Ben Laurie wrote: > Allan Raymond wrote: > >> Sheelagh >> >> The definitive answer is given in the Terms and Conditions of 1837online, >> accessible via their Web Page: http://www.1837online.com/Trace2web/ >> >> I'm not a lawyer, but the restrictions in Para 4 of the Terms and >> Conditions >> precludes the use of the Material accessed from 1837online, other than >> for >> "personal family research". It is entirely up to 1837online to set >> their own >> restrictions and very important that FreeBMD is seen to be adhering to >> these >> restriction. > > FreeBMD is under no obligation to 1837online, since it makes no use of > their materials. The obligation is on the users of 1837online to comply > with their T&Cs. To be clear, my point is that our policy is not based on any obligation to 1837online, since none exists, it is one that we have voluntarily elected to enforce. I did not intend to suggest that our policy is not as stated. Cheers, Ben.

Allan Raymond wrote: > Sheelagh > > The definitive answer is given in the Terms and Conditions of 1837online, > accessible via their Web Page: http://www.1837online.com/Trace2web/ > > I'm not a lawyer, but the restrictions in Para 4 of the Terms and Conditions > precludes the use of the Material accessed from 1837online, other than for > "personal family research". It is entirely up to 1837online to set their own > restrictions and very important that FreeBMD is seen to be adhering to these > restriction. FreeBMD is under no obligation to 1837online, since it makes no use of their materials. The obligation is on the users of 1837online to comply with their T&Cs. Cheers, Ben.

Thanks for that Allan - that is how I read it, and I am glad to know that I did get it right - I experienced a moment of panic that I might have got it wrong. It would be good to have something in the Q and A's that I can refer to in future as it is one of those that likes to rear its head every so often. Regards Sheelagh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 2:10 PM Subject: Re: submitting 1837 online data to freebmd > Sheelagh > > The definitive answer is given in the Terms and Conditions of 1837online, > accessible via their Web Page: http://www.1837online.com/Trace2web/ > > I'm not a lawyer, but the restrictions in Para 4 of the Terms and Conditions > precludes the use of the Material accessed from 1837online, other than for > "personal family research". It is entirely up to 1837online to set their own > restrictions and very important that FreeBMD is seen to be adhering to these > restriction. > > As this query has been raised previously both on and off list, I have put a > task on the system to add a Q & A to our Transcribers Knowledge Base (TKB) > to cover the use of 1837online accessed Material. This will be based on > Dave's previous responses. > > Allan Raymond > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sheelagh <shee.hawkins@lineone.net> > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 29 November 2003 11:50 > Subject: submitting 1837 online data to freebmd > > > >Once again the question of submitting work transcribed from the 1837 online > >database to FreeBMD has raised its head on the London list. I replied > >quoting from one of Daves previous correspondences on this, as follows:- > If > >FreeBMD were to put > >> transcriptions from 1837online scans onto the site, they would be open to > >> legal action (including personal liability for the four "owners" of the > >> FreeBMD project). In consequence, they will remove any transcriptions > that > >> they become aware of that are taken from 1837online scans from the site. > >> I'm sure none of us would want to do anything that might jeopardise the > >> FreeBMD project, therefore I would beg you not to submit transcriptions > >from > >> 1837 online to the FreeBMD website. > >A reply has just been posted to the list as follows :-The information on > the > >index pages from 1837.com, the microfiche at the FRC > >and microfiche at dozens of other places is all the same. One cannot place > >images of the pages obtained from 1837.com on web sites for others to use, > >but the transcribed data is NOT subject to copyright. 1837.com cannot claim > >ownership of facts. > >If in doubt ask FreeBMD first, rather than assuming that Sheelagh writes > >with any authority on this matter. > > > >Now I don't want to get into a slanging match with someone. I assume that I > >am correct and that the situation with 1837 online has not changed, so > could > >Dave or one of the "management" give me an "official" quote so that I can > >put the matter straight please. > >Thanks > >Sheelagh > > > > > > > > > > > >============================== > >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 >

