I also use NTL Broadband with Zonealarm, I also use Norton AV, though I have uploaded considerably less files but with no problems. -----Original Message----- From: Anne Margolis [mailto:anne.margolis@ntlworld.com] Sent: Sunday 14 September 2003 12:15:PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Ntl and WinBMD Is there really a problem with all Ntl users? I use Ntl broadband and a Zone Alarm firewall and have successfully uploaded 508 files using WinBMD since the beginning of July. The only times I've had problems is when a message has appeared on the BMD site indicating that there are problems there. The only thing different that I can see is that we use Sophos virus software, not Norton. Anne Margolis ============================== 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

Is there really a problem with all Ntl users? I use Ntl broadband and a Zone Alarm firewall and have successfully uploaded 508 files using WinBMD since the beginning of July. The only times I've had problems is when a message has appeared on the BMD site indicating that there are problems there. The only thing different that I can see is that we use Sophos virus software, not Norton. Anne Margolis

John, I need to contact you urgently but your aol email address keeps bouncing back. Have sent an email to your supanet address but don't know if you still use that one. Please get in touch re your last allocation. Linda Bailey

Hi Christopher I have contact with Mary from time to time, I'll check out the page and the link and deal with the resolution off list with you. Regards Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Richards <cmrichards@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 14 September 2003 09:53 Subject: Sources for Transcribers >I was trying to update information about the location of fiche etc by >following the link to send an email to Mary Muir. >My email bounced with the message: >You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For >assistance, contact your system administrator. > <smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk #5.7.1 smtp;550 5.7.1 Unable to relay >for mmuir@aebc.com> > >Are these pages still being maintained - and if so by who? > >But also are they necessary any more? > >Christopher Richards > > > >============================== >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 was trying to update information about the location of fiche etc by following the link to send an email to Mary Muir. My email bounced with the message: You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, contact your system administrator. <smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk #5.7.1 smtp;550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for mmuir@aebc.com> Are these pages still being maintained - and if so by who? But also are they necessary any more? Christopher Richards

Eureka! Somebody has at long last identified my problem. Despite all efforts to ensure I'm the sole person responsible for allocating slots in a fair and equitable manner to all Syndicates, others decide otherwise. Allan Raymond FreeBMD Syndicate Co-ordinators -----Original Message----- From: Brian Smart <brian.smart@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 13 September 2003 12:00 Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans >Hello Derek, >I have been allocated 1881 deaths for quarters March and June by Allan >Raymond. Could you please confirm that you are not working on those as well. >It is essential that Allan Raymond is the sole person to allocate groups of >scans or we will end up in a complete mess. > >Regards > >Brian Smart > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Derek C Hopkins [mailto:derek.hopkins@sympatico.ca] >Sent: 12 September 2003 01:29 >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans > > >Hi > > With regard to 1882 Q3 and Q4 These have been allocated by >Scan2 Q3 has 112 completed of the 318 pages and q4 is also all allocated >with 86 of 358 completed. > > >At 01:22 PM 11/09/2003 +0100, you wrote: >>As far as I was aware 1882 Q3 and Q4 Deaths are both first key. >> >>I have plenty of handwritten stuff which is definitely first key stuff, >>perhaps you would like to do some of that. >> >>Linda >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "John Fairlie" <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >>To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >>Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:30 AM >>Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans >> >> >> > Allan and all, >> > >> > It is certainly an option for me to change syndicates, and I will >consider >> > that. Can it be clarified please what syndicates do what, and how well >> > stocked each are with source. I for one never actually chose my current >> > syndicate (Web Scan), it was just what we all were swept into when >posting >> > fiche's about was found to be impractical. Hence the name of that >> > syndicate. So I might assume that others would rather be employed >single >> > keying new records in a different syndicate than second keying in the >one >> > they are in at the moment as well. >> > >> > But with respect, you have still not answered the question!! You are >> > allocating typeset material to two syndicates at the same time. If you >>are >> > telling the syndicate leaders so, they are certainly not telling the >> > transcribers when they allocate pages. I have particularly requested >>first >> > keyings because I want to move that side of the project forward fastest, >>and >> > the project themselves have said that second keying has not been >>officially >> > rolled out yet. And I STILL get second keyings! All this while early >> > hand-written remains waiting for first keying. >> > >> > I will ask again.....If the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor >>in >> > moving the project forward faster - what is? Do we want more >>transcribers? >> > 82,000 records a day may sound good, indeed it IS good, but with 5,000 >> > transcribers, it only averages 16 records a day each. I still feel the >> > project could be moved forward faster if you say what you need most. >> > >> > I will leave the subject of us buying scans from 1837online to Dave >Mayall >> > to answer publicly then. He has already kindly exchanged with me off >>list. >> > >> > John Fairlie >> > Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> > Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:31 AM >> > To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >> > Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans >> > >> > >> > John >> > >> > I requested you to redirect your private reply to the DISCUSS list as >the >> > discussion started off here and should finish here. >> > >> > You are entitled to you opinion as to whether you believe what I say is >> > correct or incorrect. >> > >> > I can only state the facts. >> > >> > If I can direct you to the FreeBMD-Admins-L Archives and ask you to >browse >> > for the following item from Dave Mayall >> > >> > >>************************************************************************** * >* >> > ******* >> > From: Dave Mayall <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> >> > Subject: Scanned Source availability >> > Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:01 +0000 >> > >> > For many months, an oft repeated (and valid) criticism has been that >there >> > is a >> > shortage of scanned source material, and/or that the scanned source has >>been >> > of >> > poor quality. >> > etc etc. >> > >>************************************************************************** * >* >> > ***** >> > >> > Progress HAS been made in some of the scanning mentioned in Dave's email >> > above. Dave and I are in discussion on what still needs to be done to >> > provide scans for all years not previously catered for. This either >means >> > providing scans where none currently exits or replacing the poor qualiy >> > scans. This will be undertaken by Archive CD Books as per Dave's email >>above >> > >> > I would have come back a little earlier in my response, but I was >>arranging >> > for more available scans to be added to the Scan Allocation Web Page. >> > >> > Volunteers are totally at liberty to decline to participate in double >> > keying. >> > >> > If you feel so inclined I will use my best endevours to place you with a >> > Syndicate who is single keying earlier years. Please let me know if this >> > avenue suits you best? >> > >> > Allan Raymond >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >> > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> > Date: 10 September 2003 22:24 >> > Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans >> > >> > >> > >Allan, >> > > >> > >But there IS a shortage of scans!! You allocated 1882D3 to both Scan2 >>and >> > >Webscan!! Net result: despite me stressing to Linda Bailey that I did >>NOT >> > >want second keyings, I am now duplicating what John Renner and Lucille >> > >Hambling are doing! i.e., 1882D3 pages 11-35 are mine, but Lucille is >> > doing >> > >27-36 and John Renner is doing 17-25. >> > > >> > >Meanwhile, many gaps exist between 1837, and (generally) the time when >> > >typeset starts. >> > > >> > >You speak with forked tongue!!! >> > > >> > >[This e-mail originally sent privately to Allan, but at his prompt, is >> > being >> > >sent publicly] >> > > >> > >John Fairlie >> > >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> > > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> > >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> > > >> > > >> > >-----Original Message----- >> > >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >> > >Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:54 PM >> > >To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >> > >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans >> > > >> > > >> > >I'm don't have the authority to answer about 1837online. >> > > >> > >However I am competent to answer the other queries. >> > > >> > >Good quality scans were provided to all Syndicates who requested them, >>very >> > >recently. More on their way. >> > > >> > >We are taking on 6 new volunteers every day. >> > > >> > >2 Syndicates are currently accepting new volunteers. >> > > >> > >82,000 records added every day, if this isn't moving towards our target >I >> > >don't know what is. >> > > >> > >If you are having difficulty in obtaining more source material to >> > transcribe >> > >please let me know and I should be able to place you with a Syndicate >who >> > >can oblige? >> > > >> > >Allan Raymond >> > > >> > > >> > >-----Original Message----- >> > >From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >> > >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> > >Date: 10 September 2003 21:14 >> > >Subject: Shortage of Scans >> > > >> > > >> > >>If the project is slowed by the shortage of decent scans, why don't we >>get >> > >>scans from 1837online.com? OK, OK, I know we have to pay for them, >but >>we >> > >>are currently having to buy film from GRO, buy expensive scanners and >do >> > >>scanning, all of which costs FreeBMD money. It has all already been >>done >> > >by >> > >>the 1837online chaps. >> > >> >> > >>And if the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor in moving the >> > >>project forward faster - what is? Do we want more transcribers? >> > >> >> > >>John Fairlie >> > >>Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> > >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> > >>Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>============================== >> > >>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 > > >Cheers Derek > >Derek C Hopkins, Phone +1(450)678-7768 >6640, Biarritz, Fax +1(450)678-4252 >Brossard, E-Mail derek.hopkins@sympatico.ca >QC, Canada, J4Z-2A2. > >==== FreeBMD - England and Wales - Birth - Marriage and Death Transcriptions ><http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com> > >==== Check out FreeBMD Scan2 Syndicate page (revised daily) >Please bookmark our new home http://www.scan2.org/scan2.html > >Check out my web page (22jan1997) Last Revised 28 May 1998 ><http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/index.html> > >Check out Abney Park Indexing Project (revised 14 MAR 2000, 195,000 names) ><http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/abney.html> > >Check out my web Ramsgate page ><http://members.adept.co.uk/hopkde> > >Check out the Quebec Family History web page ><http://www.cam.org/~qfhs/index.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 > > > > >============================== >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 >

