On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:07:20 -0000, you wrote: >Hmmmm. That's interesting. I will just make the following comments (in >this optional discussion!!) > >1. Surely syndicate leaders must have some idea how many pages have not >been uploaded so far versus how many pages were in that quarter? This could >give a clearer measure of coverage. Well, they know how many should be there. Unfortunately, looking at what is actually there seldom agrees with what the co-ord thinks should be there. >2. Personally, I find the coverage graphs very useful. If I am searching a >period where the graphs are at 100% and I still can't find my event, I would >have assumed that it wasn't there. But now, from what you say, 100% could >mean 90% done and 10% are non identical second keyings of some of the 90%, >with 10% not done at all yet! This is somewhat different!! My event could >be in the 10% not done at all yet. Yes. >3. So are the graphs capped at 100%? (Obviously yes!). I can see that >with some non-identical second keyings, figures could rise above 100%. We >need to distinguish between those years at 100% (which may be 90% done and >10% non identical second keyings) from those at 100% (which are 100% done >plus some x% for non-identical second keyings). The question is how you determine "x". >4. I still feel we need a measure of data quality that reflects true >completeness, degree of second keying, degree of matching first and second >keying, and extent of uncertain characters. Yes, I know we are all busy >volunteers!! Quite apart from finding the resource to do such a thing, we still haven't established *how* we could do it. If somebody can specify *how* we are to derive a more accurate figure from the data available, then we can do something about it. Bear in mind that whatever we do it has to be capable of being produced within 24 hours of each update (otherwise we start getting complaints) >You said "It is not and cannot be an exact science." I say - If we are >making an >exact< copy of the GRO indexes, we have to make it an exact >science!! Those that disagree with me are probably those that want a quick >and dirty copy of the GRO indexes I disagree, and not for that reason. The indexes must be accurate, because that is what we are doing. It is our core purpose. Producing statistics is NOT. Devoting huge amounts of time to producing these statistics would be a distraction from what we should be doing. -- Dave Mayall

My favourite is King GEORGE (1866 Deaths, Q2) BTW - just out of interest, why the use of "forenames"? This is a word I'd never heard of until about ten years ago. The people whose names we are transcribing were overwhelmingly Christian, and would certainly have used the term "Christian name" themselves, as I have always done and still do. "Forename" seems to me to be anachronistic; an imposition of political correctness. If I were given to using the language of the politically correct, I'd say that the use of the term "forename" in a C19 context was offensive. But I'm not, so I don't. I just refuse to use the term myself. I hope that doesn't offend anyone. Barry Johnson Monmouthshire ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Cope" <m_cope@btinternet.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:58 AM Subject: Re: Unusual forename > Quoting Peter Dauncey <peter@dauncey54.freeserve.co.uk>: > > > I've just come across someone with the name Offspring WEBB. > > My favourite find is Enough BENNETT (deaths 1890 Q4 p26). > How many older siblings were there for mother or father to decide on that > name? ;-) > > Martin Cope >

Quoting Peter Dauncey <peter@dauncey54.freeserve.co.uk>: > I've just come across someone with the name Offspring WEBB. My favourite find is Enough BENNETT (deaths 1890 Q4 p26). How many older siblings were there for mother or father to decide on that name? ;-) Martin Cope

I've just come across someone with the name Offspring WEBB. At first sight, similar to the Male and Female one often sees in the Births and Deaths, but this one was in the Marriages (1877 Q1), so presumably he (she?) cherished it. Happy searching/transcribing Peter Dauncey

All the information I looked at on FreeBMD indicates you have uploaded 77182 entries. Is there a possibility you are confusing the FreeBMD information with that on your Syndicates Web Site? Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Jack Graham <jack@graham1403.freeserve.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 28 October 2003 19:18 Subject: Last Update >Hi. > >When I checked my entries on the latest update, I had 77182 entries, but >when I clicked on my ID, the page came up with 72689 entries. > >Can anyone tell me what has happened to the 4493 entries? > >Regards > >Jack (Jagra) > > > >============================== >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 >

Hi. When I checked my entries on the latest update, I had 77182 entries, but when I clicked on my ID, the page came up with 72689 entries. Can anyone tell me what has happened to the 4493 entries? Regards Jack (Jagra)

