Quoting Christopher Richards <cmrichards@blueyonder.co.uk>: > I noticed two entries that appeared to be the same and wondered why they > hadn't been matched. Further information shows that one transcriber had > transcribed the district as "Manchester XX" and the other as "Manchester > 20". > Clearly transcriber 2 had not typed what he saw. Should these two entries be > matched? Unless you say WHICH two entries, it is impossible to say. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

I noticed two entries that appeared to be the same and wondered why they hadn't been matched. Further information shows that one transcriber had transcribed the district as "Manchester XX" and the other as "Manchester 20". Clearly transcriber 2 had not typed what he saw. Should these two entries be matched? Christopher Richards

I am running Paint Shop Pro V 5.03 in Win 98; and have no problem rotating and saving the image! The only penalty seems to be that the tiff file size almost doubles. Best wishes Chris Preece Barossa South Oz > ---------- > From: Mervyn Wright[SMTP:mervyn.wright@talk21.com] > Sent: 22 December 2003 00:40 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Scan Images > > Can anyone advise how to 'straighten' scan images before using > BMDVerify? I've tried opening them in PaintShop but it won't allow > arbritary adjustment. > > Regards > Mervyn Wright > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go > to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

If anyone else is involved in rotating pages and would like a suitable piece of graphics software could I recommend Irfan Viewer which is a free download and gives 'lossless' rotation. Regards Les Hall ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Longstaff" <vectraman@softhome.net> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:13 AM Subject: RE: Scan Images > I use Photoshop5 to do this job, it allows changes of 1 degee and > doesn't appear to change the file size. > > Regards > > David Longstaff (Rugeley, England) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Preece [mailto:Chris.Preece@unisa.edu.au] > Sent: 22 December 2003 04:22 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: RE: Scan Images > > I am running Paint Shop Pro V 5.03 in Win 98; and have no problem > rotating and saving the image! > The only penalty seems to be that the tiff file size almost doubles. > > Best wishes Chris Preece > Barossa South Oz > > > > ---------- > > From: Mervyn Wright[SMTP:mervyn.wright@talk21.com] > > Sent: 22 December 2003 00:40 > > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Scan Images > > > > Can anyone advise how to 'straighten' scan images before using > > BMDVerify? I've tried opening them in PaintShop but it won't allow > > arbritary adjustment. > > > > Regards > > Mervyn Wright > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 > > > > > > > > ============================== > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy > records, go > > to: > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy > records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > >

I use Photoshop5 to do this job, it allows changes of 1 degee and doesn't appear to change the file size. Regards David Longstaff (Rugeley, England) -----Original Message----- From: Chris Preece [mailto:Chris.Preece@unisa.edu.au] Sent: 22 December 2003 04:22 To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Scan Images I am running Paint Shop Pro V 5.03 in Win 98; and have no problem rotating and saving the image! The only penalty seems to be that the tiff file size almost doubles. Best wishes Chris Preece Barossa South Oz > ---------- > From: Mervyn Wright[SMTP:mervyn.wright@talk21.com] > Sent: 22 December 2003 00:40 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Scan Images > > Can anyone advise how to 'straighten' scan images before using > BMDVerify? I've tried opening them in PaintShop but it won't allow > arbritary adjustment. > > Regards > Mervyn Wright > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go > to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003