Hello Derek, I have been allocated 1881 deaths for quarters March and June by Allan Raymond. Could you please confirm that you are not working on those as well. It is essential that Allan Raymond is the sole person to allocate groups of scans or we will end up in a complete mess. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: Derek C Hopkins [mailto:derek.hopkins@sympatico.ca] Sent: 12 September 2003 01:29 To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans Hi With regard to 1882 Q3 and Q4 These have been allocated by Scan2 Q3 has 112 completed of the 318 pages and q4 is also all allocated with 86 of 358 completed. At 01:22 PM 11/09/2003 +0100, you wrote: >As far as I was aware 1882 Q3 and Q4 Deaths are both first key. > >I have plenty of handwritten stuff which is definitely first key stuff, >perhaps you would like to do some of that. > >Linda >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Fairlie" <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:30 AM >Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans > > > > Allan and all, > > > > It is certainly an option for me to change syndicates, and I will consider > > that. Can it be clarified please what syndicates do what, and how well > > stocked each are with source. I for one never actually chose my current > > syndicate (Web Scan), it was just what we all were swept into when posting > > fiche's about was found to be impractical. Hence the name of that > > syndicate. So I might assume that others would rather be employed single > > keying new records in a different syndicate than second keying in the one > > they are in at the moment as well. > > > > But with respect, you have still not answered the question!! You are > > allocating typeset material to two syndicates at the same time. If you >are > > telling the syndicate leaders so, they are certainly not telling the > > transcribers when they allocate pages. I have particularly requested >first > > keyings because I want to move that side of the project forward fastest, >and > > the project themselves have said that second keying has not been >officially > > rolled out yet. And I STILL get second keyings! All this while early > > hand-written remains waiting for first keying. > > > > I will ask again.....If the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor >in > > moving the project forward faster - what is? Do we want more >transcribers? > > 82,000 records a day may sound good, indeed it IS good, but with 5,000 > > transcribers, it only averages 16 records a day each. I still feel the > > project could be moved forward faster if you say what you need most. > > > > I will leave the subject of us buying scans from 1837online to Dave Mayall > > to answer publicly then. He has already kindly exchanged with me off >list. > > > > John Fairlie > > Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk > > Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] > > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:31 AM > > To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans > > > > > > John > > > > I requested you to redirect your private reply to the DISCUSS list as the > > discussion started off here and should finish here. > > > > You are entitled to you opinion as to whether you believe what I say is > > correct or incorrect. > > > > I can only state the facts. > > > > If I can direct you to the FreeBMD-Admins-L Archives and ask you to browse > > for the following item from Dave Mayall > > > > >*************************************************************************** * > > ******* > > From: Dave Mayall <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> > > Subject: Scanned Source availability > > Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:01 +0000 > > > > For many months, an oft repeated (and valid) criticism has been that there > > is a > > shortage of scanned source material, and/or that the scanned source has >been > > of > > poor quality. > > etc etc. > > >*************************************************************************** * > > ***** > > > > Progress HAS been made in some of the scanning mentioned in Dave's email > > above. Dave and I are in discussion on what still needs to be done to > > provide scans for all years not previously catered for. This either means > > providing scans where none currently exits or replacing the poor qualiy > > scans. This will be undertaken by Archive CD Books as per Dave's email >above > > > > I would have come back a little earlier in my response, but I was >arranging > > for more available scans to be added to the Scan Allocation Web Page. > > > > Volunteers are totally at liberty to decline to participate in double > > keying. > > > > If you feel so inclined I will use my best endevours to place you with a > > Syndicate who is single keying earlier years. Please let me know if this > > avenue suits you best? > > > > Allan Raymond > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> > > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > > Date: 10 September 2003 22:24 > > Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans > > > > > > >Allan, > > > > > >But there IS a shortage of scans!! You allocated 1882D3 to both Scan2 >and > > >Webscan!! Net result: despite me stressing to Linda Bailey that I did >NOT > > >want second keyings, I am now duplicating what John Renner and Lucille > > >Hambling are doing! i.e., 1882D3 pages 11-35 are mine, but Lucille is > > doing > > >27-36 and John Renner is doing 17-25. > > > > > >Meanwhile, many gaps exist between 1837, and (generally) the time when > > >typeset starts. > > > > > >You speak with forked tongue!!! > > > > > >[This e-mail originally sent privately to Allan, but at his prompt, is > > being > > >sent publicly] > > > > > >John Fairlie > > >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > > > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk > > >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] > > >Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:54 PM > > >To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > > >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans > > > > > > > > >I'm don't have the authority to answer about 1837online. > > > > > >However I am competent to answer the other queries. > > > > > >Good quality scans were provided to all Syndicates who requested them, >very > > >recently. More on their way. > > > > > >We are taking on 6 new volunteers every day. > > > > > >2 Syndicates are currently accepting new volunteers. > > > > > >82,000 records added every day, if this isn't moving towards our target I > > >don't know what is. > > > > > >If you are having difficulty in obtaining more source material to > > transcribe > > >please let me know and I should be able to place you with a Syndicate who > > >can oblige? > > > > > >Allan Raymond > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> > > >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > > >Date: 10 September 2003 21:14 > > >Subject: Shortage of Scans > > > > > > > > >>If the project is slowed by the shortage of decent scans, why don't we >get > > >>scans from 1837online.com? OK, OK, I know we have to pay for them, but >we > > >>are currently having to buy film from GRO, buy expensive scanners and do > > >>scanning, all of which costs FreeBMD money. It has all already been >done > > >by > > >>the 1837online chaps. > > >> > > >>And if the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor in moving the > > >>project forward faster - what is? Do we want more transcribers? > > >> > > >>John Fairlie > > >>Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > > >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk > > >>Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > >> > > >> > > >>============================== > > >>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 Cheers Derek Derek C Hopkins, Phone +1(450)678-7768 6640, Biarritz, Fax +1(450)678-4252 Brossard, E-Mail derek.hopkins@sympatico.ca QC, Canada, J4Z-2A2. ==== FreeBMD - England and Wales - Birth - Marriage and Death Transcriptions <http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com> ==== Check out FreeBMD Scan2 Syndicate page (revised daily) Please bookmark our new home http://www.scan2.org/scan2.html Check out my web page (22jan1997) Last Revised 28 May 1998 <http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/index.html> Check out Abney Park Indexing Project (revised 14 MAR 2000, 195,000 names) <http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/abney.html> Check out my web Ramsgate page <http://members.adept.co.uk/hopkde> Check out the Quebec Family History web page <http://www.cam.org/~qfhs/index.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

