the output of one >> individual with another? >> >> I did say in my response "Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business >of >> transcribing the index rather than statistic production" >> >> If there is anything in my previous response which indicate otherwise >please >> let me know? >> >> I answered a specific query about adding the the numerical total somewhere >> on the progress graph for individuals. This was the situation pre the >> automatic production of the graphs following the last update. >> >> Quality is far more important than quantity. >> >> I only use the progress graphs as part of my own administration functions >to >> establish if a volunteer is active or not , rather than how many records >> have been uploaded per se. >> >> I have copied my response across to the Discuss list as this is the >correct >> list should others have any follow up queries on how we present progress >> graphs. >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Helen Verrall <hverrall@ihug.co.nz> >> To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 24 January 2004 07:21 >> Subject: RE: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >> >> >> >Alan >> > >> >This information being made available to all, concerns me, not all of us >> >are able to transcribe on a regular basis, as have other commitments in >> >transcription of records, but do what they when they can. If the amount >> >a transcriber has uploaded each upgrade, is going to be made available >> >for others, than your Syndicate Leader, I for one will pull out >> >entirely. I do what I can when I can, as have other commitments besides >> >BMD, and will not allow my work quantity to be judged by others . >> >Surely it is the quality rather than the quantity which more important. >> >Please note I have also sent a copy of this to my Syndicate Leader. >> > >> >Helen Verrall >> >New Zealand >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >> >Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 1:30 PM >> >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >> >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >> > >> >If I understand the first question, you would like to see the actual >> >number >> >of records uploaded by a volunteer to be shown on their progress graph? >> >At >> >present they have to read the total from the y-axis of their graph. >> > >> >I assume this can be done and I have put a task on the system to cover >> >this >> >requirement. >> > >> >Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business of transcribing the index >> >rather than statistic production, although it is still important that we >> >have sight of statistical information to see how FreeBMD is progressing >> >. On >> >this basis the current progress graphs provide an indication of how well >> >a >> >volunteer is doing regarding their uploads and negates the need for >> >separate >> >information on the number of records transcribed since the last update. >> > >> >I think it is impossible to produce Syndicate graphs for a number of >> >reasons. The main reason which comes to mind is that some volunteers >> >belong >> >to more than one Syndicate and hence it wouldn't be possible to >> >attribute >> >their efforts to the correct Syndicate especially where the volunteer >> >belongs to the two Syndicates involved in double keying the same >> >event/period. >> > >> >Allan Raymond >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: David Jones <underowl@yahoo.co.uk> >> >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Date: 23 January 2004 07:43 >> >Subject: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >> > >> > >> >>Hi, >> >> Its a great site thanks to all your hard work but I >> >>noticed after the last update (Dec 2003) the total of >> >>number of records transcribed vanished from the >> >>submitters progress graph. Yes the upward line is >> >>positive reinforcement but for those with a large >> >>number of entries the scale does not enable one to >> >>compare monthly productivity. Yes I appreciate the >> >>individual total of records transcribed is available >> >>in the public area but time spent going to locate it >> >>could be better used transcribing. >> >> >> >>As new transcribers are daunted by others totals a >> >>list of individual total records transcribed since the >> >>last update might encourage them to complete that >> >>extra page. >> >> >> >>Also an update on the progress of the new syndicates >> >>would inspire their members. Possibly syndicate graphs >> >>to encourage group identity. >> >> >> >>BW's >> >>Julie2 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________________________________ >> >_ >> >>Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" >> >>your friends today! Download Messenger Now >> >>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html >> >> >> >> >> >>==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe instructions and Archives >> >>http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/FreeUK/FreeBMD-Admins.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 >> > >> > >> > >> >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >> >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >> > >> >============================== >> >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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >> >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >> > >> >============================== >> >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 >> >> >> >> ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >> >> ============================== >> 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 ______________________________