Sheelagh The definitive answer is given in the Terms and Conditions of 1837online, accessible via their Web Page: http://www.1837online.com/Trace2web/ I'm not a lawyer, but the restrictions in Para 4 of the Terms and Conditions precludes the use of the Material accessed from 1837online, other than for "personal family research". It is entirely up to 1837online to set their own restrictions and very important that FreeBMD is seen to be adhering to these restriction. As this query has been raised previously both on and off list, I have put a task on the system to add a Q & A to our Transcribers Knowledge Base (TKB) to cover the use of 1837online accessed Material. This will be based on Dave's previous responses. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Sheelagh <shee.hawkins@lineone.net> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 29 November 2003 11:50 Subject: submitting 1837 online data to freebmd >Once again the question of submitting work transcribed from the 1837 online >database to FreeBMD has raised its head on the London list. I replied >quoting from one of Daves previous correspondences on this, as follows:- If >FreeBMD were to put >> transcriptions from 1837online scans onto the site, they would be open to >> legal action (including personal liability for the four "owners" of the >> FreeBMD project). In consequence, they will remove any transcriptions that >> they become aware of that are taken from 1837online scans from the site. >> I'm sure none of us would want to do anything that might jeopardise the >> FreeBMD project, therefore I would beg you not to submit transcriptions >from >> 1837 online to the FreeBMD website. >A reply has just been posted to the list as follows :-The information on the >index pages from 1837.com, the microfiche at the FRC >and microfiche at dozens of other places is all the same. One cannot place >images of the pages obtained from 1837.com on web sites for others to use, >but the transcribed data is NOT subject to copyright. 1837.com cannot claim >ownership of facts. >If in doubt ask FreeBMD first, rather than assuming that Sheelagh writes >with any authority on this matter. > >Now I don't want to get into a slanging match with someone. I assume that I >am correct and that the situation with 1837 online has not changed, so could >Dave or one of the "management" give me an "official" quote so that I can >put the matter straight please. >Thanks >Sheelagh > > > > > >============================== >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 > >

Sheelagh <shee.hawkins@lineone.net> wrote on Sat, 29 Nov 2003: >Once again the question of submitting work transcribed from the 1837 >online database to FreeBMD has raised its head on the London list. Which London list? -- Iain Archer

Once again the question of submitting work transcribed from the 1837 online database to FreeBMD has raised its head on the London list. I replied quoting from one of Daves previous correspondences on this, as follows:- If FreeBMD were to put > transcriptions from 1837online scans onto the site, they would be open to > legal action (including personal liability for the four "owners" of the > FreeBMD project). In consequence, they will remove any transcriptions that > they become aware of that are taken from 1837online scans from the site. > I'm sure none of us would want to do anything that might jeopardise the > FreeBMD project, therefore I would beg you not to submit transcriptions from > 1837 online to the FreeBMD website. A reply has just been posted to the list as follows :-The information on the index pages from 1837.com, the microfiche at the FRC and microfiche at dozens of other places is all the same. One cannot place images of the pages obtained from 1837.com on web sites for others to use, but the transcribed data is NOT subject to copyright. 1837.com cannot claim ownership of facts. If in doubt ask FreeBMD first, rather than assuming that Sheelagh writes with any authority on this matter. Now I don't want to get into a slanging match with someone. I assume that I am correct and that the situation with 1837 online has not changed, so could Dave or one of the "management" give me an "official" quote so that I can put the matter straight please. Thanks Sheelagh

I would like to beg the indulgence of the list owners to share the following information. I received an email this morning which I think will be of interest to a lot of people. >In the past, you've given us your e-mail address so that we could use e-mail as one of the ways we contact you. However, new UK laws governing the use of e-mail addresses by organisations come into force in mid December 2003. This forthcoming legislation means that an organisation within the European Union cannot e-mail you unless you explicitly opt-in to receive e-mail communications.< Regards Lucille

This has now been corrected. [W_]*liton is now accepted. Barrie > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Dauncey [mailto:peter@dauncey54.freeserve.co.uk] > Sent: 22 November 2003 20:29 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Changes to upload format checking > > > One of the new checks is meant to be that "asterisk is not adjacent to > underscore". However, it also rejects the following format: > [W_]*liton > > I've replaced it with *liton, but I was trying to indicate > that although the > first part of the word was obscured (by dirt on the fiche), > the first letter > looked likely to be "W". (I know the missing letters are > likely to be "il", > but they were not visible.) > > If I'd used the format [_W]*liton, would that have been accepted (even > though it doesn't convey exactly what I wanted)? > > Best wishes, > Peter Dauncey > South London, UK > > ______________________________ >

In message <000501c3b1b0$46dc29a0$6601a8c0@JohnFairlie>, John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> writes >Surely you must know what the first letter is, as all records are listed >alphabetically?? > >If you were doing a section of W's, then the first letter can only be a "W" >???? Not if it is in the district column. -- Philip Powell Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland to The Cheviot

Surely you must know what the first letter is, as all records are listed alphabetically?? If you were doing a section of W's, then the first letter can only be a "W" ???? John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Peter Dauncey [mailto:peter@dauncey54.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 8:29 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Changes to upload format checking One of the new checks is meant to be that "asterisk is not adjacent to underscore". However, it also rejects the following format: [W_]*liton I've replaced it with *liton, but I was trying to indicate that although the first part of the word was obscured (by dirt on the fiche), the first letter looked likely to be "W". (I know the missing letters are likely to be "il", but they were not visible.) If I'd used the format [_W]*liton, would that have been accepted (even though it doesn't convey exactly what I wanted)? Best wishes, Peter Dauncey South London, UK ============================== 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