Allan and all, Dave Mayall has written to me off list with the results of investigations as to how 1882D3 (yes I got it right this time) was being done by John Renner and Lucille Hambling of the Scan2 syndicate (amongst others) while still being allocated to me (amongst others) of WebScan. I am NOT going to post details of who Dave said was to blame, suffice to say Mr Raymond that it was NOT you!! And neither was it Linda Bailey. Dave also hopes to tighten up procedures for the future so it does not happen again. As far as I am concerned, the matter has been successfully closed by Dave to my complete satisfaction. PS, Linda said "As far as I was aware 1882 Q3 and Q4 Deaths are both first key." She may well have thought this, and she had good reason to think this, but she was wrong in thinking it through the fault of the un-named person. Can we now consider the matter closed. John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:34 PM To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans Dear Mr Fairlie Linda who is doing a magnificent job along with the other Syndicate Co-ordinators is certainly NOT wrong, if anyone is wrong the finger should be pointing at me. Apologies to Linda may be in order. I'm happy to eat humble pie should I be seen to be incorrect regarding my response below. I've been given the FreeBMD sole authority to allocate events and periods to Syndicates in a fair and equitable fashion, which I do to the best of my ability. As you made a fundamental error in quoting 1883 instead of 1882 I will give you the low-down on the correct year 1882. On 7 August 2003 I put out a broadcast to Syndicate Co-ordinators on the Syndicates List, advising I had located new scans which had just been uploaded to the FreeBMD site. These included the 1882 deaths scans. These were then allocated to Syndicate Co-ordinators based on their requests to me. Prior to allocating 1882 deaths I even went as far as downloading copies of "Upload Reports" for 1882 deaths to my PC, these being based on the situation as at 26 July 2003. I therefore have evidence to back up what I'm telling you. Other than odd entries uploaded by one name individuals, no Syndicate at that time had uploaded any files for 1882 deaths. Therefore in my capacity as the sole individual for allocating slots to Syndicates I allocated 1882 deaths to the Syndicates shown in my temporary web page at: http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/FreeBMD_Scan_Source_Temp.html If I can now turn through 180 degrees, please demonstrate to me by documentary evidence that I have allocated 1882 deaths for double keying to Syndicates other than shown on my Web Page. Where I have INTENTIONALLY allowed double keying to take place I have advised the Syndicates Co-ordinators accordingly. For example my email on the Syndicates list dated 23 July 2003. A search of the archives will verify this email. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 11 September 2003 13:52 Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans >Linda, > >Then you are certainly wrong. Talk to Allan Raymond who has allocated >1883D3 (at least) to Scan2 as well as WebScan. He may have made an error, >in which OK, we all do at times, but so far he has not said whether this was >intentional or not. > >Yes, I could do hand-written for you, or for Brian Smart. I'll be in touch. > >John Fairlie >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FreeBMD [mailto:freebmd.scanrequests@btopenworld.com] >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:23 PM >To: John Fairlie; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans > > >As far as I was aware 1882 Q3 and Q4 Deaths are both first key. > >I have plenty of handwritten stuff which is definitely first key stuff, >perhaps you would like to do some of that. > >Linda >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Fairlie" <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:30 AM >Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans > > >> Allan and all, >> >> It is certainly an option for me to change syndicates, and I will consider >> that. Can it be clarified please what syndicates do what, and how well >> stocked each are with source. I for one never actually chose my current >> syndicate (Web Scan), it was just what we all were swept into when posting >> fiche's about was found to be impractical. Hence the name of that >> syndicate. So I might assume that others would rather be employed single >> keying new records in a different syndicate than second keying in the one >> they are in at the moment as well. >> >> But with respect, you have still not answered the question!! You are >> allocating typeset material to two syndicates at the same time. If you >are >> telling the syndicate leaders so, they are certainly not telling the >> transcribers when they allocate pages. I have particularly requested >first >> keyings because I want to move that side of the project forward fastest, >and >> the project themselves have said that second keying has not been >officially >> rolled out yet. And I STILL get second keyings! All this while early >> hand-written remains waiting for first keying. >> >> I will ask again.....If the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor >in >> moving the project forward faster - what is? Do we want more >transcribers? >> 82,000 records a day may sound good, indeed it IS good, but with 5,000 >> transcribers, it only averages 16 records a day each. I still feel the >> project could be moved forward faster if you say what you need most. >> >> I will leave the subject of us buying scans from 1837online to Dave Mayall >> to answer publicly then. He has already kindly exchanged with me off >list. >> >> John Fairlie >> Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:31 AM >> To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans >> >> >> John >> >> I requested you to redirect your private reply to the DISCUSS list as the >> discussion started off here and should finish here. >> >> You are entitled to you opinion as to whether you believe what I say is >> correct or incorrect. >> >> I can only state the facts. >> >> If I can direct you to the FreeBMD-Admins-L Archives and ask you to browse >> for the following item from Dave Mayall >> >> >*************************************************************************** * >> ******* >> From: Dave Mayall <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> >> Subject: Scanned Source availability >> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:01 +0000 >> >> For many months, an oft repeated (and valid) criticism has been that there >> is a >> shortage of scanned source material, and/or that the scanned source has >been >> of >> poor quality. >> etc etc. >> >*************************************************************************** * >> ***** >> >> Progress HAS been made in some of the scanning mentioned in Dave's email >> above. Dave and I are in discussion on what still needs to be done to >> provide scans for all years not previously catered for. This either means >> providing scans where none currently exits or replacing the poor qualiy >> scans. This will be undertaken by Archive CD Books as per Dave's email >above >> >> I would have come back a little earlier in my response, but I was >arranging >> for more available scans to be added to the Scan Allocation Web Page. >> >> Volunteers are totally at liberty to decline to participate in double >> keying. >> >> If you feel so inclined I will use my best endevours to place you with a >> Syndicate who is single keying earlier years. Please let me know if this >> avenue suits you best? >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 10 September 2003 22:24 >> Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans >> >> >> >Allan, >> > >> >But there IS a shortage of scans!! You allocated 1882D3 to both Scan2 >and >> >Webscan!! Net result: despite me stressing to Linda Bailey that I did >NOT >> >want second keyings, I am now duplicating what John Renner and Lucille >> >Hambling are doing! i.e., 1882D3 pages 11-35 are mine, but Lucille is >> doing >> >27-36 and John Renner is doing 17-25. >> > >> >Meanwhile, many gaps exist between 1837, and (generally) the time when >> >typeset starts. >> > >> >You speak with forked tongue!!! >> > >> >[This e-mail originally sent privately to Allan, but at his prompt, is >> being >> >sent publicly] >> > >> >John Fairlie >> >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >> >Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:54 PM >> >To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >> >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans >> > >> > >> >I'm don't have the authority to answer about 1837online. >> > >> >However I am competent to answer the other queries. >> > >> >Good quality scans were provided to all Syndicates who requested them, >very >> >recently. More on their way. >> > >> >We are taking on 6 new volunteers every day. >> > >> >2 Syndicates are currently accepting new volunteers. >> > >> >82,000 records added every day, if this isn't moving towards our target I >> >don't know what is. >> > >> >If you are having difficulty in obtaining more source material to >> transcribe >> >please let me know and I should be able to place you with a Syndicate who >> >can oblige? >> > >> >Allan Raymond >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >> >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Date: 10 September 2003 21:14 >> >Subject: Shortage of Scans >> > >> > >> >>If the project is slowed by the shortage of decent scans, why don't we >get >> >>scans from 1837online.com? OK, OK, I know we have to pay for them, but >we >> >>are currently having to buy film from GRO, buy expensive scanners and do >> >>scanning, all of which costs FreeBMD money. It has all already been >done >> >by >> >>the 1837online chaps. >> >> >> >>And if the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor in moving the >> >>project forward faster - what is? Do we want more transcribers? >> >> >> >>John Fairlie >> >>Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> >>Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> >> >> >> >> >>============================== >> >>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 >