You've just got yourself a job. You set the targets and monitor progress and report it back to Central Headquarters. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 25 January 2004 13:13 Subject: RE: Was.. comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >FreeBMD is a BIG project and as such, some transcribers may wane from time >to time, as even the largest of contributions can be lost in the sheer size >of the task. I am not therefore surprised that some transcribers may look >for ways to give themselves incentives, and league tables of who did what >each month, may appear on the surface, to be one such incentive method. > >But as has been seen on the list, this method is likely to dis-incentivise >as many as it would incentivise others, and should therefore NOT be adopted. >Anyone who wants to make a league from the data currently available, and >then compare this months to last months, to see who is active and how much >so, can do it if they want for themselves. But FreeBMD should NOT do it >centrally. > >But I do believe that the central management should consider incentive >systems. All projects, whether it is constructing the channel tunnel, or >putting landers on Mars, have targets set and time-scales to meet other than >the final one of project completion. Why not have a target to get Marriage >years 18xx to 18yy done by a certain month? Then ANY contribution, however >small, that helps towards this goal, may be done with an incentive to >achieve that goal. Doing all years, all events, and first and second >keying - all at the same time, means there is currently only one target - >project completion - so far in the future - that this is not a target that >serves any incentive purposes at all for most day to day subscribers. > >Secondly ANY transcriber can set their own goal of how many records they >want to transcribe each month. For some, it may be tens of thousands of >records, for others a challenging incentive may be just a few dozen records. >I see no problem in that. The latter is a valuable contribution. > >Even though the project is moving forward fast, and everyone is doing >brilliantly, I still fell the oil of incentive can (and should) be applied >from time to time, in the RIGHT way. > >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: Saturday, January 24, 2004 7:57 PM >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > > >I've moved this to the DISCUSS list as the topic is discussing the "what we >should be doing" aspects of FreeBMD. > >Almost anything is possible regarding production of new progress graphs. > >I still think we are getting away from the main reasons for the existence of >FreeBMD, one of these isn't the production of more graphs. > >Those transcribers who produce a small number of records shouldn't feel any >pressure by checking to see how well they are doing compared to other >transcribers. They should be allowed to go at their own speed (within >reason) unhindered by thinking or knowing they are in the bottom x% of >transcribers. > >Allan Raymond > >-----Original Message----- >From: Colin Cruddace <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> >To: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com>; >FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: 24 January 2004 12:45 >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > > >>Allan, >> >>I think David Jones has raised a valid point about producing some >statistics >>based on the latest update to the database. Would it not be possible to >>produce a graph/chart based on individual uploads in particular bands? ie. >>Numbers of transcribers submitting - (say) <10 records, 10 -99, 100-199, >>etc. >> >>It would give an interesting picture of transcription resources without >>reflecting on any particular individual, and would give us all an idea of >>how we fitted into the overall scheme. It might also re-assure those not >>able to contribute very much that they are not alone, and ALL contributions >>are important. >> >>Perhaps something like this is already available, but I haven't seen it. >>Not that I spend a lot of time browsing! >> >>Regards, >>Colin >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >>To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >>Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 11:07 AM >>Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >> >> >>> Helen >>> >>> I hope you are not assuming I agree we should compare the output of one >>> individual with another? >>> >>> I did say in my response "Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business >>of >>> transcribing the index rather than statistic production" >>> >>> If there is anything in my previous response which indicate otherwise >>please >>> let me know? >>> >>> I answered a specific query about adding the the numerical total >somewhere >>> on the progress graph for individuals. This was the situation pre the >>> automatic production of the graphs following the last update. >>> >>> Quality is far more important than quantity. >>> >>> I only use the progress graphs as part of my own administration functions >>to >>> establish if a volunteer is active or not , rather than how many records >>> have been uploaded per se. >>> >>> I have copied my response across to the Discuss list as this is the >>correct >>> list should others have any follow up queries on how we present progress >>> graphs. >>> >>> Allan Raymond >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Helen Verrall <hverrall@ihug.co.nz> >>> To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >>> Date: 24 January 2004 07:21 >>> Subject: RE: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >>> >>> >>> >Alan >>> > >>> >This information being made available to all, concerns me, not all of us >>> >are able to transcribe on a regular basis, as have other commitments in >>> >transcription of records, but do what they when they can. If the amount >>> >a transcriber has uploaded each upgrade, is going to be made available >>> >for others, than your Syndicate Leader, I for one will pull out >>> >entirely. I do what I can when I can, as have other commitments besides >>> >BMD, and will not allow my work quantity to be judged by others . >>> >Surely it is the quality rather than the quantity which more important. >>> >Please note I have also sent a copy of this to my Syndicate Leader. >>> > >>> >Helen Verrall >>> >New Zealand >>> > >>> > >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >>> >Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 1:30 PM >>> >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >>> >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >>> > >>> >If I understand the first question, you would like to see the actual >>> >number >>> >of records uploaded by a volunteer to be shown on their progress graph? >>> >At >>> >present they have to read the total from the y-axis of their graph. >>> > >>> >I assume this can be done and I have put a task on the system to cover >>> >this >>> >requirement. >>> > >>> >Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business of transcribing the index >>> >rather than statistic production, although it is still important that we >>> >have sight of statistical information to see how FreeBMD is progressing >>> >. On >>> >this basis the current progress graphs provide an indication of how well >>> >a >>> >volunteer is doing regarding their uploads and negates the need for >>> >separate >>> >information on the number of records transcribed since the last update. >>> > >>> >I think it is impossible to produce Syndicate graphs for a number of >>> >reasons. The main reason which comes to mind is that some volunteers >>> >belong >>> >to more than one Syndicate and hence it wouldn't be possible to >>> >attribute >>> >their efforts to the correct Syndicate especially where the volunteer >>> >belongs to the two Syndicates involved in double keying the same >>> >event/period. >>> > >>> >Allan Raymond >>> > >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> >From: David Jones <underowl@yahoo.co.uk> >>> >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >>> >Date: 23 January 2004 07:43 >>> >Subject: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >>> > >>> > >>> >>Hi, >>> >> Its a great site thanks to all your hard work but I >>> >>noticed after the last update (Dec 2003) the total of >>> >>number of records transcribed vanished from the >>> >>submitters progress graph. Yes the upward line is >>> >>positive reinforcement but for those with a large >>> >>number of entries the scale does not enable one to >>> >>compare monthly productivity. Yes I appreciate the >>> >>individual total of records transcribed is available >>> >>in the public area but time spent going to locate it >>> >>could be better used transcribing. >>> >> >>> >>As new transcribers are daunted by others totals a >>> >>list of individual total records transcribed since the >>> >>last update might encourage them to complete that >>> >>extra page. >>> >> >>> >>Also an update on the progress of the new syndicates >>> >>would inspire their members. Possibly syndicate graphs >>> >>to encourage group identity. >>> >> >>> >>BW's >>> >>Julie2 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>_______________________________________________________________________ >>> >_ >>> >>Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" >>> >>your friends today! Download Messenger Now >>> >>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >>> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe instructions and Archives >>> >>http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/FreeUK/FreeBMD-Admins.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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >>> >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >>> >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >>> > >>> >============================== >>> >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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >>> >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >>> >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >>> > >>> >============================== >>> >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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >>> FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >>> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >>> >>> ============================== >>> 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 > > >============================== >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

FreeBMD is a BIG project and as such, some transcribers may wane from time to time, as even the largest of contributions can be lost in the sheer size of the task. I am not therefore surprised that some transcribers may look for ways to give themselves incentives, and league tables of who did what each month, may appear on the surface, to be one such incentive method. But as has been seen on the list, this method is likely to dis-incentivise as many as it would incentivise others, and should therefore NOT be adopted. Anyone who wants to make a league from the data currently available, and then compare this months to last months, to see who is active and how much so, can do it if they want for themselves. But FreeBMD should NOT do it centrally. But I do believe that the central management should consider incentive systems. All projects, whether it is constructing the channel tunnel, or putting landers on Mars, have targets set and time-scales to meet other than the final one of project completion. Why not have a target to get Marriage years 18xx to 18yy done by a certain month? Then ANY contribution, however small, that helps towards this goal, may be done with an incentive to achieve that goal. Doing all years, all events, and first and second keying - all at the same time, means there is currently only one target - project completion - so far in the future - that this is not a target that serves any incentive purposes at all for most day to day subscribers. Secondly ANY transcriber can set their own goal of how many records they want to transcribe each month. For some, it may be tens of thousands of records, for others a challenging incentive may be just a few dozen records. I see no problem in that. The latter is a valuable contribution. Even though the project is moving forward fast, and everyone is doing brilliantly, I still fell the oil of incentive can (and should) be applied from time to time, in the RIGHT way. 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: Saturday, January 24, 2004 7:57 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs I've moved this to the DISCUSS list as the topic is discussing the "what we should be doing" aspects of FreeBMD. Almost anything is possible regarding production of new progress graphs. I still think we are getting away from the main reasons for the existence of FreeBMD, one of these isn't the production of more graphs. Those transcribers who produce a small number of records shouldn't feel any pressure by checking to see how well they are doing compared to other transcribers. They should be allowed to go at their own speed (within reason) unhindered by thinking or knowing they are in the bottom x% of transcribers. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Colin Cruddace <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> To: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com>; FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 24 January 2004 12:45 Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >Allan, > >I think David Jones has raised a valid point about producing some statistics >based on the latest update to the database. Would it not be possible to >produce a graph/chart based on individual uploads in particular bands? ie. >Numbers of transcribers submitting - (say) <10 records, 10 -99, 100-199, >etc. > >It would give an interesting picture of transcription resources without >reflecting on any particular individual, and would give us all an idea of >how we fitted into the overall scheme. It might also re-assure those not >able to contribute very much that they are not alone, and ALL contributions >are important. > >Perhaps something like this is already available, but I haven't seen it. >Not that I spend a lot of time browsing! > >Regards, >Colin >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 11:07 AM >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > > >> Helen >> >> I hope you are not assuming I agree we should compare the output of one >> individual with another? >> >> I did say in my response "Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business >of >> transcribing the index rather than statistic production" >> >> If there is anything in my previous response which indicate otherwise >please >> let me know? >> >> I answered a specific query about adding the the numerical total somewhere >> on the progress graph for individuals. This was the situation pre the >> automatic production of the graphs following the last update. >> >> Quality is far more important than quantity. >> >> I only use the progress graphs as part of my own administration functions >to >> establish if a volunteer is active or not , rather than how many records >> have been uploaded per se. >> >> I have copied my response across to the Discuss list as this is the >correct >> list should others have any follow up queries on how we present progress >> graphs. >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Helen Verrall <hverrall@ihug.co.nz> >> To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 24 January 2004 07:21 >> Subject: RE: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >> >> >> >Alan >> > >> >This information being made available to all, concerns me, not all of us >> >are able to transcribe on a regular basis, as have other commitments in >> >transcription of records, but do what they when they can. If the amount >> >a transcriber has uploaded each upgrade, is going to be made available >> >for others, than your Syndicate Leader, I for one will pull out >> >entirely. I do what I can when I can, as have other commitments besides >> >BMD, and will not allow my work quantity to be judged by others . >> >Surely it is the quality rather than the quantity which more important. >> >Please note I have also sent a copy of this to my Syndicate Leader. >> > >> >Helen Verrall >> >New Zealand >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >> >Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 1:30 PM >> >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >> >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >> > >> >If I understand the first question, you would like to see the actual >> >number >> >of records uploaded by a volunteer to be shown on their progress graph? >> >At >> >present they have to read the total from the y-axis of their graph. >> > >> >I assume this can be done and I have put a task on the system to cover >> >this >> >requirement. >> > >> >Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business of transcribing the index >> >rather than statistic production, although it is still important that we >> >have sight of statistical information to see how FreeBMD is progressing >> >. On >> >this basis the current progress graphs provide an indication of how well >> >a >> >volunteer is doing regarding their uploads and negates the need for >> >separate >> >information on the number of records transcribed since the last update. >> > >> >I think it is impossible to produce Syndicate graphs for a number of >> >reasons. The main reason which comes to mind is that some volunteers >> >belong >> >to more than one Syndicate and hence it wouldn't be possible to >> >attribute >> >their efforts to the correct Syndicate especially where the volunteer >> >belongs to the two Syndicates involved in double keying the same >> >event/period. >> > >> >Allan Raymond >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: David Jones <underowl@yahoo.co.uk> >> >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Date: 23 January 2004 07:43 >> >Subject: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >> > >> > >> >>Hi, >> >> Its a great site thanks to all your hard work but I >> >>noticed after the last update (Dec 2003) the total of >> >>number of records transcribed vanished from the >> >>submitters progress graph. Yes the upward line is >> >>positive reinforcement but for those with a large >> >>number of entries the scale does not enable one to >> >>compare monthly productivity. Yes I appreciate the >> >>individual total of records transcribed is available >> >>in the public area but time spent going to locate it >> >>could be better used transcribing. >> >> >> >>As new transcribers are daunted by others totals a >> >>list of individual total records transcribed since the >> >>last update might encourage them to complete that >> >>extra page. >> >> >> >>Also an update on the progress of the new syndicates >> >>would inspire their members. Possibly syndicate graphs >> >>to encourage group identity. >> >> >> >>BW's >> >>Julie2 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________________________________ >> >_ >> >>Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" >> >>your friends today! Download Messenger Now >> >>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html >> >> >> >> >> >>==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe instructions and Archives >> >>http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/FreeUK/FreeBMD-Admins.