One of the new checks is meant to be that "asterisk is not adjacent to underscore". However, it also rejects the following format: [W_]*liton I've replaced it with *liton, but I was trying to indicate that although the first part of the word was obscured (by dirt on the fiche), the first letter looked likely to be "W". (I know the missing letters are likely to be "il", but they were not visible.) If I'd used the format [_W]*liton, would that have been accepted (even though it doesn't convey exactly what I wanted)? Best wishes, Peter Dauncey South London, UK

Two changes have been made to the upload routine that checks the format of transcribed files. These changes may affect transcribers and are as follows:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Where an entry has something like "See D/1865" in the page field this can now be entered as seen. A warning will be shown to indicate that it is not in the normal page format but this can be ignored in this situation. (Previously such a field had to be entered as three underscores.) For new uploads we will be further checking conformance with the Uncertain Character Format (UCF) definition (see here <http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Format.shtml#UCF> ). This does not affect any file already uploaded unless it is uploaded again (i.e. replaced). We will now check that: * More than one character occurs between square brackets * There are no adjacent asterisks * Asterisk is not adjacent to underscore * Question mark appears only on its own Users of WinBMD should not be affected by this since WinBMD already makes these checks. The help files have been changed to take into account both of the above.

Hi, John Fairlie wrote: > If one syndicate has a whizzo system, why don't other syndicates adopt it? > Surely the syndicate leader who developed the whizzo system isn't against > others adopting that system. After all, we are all on the FreeBMD project > working for the benefit of a wider group are we not??? Yes, of course we are... however, I am sure you wouldn't expect syndicate coordinators to keep changing their working practices whenever another syndicate coordinator comes up with a different way of doing things. Each syndicate has a great deal of flexibility in how they manage their syndicates as long as they confirm to certain standards for the project as a whole. Derek happens to have a separate website for Scan2 which contains the status of his syndicate members and the work they are currently doing. The information he is providing is to help him manage where he is within his syndicate. The information provided by FreeBMD as a whole is to do with what has or hasnt been uploaded to the site and incorporated in a rebuild. I wouldn't expect the other syndicate coordinators to necessarily work in the same way .. hence the information on the Scan2 website is not the same as for other syndicates. > Then questions about why a column of data has a fault or ambiguity in it IS > a comment for the FreeBMD project as a whole. They would be if the everyone used the same method, which, as described above, they don't... Experience has show that, the more questions there are about a specific syndicate method of working the more confusion there is for transcribers not within that syndicate. Cheers Graham