Quoting Christopher Richards <cmrichards@blueyonder.co.uk>: > The local public library in Bristol has a set of fiche (no longer complete > since somebody pinched large quantatiesof the Ws) which are mostly quite > good. They don't copy well but I have usually been able to resolve nearly > all of the difficult entries in the hand written scans. They are notably > better than the fiche in the local Family History Centre. > I'm wondering if there is a way of making good use of this facility. I don't > have a lot of time but even a couple of hours is enough to correct about 10 > pages. > It would be easy enough for me to download a batch of transcribed pages onto > my laptop, take it to the library, fill in the gaps and return them to the > original transcriber. Using people with access to the fiche as part of the corrections process will happen. HOWEVER, in order to ensure that we know the provenance of every record on the system, this will NOT be done by amending the original transcriptions as you suggest. Instead, amendment files will be used. Until such time as the necessary design and coding for such corrections is complete, we are not in a position to go ahead with this work. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

The local public library in Bristol has a set of fiche (no longer complete since somebody pinched large quantatiesof the Ws) which are mostly quite good. They don't copy well but I have usually been able to resolve nearly all of the difficult entries in the hand written scans. They are notably better than the fiche in the local Family History Centre. I'm wondering if there is a way of making good use of this facility. I don't have a lot of time but even a couple of hours is enough to correct about 10 pages. It would be easy enough for me to download a batch of transcribed pages onto my laptop, take it to the library, fill in the gaps and return them to the original transcriber. Christopher Richards

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:04:58 +0100, you wrote: >Dave, > >Just one question. How would 1837onlne know that the scans were there's and >not from a local Family History Society or library, typed in from fiche ? If the transcriber matched their customer and we didn't have the source ourselves. FreeBMD *cannot* afford to become involved in legal disputes with 1837online, so it doesn't come down to them proving it. If we believe that transcriptions come from their scans we will remove them. That way we are able to show that we are taking real steps to prevent illegal use of their scans. -- Dave Mayall

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:23:19 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time), you wrote: >Quoting Dave Mayall > > >>It is certainly not our intention that any transcriber be asked to do >second >keyings if they do not wish to (transcribers are volunteers after all). > >It is the responsibility of syndicate co-ordinators to ensure that those >wishes >are acted upon.< > >------------------ > >Another question then. > >Are syndicate co-ordinators told that the scans they are given have also >been given to, or have already been transcribed by other syndicates? Any double allocations are notified to the second syndicate. -- Dave Mayall

Please see my response to a similar query from Mr Fairlie which has just been sent off to the DISCUSS list . Hopefully it may answer your query? Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Lucille Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 11 September 2003 12:22 Subject: DOUBLE KEYING >Quoting Dave Mayall > > >>It is certainly not our intention that any transcriber be asked to do >second >keyings if they do not wish to (transcribers are volunteers after all). > >It is the responsibility of syndicate co-ordinators to ensure that those >wishes >are acted upon.< > >------------------ > >Another question then. > >Are syndicate co-ordinators told that the scans they are given have also >been given to, or have already been transcribed by other syndicates? > >Lucille > > > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

