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 Listers, I've submitted a couple of batches through WinBMD, and the headers were correct for a fiche submission, but when I went to submit batch numbers 3 to 8 I did not notice that it had defaulted to 'scan'. Do I now change the header to be correct and resubmit the files? What will happen to the incorrectly headed files? On my File Management List at the FreeBMD site there are 'Pm...' file names for the things I submitted from SpeedBMD and '1850M....' file names for the things I submitted from WinBMD. I corrected some of the headers on my own computer (with WinBMD) and it has created new file names which are showing as 'Pm...'. This was the *Speed*BMD name I would have thought? Why is this? Does it matter? Do I have to change all of the '1850M....' files to 'Pm...' format and resubmit them? Many thanks May 'n' Dave Lanchbury

Transferred to DISCUSS list. Shouldn't we at least have a measure of the quality of the data? i.e., a figure that illustrates whether a block of records are full of uncertain characters, or are they clean records, supported by a second keying that is identical, or something in between? We seem to have graphs and figures for all other things, but no measure of data quality. Isn't quality important? 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: Friday, October 17, 2003 3:38 PM To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Question on How Our Work is Checked Quoting Arnie Iles <ailes@stny.rr.com>: > Hello Folks, > > I'm a new transcriber. > > When we do our best to figure out the index and still come up with the * and > _ and [xx] items, and we then send the transcription on to our syndicate > leader, what happens then? Does someone more expert try to figure out the > values we couldn't get? No. > Also, before or when the transcription actually goes online for genealogists > to look things up, does anyone actually check to see that the online index > values figured out by the FreeBMD project actually matches up with the birth, > death and marriage data entries in the GRO journals - especially the index > entries that we had problems with? No. Checking in this way has been found to be fairly ineffective, and misses many errors. Instead, another transcriber will key the same page, and we will reconcile the differences. The search results distinguish between records that are from a single transcriber and records that have been keyed twice. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== Subscribe/Unsubscribe instructions and Archives http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/FreeUK/FreeBMD-Admins.html ============================== 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

Lovely idea Lynda. Wish I could take you up on it, but I've already checked the relatives I needed to check on there for the time being. I hope you get people taking you up on your offer though

Does anyone want a free look-up from the British 1901 census? Have ten pounds left in my account that has to be spend by noon tomorrow. Lynda in Montreal

Upload is working again. Thank you for your patience. Barrie

Uploading is temporarily not functioning. We are working to correct the problem. Barrie

I know that Allan has responded with the 'official' answer to your query, but picking up on your comment " especially with districts missing." I would like to say that I was delighted to find one of my brick walls on the database ... and although he had his district and page missing, I was able to check the local fiche (as it is recommended everyone do with all entries regardless of their completeness) and make an educated guess as to what the district would have been - knowledge of the family's movements and being able to disregard the TWYS rule made all the difference - I was then able to obtain the certificate I required and fill in several missing twigs from one branch of my family. So yes the data can be valuable EVEN with it's district missing. Regards Sheelagh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shirley Bowley" <shirley@georgy-porgys.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Quality query > I have just run a search on COLLINS, Elizabeth, Sept qtr 1849 and the results are absolutely littered with ** and _ marks. I can't see any point in uploading the data when it looks like this, especially with districts missing. > > I expect someone can enlighten me, but is there a reason for this of which I'm unaware? If the original is so illegible that the checkers can't tell either, is the page uploaded anyway? > > > Shirley > Worcester, England > > > ============================== > 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 Shirley I totally appreciate your concerns, perhaps the following may help. Some of our scans leave a little to be desired, for example if you take a look at scan http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/GUS/1849/Births/September/UKD-02/A-H/1849B3-C-0638.tif which covers the block of records you were searching for you will see the difficulty in producing a truly accurate transcription. We will be replacing the poor quality scans in the future to improve the accuracy of our records. Files can be uploaded even if they contain contain "Uncertain character format" such as * etc and in the interim I would think most searchers would wish to see as many records as possible on FreeBMD warts and all (this does't mean more records at the expense of quality). Searchers can then decide for themselves whether to use the search results or not. Not all the records in the file containing the entries you were searching for contain "Uncertain character format" and if we were to prevent uploading this file it would immediately preclude access to the these "good" records. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Shirley Bowley <shirley@georgy-porgys.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 30 September 2003 17:37 Subject: Quality query >I have just run a search on COLLINS, Elizabeth, Sept qtr 1849 and the results are absolutely littered with ** and _ marks. I can't see any point in uploading the data when it looks like this, especially with districts missing. > >I expect someone can enlighten me, but is there a reason for this of which I'm unaware? If the original is so illegible that the checkers can't tell either, is the page uploaded anyway? > > >Shirley >Worcester, England > > >============================== >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, Shirley Bowley wrote: > I have just run a search on COLLINS, Elizabeth, Sept qtr 1849 and the results are absolutely littered with ** and _ marks. I can't see any point in uploading the data when it looks like this, especially with districts missing. > > I expect someone can enlighten me, but is there a reason for this of which I'm unaware? If the original is so illegible that the checkers can't tell either, is the page uploaded anyway? In addition to John Fairlie's comments, I would also say that you are now aware that there is an entry for COLLINS, Elizabeth in that quarter of that year. That puts you in a position to look at or get someone to look at the originals and see if the information is better. Without the entry uploaded you wouldn't have known there was one. Even with all the information missing, the fact that someone of that name was registered is a useful piece of information. Cheers Graham