I politely pointed out that queries about a specific Syndicate should be take up with that Co-ordinator, this has nothing to do about finger pointing and should not be misconstrued as such.. The Syndicate Co-ordinator is the individual who can deal first hand with queries about his/her Syndicate. I can understand your comments about how do newcomers know who is responsible for what, but I assumed any visitor to Derek's site would appreciate it was all about Scan2 volunteers. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Dick Bond <dick@bonds.plus.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 17 November 2003 19:28 Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >Why, o, why does a simple request/question get so quickly tangled. > >I as a humble transcriber just see ONE organisation - i.e. FreeBMD. > >When I joined I was asked to work within one syndicate - but as I understand (understood?) it this was under the 'FrreBMD' banner. > >When I see statistics & methods of processing I assume they are on behalf of FreeBMD. > >What is all this discussion about 'concerns regarding a SPECIFIC syndicate' (my emphasis, not shouting!!)? How is the h. transcriber to know how all this works and who is responsible for what? (and don't point me to some obscure sentence in some further http:/etc !! > >I accept that you have a wide organisation , but finger pointing of this kind does not seem to give a good impression. > >I rest my case. > >.... as a developer myself, however, I do accept the reply that the problem is noted and will be dealt with - meanwhile I shall use the 25th and 26th hour in each of my days to get on with some transcribing. > >Good luck to all - just trying to be helpful really. > >Dick > > >Ask away. > >Volunteers who have a query regarding their Syndicate should in the first >instance take it with the respective Co-ordinator. To discuss Syndicate >Specific queries on a FreeBMD Mailing List may lead to confusion by >volunteers in other Syndicates who work in a different way. > >I think it is also courtesy to raise any queries/concerns regarding a >specific Syndicate direct with the Co-ordinator in the first instance prior >to posting to one of the mailing lists. > >The mailing list Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/lists.html under >heading FreeBMD-Admins-L >specifically mentions "Answers that reflect practice within a particular >syndicate or which reflect the opinion of a transcriber as to a better way >of doing things are not allowed." > >I have just set up a task to add something similar under the heading >FreeBMD-Discuss-L regarding discussion of Syndicate specific issues. > >Allan Raymond > > >-----Original Message----- >From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: 16 November 2003 21:39 >Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans > > >>I could ask why? but I have since found out what happens behind the scenes >>and I know why. Why didn't you explain why in your reply? >> >>Lucille >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >>To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >>Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:43 PM >>Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> >> >>> I'm sure you wont mind me pointing out that comments about the workings >of >>> an individual Syndicate should be taken up with the Co-ordinator and not >>via >>> the Discuss List. >>> >>> Allan Raymond >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >>> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >>> Date: 16 November 2003 18:13 >>> Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >>> >>> >>> >I know about the graphs on the file management page, but I am not >>concerned >>> >with those. I am talking about the statistics on the Scan2 home page, >>the >>> >column headed "Typ" is supposed to show how many pages I have >>transcribed, >>> >but it counts a double page scan as 1 page not 2 the same goes for the >>> >columns headed "All" and "56 day". The second is on my allocations page >>> >there is a link called "Individual Graphs" this page has Rankings!! and >>the >>> >figures are based on "Total Pages Transcribed" and "Total Pages >>Transcribed >>> >in the last 4 weeks", therefore if some pages have more or less entries >>> than >>> >others, what is the point? When I have just slogged through a double >>page >>> >scan (and I really don't like them, they seem never ending) it doesn't >do >>> >much for moral. >>> > >>> >Lucille >>> > >>> > >>> >-------Original Message------- >>> > >>> >From: Philip Powell >>> >Date: 16 November 2003 17:15:23 >>> > >>> >In message <001c01c3ac56$8e72f7d0$023d1dac@dickhome>, Dick Bond >>> ><dick@bonds.plus.com> writes >>> >>Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note >>> >>that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed >>> >>pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but >>> >>should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? >>> > >>> >If you look on the FreeBMD file management page you will find that the >>> >details are recorded as uploaded files rather than pages and you can >>> >also see how many actual entries you have uploaded. Actual entries make >>> >more sense than pages [or files] because the latter vary in size. >>> >Typically, typeset pages have 375 entries whereas as handwritten pages >>> >have only 40. >>> > >>> >Of course, you won't be able to see yours until the next database update >>> >- which I'd guess will be starting in the next few days. >>> > >>> >>If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having them >>> >>correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than 'pages') >>> > >>> >Once your files have been entered into the database you will see that >>> >that is the case - though they are referred to as "entries" rather than >>> >"submissions" and are additional to the list of actual files. >>> > >>> >-- >>> >Philip Powell >>> >Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland >>> >to The Cheviot >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================== >>> 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 >> > > >============================== >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 one syndicate has a whizzo system, why don't other syndicates adopt it? Surely the syndicate leader who developed the whizzo system isn't against others adopting that system. After all, we are all on the FreeBMD project working for the benefit of a wider group are we not??? Then questions about why a column of data has a fault or ambiguity in it IS a comment for the FreeBMD project as a whole. John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: L Hambling [mailto:l.hambling@ntlworld.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:22 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans Thank you for your reply and the information. I think Dick Bonds message sums up what I was trying to say. Lucille -------Original Message------- From: Allan Raymond Date: 16 November 2003 23:38:00 To: L Hambling Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans Lucille My long winded answer. Not all Syndicates operate the same elaborate system as Scan2, Derek has the particular expertise background to be able to do this. The following may help to clarify the point I was trying to make. I allocate slots to all the Syndicates and maintain directly or indirectly the associated FreeBMD Web Pages. These are the pages at: 1. Syndicate Allocation Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/bmd-synd.pl. 2. Transcribing Scanned Source at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/scan-source2.shtml Once I've allocated the slots each Syndicate is free to allocate individual pages within each allocation to the their volunteers. Some Syndicates keep a spreadsheet of what's been allocated to their volunteers, whilst Derek in particular has an automated system via his Web Site. Derek also bypasses the FreeBMD "Transcribing Scanned Source" Web Page above by including the information on his own Web Site, although both the FreeBMD Web Page and Derek's Web Page point to the same link. FreeBMD also centrally maintain comprehensive statistics which are either produced automatically or manually by another member of the central team. Derek has decided that he will produce statistics which apply within his Syndicate, other Syndicates don't go to this extent. Therefore if the individual who posted the original query was referring to the formal FreeBMD Web statistics it would be quite valid for this to be raised initially on the Admin List and transferred across to the DISCUSS list if this was to discuss changes in the statistics produced. However, as the query was about the statistics produced solely for Scan2 Syndicate it should be raised direct with Derek in the first instance. Volunteers in other Syndicates who don't work to the same system may or could be confused by discussions applicable to Scan2 Syndicate. Regards Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> To: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> Date: 16 November 2003 22:59 Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >I was merely referring to the fact that syndicate pages are separate from >FreeBMD and as they are set up and maintained by the Co-ordinator it is only >right that any queries should be taken up with them and not FreeBMD. As I >have said already, I found this out for myself and it is quite simple >really. > >It makes you wonder how many other transcribers think they are set up and >maintained by FreeBMD. > >Lucille > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: "L Hambling" <l.hambling@ntlworld.com>; <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:04 PM >Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans > > >> Ask away. >> >> Volunteers who have a query regarding their Syndicate should in the first >> instance take it with the respective Co-ordinator. To discuss Syndicate >> Specific queries on a FreeBMD Mailing List may lead to confusion by >> volunteers in other Syndicates who work in a different way. >> >> I think it is also courtesy to raise any queries/concerns regarding a >> specific Syndicate direct with the Co-ordinator in the first instance >prior >> to posting to one of the mailing lists. >> >> The mailing list Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/lists.html under >> heading FreeBMD-Admins-L >> specifically mentions "Answers that reflect practice within a particular >> syndicate or which reflect the opinion of a transcriber as to a better way >> of doing things are not allowed." >> >> I have just set up a task to add something similar under the heading >> FreeBMD-Discuss-L regarding discussion of Syndicate specific issues. >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 16 November 2003 21:39 >> Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> >> >> >I could ask why? but I have since found out what happens behind the >scenes >> >and I know why. Why didn't you explain why in your reply? >> > >> >Lucille >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:43 PM >> >Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> > >> > >> >> I'm sure you wont mind me pointing out that comments about the workings >> of >> >> an individual Syndicate should be taken up with the Co-ordinator and >not >> >via >> >> the Discuss List. >> >> >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >> Date: 16 November 2003 18:13 >> >> Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> >> >> >> >> >> >I know about the graphs on the file management page, but I am not >> >concerned >> >> >with those. I am talking about the statistics on the Scan2 home page, >> >the >> >> >column headed "Typ" is supposed to show how many pages I have >> >transcribed, >> >> >but it counts a double page scan as 1 page not 2 the same goes for the >> >> >columns headed "All" and "56 day". The second is on my allocations >page >> >> >there is a link called "Individual Graphs" this page has Rankings!! >and >> >the >> >> >figures are based on "Total Pages Transcribed" and "Total Pages >> >Transcribed >> >> >in the last 4 weeks", therefore if some pages have more or less >entries >> >> than >> >> >others, what is the point? When I have just slogged through a double >> >page >> >> >scan (and I really don't like them, they seem never ending) it doesn't >> do >> >> >much for moral. >> >> > >> >> >Lucille >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-------Original Message------- >> >> > >> >> >From: Philip Powell >> >> >Date: 16 November 2003 17:15:23 >> >> > >> >> >In message <001c01c3ac56$8e72f7d0$023d1dac@dickhome>, Dick Bond >> >> ><dick@bonds.plus.com> writes >> >> >>Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note >> >> >>that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed >> >> >>pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but >> >> >>should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? >> >> > >> >> >If you look on the FreeBMD file management page you will find that the >> >> >details are recorded as uploaded files rather than pages and you can >> >> >also see how many actual entries you have uploaded. Actual entries >make >> >> >more sense than pages [or files] because the latter vary in size. >> >> >Typically, typeset pages have 375 entries whereas as handwritten pages >> >> >have only 40. >> >> > >> >> >Of course, you won't be able to see yours until the next database >update >> >> >- which I'd guess will be starting in the next few days. >> >> > >> >> >>If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having >them >> >> >>correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than >'pages') >> >> > >> >> >Once your files have been entered into the database you will see that >> >> >that is the case - though they are referred to as "entries" rather >than >> >> >"submissions" and are additional to the list of actual files. >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >Philip Powell >> >> >Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland >> >> >to The Cheviot >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ============================== >> >> 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 >> > >> >> > > ============================== 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

