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