There are no *checkers* as such. You check your own transcriptions and that is it until a second keying is done. The second keying will be done from better quality source (hopefully) at least better quality source is promised. No-one follows behind you and fills in the blanks that the first transcriber could not fill in. It could be argued that if the first scan is *that* bad, what was the point in doing it at all? But I am doing hand-written now, and despite scans looking dire at first glance, I still feel that I can get 75% of entries with no uncertain characters and most of those that cannot be deciphered are only in the page number. Perhaps some transcribers are better employed on typeset source. John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Shirley Bowley [mailto:shirley@georgy-porgys.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:53 AM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Quality query I have just run a search on COLLINS, Elizabeth, Sept qtr 1849 and the results are absolutely littered with ** and _ marks. I can't see any point in uploading the data when it looks like this, especially with districts missing. I expect someone can enlighten me, but is there a reason for this of which I'm unaware? If the original is so illegible that the checkers can't tell either, is the page uploaded anyway? Shirley Worcester, England ============================== 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

A value of 30-33 should be acceptable for Age at Death provided the entry is prior to March 1969. Can you please send me the userid and filename so I can check what has happened. Barrie > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony McHugh [mailto:tmchugh@bigpond.net.au] > Sent: 29 September 2003 10:15 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Problem entry > > > I have a Syndicate Member haveing a problem entering an 'Age > at Death'. The > entry reads '33-30' and WinBMD will only accept it as > '30-33'. We have tried > most common fixes, like editing with Notepad, but then > FreeBMD will not > accept the file. > The only suggestion I have left is to enter it as '30-33' > with an #COMMENT > before it as an explanation. Unless someone has a better idea? > > All the best, > Tony McHugh - Syndicate Co-ordinator, FreeLoaders. > http://users.bigpond.net.au/tmchugh/BMD/IndexBMD.htm > > ______________________________ >

I have just run a search on COLLINS, Elizabeth, Sept qtr 1849 and the results are absolutely littered with ** and _ marks. I can't see any point in uploading the data when it looks like this, especially with districts missing. I expect someone can enlighten me, but is there a reason for this of which I'm unaware? If the original is so illegible that the checkers can't tell either, is the page uploaded anyway? Shirley Worcester, England

Angie's not the only one who wonders about this. So why do the decreases happen? Look forward to receiving some answers. Loraine

I have a Syndicate Member haveing a problem entering an 'Age at Death'. The entry reads '33-30' and WinBMD will only accept it as '30-33'. We have tried most common fixes, like editing with Notepad, but then FreeBMD will not accept the file. The only suggestion I have left is to enter it as '30-33' with an #COMMENT before it as an explanation. Unless someone has a better idea? All the best, Tony McHugh - Syndicate Co-ordinator, FreeLoaders. http://users.bigpond.net.au/tmchugh/BMD/IndexBMD.htm