Dear Mr Fairlie Linda who is doing a magnificent job along with the other Syndicate Co-ordinators is certainly NOT wrong, if anyone is wrong the finger should be pointing at me. Apologies to Linda may be in order. I'm happy to eat humble pie should I be seen to be incorrect regarding my response below. I've been given the FreeBMD sole authority to allocate events and periods to Syndicates in a fair and equitable fashion, which I do to the best of my ability. As you made a fundamental error in quoting 1883 instead of 1882 I will give you the low-down on the correct year 1882. On 7 August 2003 I put out a broadcast to Syndicate Co-ordinators on the Syndicates List, advising I had located new scans which had just been uploaded to the FreeBMD site. These included the 1882 deaths scans. These were then allocated to Syndicate Co-ordinators based on their requests to me. Prior to allocating 1882 deaths I even went as far as downloading copies of "Upload Reports" for 1882 deaths to my PC, these being based on the situation as at 26 July 2003. I therefore have evidence to back up what I'm telling you. Other than odd entries uploaded by one name individuals, no Syndicate at that time had uploaded any files for 1882 deaths. Therefore in my capacity as the sole individual for allocating slots to Syndicates I allocated 1882 deaths to the Syndicates shown in my temporary web page at: http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/FreeBMD_Scan_Source_Temp.html If I can now turn through 180 degrees, please demonstrate to me by documentary evidence that I have allocated 1882 deaths for double keying to Syndicates other than shown on my Web Page. Where I have INTENTIONALLY allowed double keying to take place I have advised the Syndicates Co-ordinators accordingly. For example my email on the Syndicates list dated 23 July 2003. A search of the archives will verify this email. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 11 September 2003 13:52 Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans >Linda, > >Then you are certainly wrong. Talk to Allan Raymond who has allocated >1883D3 (at least) to Scan2 as well as WebScan. He may have made an error, >in which OK, we all do at times, but so far he has not said whether this was >intentional or not. > >Yes, I could do hand-written for you, or for Brian Smart. I'll be in touch. > >John Fairlie >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FreeBMD [mailto:freebmd.scanrequests@btopenworld.com] >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:23 PM >To: John Fairlie; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans > > >As far as I was aware 1882 Q3 and Q4 Deaths are both first key. > >I have plenty of handwritten stuff which is definitely first key stuff, >perhaps you would like to do some of that. > >Linda >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Fairlie" <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:30 AM >Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans > > >> Allan and all, >> >> It is certainly an option for me to change syndicates, and I will consider >> that. Can it be clarified please what syndicates do what, and how well >> stocked each are with source. I for one never actually chose my current >> syndicate (Web Scan), it was just what we all were swept into when posting >> fiche's about was found to be impractical. Hence the name of that >> syndicate. So I might assume that others would rather be employed single >> keying new records in a different syndicate than second keying in the one >> they are in at the moment as well. >> >> But with respect, you have still not answered the question!! You are >> allocating typeset material to two syndicates at the same time. If you >are >> telling the syndicate leaders so, they are certainly not telling the >> transcribers when they allocate pages. I have particularly requested >first >> keyings because I want to move that side of the project forward fastest, >and >> the project themselves have said that second keying has not been >officially >> rolled out yet. And I STILL get second keyings! All this while early >> hand-written remains waiting for first keying. >> >> I will ask again.....If the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor >in >> moving the project forward faster - what is? Do we want more >transcribers? >> 82,000 records a day may sound good, indeed it IS good, but with 5,000 >> transcribers, it only averages 16 records a day each. I still feel the >> project could be moved forward faster if you say what you need most. >> >> I will leave the subject of us buying scans from 1837online to Dave Mayall >> to answer publicly then. He has already kindly exchanged with me off >list. >> >> John Fairlie >> Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:31 AM >> To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans >> >> >> John >> >> I requested you to redirect your private reply to the DISCUSS list as the >> discussion started off here and should finish here. >> >> You are entitled to you opinion as to whether you believe what I say is >> correct or incorrect. >> >> I can only state the facts. >> >> If I can direct you to the FreeBMD-Admins-L Archives and ask you to browse >> for the following item from Dave Mayall >> >> >*************************************************************************** * >> ******* >> From: Dave Mayall <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> >> Subject: Scanned Source availability >> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:01 +0000 >> >> For many months, an oft repeated (and valid) criticism has been that there >> is a >> shortage of scanned source material, and/or that the scanned source has >been >> of >> poor quality. >> etc etc. >> >*************************************************************************** * >> ***** >> >> Progress HAS been made in some of the scanning mentioned in Dave's email >> above. Dave and I are in discussion on what still needs to be done to >> provide scans for all years not previously catered for. This either means >> providing scans where none currently exits or replacing the poor qualiy >> scans. This will be undertaken by Archive CD Books as per Dave's email >above >> >> I would have come back a little earlier in my response, but I was >arranging >> for more available scans to be added to the Scan Allocation Web Page. >> >> Volunteers are totally at liberty to decline to participate in double >> keying. >> >> If you feel so inclined I will use my best endevours to place you with a >> Syndicate who is single keying earlier years. Please let me know if this >> avenue suits you best? >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 10 September 2003 22:24 >> Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans >> >> >> >Allan, >> > >> >But there IS a shortage of scans!! You allocated 1882D3 to both Scan2 >and >> >Webscan!! Net result: despite me stressing to Linda Bailey that I did >NOT >> >want second keyings, I am now duplicating what John Renner and Lucille >> >Hambling are doing! i.e., 1882D3 pages 11-35 are mine, but Lucille is >> doing >> >27-36 and John Renner is doing 17-25. >> > >> >Meanwhile, many gaps exist between 1837, and (generally) the time when >> >typeset starts. >> > >> >You speak with forked tongue!!! >> > >> >[This e-mail originally sent privately to Allan, but at his prompt, is >> being >> >sent publicly] >> > >> >John Fairlie >> >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >> >Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:54 PM >> >To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >> >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans >> > >> > >> >I'm don't have the authority to answer about 1837online. >> > >> >However I am competent to answer the other queries. >> > >> >Good quality scans were provided to all Syndicates who requested them, >very >> >recently. More on their way. >> > >> >We are taking on 6 new volunteers every day. >> > >> >2 Syndicates are currently accepting new volunteers. >> > >> >82,000 records added every day, if this isn't moving towards our target I >> >don't know what is. >> > >> >If you are having difficulty in obtaining more source material to >> transcribe >> >please let me know and I should be able to place you with a Syndicate who >> >can oblige? >> > >> >Allan Raymond >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >> >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Date: 10 September 2003 21:14 >> >Subject: Shortage of Scans >> > >> > >> >>If the project is slowed by the shortage of decent scans, why don't we >get >> >>scans from 1837online.com? OK, OK, I know we have to pay for them, but >we >> >>are currently having to buy film from GRO, buy expensive scanners and do >> >>scanning, all of which costs FreeBMD money. It has all already been >done >> >by >> >>the 1837online chaps. >> >> >> >>And if the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor in moving the >> >>project forward faster - what is? Do we want more transcribers? >> >> >> >>John Fairlie >> >>Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> >>Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> >> >> >> >> >>============================== >> >>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 >

