Allan R may have double allocated intentionally, being short of material, and reckoning that they will be double keyed anyway at some time. Else he may have just done it in error. But Dave Mayall has asked us to await investigations, and that I am doing. It is true that FreeBMD has said it will double key, and yes, I am on FreeBMD's transcriber books. But FreeBMD has also said it will key all years from 1837 and as there are big gaps in the early years, not even first keyed yet, I want to be employed doing those as I feel that moves the project forward best. I also feel that the older years have the worst fiche in my local library, and the urgency to get them transcribed is the highest. Also Dave Mayall has said that double keying has not been officially started yet. They do not yet have the comparison software, arbitration procedures etc. At the end of the day, I will contribute to the FreeBMD charity (and a registered charity is what it is) in any way I want. If I want to write a cheque out for £50 and send it to Dave Mayall to help him to buy scans, I damn well will. You help them your way, I'll help them mine. And yes, I did make a typo, meaning 1882 not 1883, and no, I'm not too proud to admit it! John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Mark Hattam [mailto:mark@dxradio.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 2:10 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans In my normal understanding of English ... an error can't be made intentionally. Also, if you were to read Linda's email, you would see that she wrote 1882 not 1883. When I signed up for being a FreeBMD transcriber, I read the project's aims, and these included the double keying of data to try and ensure its accuracy. It seems to matter little whether any particular trancriber happens to key it first or second, since the keyings are independent. So as long as you don't double key your own work, why not key your allocation first, and let the other tramscribers be the "second keyers"? Mark -- At 1:48 pm +0100 11/9/03, John Fairlie wrote: >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 > > >> >> -----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!!! > > > > > >John Fairlie > > > ============================== 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 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

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? Lucille

I am very happy with the new Age at Death function. I (and probably many others) made the request a long time back - and looking through the algorithmic notes provided (if you follow the links from the HELP) had not realised the complications of the computations need. So - thank you all involved. It found one of my rellies! Keith

In my normal understanding of English ... an error can't be made intentionally. Also, if you were to read Linda's email, you would see that she wrote 1882 not 1883. When I signed up for being a FreeBMD transcriber, I read the project's aims, and these included the double keying of data to try and ensure its accuracy. It seems to matter little whether any particular trancriber happens to key it first or second, since the keyings are independent. So as long as you don't double key your own work, why not key your allocation first, and let the other tramscribers be the "second keyers"? Mark -- At 1:48 pm +0100 11/9/03, John Fairlie wrote: >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 > > >> >> -----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!!! > > > > > >John Fairlie > > >

Quoting John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk>: > 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. It is becoming apparent that there is some confusion here as to which ranges are allocated to which syndicate. 1882 Q3 and Q4 are allocated to Web Scan for keying. They have not been allocated to Scan2 for second keying. There is obviously some confusion as to allocations of ranges to syndicates which needs to be cleared up. It will take a little time for the co-ordinators concerned to compare notes, and I would ask that we draw a line under the subject in this list until they have had an opportunity to do so. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

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 > > > > > > ______________________________

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 > > > > > > ______________________________

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

I have written to Brian Smart off list regarding his offer below. John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Brian Smart [mailto:brian.smart@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 10:18 AM To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans Hello John, My syndicate is transcribing 1841 September deaths and 1849 September Births. These are being done for the first time. They are hand written and not always easy but if you would like to join me please let me know your user ID and I will allocate an initial scan. I have a web site with the instructions that relate to my syndicate that you might like to look at. Go to: http://www.bms.me.uk/BMD/Instructions.htm Regards Brian Smart Brian's Scan Syndicate Coordinator -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie [mailto:john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 11 September 2003 08:30 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 > > ============================== 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 Lucille Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com>: > To the powers that be I have a question: > > Are transcribers going to be given a choice in whether they do first keying > or second keying? 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. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

Quoting John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk>: > 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. Shortage of scans *is* a factor. Not in an immediate sense, but in a long-term stable supply problem. This is something we are addressing. We also do need to open more syndicates, to enable more transcribers to be taken on. This, in itself, creates a scan supply problem in that the more syndicates we have the larger the "stock" of scans we require. 5000 transcribers in twice the number of syndicates means a need for about 50% more scans in reserve. > 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 suggested that people might like to help FreeBMD by purchasing a few scans each from 1837online. 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 the powers that be I have a question: Are transcribers going to be given a choice in whether they do first keying or second keying? I personally do not wish to do second keying because I also transcribe for LancashireBMD and would rather give my time to first (and only) keying to them than second keying for FreeBMD. Lucille

Hello John, My syndicate is transcribing 1841 September deaths and 1849 September Births. These are being done for the first time. They are hand written and not always easy but if you would like to join me please let me know your user ID and I will allocate an initial scan. I have a web site with the instructions that relate to my syndicate that you might like to look at. Go to: http://www.bms.me.uk/BMD/Instructions.htm Regards Brian Smart Brian's Scan Syndicate Coordinator -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie [mailto:john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 11 September 2003 08:30 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 > > ============================== 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, 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 > >

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:11:01 +0100, you wrote: >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. Dead simple. Because 1837online will not sell us scans to transcribe. They make their living selling access to the scans, they would be fools to sell scans to us. -- Dave Mayall

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 > >

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 > >

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 > >

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