Dick, The alignment process will recognise that "W. Derby" and "W.Derby" are transcriptions of the same record. However, the important point is that you, as a transcriber, should not be aware of what goes on behind the scenes and you certainly shouldn't let it influence your transcribing. Barrie -----Original Message----- From: Dick Bond [mailto:dick@bonds.plus.com] Sent: 21 December 2003 21:53 To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE TWYS and Second Keying and Latest Update ETC First of all apologies to those upset at my use of the wrong discussion group!! Was only trying to move things forward!! Dave Mayall's reply to my concerns about TWYS has triggered thoughts in my mind about connected 'problems' previously raised in this discussion. Firstly let me say that I 100% support the objective of TWYS - my concern as a transcriber is more what happens if I don't succeed in this particular point. As a rational (?) human being I would like to understand why and not be told to 'get on with it' and just follow the rules! I also believe there may well be others in the same position (and that was why I originally posted on the Admins group.) As I (now) see it. If I type a name or reference number wrong then it is obvious that this will cause inaccuracy on the database and also wrong data for search purposes. If, for example, I see a forename written as 'Richerd' and then change it because I decide it should really be 'Richard', then this is plainly and understandably wrong in that it does not faithfully reproduce the GRO index. However when it comes to District names I, as a 'fallible human' transcriber, do (or maybe did) not understand why problems might be created if the scan showed 'W.Derby' (i.e. dot but no space) and I typed 'W. Derby' (i.e. space after dot) , or, 'W Derby' (no dot). To me they all represent the same district. I also understood that there was an 'aliasing' process which would consolidate such variations in naming what is in fact the same district. I had assumed that 'aliasing' occurred during the creation of the underlying database thus any differing versions of the same district name would be 'corrected' on that database. If I understand Dave correctly, however, the underlying database will hold exactly the format of the district name that is keyed in - and 'Aliasing' is only carried out by the search process. IF my logic is correct so far ..... Then, whilst my entry is the first (only) keying then there is in fact no (serious) problem since all versions of 'W. Derby' will be treated that same and any search will be correct. HOWEVER, when there is a second keying of the data and the next transcriber enters (say) 'W.Derby' then this difference will cause a second, unmatched entry onto the database. ....... Thus I ask. Is my analysis correct? Will a variation in just the spelling of the district result in duplicate entries? If so, then I think there may be workable solutions to remove such duplicates. ....... Written in an attempt to be helpful within a very good project. Dick Bond ______________________________

First of all apologies to those upset at my use of the wrong discussion group!! Was only trying to move things forward!! Dave Mayall's reply to my concerns about TWYS has triggered thoughts in my mind about connected 'problems' previously raised in this discussion. Firstly let me say that I 100% support the objective of TWYS - my concern as a transcriber is more what happens if I don't succeed in this particular point. As a rational (?) human being I would like to understand why and not be told to 'get on with it' and just follow the rules! I also believe there may well be others in the same position (and that was why I originally posted on the Admins group.) As I (now) see it. If I type a name or reference number wrong then it is obvious that this will cause inaccuracy on the database and also wrong data for search purposes. If, for example, I see a forename written as 'Richerd' and then change it because I decide it should really be 'Richard', then this is plainly and understandably wrong in that it does not faithfully reproduce the GRO index. However when it comes to District names I, as a 'fallible human' transcriber, do (or maybe did) not understand why problems might be created if the scan showed 'W.Derby' (i.e. dot but no space) and I typed 'W. Derby' (i.e. space after dot) , or, 'W Derby' (no dot). To me they all represent the same district. I also understood that there was an 'aliasing' process which would consolidate such variations in naming what is in fact the same district. I had assumed that 'aliasing' occurred during the creation of the underlying database thus any differing versions of the same district name would be 'corrected' on that database. If I understand Dave correctly, however, the underlying database will hold exactly the format of the district name that is keyed in - and 'Aliasing' is only carried out by the search process. IF my logic is correct so far ..... Then, whilst my entry is the first (only) keying then there is in fact no (serious) problem since all versions of 'W. Derby' will be treated that same and any search will be correct. HOWEVER, when there is a second keying of the data and the next transcriber enters (say) 'W.Derby' then this difference will cause a second, unmatched entry onto the database. ....... Thus I ask. Is my analysis correct? Will a variation in just the spelling of the district result in duplicate entries? If so, then I think there may be workable solutions to remove such duplicates. ....... Written in an attempt to be helpful within a very good project. Dick Bond

Can anyone advise how to ‘straighten’ scan images before using BMDVerify? I’ve tried opening them in PaintShop but it won’t allow arbritary adjustment. Regards Mervyn Wright --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003