Sorry Dave about my e-mail on 1851 marriage scans being available. I should have read ALL my mail before mouthing off. As ever you have answered the question admirably. But I am not going to give up the red wine. George -----Original Message----- From: Dave Mayall [mailto:david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk] Sent: 12 September 2003 00:42 To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: SCANS Quoting Lucille Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com>: > I would like to ask purely out of curiosity (I promise no ulterior > motives) where do the scans come from and why don't they come through > in ascending order of year? Various sources! Marriages 1866-1900 largely from Darryl Bonk of Canada who scanned films held by his FHS Births/Deaths 1866-1900 films bought by FreeBMD and scanned by our contacts. 1837-1865, second hand films bought by Ancestry and Scanned by them. Many of the films in this range are poor quality and unsuitable for scanning. They will eventually be replaced by FreeBMD purchased films. Early films contain 40/80 names per page, as opposed to 325 for later years, which means that it cost a LOT more to buy them and longer to scan them. We are embarking on a project *NOW* to complete scanning in a logical order. We can do this now because we are in a sufficiently stable financial position to do so. The plan is; 1) Install additional hardware to handle the extra scans 2) Complete scanning of all years all events from 1910 to 1866 working backwards. 3) Complete scanning of all years marriages 1865 to 1837 marriages working backwards, including replacing scans of poor quality 4) Likewise for Births and Deaths 5) Start to work forwards from 1911. This may seem a slightly odd order, but it is designed to ensure that we keep a sufficient stock of scanned images on hand at all times. Timescales are always difficult, but current guess is; New hardware on-line by end October Source 1866-1910 on-hand by same time 1866-1910 scans available gradually from November to January 1837-1856 marriage source on hand by early January 1837-1856 scans available February - June 2004 Beyond that timescales are too vague to be useful. -- Dave Mayall - -------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net ______________________________

What is this about posting fiches around the world being impractical? I am transcribing (in a very dilatory fashion at the moment) from a fiche, marriages from 1851. Are you saying that there are scans available for this fiche? The fiche is crap and a nightmare to transcribe. Is there something better to do the transcription from? (Never end a sentence in a preposition. Is "from" a preposition?) Maybe it's just the red wine............... George (after another hard day trying to pull one of the kids, minimum age 27, out of the proverbial.) (Thank God for cheap French wine brought over in the boot of the car.) -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie [mailto:john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 11 September 2003 17:30 To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans Allan and all, It is certainly an option for me to change syndicates, and I will consider that. Can it be clarified please what syndicates do what, and how well stocked each are with source. I for one never actually chose my current syndicate (Web Scan), it was just what we all were swept into when posting fiche's about was found to be impractical. Hence the name of that syndicate. So I might assume that others would rather be employed single keying new records in a different syndicate than second keying in the one they are in at the moment as well. But with respect, you have still not answered the question!! You are allocating typeset material to two syndicates at the same time. If you are telling the syndicate leaders so, they are certainly not telling the transcribers when they allocate pages. I have particularly requested first keyings because I want to move that side of the project forward fastest, and the project themselves have said that second keying has not been officially rolled out yet. And I STILL get second keyings! All this while early hand-written remains waiting for first keying. I will ask again.....If the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor in moving the project forward faster - what is? Do we want more transcribers? 82,000 records a day may sound good, indeed it IS good, but with 5,000 transcribers, it only averages 16 records a day each. I still feel the project could be moved forward faster if you say what you need most. I will leave the subject of us buying scans from 1837online to Dave Mayall to answer publicly then. He has already kindly exchanged with me off list. John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:31 AM To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans John I requested you to redirect your private reply to the DISCUSS list as the discussion started off here and should finish here. You are entitled to you opinion as to whether you believe what I say is correct or incorrect. I can only state the facts. If I can direct you to the FreeBMD-Admins-L Archives and ask you to browse for the following item from Dave Mayall ************************************************************************ **** ******* From: Dave Mayall <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> Subject: Scanned Source availability Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:01 +0000 For many months, an oft repeated (and valid) criticism has been that there is a shortage of scanned source material, and/or that the scanned source has been of poor quality. etc etc. ************************************************************************ **** ***** Progress HAS been made in some of the scanning mentioned in Dave's email above. Dave and I are in discussion on what still needs to be done to provide scans for all years not previously catered for. This either means providing scans where none currently exits or replacing the poor qualiy scans. This will be undertaken by Archive CD Books as per Dave's email above I would have come back a little earlier in my response, but I was arranging for more available scans to be added to the Scan Allocation Web Page. Volunteers are totally at liberty to decline to participate in double keying. If you feel so inclined I will use my best endevours to place you with a Syndicate who is single keying earlier years. Please let me know if this avenue suits you best? Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 10 September 2003 22:24 Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans >Allan, > >But there IS a shortage of scans!! You allocated 1882D3 to both Scan2 >and Webscan!! Net result: despite me stressing to Linda Bailey that I >did NOT want second keyings, I am now duplicating what John Renner and >Lucille Hambling are doing! i.e., 1882D3 pages 11-35 are mine, but >Lucille is doing >27-36 and John Renner is doing 17-25. > >Meanwhile, many gaps exist between 1837, and (generally) the time when >typeset starts. > >You speak with forked tongue!!! > >[This e-mail originally sent privately to Allan, but at his prompt, is being >sent publicly] > >John Fairlie >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:54 PM >To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans > > >I'm don't have the authority to answer about 1837online. > >However I am competent to answer the other queries. > >Good quality scans were provided to all Syndicates who requested them, >very recently. More on their way. > >We are taking on 6 new volunteers every day. > >2 Syndicates are currently accepting new volunteers. > >82,000 records added every day, if this isn't moving towards our target >I don't know what is. > >If you are having difficulty in obtaining more source material to transcribe >please let me know and I should be able to place you with a Syndicate >who can oblige? > >Allan Raymond > > >-----Original Message----- >From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: 10 September 2003 21:14 >Subject: Shortage of Scans > > >>If the project is slowed by the shortage of decent scans, why don't we >>get scans from 1837online.com? OK, OK, I know we have to pay for >>them, but we are currently having to buy film from GRO, buy expensive >>scanners and do scanning, all of which costs FreeBMD money. It has >>all already been done >by >>the 1837online chaps. >> >>And if the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor in moving the >>project forward faster - what is? Do we want more transcribers? >> >>John Fairlie >>Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >>Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> >> >>============================== >>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 > > ______________________________

