Thank you for your reply and the information. I think Dick Bonds message sums up what I was trying to say. Lucille -------Original Message------- From: Allan Raymond Date: 16 November 2003 23:38:00 To: L Hambling Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans Lucille My long winded answer. Not all Syndicates operate the same elaborate system as Scan2, Derek has the particular expertise background to be able to do this. The following may help to clarify the point I was trying to make. I allocate slots to all the Syndicates and maintain directly or indirectly the associated FreeBMD Web Pages. These are the pages at: 1. Syndicate Allocation Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/bmd-synd.pl. 2. Transcribing Scanned Source at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/scan-source2.shtml Once I've allocated the slots each Syndicate is free to allocate individual pages within each allocation to the their volunteers. Some Syndicates keep a spreadsheet of what's been allocated to their volunteers, whilst Derek in particular has an automated system via his Web Site. Derek also bypasses the FreeBMD "Transcribing Scanned Source" Web Page above by including the information on his own Web Site, although both the FreeBMD Web Page and Derek's Web Page point to the same link. FreeBMD also centrally maintain comprehensive statistics which are either produced automatically or manually by another member of the central team. Derek has decided that he will produce statistics which apply within his Syndicate, other Syndicates don't go to this extent. Therefore if the individual who posted the original query was referring to the formal FreeBMD Web statistics it would be quite valid for this to be raised initially on the Admin List and transferred across to the DISCUSS list if this was to discuss changes in the statistics produced. However, as the query was about the statistics produced solely for Scan2 Syndicate it should be raised direct with Derek in the first instance. Volunteers in other Syndicates who don't work to the same system may or could be confused by discussions applicable to Scan2 Syndicate. Regards Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> To: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> Date: 16 November 2003 22:59 Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >I was merely referring to the fact that syndicate pages are separate from >FreeBMD and as they are set up and maintained by the Co-ordinator it is only >right that any queries should be taken up with them and not FreeBMD. As I >have said already, I found this out for myself and it is quite simple >really. > >It makes you wonder how many other transcribers think they are set up and >maintained by FreeBMD. > >Lucille > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: "L Hambling" <l.hambling@ntlworld.com>; <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:04 PM >Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans > > >> Ask away. >> >> Volunteers who have a query regarding their Syndicate should in the first >> instance take it with the respective Co-ordinator. To discuss Syndicate >> Specific queries on a FreeBMD Mailing List may lead to confusion by >> volunteers in other Syndicates who work in a different way. >> >> I think it is also courtesy to raise any queries/concerns regarding a >> specific Syndicate direct with the Co-ordinator in the first instance >prior >> to posting to one of the mailing lists. >> >> The mailing list Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/lists.html under >> heading FreeBMD-Admins-L >> specifically mentions "Answers that reflect practice within a particular >> syndicate or which reflect the opinion of a transcriber as to a better way >> of doing things are not allowed." >> >> I have just set up a task to add something similar under the heading >> FreeBMD-Discuss-L regarding discussion of Syndicate specific issues. >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 16 November 2003 21:39 >> Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> >> >> >I could ask why? but I have since found out what happens behind the >scenes >> >and I know why. Why didn't you explain why in your reply? >> > >> >Lucille >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:43 PM >> >Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> > >> > >> >> I'm sure you wont mind me pointing out that comments about the workings >> of >> >> an individual Syndicate should be taken up with the Co-ordinator and >not >> >via >> >> the Discuss List. >> >> >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >> Date: 16 November 2003 18:13 >> >> Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> >> >> >> >> >> >I know about the graphs on the file management page, but I am not >> >concerned >> >> >with those. I am talking about the statistics on the Scan2 home page, >> >the >> >> >column headed "Typ" is supposed to show how many pages I have >> >transcribed, >> >> >but it counts a double page scan as 1 page not 2 the same goes for the >> >> >columns headed "All" and "56 day". The second is on my allocations >page >> >> >there is a link called "Individual Graphs" this