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 >> > >> > >> > >> >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >> >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >> > >> >============================== >> >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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >> >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >> > >> >============================== >> >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 >> >> >> >> ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >> >> ============================== >> 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've moved this to the DISCUSS list as the topic is discussing the "what we should be doing" aspects of FreeBMD. Almost anything is possible regarding production of new progress graphs. I still think we are getting away from the main reasons for the existence of FreeBMD, one of these isn't the production of more graphs. Those transcribers who produce a small number of records shouldn't feel any pressure by checking to see how well they are doing compared to other transcribers. They should be allowed to go at their own speed (within reason) unhindered by thinking or knowing they are in the bottom x% of transcribers. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Colin Cruddace <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> To: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com>; FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 24 January 2004 12:45 Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >Allan, > >I think David Jones has raised a valid point about producing some statistics >based on the latest update to the database. Would it not be possible to >produce a graph/chart based on individual uploads in particular bands? ie. >Numbers of transcribers submitting - (say) <10 records, 10 -99, 100-199, >etc. > >It would give an interesting picture of transcription resources without >reflecting on any particular individual, and would give us all an idea of >how we fitted into the overall scheme. It might also re-assure those not >able to contribute very much that they are not alone, and ALL contributions >are important. > >Perhaps something like this is already available, but I haven't seen it. >Not that I spend a lot of time browsing! > >Regards, >Colin >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 11:07 AM >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > > >> Helen >> >> I hope you are not assuming I agree we should compare the output of one >> individual with another? >> >> I did say in my response "Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business >of >> transcribing the index rather than statistic production" >> >> If there is anything in my previous response which indicate otherwise >please >> let me know? >> >> I answered a specific query about adding the the numerical total somewhere >> on the progress graph for individuals. This was the situation pre the >> automatic production of the graphs following the last update. >> >> Quality is far more important than quantity. >> >> I only use the progress graphs as part of my own administration functions >to >> establish if a volunteer is active or not , rather than how many records >> have been uploaded per se. >> >> I have copied my response across to the Discuss list as this is the >correct >> list should others have any follow up queries on how we present progress >> graphs. >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Helen Verrall <hverrall@ihug.co.nz> >> To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 24 January 2004 07:21 >> Subject: RE: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >> >> >> >Alan >> > >> >This information being made available to all, concerns me, not all of us >> >are able to transcribe on a regular basis, as have other commitments in >> >transcription of records, but do what they when they can. If the amount >> >a transcriber has uploaded each upgrade, is going to be made available >> >for others, than your Syndicate Leader, I for one will pull out >> >entirely. I do what I can when I can, as have other commitments besides >> >BMD, and will not allow my work quantity to be judged by others . >> >Surely it is the quality rather than the quantity which more important. >> >Please note I have also sent a copy of this to my Syndicate Leader. >> > >> >Helen Verrall >> >New Zealand >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >> >Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 1:30 PM >> >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >> >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >> > >> >If I understand the first question, you would like to see the actual >> >number >> >of records uploaded by a volunteer to be shown on their progress graph? >> >At >> >present they have to read the total from the y-axis of their graph. >> > >> >I assume this can be done and I have put a task on the system to cover >> >this >> >requirement. >> > >> >Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business of transcribing the index >> >rather than statistic production, although it is still important that we >> >have sight of statistical information to see how FreeBMD is progressing >> >. On >> >this basis the current progress graphs provide an indication of how well >> >a >> >volunteer is doing regarding their uploads and negates the need for >> >separate >> >information on the number of records transcribed since the last update. >> > >> >I think it is impossible to produce Syndicate graphs for a number of >> >reasons. The main reason which comes to mind is that some volunteers >> >belong >> >to more than one Syndicate and hence it wouldn't be possible to >> >attribute >> >their efforts to the correct Syndicate especially where the volunteer >> >belongs to the two Syndicates involved in double keying the same >> >event/period. >> > >> >Allan Raymond >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: David Jones <underowl@yahoo.co.uk> >> >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Date: 23 January 2004 07:43 >> >Subject: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >> > >> > >> >>Hi, >> >> Its a great site thanks to all your hard work but I >> >>noticed after the last update (Dec 2003) the total of >> >>number of records transcribed vanished from the >> >>submitters progress graph. Yes the upward line is >> >>positive reinforcement but for those with a large >> >>number of entries the scale does not enable one to >> >>compare monthly productivity. Yes I appreciate the >> >>individual total of records transcribed is available >> >>in the public area but time spent going to locate it >> >>could be better used transcribing. >> >> >> >>As new transcribers are daunted by others totals a >> >>list of individual total records transcribed since the >> >>last update might encourage them to complete that >> >>extra page. >> >> >> >>Also an update on the progress of the new syndicates >> >>would inspire their members. Possibly syndicate graphs >> >>to encourage group identity. >> >> >> >>BW's >> >>Julie2 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________________________________ >> >_ >> >>Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" >> >>your friends today! Download Messenger Now >> >>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html >> >> >> >> >> >>==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe instructions and Archives >> >>http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/FreeUK/FreeBMD-Admins.