In responding to this message, I must first state that this subject is NOT appropriate for FreeBMD-Admins-L, which is *strictly* reservedfor transcribing queries and answers. Expressions of opinion as to how things are to be done differently must only take place on FreeBMD-Discuss-L. If people wish to discuss this issue further then they must do so ONLY on the apropriate list. Quoting Dick Bond <dick@bonds.plus.com>: > Sue has, for me, hit the nail on the head!!! As an humble transcriber I feel > that we are all being asked to be very pedantic in ways which are completely > unnecessary. Which implies that we are sitting here coming up with entirely arbitrary rules to make life difficult for transcribers. A ludicrous suggestion. > I understand that there may be good theoretical reasons for 100% TWYS ..... > but .... surely our ONLY (emphasis, not shouting!) objective is to produce a > very large index which is to be available on line. Our objective is to produce a large index which is entirely true to the original. > To this end SOME data > must be absolutely as in the GRO index - but other data is changed before it > is made available. If data is to be modified/improved before being made > available then how pedantically correct does it have to be in the original > transcription? The data in the underlying database is most emphatically *NOT* changed in any way. Any apparent changes are merely in the display of the data. the processing of the data is carried out using the raw unmolested data. > For instance, the discussion that Barry raises is basically whether or not > we transcribers are causing any problem by entering 'W.Derby', or 'W. Derby' > when we might see 'W Derby' (or vice versa). Now since there is an > 'aliasing' group which modifies these all into a single version for the > database (say, 'W. Derby') then where is the problem in relation to our main > objective? The aliasing group does NOT modify them. The entries are in the database EXACTLY as typed. The aliasing team simply links all the variants together to allow for them to be searched as a single district. > If, as in another recent discussion, 'St Olave, Bermondsey' is transcribed > as 'St Olave' then this is clearly wrong - but if the ONLY difference is a > space, period or comma (e.g. 'St.Olave Bermondsey') then surely there is an > aliasing process which modifies this before it is seen on the database. No, the aliasing process merely identifies that these are variants of a single district. It doesn't modify them. > The > aliasing process may be more complicated due to such variations, but I > submit that since all versions will appear at some time on the original GRO > index, then there will have to be an entry in alias conversion in any case. Yes, there are many thousands of aliases, but that is something that we can cope with very well. > I'm sure we can all appreciate that names and page numbers should be entered > 100% TWYS. Our friend Jonh Smith might indeed have been christened as that > and it is not up to a present day transcriber to modify the index. > > (Referring to previous discussions, however, I would apply similar logic re > changes between transcription and database if a 'dot/period' appeared after > ALL {please note the ALL} the 'John's in the list and these were transcribed > without the extra dot!! The database for each 'John Smith' will read 'John > Smith' even if the index said 'John. Smith'. i.e. a user of the database > will not look for the forename of 'John.' - but will look for 'John') I am by now *HEARTILY* sick of responding to this point! You are trying to second guess just how the database build and search programmes will work. You are suggesting that the data should be made to fit in with what you think people will search on. It simply isn't necessary. The search engine is designed so that it will find these entries. > I realise that in posting this I am laying myself open to a good trampling > upon by the FreeBMD organisers - but please listen to arguments like these > and I think there may be less misunderstandings and discussion. You have argued against the need for 100% faithful transcription, but your arguments ignore some of the major reasons for insisting upon it, whilst presenting problems with 100% accurate transcription that simply don't exist. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

At 10:31 pm +0000 18/12/03, Sue Bate wrote: >The whole idea of Type What You See is for transcribers to do just >that. If we see a space - we leave a space. If there is no space - >we do not put a space in. > >If there is a whole scan of John Smiths, and in the middle there is >a Jonh Smith - then that's exactly what we type. If there's a full >stop after St (as in St. Pancras) - then we put the full stop in our >transcription. It's not for us to judge what the original writer >may have meant. We just do what they did. Why is this so hard to >grasp? > >Sue Bate Because when transcribing handwriting you can't rigidly apply TWYS with regard to spaces or lack of spaces. If 'We just do what they did' our transcriptions would end up with forenames such as 'A nn', 'A aron' & 'BarbarinaElizabethHenrietta' etc. With handwriting some interpretation is clearly involved. If there are problems with spaces, or lack of spaces, in forenames it calls into question how much time should we spend (if any) in deciding whether there is a space, half a space or no space between the 'St' and 'Pancras'? If you have St. Pancras and St Pancras in your district list do you also add 'StPancras' and 'St.Pancras' to the list? -- Regards Dick Jones Leigh-on-Sea Essex UK rcjones@rmplc.co.uk