Hi With regard to 1882 Q3 and Q4 These have been allocated by Scan2 Q3 has 112 completed of the 318 pages and q4 is also all allocated with 86 of 358 completed. At 01:22 PM 11/09/2003 +0100, you wrote: >As far as I was aware 1882 Q3 and Q4 Deaths are both first key. > >I have plenty of handwritten stuff which is definitely first key stuff, >perhaps you would like to do some of that. > >Linda >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Fairlie" <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:30 AM >Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans > > > > Allan and all, > > > > It is certainly an option for me to change syndicates, and I will consider > > that. Can it be clarified please what syndicates do what, and how well > > stocked each are with source. I for one never actually chose my current > > syndicate (Web Scan), it was just what we all were swept into when posting > > fiche's about was found to be impractical. Hence the name of that > > syndicate. So I might assume that others would rather be employed single > > keying new records in a different syndicate than second keying in the one > > they are in at the moment as well. > > > > But with respect, you have still not answered the question!! You are > > allocating typeset material to two syndicates at the same time. If you >are > > telling the syndicate leaders so, they are certainly not telling the > > transcribers when they allocate pages. I have particularly requested >first > > keyings because I want to move that side of the project forward fastest, >and > > the project themselves have said that second keying has not been >officially > > rolled out yet. And I STILL get second keyings! All this while early > > hand-written remains waiting for first keying. > > > > I will ask again.....If the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor >in > > moving the project forward faster - what is? Do we want more >transcribers? > > 82,000 records a day may sound good, indeed it IS good, but with 5,000 > > transcribers, it only averages 16 records a day each. I still feel the > > project could be moved forward faster if you say what you need most. > > > > I will leave the subject of us buying scans from 1837online to Dave Mayall > > to answer publicly then. He has already kindly exchanged with me off >list. > > > > John Fairlie > > Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk > > Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] > > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:31 AM > > To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans > > > > > > John > > > > I requested you to redirect your private reply to the DISCUSS list as the > > discussion started off here and should finish here. > > > > You are entitled to you opinion as to whether you believe what I say is > > correct or incorrect. > > > > I can only state the facts. > > > > If I can direct you to the FreeBMD-Admins-L Archives and ask you to browse > > for the following item from Dave Mayall > > > > >**************************************************************************** > > ******* > > From: Dave Mayall <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> > > Subject: Scanned Source availability > > Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:01 +0000 > > > > For many months, an oft repeated (and valid) criticism has been that there > > is a > > shortage of scanned source material, and/or that the scanned source has >been > > of > > poor quality. > > etc etc. > > >**************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > > Progress HAS been made in some of the scanning mentioned in Dave's email > > above. Dave and I are in discussion on what still needs to be done to > > provide scans for all years not previously catered for. This either means > > providing scans where none currently exits or replacing the poor qualiy > > scans. This will be undertaken by Archive CD Books as per Dave's email >above > > > > I would have come back a little earlier in my response, but I was >arranging > > for more available scans to be added to the Scan Allocation Web Page. > > > > Volunteers are totally at liberty to decline to participate in double > > keying. > > > > If you feel so inclined I will use my best endevours to place you with a > > Syndicate who is single keying earlier years. Please let me know if this > > avenue suits you best? > > > > Allan Raymond > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> > > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > > Date: 10 September 2003 22:24 > > Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans > > > > > > >Allan, > > > > > >But there IS a shortage of scans!! You allocated 1882D3 to both Scan2 >and > > >Webscan!! Net result: despite me stressing to Linda Bailey that I did >NOT > > >want second keyings, I am now duplicating what John Renner and Lucille > > >Hambling are doing! i.e., 1882D3 pages 11-35 are mine, but Lucille is > > doing > > >27-36 and John Renner is doing 17-25. > > > > > >Meanwhile, many gaps exist between 1837, and (generally) the time when > > >typeset starts. > > > > > >You speak with forked tongue!!! > > > > > >[This e-mail originally sent privately to Allan, but at his prompt, is > > being > > >sent publicly] > > > > > >John Fairlie > > >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > > > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk > > >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] > > >Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:54 PM > > >To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > > >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans > > > > > > > > >I'm don't have the authority to answer about 1837online. > > > > > >However I am competent to answer the other queries. > > > > > >Good quality scans were provided to all Syndicates who requested them, >very > > >recently. More on their way. > > > > > >We are taking on 6 new volunteers every day. > > > > > >2 Syndicates are currently accepting new volunteers. > > > > > >82,000 records added every day, if this isn't moving towards our target I > > >don't know what is. > > > > > >If you are having difficulty in obtaining more source material to > > transcribe > > >please let me know and I should be able to place you with a Syndicate who > > >can oblige? > > > > > >Allan Raymond > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> > > >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > > >Date: 10 September 2003 21:14 > > >Subject: Shortage of Scans > > > > > > > > >>If the project is slowed by the shortage of decent scans, why don't we >get > > >>scans from 1837online.com? OK, OK, I know we have to pay for them, but >we > > >>are currently having to buy film from GRO, buy expensive scanners and do > > >>scanning, all of which costs FreeBMD money. It has all already been >done > > >by > > >>the 1837online chaps. > > >> > > >>And if the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor in moving the > > >>project forward faster - what is? Do we want more transcribers? > > >> > > >>John Fairlie > > >>Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > > >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk > > >>Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > >> > > >> > > >>============================== > > >>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 Cheers Derek Derek C Hopkins, Phone +1(450)678-7768 6640, Biarritz, Fax +1(450)678-4252 Brossard, E-Mail derek.hopkins@sympatico.ca QC, Canada, J4Z-2A2. ==== FreeBMD - England and Wales - Birth - Marriage and Death Transcriptions <http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com> ==== Check out FreeBMD Scan2 Syndicate page (revised daily) Please bookmark our new home http://www.scan2.org/scan2.html Check out my web page (22jan1997) Last Revised 28 May 1998 <http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/index.html> Check out Abney Park Indexing Project (revised 14 MAR 2000, 195,000 names) <http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/abney.html> Check out my web Ramsgate page <http://members.adept.co.uk/hopkde> Check out the Quebec Family History web page <http://www.cam.org/~qfhs/index.html>

Dave, Just one question. How would 1837onlne know that the scans were there's and not from a local Family History Society or library, typed in from fiche ? Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Dave Mayall [mailto:david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk] Sent: 11 September 2003 10:36 To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans Whilst this might seem to be a good idea, it is forbidden by 1837online.com's terms and conditions (and one can appreciate why, FreeBMD is NOT good for their business). If FreeBMD were to put transcriptions from 1837online scans onto the site, we would be open to legal action (including personal liability for the four of us). In consequence, we will remove any transcriptions that we become aware of that are taken from 1837online scans from the site. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net ============================== 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