Thank you for your reply and the information. I think Dick Bonds message sums up what I was trying to say. Lucille -------Original Message------- From: Allan Raymond Date: 16 November 2003 23:38:00 To: L Hambling Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans Lucille My long winded answer. Not all Syndicates operate the same elaborate system as Scan2, Derek has the particular expertise background to be able to do this. The following may help to clarify the point I was trying to make. I allocate slots to all the Syndicates and maintain directly or indirectly the associated FreeBMD Web Pages. These are the pages at: 1. Syndicate Allocation Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/bmd-synd.pl. 2. Transcribing Scanned Source at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/scan-source2.shtml Once I've allocated the slots each Syndicate is free to allocate individual pages within each allocation to the their volunteers. Some Syndicates keep a spreadsheet of what's been allocated to their volunteers, whilst Derek in particular has an automated system via his Web Site. Derek also bypasses the FreeBMD "Transcribing Scanned Source" Web Page above by including the information on his own Web Site, although both the FreeBMD Web Page and Derek's Web Page point to the same link. FreeBMD also centrally maintain comprehensive statistics which are either produced automatically or manually by another member of the central team. Derek has decided that he will produce statistics which apply within his Syndicate, other Syndicates don't go to this extent. Therefore if the individual who posted the original query was referring to the formal FreeBMD Web statistics it would be quite valid for this to be raised initially on the Admin List and transferred across to the DISCUSS list if this was to discuss changes in the statistics produced. However, as the query was about the statistics produced solely for Scan2 Syndicate it should be raised direct with Derek in the first instance. Volunteers in other Syndicates who don't work to the same system may or could be confused by discussions applicable to Scan2 Syndicate. Regards Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> To: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> Date: 16 November 2003 22:59 Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >I was merely referring to the fact that syndicate pages are separate from >FreeBMD and as they are set up and maintained by the Co-ordinator it is only >right that any queries should be taken up with them and not FreeBMD. As I >have said already, I found this out for myself and it is quite simple >really. > >It makes you wonder how many other transcribers think they are set up and >maintained by FreeBMD. > >Lucille > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: "L Hambling" <l.hambling@ntlworld.com>; <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:04 PM >Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans > > >> Ask away. >> >> Volunteers who have a query regarding their Syndicate should in the first >> instance take it with the respective Co-ordinator. To discuss Syndicate >> Specific queries on a FreeBMD Mailing List may lead to confusion by >> volunteers in other Syndicates who work in a different way. >> >> I think it is also courtesy to raise any queries/concerns regarding a >> specific Syndicate direct with the Co-ordinator in the first instance >prior >> to posting to one of the mailing lists. >> >> The mailing list Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/lists.html under >> heading FreeBMD-Admins-L >> specifically mentions "Answers that reflect practice within a particular >> syndicate or which reflect the opinion of a transcriber as to a better way >> of doing things are not allowed." >> >> I have just set up a task to add something similar under the heading >> FreeBMD-Discuss-L regarding discussion of Syndicate specific issues. >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 16 November 2003 21:39 >> Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> >> >> >I could ask why? but I have since found out what happens behind the >scenes >> >and I know why. Why didn't you explain why in your reply? >> > >> >Lucille >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:43 PM >> >Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> > >> > >> >> I'm sure you wont mind me pointing out that comments about the workings >> of >> >> an individual Syndicate should be taken up with the Co-ordinator and >not >> >via >> >> the Discuss List. >> >> >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >> Date: 16 November 2003 18:13 >> >> Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> >> >> >> >> >> >I know about the graphs on the file management page, but I am not >> >concerned >> >> >with those. I am talking about the statistics on the Scan2 home page, >> >the >> >> >column headed "Typ" is supposed to show how many pages I have >> >transcribed, >> >> >but it counts a double page scan as 1 page not 2 the same goes for the >> >> >columns headed "All" and "56 day". The second is on my allocations >page >> >> >there is a link called "Individual Graphs" this page has Rankings!! >and >> >the >> >> >figures are based on "Total Pages Transcribed" and "Total Pages >> >Transcribed >> >> >in the last 4 weeks", therefore if some pages have more or less >entries >> >> than >> >> >others, what is the point? When I have just slogged through a double >> >page >> >> >scan (and I really don't like them, they seem never ending) it doesn't >> do >> >> >much for moral. >> >> > >> >> >Lucille >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-------Original Message------- >> >> > >> >> >From: Philip Powell >> >> >Date: 16 November 2003 17:15:23 >> >> > >> >> >In message <001c01c3ac56$8e72f7d0$023d1dac@dickhome>, Dick Bond >> >> ><dick@bonds.plus.com> writes >> >> >>Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note >> >> >>that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed >> >> >>pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but >> >> >>should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? >> >> > >> >> >If you look on the FreeBMD file management page you will find that the >> >> >details are recorded as uploaded files rather than pages and you can >> >> >also see how many actual entries you have uploaded. Actual entries >make >> >> >more sense than pages [or files] because the latter vary in size. >> >> >Typically, typeset pages have 375 entries whereas as handwritten pages >> >> >have only 40. >> >> > >> >> >Of course, you won't be able to see yours until the next database >update >> >> >- which I'd guess will be starting in the next few days. >> >> > >> >> >>If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having >them >> >> >>correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than >'pages') >> >> > >> >> >Once your files have been entered into the database you will see that >> >> >that is the case - though they are referred to as "entries" rather >than >> >> >"submissions" and are additional to the list of actual files. >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >Philip Powell >> >> >Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland >> >> >to The Cheviot >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ============================== >> >> 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 >> > >> >> > >