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:11:34 -0800, you wrote: >Is there any way to link to the results of a FreeBMD search from another website? Very simple answer - no. >To see what I'm trying to do, look at the FreeBMD links on this webpage: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~andrewgough/ACFGough.htm > >I chose to present the links in that way in order to give the FreeBMD project, and in particular the transcribers of those entries, the full credit for enabling me to find those marriages. I hope you will agree that this is a legitimate objective. We'd be equally happy with a simple link to the search page! In fact, I would distinctly prefer that the link you use DIDN'T show the underlying code of the search page by displaying exactly what is in the link. >Note also that I haven't actually proved that the marriages took place. All I have demonstrated is that the parties were two of the four individuals on those pages of the register. Presenting the link in this way enables the reader to judge for him/herself whether I've matched them correctly. > >However the links no longer work. Presumably I've fallen foul of the ban on searching FreeBMD from 3rd party websites (even though my site is also part of Rootsweb). Is there any way around this? Yes, you have fallen foul of it. No, there isn't a way round it. >Incidentally I do wonder whether such a strict ban is really necessary. Other similar websites seem to manage quite happily without a ban. For example there would be nothing to prevent me linking to Arthur Jefferson in the 1881 census via http://www.familysearch.org/eng/Search/census/household_record.asp?HOUSEHOLD_CODE=1881BR_4042203 > >Furthermore I could replace the current broken links with http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=freebmd&ti=0&f5=997&f6=1884&f7=March&f4=8c&f10=Marriages and >http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=freebmd&ti=0&f5=104&f6=1850&f7=March&f4=17&f10=Marriages > >However I don't happen to want to give the credit for finding those marriages to Ancestry.com; I want to give it to FreeBMD. The ban on direct searching is for a number of reasons. 1) You want to credit FreeBMD. Others use it to do meta-searches, and pass it off as their own work. 2) The data in FreeBMD is updated once a month, and if we find and fix an error affecting one of the links you use, people are going too blame us for your link not working. 3) We make changes to the search page from time to time, and we really don't want people carrying on calling it with the old variable set. 4) FreeBMD is heavily reliant on revenue from banner adverts. Our model ensures that anybody searching FreeBMD is presented with 2 different adverts as part of their search. People linking direct reduce that to one. People doing meta searches reduce it to zero. -- Dave Mayall

Is there any way to link to the results of a FreeBMD search from another website? To see what I'm trying to do, look at the FreeBMD links on this webpage: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~andrewgough/ACFGough.htm I chose to present the links in that way in order to give the FreeBMD project, and in particular the transcribers of those entries, the full credit for enabling me to find those marriages. I hope you will agree that this is a legitimate objective. Note also that I haven't actually proved that the marriages took place. All I have demonstrated is that the parties were two of the four individuals on those pages of the register. Presenting the link in this way enables the reader to judge for him/herself whether I've matched them correctly. However the links no longer work. Presumably I've fallen foul of the ban on searching FreeBMD from 3rd party websites (even though my site is also part of Rootsweb). Is there any way around this? Incidentally I do wonder whether such a strict ban is really necessary. Other similar websites seem to manage quite happily without a ban. For example there would be nothing to prevent me linking to Arthur Jefferson in the 1881 census via http://www.familysearch.org/eng/Search/census/household_record.asp?HOUSEHOLD_CODE=1881BR_4042203 Furthermore I could replace the current broken links with http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=freebmd&ti=0&f5=997&f6=1884&f7=March&f4=8c&f10=Marriages and http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=freebmd&ti=0&f5=104&f6=1850&f7=March&f4=17&f10=Marriages However I don't happen to want to give the credit for finding those marriages to Ancestry.com; I want to give it to FreeBMD. Andrew Gough ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Visit the web site of the Financial Times at http://www.ft.com

Thank you. I am all set now - HOPEFULLY. Lynda ----- Original Message ----- From: "L Hambling" <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> To: "The Minarzicks" <minarzick@sympatico.ca> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 6:39 AM Subject: Re: Another Problem > Hi Lynda > > Go to Options and make sure you have "Show District Picklist" ticked. > > Regards > Lucille > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Minarzicks" <minarzick@sympatico.ca> > To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 10:59 AM > Subject: Another Problem > > > > For some reason I can't explain, now I find that I have lost the ability > to automatically generate the districts. When I come to this column I must > type everything out in full. Can someone suggest a way to restore this > feature? > > > > Lynda in Montreal > > > > > > ============================== > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, > go to: > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > >

For some reason I can't explain, now I find that I have lost the ability to automatically generate the districts. When I come to this column I must type everything out in full. Can someone suggest a way to restore this feature? Lynda in Montreal