I've 2 comments in reply to this email. 1. I've also noticed that the number of entries credited to my one-name transcriber ID has dropped this month, but those for my syndicate member ID has stayed the same, which is to be expected as I haven't uploaded anything new since August. 2. I wonder why haven't I received Peter's email - it usually arrives but not this month Regards Mary Trevan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angie Mattholie" <angie.mattholie@btinternet.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 10:57 AM Subject: RE: Latest update > OK. I must be missing something here. Why would there be Decreases? Is it > something to do with double-keying? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Dauncey [mailto:peter@dauncey54.freeserve.co.uk] > Sent: 29 September 2003 09:01 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Latest update > > > > > The latest update shows an increase of 1,197,015 in the number of unique > records. > > There are 330,487 more Births. There are 4 years with increases over 20K: > 1889 (90,239); 1890 (58,949); 1907 (36,702) and 1848 (21,382) > > There are 88,314 more Marriages. There are 2 years with increases over 15K: > 1875 (23,799) and 1897 (19,441) > > There are 778,214 more Deaths. The big increases are for 1884 (279,126) and > 1882 (195,133), but there are 7 other years with increases over 20K: > 1881 (93,730); 1885 (51,478); 1858 (36,065); 1888 (34,278); 1857 (31,630); > 1841 (24,335) and 1855 (23,153) > There are also a number of years where the numbers have decreased > significantly. The major one is 1875, which had 111,825 Deaths in the > previous update and now has 56,255. Over 100 other years have lost hundreds > of Deaths, and for the post 1902 years, this frequently means a reduction of > over 50%. > > 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 > > > > > ============================== > 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 >

Searching for Ovenden births this afternoon the June 1874 quarter displayed 2 alphabetical groupings Annie to William followed by Ada to William. The first time I reported an instance it was confirmed that one section had an incorrect batch heading which I suppose may be the case again. I can see that a common surname may end one batch and start another but would it be possible to check alphabetical continuity before a new batch is added to an existing list. Peter

Peter, I am a bit puzzled how some years can lose so many deaths?........Are you in a position to know the answer to this question? Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Dauncey" <peter@dauncey54.freeserve.co.uk> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 4:01 AM Subject: Latest update > > > The latest update shows an increase of 1,197,015 in the number of unique > records. > > There are 330,487 more Births. There are 4 years with increases over 20K: > 1889 (90,239); 1890 (58,949); 1907 (36,702) and 1848 (21,382) > > There are 88,314 more Marriages. There are 2 years with increases over 15K: > 1875 (23,799) and 1897 (19,441) > > There are 778,214 more Deaths. The big increases are for 1884 (279,126) and > 1882 (195,133), but there are 7 other years with increases over 20K: > 1881 (93,730); 1885 (51,478); 1858 (36,065); 1888 (34,278); 1857 (31,630); > 1841 (24,335) and 1855 (23,153) > There are also a number of years where the numbers have decreased > significantly. The major one is 1875, which had 111,825 Deaths in the > previous update and now has 56,255. Over 100 other years have lost hundreds > of Deaths, and for the post 1902 years, this frequently means a reduction of > over 50%. > > 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 > >

OK. I must be missing something here. Why would there be Decreases? Is it something to do with double-keying? -----Original Message----- From: Peter Dauncey [mailto:peter@dauncey54.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 29 September 2003 09:01 To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Latest update The latest update shows an increase of 1,197,015 in the number of unique records. There are 330,487 more Births. There are 4 years with increases over 20K: 1889 (90,239); 1890 (58,949); 1907 (36,702) and 1848 (21,382) There are 88,314 more Marriages. There are 2 years with increases over 15K: 1875 (23,799) and 1897 (19,441) There are 778,214 more Deaths. The big increases are for 1884 (279,126) and 1882 (195,133), but there are 7 other years with increases over 20K: 1881 (93,730); 1885 (51,478); 1858 (36,065); 1888 (34,278); 1857 (31,630); 1841 (24,335) and 1855 (23,153) There are also a number of years where the numbers have decreased significantly. The major one is 1875, which had 111,825 Deaths in the previous update and now has 56,255. Over 100 other years have lost hundreds of Deaths, and for the post 1902 years, this frequently means a reduction of over 50%. 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 1,197,015 in the number of unique records. There are 330,487 more Births. There are 4 years with increases over 20K: 1889 (90,239); 1890 (58,949); 1907 (36,702) and 1848 (21,382) There are 88,314 more Marriages. There are 2 years with increases over 15K: 1875 (23,799) and 1897 (19,441) There are 778,214 more Deaths. The big increases are for 1884 (279,126) and 1882 (195,133), but there are 7 other years with increases over 20K: 1881 (93,730); 1885 (51,478); 1858 (36,065); 1888 (34,278); 1857 (31,630); 1841 (24,335) and 1855 (23,153) There are also a number of years where the numbers have decreased significantly. The major one is 1875, which had 111,825 Deaths in the previous update and now has 56,255. Over 100 other years have lost hundreds of Deaths, and for the post 1902 years, this frequently means a reduction of over 50%. Happy searching/transcribing Peter Dauncey