Why, o, why does a simple request/question get so quickly tangled. I as a humble transcriber just see ONE organisation - i.e. FreeBMD. When I joined I was asked to work within one syndicate - but as I understand (understood?) it this was under the 'FrreBMD' banner. When I see statistics & methods of processing I assume they are on behalf of FreeBMD. What is all this discussion about 'concerns regarding a SPECIFIC syndicate' (my emphasis, not shouting!!)? How is the h. transcriber to know how all this works and who is responsible for what? (and don't point me to some obscure sentence in some further http:/etc !! I accept that you have a wide organisation , but finger pointing of this kind does not seem to give a good impression. I rest my case. ..... as a developer myself, however, I do accept the reply that the problem is noted and will be dealt with - meanwhile I shall use the 25th and 26th hour in each of my days to get on with some transcribing. Good luck to all - just trying to be helpful really. Dick Ask away. Volunteers who have a query regarding their Syndicate should in the first instance take it with the respective Co-ordinator. To discuss Syndicate Specific queries on a FreeBMD Mailing List may lead to confusion by volunteers in other Syndicates who work in a different way. I think it is also courtesy to raise any queries/concerns regarding a specific Syndicate direct with the Co-ordinator in the first instance prior to posting to one of the mailing lists. The mailing list Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/lists.html under heading FreeBMD-Admins-L specifically mentions "Answers that reflect practice within a particular syndicate or which reflect the opinion of a transcriber as to a better way of doing things are not allowed." I have just set up a task to add something similar under the heading FreeBMD-Discuss-L regarding discussion of Syndicate specific issues. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 16 November 2003 21:39 Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >I could ask why? but I have since found out what happens behind the scenes >and I know why. Why didn't you explain why in your reply? > >Lucille > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:43 PM >Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans > > >> I'm sure you wont mind me pointing out that comments about the workings of >> an individual Syndicate should be taken up with the Co-ordinator and not >via >> the Discuss List. >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 16 November 2003 18:13 >> Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> >> >> >I know about the graphs on the file management page, but I am not >concerned >> >with those. I am talking about the statistics on the Scan2 home page, >the >> >column headed "Typ" is supposed to show how many pages I have >transcribed, >> >but it counts a double page scan as 1 page not 2 the same goes for the >> >columns headed "All" and "56 day". The second is on my allocations page >> >there is a link called "Individual Graphs" this page has Rankings!! and >the >> >figures are based on "Total Pages Transcribed" and "Total Pages >Transcribed >> >in the last 4 weeks", therefore if some pages have more or less entries >> than >> >others, what is the point? When I have just slogged through a double >page >> >scan (and I really don't like them, they seem never ending) it doesn't do >> >much for moral. >> > >> >Lucille >> > >> > >> >-------Original Message------- >> > >> >From: Philip Powell >> >Date: 16 November 2003 17:15:23 >> > >> >In message <001c01c3ac56$8e72f7d0$023d1dac@dickhome>, Dick Bond >> ><dick@bonds.plus.com> writes >> >>Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note >> >>that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed >> >>pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but >> >>should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? >> > >> >If you look on the FreeBMD file management page you will find that the >> >details are recorded as uploaded files rather than pages and you can >> >also see how many actual entries you have uploaded. Actual entries make >> >more sense than pages [or files] because the latter vary in size. >> >Typically, typeset pages have 375 entries whereas as handwritten pages >> >have only 40. >> > >> >Of course, you won't be able to see yours until the next database update >> >- which I'd guess will be starting in the next few days. >> > >> >>If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having them >> >>correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than 'pages') >> > >> >Once your files have been entered into the database you will see that >> >that is the case - though they are referred to as "entries" rather than >> >"submissions" and are additional to the list of actual files. >> > >> >-- >> >Philip Powell >> >Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland >> >to The Cheviot >> > >> > >> >> >> >> ============================== >> 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 >