Quoting Dave Mayall <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk>: > If anybody thinks they can produce better figures from the data, they are > welcome to try! Dave, I think you've clearly shown that it's very difficult to produce better figures from THAT data. My question is whether the build process could collect better data from which better figures could be produced. I think it would be possible to do a better job at the page level. For each event-quarter we know how may pages there should be in total. If the build process can record how many unique pages in an event-quarter have been transcribed at least once (or how many have not been touched at all), then the ratio would give a very good estimate of the coverage irrespective of the amount of double keying. I assume you must have considered this and that there's a gotcha somewhere. Martin Cope (Posted earlier today to Admins list in error)

Hmmmm. That's interesting. I will just make the following comments (in this optional discussion!!) 1. Surely syndicate leaders must have some idea how many pages have not been uploaded so far versus how many pages were in that quarter? This could give a clearer measure of coverage. 2. Personally, I find the coverage graphs very useful. If I am searching a period where the graphs are at 100% and I still can't find my event, I would have assumed that it wasn't there. But now, from what you say, 100% could mean 90% done and 10% are non identical second keyings of some of the 90%, with 10% not done at all yet! This is somewhat different!! My event could be in the 10% not done at all yet. 3. So are the graphs capped at 100%? (Obviously yes!). I can see that with some non-identical second keyings, figures could rise above 100%. We need to distinguish between those years at 100% (which may be 90% done and 10% non identical second keyings) from those at 100% (which are 100% done plus some x% for non-identical second keyings). 4. I still feel we need a measure of data quality that reflects true completeness, degree of second keying, degree of matching first and second keying, and extent of uncertain characters. Yes, I know we are all busy volunteers!! You said "It is not and cannot be an exact science." I say - If we are making an >exact< copy of the GRO indexes, we have to make it an exact science!! Those that disagree with me are probably those that want a quick and dirty copy of the GRO indexes as it's a big project and their time is limited. That's fine. I have no argument with that. But the projects goals are (commendably) accuracy to the original index. 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:david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 10:16 AM To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Cc: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Latest update Quoting John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk>: > Funny that marriages 1903 and 1890 should both be listed below with > increases of 20,000 and 13,000 respectively as they were both showing as > 100% on last months graphs. 20,000 records is over 50 pages of typeset! > How can estimates of records be so far out?? Or are these second keyings?? > > If second keyings, shouldn't the graphs show percentages of >twice< the > estimated records?? The graphs compare the number of separate records (ie double keyings count only as one record) against the GRO provided figures. This is NOT and cannot be an exact science; 1) The GRO figures are known to be understated, because they relate to numbers of events, and the number of index entries exceeds the number of events. 2) Unmatched double keyings will show as 2 records. A comparison of total keyings against twice the expected total would be even more misleading. A quarter that was 100% complete on first keying, and 2% double keyed would show as 51% which is totally misleading as to coverage. If anybody thinks they can produce better figures from the data, they are welcome to try! -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

Quoting John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk>: > Funny that marriages 1903 and 1890 should both be listed below with > increases of 20,000 and 13,000 respectively as they were both showing as > 100% on last months graphs. 20,000 records is over 50 pages of typeset! > How can estimates of records be so far out?? Or are these second keyings?? > > If second keyings, shouldn't the graphs show percentages of >twice< the > estimated records?? The graphs compare the number of separate records (ie double keyings count only as one record) against the GRO provided figures. This is NOT and cannot be an exact science; 1) The GRO figures are known to be understated, because they relate to numbers of events, and the number of index entries exceeds the number of events. 2) Unmatched double keyings will show as 2 records. A comparison of total keyings against twice the expected total would be even more misleading. A quarter that was 100% complete on first keying, and 2% double keyed would show as 51% which is totally misleading as to coverage. If anybody thinks they can produce better figures from the data, they are welcome to try! -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

A couple of queries have arisen regard my update analysis, so I'll try to add a bit of background here. After each update, I compare the new "breakdown by year" with the previous one, and report the major increases. The breakdown figures add up to the total "unique records". Records that have been transcribed more than once will show up as one record if they meet FreeBMD's matching criteria for a "unique record", otherwise they will be double (or more) counted. At the start of 2003, there were several years that had extremely large increases in the January update (which nobody commented on) followed by large decreases in the February update (which generated a fair bit of discussion). I think this was caused by some double keyed records not being "matched" in the January figures, and so being double counted. For example, I announced 860,346 "new" 1902 marriages in January, and a reduction of 307,209 in 1902 marriages in February. The actual figure of 553,137 "unique records" in the February figures corresponds to more than 100% of the expected total. (There are 552,408 unique records in the latest update, so some corrections appear to have been made.) In due course, every year will exceed 100%, but only to the extent that interpretations differ. Happy searching/transcribing Peter Dauncey