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 >> > >> > >> > >> >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >> >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >> > >> >============================== >> >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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >> >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >> > >> >============================== >> >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 >> >> >> >> ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >> FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml >> >> ============================== >> 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've moved this to the DISCUSS list as the topic is discussing the "what we should be doing" aspects of FreeBMD. My personal opinion is that FreeBMD shouldn't be involved in producing league tables of their volunteers and the statistics information currently available should not be construed as such. I find it very interesting that those volunteers who are in the superleague regarding their transcription totals appear to be those most likely to keep quiet regarding their efforts being published to a wider audience. They just get on with the task in hand. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Dave Pickles <dave@pickles.me.uk> To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 24 January 2004 12:51 Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >On Friday 23 Jan 2004 07:38, David Jones wrote: > >> Also an update on the progress of the new syndicates >> would inspire their members. Possibly syndicate graphs >> to encourage group identity. > >I too have wondered whether something like this would be an incentive. Look >at the SETI website http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_list.html for >an example of how it can be done. > >By a bit of spreadsheet manipulation I see I am number 880 out of 6134 who >have submitted pages, some way to go to catch the leader with over a >million entries! > >The counter-argument of course is that FreeBMD is not about finishing as >quickly as possible - accuracy is far more important. >-- >Dave > > > >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >Want to help FreeBMD? >Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. > >============================== >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

In my recent posting, I referred to a suggestion by David Jones. I think I should have said by Julie2, my apologies for that. Just as an after-thought, if a graph/chart of transcription efforts omitted those with nil input, we should then be able to produce the total number of active transcribers in each update, and would probably be better if it was accessible from the main pages of the website. It might also encourage people who have only a little free time, to join up if they see that there are many others in a similar situation. Regards, Colin

Helen I hope you are not assuming I agree we should compare the output of one individual with another? I did say in my response "Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business of transcribing the index rather than statistic production" If there is anything in my previous response which indicate otherwise please let me know? I answered a specific query about adding the the numerical total somewhere on the progress graph for individuals. This was the situation pre the automatic production of the graphs following the last update. Quality is far more important than quantity. I only use the progress graphs as part of my own administration functions to establish if a volunteer is active or not , rather than how many records have been uploaded per se. I have copied my response across to the Discuss list as this is the correct list should others have any follow up queries on how we present progress graphs. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Helen Verrall <hverrall@ihug.co.nz> To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 24 January 2004 07:21 Subject: RE: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs >Alan > >This information being made available to all, concerns me, not all of us >are able to transcribe on a regular basis, as have other commitments in >transcription of records, but do what they when they can. If the amount >a transcriber has uploaded each upgrade, is going to be made available >for others, than your Syndicate Leader, I for one will pull out >entirely. I do what I can when I can, as have other commitments besides >BMD, and will not allow my work quantity to be judged by others . >Surely it is the quality rather than the quantity which more important. >Please note I have also sent a copy of this to my Syndicate Leader. > >Helen Verrall >New Zealand > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 1:30 PM >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > >If I understand the first question, you would like to see the actual >number >of records uploaded by a volunteer to be shown on their progress graph? >At >present they have to read the total from the y-axis of their graph. > >I assume this can be done and I have put a task on the system to cover >this >requirement. > >Personally, I think FreeBMD is in the business of transcribing the index >rather than statistic production, although it is still important that we >have sight of statistical information to see how FreeBMD is progressing >. On >this basis the current progress graphs provide an indication of how well >a >volunteer is doing regarding their uploads and negates the