Ask away. Volunteers who have a query regarding their Syndicate should in the first instance take it with the respective Co-ordinator. To discuss Syndicate Specific queries on a FreeBMD Mailing List may lead to confusion by volunteers in other Syndicates who work in a different way. I think it is also courtesy to raise any queries/concerns regarding a specific Syndicate direct with the Co-ordinator in the first instance prior to posting to one of the mailing lists. The mailing list Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/lists.html under heading FreeBMD-Admins-L specifically mentions "Answers that reflect practice within a particular syndicate or which reflect the opinion of a transcriber as to a better way of doing things are not allowed." I have just set up a task to add something similar under the heading FreeBMD-Discuss-L regarding discussion of Syndicate specific issues. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 16 November 2003 21:39 Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >I could ask why? but I have since found out what happens behind the scenes >and I know why. Why didn't you explain why in your reply? > >Lucille > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:43 PM >Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans > > >> I'm sure you wont mind me pointing out that comments about the workings of >> an individual Syndicate should be taken up with the Co-ordinator and not >via >> the Discuss List. >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 16 November 2003 18:13 >> Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> >> >> >I know about the graphs on the file management page, but I am not >concerned >> >with those. I am talking about the statistics on the Scan2 home page, >the >> >column headed "Typ" is supposed to show how many pages I have >transcribed, >> >but it counts a double page scan as 1 page not 2 the same goes for the >> >columns headed "All" and "56 day". The second is on my allocations page >> >there is a link called "Individual Graphs" this page has Rankings!! and >the >> >figures are based on "Total Pages Transcribed" and "Total Pages >Transcribed >> >in the last 4 weeks", therefore if some pages have more or less entries >> than >> >others, what is the point? When I have just slogged through a double >page >> >scan (and I really don't like them, they seem never ending) it doesn't do >> >much for moral. >> > >> >Lucille >> > >> > >> >-------Original Message------- >> > >> >From: Philip Powell >> >Date: 16 November 2003 17:15:23 >> > >> >In message <001c01c3ac56$8e72f7d0$023d1dac@dickhome>, Dick Bond >> ><dick@bonds.plus.com> writes >> >>Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note >> >>that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed >> >>pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but >> >>should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? >> > >> >If you look on the FreeBMD file management page you will find that the >> >details are recorded as uploaded files rather than pages and you can >> >also see how many actual entries you have uploaded. Actual entries make >> >more sense than pages [or files] because the latter vary in size. >> >Typically, typeset pages have 375 entries whereas as handwritten pages >> >have only 40. >> > >> >Of course, you won't be able to see yours until the next database update >> >- which I'd guess will be starting in the next few days. >> > >> >>If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having them >> >>correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than 'pages') >> > >> >Once your files have been entered into the database you will see that >> >that is the case - though they are referred to as "entries" rather than >> >"submissions" and are additional to the list of actual files. >> > >> >-- >> >Philip Powell >> >Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland >> >to The Cheviot >> > >> > >> >> >> >> ============================== >> 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 >