Funny that marriages 1903 and 1890 should both be listed below with increases of 20,000 and 13,000 respectively as they were both showing as 100% on last months graphs. 20,000 records is over 50 pages of typeset! How can estimates of records be so far out?? Or are these second keyings?? If second keyings, shouldn't the graphs show percentages of >twice< the estimated records?? John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Peter Dauncey [mailto:peter@dauncey54.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 8:42 AM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Latest update The latest update shows an increase of 1,961,069 in the number of unique records. There are 748,220 more Births. The big increases are for 1870 (230,302) and 1907 (129,809), but there are 6 other years with increases over 20K: 1890 (53,207); 1889 (51,110); 1849 (46,808) 1865 (33,384); 1842 (23,227) and 1900 (20,891) There are 130,423 more Marriages. There are just 4 years with increases over 10K: 1903 (20,062); 1849 (19,216); 1897 (14,828) and 1890 (13,077) There are 1,082,426 more Deaths. The big increases are for 1885 (206,031) and 1884 (154,428), but there are 6 other years with increases over 25K: 1886 (83,167); 1858 (77,790); 1882 (77,691); 1881 (57,135); 1875 (55,627) and 1888 (49,281) Happy searching/transcribing Peter Dauncey ============================== 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

The latest update shows an increase of 1,961,069 in the number of unique records. There are 748,220 more Births. The big increases are for 1870 (230,302) and 1907 (129,809), but there are 6 other years with increases over 20K: 1890 (53,207); 1889 (51,110); 1849 (46,808) 1865 (33,384); 1842 (23,227) and 1900 (20,891) There are 130,423 more Marriages. There are just 4 years with increases over 10K: 1903 (20,062); 1849 (19,216); 1897 (14,828) and 1890 (13,077) There are 1,082,426 more Deaths. The big increases are for 1885 (206,031) and 1884 (154,428), but there are 6 other years with increases over 25K: 1886 (83,167); 1858 (77,790); 1882 (77,691); 1881 (57,135); 1875 (55,627) and 1888 (49,281) Happy searching/transcribing Peter Dauncey

If either, or both, of the volume and page are unreadable (as indicated by the presence of characters such as _*) there will be no link because it would not find the correct page. Previously in situations like this there was a link but it didn't find anything. Barrie > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry and Mary Johnson [mailto:saint.cybi@virgin.net] > Sent: 21 October 2003 14:39 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Finding spouses names > > > It used to be possible to find the names of possible spouses > by clicking on > the page numbers of the search results. This doesn't happen > any more. Any > reason, or am I doing something wrong? > > Barry Johnson > Monmouthshire > > ______________________________ >

Hi, I know that this has been asked many times before, but I have lost reply copies :o( I have this entry in 1884 Sept. Deaths which will not upload; Milles Catherine Elizabeth 29 Windsor,2c 255 (Countess Stopford) Will some one please advise ? -- Best regards, Tony mailto:Horler@one-name.org

I just tried the same search for Sarah Johnson and located Marriages Dec 1878 Johnson Sarah Nottingham 7b 501 I clicked on page 501 and got Marriages Dec 1878 -------------------- Baker Thomas Nottingham 7b 501 CHAMBERLAIN James Nottingham 7b 501 Johnson Sarah Nottingham 7b 501 Mitchell Sarah Ann Nottingham 7b 501 So the system seems to working OK. Allan Raymond from: Barry and Mary Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> > date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:15:38 > to: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > subject: Re: More on spouses' names > > Thanks, Dave. > > I looked up possible marriages for Sarah JOHNSON, in Nottingham from Dec > 1878 to Mar 1881. > > Two results: Dec 1878 501; Mar 1881 347 > > I clicked on both these page numbers, and received no further information. > > I then did a new search, with no name, just Dec 1878 Vol 7b and page 501, > and found Thomas BAKER and James CHAMBERLAIN. > > I did the same for the Dec 1878 marriage, and found William WARD. > > So the data was there, I just couldn't get it directly from my original > results. > > Barry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Mayall" <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> > To: "Barry and Mary Johnson" <saint.cybi@virgin.net> > Cc: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:05 AM > Subject: Re: More on spouses' names > > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:43:02 0100, you wrote: > > > > >In my original posting, querying my failure to find the names of spouses > by > > >clicking on the page number on the original search results, I should have > > >made it clear that I appreciate that some quarters may not be complete, > but > > >that's not the answer. > > > > > >First of all, I tried a large number, all with the same negative result, > > >even ones I'd had success with before. Then I took two of the original > > >results, and did another search, with no names, just the Vol / page nos. > > >Sure enough, up came the original names, this time with spouses. So the > > >quarterly results appear to be complete - you just can't get to them > > >directly from the original search results. > > > > It is VERY difficult to answer abstract queries like this. > > > > Can you give a concrete example of something which isn't working as > > expected. > > > > -- > > Dave Mayall > > > ============================== > 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 > Allan Raymond Monarchies of Europe Web Site at http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm

Thanks, Dave. I looked up possible marriages for Sarah JOHNSON, in Nottingham from Dec 1878 to Mar 1881. Two results: Dec 1878 501; Mar 1881 347 I clicked on both these page numbers, and received no further information. I then did a new search, with no name, just Dec 1878 Vol 7b and page 501, and found Thomas BAKER and James CHAMBERLAIN. I did the same for the Dec 1878 marriage, and found William WARD. So the data was there, I just couldn't get it directly from my original results. Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> To: "Barry and Mary Johnson" <saint.cybi@virgin.net> Cc: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:05 AM Subject: Re: More on spouses' names > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:43:02 +0100, you wrote: > > >In my original posting, querying my failure to find the names of spouses by > >clicking on the page number on the original search results, I should have > >made it clear that I appreciate that some quarters may not be complete, but > >that's not the answer. > > > >First of all, I tried a large number, all with the same negative result, > >even ones I'd had success with before. Then I took two of the original > >results, and did another search, with no names, just the Vol / page nos. > >Sure enough, up came the original names, this time with spouses. So the > >quarterly results appear to be complete - you just can't get to them > >directly from the original search results. > > It is VERY difficult to answer abstract queries like this. > > Can you give a concrete example of something which isn't working as > expected. > > -- > Dave Mayall

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:43:02 +0100, you wrote: >In my original posting, querying my failure to find the names of spouses by >clicking on the page number on the original search results, I should have >made it clear that I appreciate that some quarters may not be complete, but >that's not the answer. > >First of all, I tried a large number, all with the same negative result, >even ones I'd had success with before. Then I took two of the original >results, and did another search, with no names, just the Vol / page nos. >Sure enough, up came the original names, this time with spouses. So the >quarterly results appear to be complete - you just can't get to them >directly from the original search results. It is VERY difficult to answer abstract queries like this. Can you give a concrete example of something which isn't working as expected. -- Dave Mayall

I've just done a search on "Richard Delahunty" for marriages and come up with 2 results - clicking on the page number for either of these gave me a list of everyone with those page and district details, just as it normally does. Is that what you mean? -----Original Message----- From: Barry and Mary Johnson [mailto:saint.cybi@virgin.net] Sent: 21 October 2003 18:43 To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: More on spouses' names In my original posting, querying my failure to find the names of spouses by clicking on the page number on the original search results, I should have made it clear that I appreciate that some quarters may not be complete, but that's not the answer. First of all, I tried a large number, all with the same negative result, even ones I'd had success with before. Then I took two of the original results, and did another search, with no names, just the Vol / page nos. Sure enough, up came the original names, this time with spouses. So the quarterly results appear to be complete - you just can't get to them directly from the original search results. Barry Johnson Monmouthshire ============================== 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

In my original posting, querying my failure to find the names of spouses by clicking on the page number on the original search results, I should have made it clear that I appreciate that some quarters may not be complete, but that's not the answer. First of all, I tried a large number, all with the same negative result, even ones I'd had success with before. Then I took two of the original results, and did another search, with no names, just the Vol / page nos. Sure enough, up came the original names, this time with spouses. So the quarterly results appear to be complete - you just can't get to them directly from the original search results. Barry Johnson Monmouthshire

It still does ... providing that there are some other transcribed entries with the same page reference. But if you're "unlucky" you end up with the situation as I did this morning where one spouse is on a correctly transcribed page, and the other on a mis-transcribed page number ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marriages Dec 1869 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bennetts James Penzance 5c 488 Chirgwin Edwin Penzance 5c 488 WINNAN Elizabeth Penzance 5c 488 Phillips Grace James Penzance 5c 188 ** should be 488 ** http://www.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1869/Marriages/December/DB-02/1869M4-0193.tif Grace married Edwin should you be curious. Mark Hattam -- saint.cybi@virgin.net wrote: > It used to be possible to find the names of possible spouses by clicking on > the page numbers of the search results. This doesn't happen any more. Any > reason, or am I doing something wrong? > > Barry Johnson > Monmouthshire