need for >separate >information on the number of records transcribed since the last update. > >I think it is impossible to produce Syndicate graphs for a number of >reasons. The main reason which comes to mind is that some volunteers >belong >to more than one Syndicate and hence it wouldn't be possible to >attribute >their efforts to the correct Syndicate especially where the volunteer >belongs to the two Syndicates involved in double keying the same >event/period. > >Allan Raymond > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Jones <underowl@yahoo.co.uk> >To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: 23 January 2004 07:43 >Subject: comment re changes to submitters progress graphs > > >>Hi, >> Its a great site thanks to all your hard work but I >>noticed after the last update (Dec 2003) the total of >>number of records transcribed vanished from the >>submitters progress graph. Yes the upward line is >>positive reinforcement but for those with a large >>number of entries the scale does not enable one to >>compare monthly productivity. Yes I appreciate the >>individual total of records transcribed is available >>in the public area but time spent going to locate it >>could be better used transcribing. >> >>As new transcribers are daunted by others totals a >>list of individual total records transcribed since the >>last update might encourage them to complete that >>extra page. >> >>Also an update on the progress of the new syndicates >>would inspire their members. Possibly syndicate graphs >>to encourage group identity. >> >>BW's >>Julie2 >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________________________________ >_ >>Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" >>your friends today! Download Messenger Now >>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html >> >> >>==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe instructions and Archives >>http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/FreeUK/FreeBMD-Admins.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 > > > >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml > >============================== >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 > > > > > >==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== >FreeBMD Transcribers homepage >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml > >============================== >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 List, Just HAD to share these names from the 1844 Dec Births that I've just transcribed. I'm still gob-smacked at how funny, inventive or just downright silly our Victorian ancestors could be! Osborn FISH, Depwade,XIII,33 - (Antipodean Birth?) Traphena FISH,Bideford,X,66(UCF's) - (Using a net?) Marina FISHER,Plomesgate,XII,363 - (Related to above?) But my favourite two have got to be (No comments necessary):- Fish FISH,Blackburn,XXI,59 Philetus FISH,Uxbridge,III,331 Keep up the good work, we do have lighter moments {;-)) Regards, Colin

At 07:00 AM 19/01/04 -0700, Colin Cruddace wrote: >I suppose a case could be made for daughters carrying the family name on after marriage, but what about sons? These sound very improbable and I wonder if anyone else has come across similar entries, or has actually known anyone with such a name. I have noticed one or two such and always TWYSed exactly. I vaguely attributed them to the notifier perhaps being illiterate - as was the case with several of my ancestors mid 18th century. __________________________________________________________ Keith Sayers, Canberra, Australia kmsayers@pcug.org.au Mail : 6 Clambe Place, CHARNWOOD, ACT 2615 http://www.pcug.org.au/~kmsayers ----------------------------------------------------------

In message <001c01c3de22$35983e10$02150052@sn010739020381>, Colin Cruddace <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> writes >The examples I gave are from the official records I am transcribing, >and anyone finding them could make up their own minds if they are right >or not. Absolutely right. That's why, when we transcribe, we write what was written originally. It is up to the end user of the transcription to figure it out, by checking the original document, not for us to provide an edited version of the document. >I was just curious to know if the Registrars got things wrong now and >again! Having transcribed over a million entries from parish baptism registers, I can confirm that the same sort of thing is recorded in those too. (E.g. John Smith SMITH). Sometimes for no apparent reason... but it does happen. Regards Rod -- Rod Neep Archive CD Books : http://www.archivecdbooks.org British-Genealogy: http://www.british-genealogy.com

----- Original Message ----- From: "P Beaven" <appleshaw@clara.net> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 11:22 AM Subject: UCF & accents in searches > I have recently been looking at searches to see how they treat either > UCF or accented letters. My conclusions are that in both cases these are > ignored by a standard search. UCF are not currently handled by searches, but we will be working to resolve this in future. Accented characters *are* handled by the search engine You just search on the unaccented version of the character. Try a search for Francois CLAISE

I have recently been looking at searches to see how they treat either UCF or accented letters. My conclusions are that in both cases these are ignored by a standard search. Is this correct? It is not mentioned in the Help page as such. I realise that by selecting 'Phonetic search surnames' it is possible to search for accented letters but some people may not realise this is necessary, particularly if the use of an accent has been discontinued in recent times. Am I correct in saying that accented characters are excluded to simplify search procedures; or is this a case of reverse TWYS? On a different subject related to the Help page; under Districts it states 'Select multiple entries by holding down the SHIFT key before clicking.' A more useful comment would be 'Select multiple entries by holding down the CTRL key and click on each District, or use the SHIFT key and click to select a range.' A similar comment is included for 'Counties'. ( I would think that normally the Ctrl key would be most useful) UCF characters When transcribing page numbers you often have to enter, for example, [38] . The search engine appears to ignore this. This would be particularly important when searching for a spouse if one partner is recorded with an unresolved page number. A potential partner would help track down a solution. Is it worthwhile including such entries in searches? Or do we have to wait until all uncertain entries have been resolved? Peter Beaven