John 1. I wish you well in any new Syndicate? 2. http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/scan-source2.html indicates which Scans events/periods have been allocated to which Syndicates. Bear in mind there is sometimes a time lag between when I request the Web Page to be updated and when it comes live (temporary Web Page at: http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/FreeBMD_Scan_Source_Temp.html is available during the intervening period) . The Web Pages shows authorised double keying for all to see. 3. http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/bmd-synd.pl indicates in totality which events/periods have been allocated to which Syndicates, this is independent of the methods of providing source to Syndicate members. This shows authorised double keying for all to see, this is normally up to date as I have access to undertake the necessary corrections. 4. I am certain I have already emailed you off list regarding your option to opt out of double keying when you first raised the issue. 5. 5000 transcribers don't mean they are all active, volunteers come and go. Unfortunately some are no longer with us, others decide they are unable to continue due to ill health and the like whilst other take a sabbatical as you did for a two year period or so. Regardless of whether a volunteer transcribes 1 record or a million records they are still contributing to the project. 6, What I need most is to be able to carry out my tasks to the best of my ability without the need to keep revisiting old chestnuts. We are making great strides and for me to say otherwise would do a great disservice to those volunteers who keep to themselves and just get on with the task in hand. I feel I have said as much as I can on this subject. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 11 September 2003 08:31 Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans >Allan and all, > >It is certainly an option for me to change syndicates, and I will consider >that. Can it be clarified please what syndicates do what, and how well >stocked each are with source. I for one never actually chose my current >syndicate (Web Scan), it was just what we all were swept into when posting >fiche's about was found to be impractical. Hence the name of that >syndicate. So I might assume that others would rather be employed single >keying new records in a different syndicate than second keying in the one >they are in at the moment as well. > >But with respect, you have still not answered the question!! You are >allocating typeset material to two syndicates at the same time. If you are >telling the syndicate leaders so, they are certainly not telling the >transcribers when they allocate pages. I have particularly requested first >keyings because I want to move that side of the project forward fastest, and >the project themselves have said that second keying has not been officially >rolled out yet. And I STILL get second keyings! All this while early >hand-written remains waiting for first keying. > >I will ask again.....If the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor in >moving the project forward faster - what is? Do we want more transcribers? >82,000 records a day may sound good, indeed it IS good, but with 5,000 >transcribers, it only averages 16 records a day each. I still feel the >project could be moved forward faster if you say what you need most. > >I will leave the subject of us buying scans from 1837online to Dave Mayall >to answer publicly then. He has already kindly exchanged with me off list. > >John Fairlie >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:31 AM >To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans > > >John > >I requested you to redirect your private reply to the DISCUSS list as the >discussion started off here and should finish here. > >You are entitled to you opinion as to whether you believe what I say is >correct or incorrect. > >I can only state the facts. > >If I can direct you to the FreeBMD-Admins-L Archives and ask you to browse >for the following item from Dave Mayall > >*************************************************************************** * >******* >From: Dave Mayall <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> >Subject: Scanned Source availability >Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:01 +0000 > >For many months, an oft repeated (and valid) criticism has been that there >is a >shortage of scanned source material, and/or that the scanned source has been >of >poor quality. > etc etc. >*************************************************************************** * >***** > >Progress HAS been made in some of the scanning mentioned in Dave's email >above. Dave and I are in discussion on what still needs to be done to >provide scans for all years not previously catered for. This either means >providing scans where none currently exits or replacing the poor qualiy >scans. This will be undertaken by Archive CD Books as per Dave's email above > >I would have come back a little earlier in my response, but I was arranging >for more available scans to be added to the Scan Allocation Web Page. > >Volunteers are totally at liberty to decline to participate in double >keying. > >If you feel so inclined I will use my best endevours to place you with a >Syndicate who is single keying earlier years. Please let me know if this >avenue suits you best? > >Allan Raymond > >-----Original Message----- >From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: 10 September 2003 22:24 >Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans > > >>Allan, >> >>But there IS a shortage of scans!! You allocated 1882D3 to both Scan2 and >>Webscan!! Net result: despite me stressing to Linda Bailey that I did NOT >>want second keyings, I am now duplicating what John Renner and Lucille >>Hambling are doing! i.e., 1882D3 pages 11-35 are mine, but Lucille is >doing >>27-36 and John Renner is doing 17-25. >> >>Meanwhile, many gaps exist between 1837, and (generally) the time when >>typeset starts. >> >>You speak with forked tongue!!! >> >>[This e-mail originally sent privately to Allan, but at his prompt, is >being >>sent publicly] >> >>John Fairlie >>Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >>Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:54 PM >>To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >>Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans >> >> >>I'm don't have the authority to answer about 1837online. >> >>However I am competent to answer the other queries. >> >>Good quality scans were provided to all Syndicates who requested them, very >>recently. More on their way. >> >>We are taking on 6 new volunteers every day. >> >>2 Syndicates are currently accepting new volunteers. >> >>82,000 records added every day, if this isn't moving towards our target I >>don't know what is. >> >>If you are having difficulty in obtaining more source material to >transcribe >>please let me know and I should be able to place you with a Syndicate who >>can oblige? >> >>Allan Raymond >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >>To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >>Date: 10 September 2003 21:14 >>Subject: Shortage of Scans >> >> >>>If the project is slowed by the shortage of decent scans, why don't we get >>>scans from 1837online.com? OK, OK, I know we have to pay for them, but we >>>are currently having to buy film from GRO, buy expensive scanners and do >>>scanning, all of which costs FreeBMD money. It has all already been done >>by >>>the 1837online chaps. >>> >>>And if the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor in moving the >>>project forward faster - what is? Do we want more transcribers? >>> >>>John Fairlie >>>Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >>> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >>>Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >>> >>> >>>============================== >>>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 Dave for being kind enough to give such an in depth answer. I appreciate it. -------Original Message------- From: Dave Mayall Date: 11 September 2003 15:43:03 To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: SCANS Quoting Lucille Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com>: > I would like to ask purely out of curiosity (I promise no ulterior motives) > where do the scans come from and why don't they come through in ascending > order of year? Various sources! Marriages 1866-1900 largely from Darryl Bonk of Canada who scanned films held by his FHS Births/Deaths 1866-1900 films bought by FreeBMD and scanned by our contacts. 1837-1865, second hand films bought by Ancestry and Scanned by them. Many of the films in this range are poor quality and unsuitable for scanning. They will eventually be replaced by FreeBMD purchased films. Early films contain 40/80 names per page, as opposed to 325 for later years, which means that it cost a LOT more to buy them and longer to scan them. We are embarking on a project *NOW* to complete scanning in a logical order. We can do this now because we are in a sufficiently stable financial position to do so. The plan is; 1) Install additional hardware to handle the extra scans 2) Complete scanning of all years all events from 1910 to 1866 working backwards. 3) Complete scanning of all years marriages 1865 to 1837 marriages working backwards, including replacing scans of poor quality 4) Likewise for Births and Deaths 5) Start to work forwards from 1911. This may seem a slightly odd order, but it is designed to ensure that we keep a sufficient stock of scanned images on hand at all times. Timescales are always difficult, but current guess is; New hardware on-line by end October Source 1866-1910 on-hand by same time 1866-1910 scans available gradually from November to January 1837-1856 marriage source on hand by early January 1837-1856 scans available February - June 2004 Beyond that timescales are too vague to be useful. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net ============================== 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 .