I could ask why? but I have since found out what happens behind the scenes and I know why. Why didn't you explain why in your reply? Lucille ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:43 PM Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans > I'm sure you wont mind me pointing out that comments about the workings of > an individual Syndicate should be taken up with the Co-ordinator and not via > the Discuss List. > > Allan Raymond > > -----Original Message----- > From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 16 November 2003 18:13 > Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans > > > >I know about the graphs on the file management page, but I am not concerned > >with those. I am talking about the statistics on the Scan2 home page, the > >column headed "Typ" is supposed to show how many pages I have transcribed, > >but it counts a double page scan as 1 page not 2 the same goes for the > >columns headed "All" and "56 day". The second is on my allocations page > >there is a link called "Individual Graphs" this page has Rankings!! and the > >figures are based on "Total Pages Transcribed" and "Total Pages Transcribed > >in the last 4 weeks", therefore if some pages have more or less entries > than > >others, what is the point? When I have just slogged through a double page > >scan (and I really don't like them, they seem never ending) it doesn't do > >much for moral. > > > >Lucille > > > > > >-------Original Message------- > > > >From: Philip Powell > >Date: 16 November 2003 17:15:23 > > > >In message <001c01c3ac56$8e72f7d0$023d1dac@dickhome>, Dick Bond > ><dick@bonds.plus.com> writes > >>Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note > >>that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed > >>pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but > >>should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? > > > >If you look on the FreeBMD file management page you will find that the > >details are recorded as uploaded files rather than pages and you can > >also see how many actual entries you have uploaded. Actual entries make > >more sense than pages [or files] because the latter vary in size. > >Typically, typeset pages have 375 entries whereas as handwritten pages > >have only 40. > > > >Of course, you won't be able to see yours until the next database update > >- which I'd guess will be starting in the next few days. > > > >>If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having them > >>correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than 'pages') > > > >Once your files have been entered into the database you will see that > >that is the case - though they are referred to as "entries" rather than > >"submissions" and are additional to the list of actual files. > > > >-- > >Philip Powell > >Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland > >to The Cheviot > > > > > > > > ============================== > 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'm sure you wont mind me pointing out that comments about the workings of an individual Syndicate should be taken up with the Co-ordinator and not via the Discuss List. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 16 November 2003 18:13 Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >I know about the graphs on the file management page, but I am not concerned >with those. I am talking about the statistics on the Scan2 home page, the >column headed "Typ" is supposed to show how many pages I have transcribed, >but it counts a double page scan as 1 page not 2 the same goes for the >columns headed "All" and "56 day". The second is on my allocations page >there is a link called "Individual Graphs" this page has Rankings!! and the >figures are based on "Total Pages Transcribed" and "Total Pages Transcribed >in the last 4 weeks", therefore if some pages have more or less entries than >others, what is the point? When I have just slogged through a double page >scan (and I really don't like them, they seem never ending) it doesn't do >much for moral. > >Lucille > > >-------Original Message------- > >From: Philip Powell >Date: 16 November 2003 17:15:23 > >In message <001c01c3ac56$8e72f7d0$023d1dac@dickhome>, Dick Bond ><dick@bonds.plus.com> writes >>Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note >>that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed >>pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but >>should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? > >If you look on the FreeBMD file management page you will find that the >details are recorded as uploaded files rather than pages and you can >also see how many actual entries you have uploaded. Actual entries make >more sense than pages [or files] because the latter vary in size. >Typically, typeset pages have 375 entries whereas as handwritten pages >have only 40. > >Of course, you won't be able to see yours until the next database update >- which I'd guess will be starting in the next few days. > >>If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having them >>correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than 'pages') > >Once your files have been entered into the database you will see that >that is the case - though they are referred to as "entries" rather than >"submissions" and are additional to the list of actual files. > >-- >Philip Powell >Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland >to The Cheviot > >