I suspect that this may sometimes have happened, when an illegitimate child was registered (or christened) with its father's surname to which it was not legally entitled. For an example from Birmingham parish registers, see http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~andrewgough/ACFGough.htm (about half way down the page). By registering the father's surname also as a middle name, the mother could ensure that the child's paternity was unambiguous, even if the child was later obliged to adopt its mother's surname. Of course there are almost certainly other cases where the improbable middle name was simply a mistake during the registration process. Andrew Gough ************************************************************ Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:27:06 -0000 From: "Colin Cruddace" <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <001001c3ddf9$0fdef110$02150052@sn010739020381> Subject: Unusual Middle Names Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Hello, I'd better start by saying that I am transcribing these cases EXACTLY as shown on the scans, but I am rather curious about them and would like to hear from others :-) I'm transcribing Births, Dec 1844, and noticed that there have been quite a few with an unusual, or even unlikely, middle name. It's quite common for children to be christened with mother's maiden name, but these are repetitions of their current surname, so out of idle curiosity (taking a break from transcribing) I checked back to see if they were from particular (sub)Districts. My theory being that the original record is as presented on a copy Birth Certificate (but we transcribe only relevant extracts copied from them) and the Registrar might have entered the child's full name in the name column. However, every one was different. The females are:- Sarah Ferrar FERRAR, Stamford Phillis Chapple CHAPPLE, Leighton Buzd Alice Chandler CHANDLER, Chelsea Eliza Chamberlin CHAMBERLIN, Norwich Jane _avoy Bond BOND, Wellington The males are:- Arthur Chawner CHAWNER, Uttoxeter John Boscough BOSCOUGH, Preston George Booth BOOTH, Manchester Thomas Bolton BOLTON, Chorlton I suppose a case could be made for daughters carrying the family name on after marriage, but what about sons? These sound very improbable and I wonder if anyone else has come across similar entries, or has actually known anyone with such a name. Cheers, Colin Cruddace ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Visit the web site of the Financial Times at http://www.ft.com

Hi Colin. I admit to using a #theory line. I had a sheet with one entry crossed right trough, but al;ong with twys I typed it in then out a not to explain that it had been crossed through on the original scan. (It did look like a duplicate entry, as there was another with exactly the same details, so it did look as if the copyist had made a mistake) I just hope that what I did was right, 'cos although I did post a query to the list the answers I got were all a bit vague, so I did what seemed most like common sense. HTH Loraine

Thanks Barrie, I'm equally new but I don't see that a #THEORY line would benefit anyone, especially when I don't know that it IS wrong. The examples I gave are from the official records I am transcribing, and anyone finding them could make up their own minds if they are right or not. I was just curious to know if the Registrars got things wrong now and again! What you said, though, raises the next question - "What happens when a #THEORY is used?" Who sees them, and under what circumstances? Any answers please? Regards Colin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barrie Tite" <barrie.tite@ntlworld.com> To: "Colin Cruddace" <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com>; <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 10:29 PM Subject: Re: Unusual Middle Names > I am a very new transcriber, but this looks like a good use for the #THEORY > facility. I think you must be right to TWYS, but you could follow each with > a #THEORY line saying something like "repetition of surname as second > forename in original document is wrong". > > I am sure someone more knowledgeable than me will comment. > > Regards to all > > Barrie Tite > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Colin Cruddace" <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> > To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:27 PM > Subject: Unusual Middle Names > > > > Hello, > > > > I'd better start by saying that I am transcribing these cases EXACTLY as > shown on the scans, but I am rather curious about them and would like to > hear from others :-) > > > > I'm transcribing Births, Dec 1844, and noticed that there have been quite > a few with an unusual, or even unlikely, middle name. > > > > It's quite common for children to be christened with mother's maiden name, > but these are repetitions of their current surname, so out of idle curiosity > (taking a break from transcribing) I checked back to see if they were from > particular (sub)Districts. My theory being that the original record is as > presented on a copy Birth Certificate (but we transcribe only relevant > extracts copied from them) and the Registrar might have entered the child's > full name in the name column. However, every one was different. > > > > The females are:- > > Sarah Ferrar FERRAR, Stamford > > Phillis Chapple CHAPPLE, Leighton Buzd > > Alice Chandler CHANDLER, Chelsea > > Eliza Chamberlin CHAMBERLIN, Norwich > > Jane _avoy Bond BOND, Wellington > > > > The males are:- > > Arthur Chawner CHAWNER, Uttoxeter > > John Boscough BOSCOUGH, Preston > > George Booth BOOTH, Manchester > > Thomas Bolton BOLTON, Chorlton > > > > I suppose a case could be made for daughters carrying the family name on > after marriage, but what about sons? These sound very improbable and I > wonder if anyone else has come across similar entries, or has actually known > anyone with such a name. > > > > > > Cheers, > > Colin Cruddace > > > > > > ============================== > > 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 > > > >