I'm sorry I am not going to devote any more of my time to this discussion. I just happen to think I have answered all the questions already. When I have further news to report I will do so at that time. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 06 December 2003 19:58 Subject: NEW SCANS >Allan > >I am going to keep this on the list because I think people are interested in what is going on. > >You said: > >> Scans from Derek were done by a separate organisation in Canada.< > >Does that mean that Scan2 won't see any improvement in the quality of their scans? > >You also say: > >> My initials thoughts are that we have a "News Flash" Web Page, which can be >> updated on demand.< > >This sounds very interesting, can you explain how it might work? > >You still haven't answered these questions: > >1 >If some of the scans have already been uploaded when do you think we will >> start on a more logical order of transcribing and what will that order be? > >2 You say *Derek Hopkins has also uploaded more scans within the last couple >> of days for Births 1886, 1887 and 1888* are these scans from Archive CD Books?< > >3 >When can transcribers expect to see an improvement in the quality of the >> scans? > >Lucille > > > > > > > > > > > > > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

Dave On Saturday 6 December 2003 Dave Mayall wrote: > Those who wish to judge the quality of the new scans for themselves > should take a look at 1910 Deaths scans Thank you for this information I for one will be having a look. Regarding your other message on this subject, thank you again for the information, it is nice to know how things are progressing. Lucille Scan2

Allan I am going to keep this on the list because I think people are interested in what is going on. You said: > Scans from Derek were done by a separate organisation in Canada.< Does that mean that Scan2 won't see any improvement in the quality of their scans? You also say: > My initials thoughts are that we have a "News Flash" Web Page, which can be > updated on demand.< This sounds very interesting, can you explain how it might work? You still haven't answered these questions: 1 >If some of the scans have already been uploaded when do you think we will > start on a more logical order of transcribing and what will that order be? 2 You say *Derek Hopkins has also uploaded more scans within the last couple > of days for Births 1886, 1887 and 1888* are these scans from Archive CD Books?< 3 >When can transcribers expect to see an improvement in the quality of the > scans? Lucille

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:27:25 -0000, you wrote: >Scans from Derek were done by a separate organisation in Canada. > >Archive CD Books are based in England which means I can deliver the films to >them for scanning as soon as they arrive with me. > >Improvement in quality of scans depends to a great extent on the source >films/fiche. > >Yes, I have visited Archive CD Books with Dave Mayall and they are very >professional, they do scanning for a living and we are pleased with the >quality offered by them. > >Poor quality scans in the past most likely was due to bad source rather than >the organisation that actually did the scanning on behalf of FreeBMD. Those who wish to judge the quality of the new scans for themselves should take a look at 1910 Deaths scans -- Dave Mayall

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:05:28 -0000, you wrote: >Yes, and wasn't there once a mailing list called "News". In fact it is >still references on the FBMD web site, but seems to have had no postings >since God was a boy. > >Any news on "News"?? News is reserved for External news items, for the simple reason that it goes out to journalists who write articles about FreeBMD. We don't therefore use it for detailed information about the ins and outs of projects. -- Dave Mayall

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:30:59 -0000, you wrote: >Below is just an extract of a message from Dave Mayall - Discuss List - 11/09/2003. > >>>We are embarking on a project *NOW* to complete scanning in a logical order. We can do this now because we are in a sufficiently stable financial position to do so. The plan is; >1) Install additional hardware to handle the extra scans > >2) Complete scanning of all years all events from 1910 to 1866 working backwards<< > >>>Time-scales are always difficult, but current guess is new hardware on-line by end October 03, Source 1866-1910 on-hand by same time > >1866-1910 scans available gradually from November to January 04 > >1837-1856 marriage source on hand by early January 04 > >1837-1856 scans available February - June 2004 > >Beyond that time-scales are too vague to be useful. << > >I know there has been a problem with the hard ware and wondered if someone might give us an update into how things are progressing? Also are there any plans to post messages from time to time of the progress? The hardware is back, and will be commissioned as soon as somebody (Ben) has time to do it! Then, we will have a few weeks to build the service on the new machines (again dependant on time being available, from me this time). Once the servers are ready for service we will migrate the scan service to them (probably over a weekend). The delay in the hardware is a pain from the point of view of managing things, but it isn't affecting progress on getting the scans up. 1910 Deaths went on-line a week ago (yes it was November!!), and I expect the rest of 1907-1910 online by early January. The remainder of the gaps 1866-1910 are being skipped for a sort while due to supply logistics. The 1837-1856 marriage source (less a couple of years that we have to get from elsewhere) is expected to be delivered for scanning in early February. If the plan is going wrong, we'll say something, but at present, we expect things to progress nicely. -- Dave Mayall