page has Rankings!! >and >> >the >> >> >figures are based on "Total Pages Transcribed" and "Total Pages >> >Transcribed >> >> >in the last 4 weeks", therefore if some pages have more or less >entries >> >> than >> >> >others, what is the point? When I have just slogged through a double >> >page >> >> >scan (and I really don't like them, they seem never ending) it doesn't >> do >> >> >much for moral. >> >> > >> >> >Lucille >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-------Original Message------- >> >> > >> >> >From: Philip Powell >> >> >Date: 16 November 2003 17:15:23 >> >> > >> >> >In message <001c01c3ac56$8e72f7d0$023d1dac@dickhome>, Dick Bond >> >> ><dick@bonds.plus.com> writes >> >> >>Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note >> >> >>that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed >> >> >>pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but >> >> >>should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? >> >> > >> >> >If you look on the FreeBMD file management page you will find that the >> >> >details are recorded as uploaded files rather than pages and you can >> >> >also see how many actual entries you have uploaded. Actual entries >make >> >> >more sense than pages [or files] because the latter vary in size. >> >> >Typically, typeset pages have 375 entries whereas as handwritten pages >> >> >have only 40. >> >> > >> >> >Of course, you won't be able to see yours until the next database >update >> >> >- which I'd guess will be starting in the next few days. >> >> > >> >> >>If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having >them >> >> >>correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than >'pages') >> >> > >> >> >Once your files have been entered into the database you will see that >> >> >that is the case - though they are referred to as "entries" rather >than >> >> >"submissions" and are additional to the list of actual files. >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >Philip Powell >> >> >Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland >> >> >to The Cheviot >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ============================== >> >> 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 >> > >> >> > >

If one syndicate has a whizzo system, why don't other syndicates adopt it? Surely the syndicate leader who developed the whizzo system isn't against others adopting that system. After all, we are all on the FreeBMD project working for the benefit of a wider group are we not??? Then questions about why a column of data has a fault or ambiguity in it IS a comment for the FreeBMD project as a whole. John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: L Hambling [mailto:l.hambling@ntlworld.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:22 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans Thank you for your reply and the information. I think Dick Bonds message sums up what I was trying to say. Lucille -------Original Message------- From: Allan Raymond Date: 16 November 2003 23:38:00 To: L Hambling Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans Lucille My long winded answer. Not all Syndicates operate the same elaborate system as Scan2, Derek has the particular expertise background to be able to do this. The following may help to clarify the point I was trying to make. I allocate slots to all the Syndicates and maintain directly or indirectly the associated FreeBMD Web Pages. These are the pages at: 1. Syndicate Allocation Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/bmd-synd.pl. 2. Transcribing Scanned Source at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/scan-source2.shtml Once I've allocated the slots each Syndicate is free to allocate individual pages within each allocation to the their volunteers. Some Syndicates keep a spreadsheet of what's been allocated to their volunteers, whilst Derek in particular has an automated system via his Web Site. Derek also bypasses the FreeBMD "Transcribing Scanned Source" Web Page above by including the information on his own Web Site, although both the FreeBMD Web Page and Derek's Web Page point to the same link. FreeBMD also centrally maintain comprehensive statistics which are either produced automatically or manually by another member of the central team. Derek has decided that he will produce statistics which apply within his Syndicate, other Syndicates don't go to this extent. Therefore if the individual who posted the original query was referring to the formal FreeBMD Web statistics it would be quite valid for this to be raised initially on the Admin List and transferred across to the DISCUSS list if this was to discuss changes in the statistics produced. However, as the query was about the statistics produced solely for Scan2 Syndicate it should be raised direct with Derek in the first instance. Volunteers in other Syndicates who don't work to the same system may or could be confused by discussions applicable to Scan2 Syndicate. Regards Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> To: Allan Raymond <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> Date: 16 November 2003 22:59 Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >I was merely referring to the fact that syndicate pages are separate from >FreeBMD and as they are set up and maintained by the Co-ordinator it is only >right that any queries should be taken up with them and not FreeBMD. As I >have said already, I found this out for myself and it is quite simple >really. > >It makes you wonder how many other transcribers think they are set up and >maintained by FreeBMD. > >Lucille > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: "L Hambling" <l.hambling@ntlworld.com>; <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:04 PM >Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans > > >> Ask away. >> >> Volunteers who have a query regarding their Syndicate should in the first >> instance take it with the respective Co-ordinator. To discuss Syndicate >> Specific queries on a FreeBMD Mailing List may lead to confusion by >> volunteers in other Syndicates who work in a different way. >> >> I think it is also courtesy to raise any queries/concerns regarding a >> specific Syndicate direct with the Co-ordinator in the first instance >prior >> to posting to one of the mailing lists. >> >> The mailing list Web Page at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/lists.html under >> heading FreeBMD-Admins-L >> specifically mentions "Answers that reflect practice within a particular >> syndicate or which reflect the opinion of a transcriber as to a better way >> of doing things are not allowed." >> >> I have just set up a task to add something similar under the heading >> FreeBMD-Discuss-L regarding discussion of Syndicate specific issues. >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 16 November 2003 21:39 >> Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> >> >> >I could ask why? but I have since found out what happens behind the >scenes >> >and I know why. Why didn't you explain why in your reply? >> > >> >Lucille >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:43 PM >> >Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> > >> > >> >> I'm sure you wont mind me pointing out that comments about the workings >> of >> >> an individual Syndicate should be taken up with the Co-ordinator and >not >> >via >> >> the Discuss List. >> >> >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: L Hambling <l.hambling@ntlworld.com> >> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >> Date: 16 November 2003 18:13 >> >> Subject: Re: Statistics for 2 Page Scans >> >> >> >> >> >> >I know about the graphs on the file management page, but I am not >> >concerned >> >> >with those. I am talking about the statistics on the Scan2 home page, >> >the >> >> >column headed "Typ" is supposed to show how many pages I have >> >transcribed, >> >> >but it counts a double page scan as 1 page not 2 the same goes for the >> >> >columns headed "All" and "56 day". The second is on my allocations >page >> >> >there is a link called "Individual Graphs" this page has Rankings!! >and >> >the >> >> >figures are based on "Total Pages Transcribed" and "Total Pages >> >Transcribed >> >> >in the last 4 weeks", therefore if some pages have more or less >entries >> >> than >> >> >others, what is the point? When I have just slogged through a double >> >page >> >> >scan (and I really don't like them, they seem never ending) it doesn't >> do >> >> >much for moral. >> >> > >> >> >Lucille >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-------Original Message------- >> >> > >> >> >From: Philip Powell >> >> >Date: 16 November 2003 17:15:23 >> >> > >> >> >In message <001c01c3ac56$8e72f7d0$023d1dac@dickhome>, Dick Bond >> >> ><dick@bonds.plus.com> writes >> >> >>Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note >> >> >>that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed >> >> >>pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but >> >> >>should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? >> >> > >> >> >If you look on the FreeBMD file management page you will find that the >> >> >details are recorded as uploaded files rather than pages and you can >> >> >also see how many actual entries you have uploaded. Actual entries >make >> >> >more sense than pages [or files] because the latter vary in size. >> >> >Typically, typeset pages have 375 entries whereas as handwritten pages >> >> >have only 40. >> >> > >> >> >Of course, you won't be able to see yours until the next database >update >> >> >- which I'd guess will be starting in the next few days. >> >> > >> >> >>If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having >them >> >> >>correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than >'pages') >> >> > >> >> >Once your files have been entered into the database you will see that >> >> >that is the case - though they are referred to as "entries" rather >than >> >> >"submissions" and are additional to the list of actual files. >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >Philip Powell >> >> >Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland >> >> >to The Cheviot >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ============================== >> >> 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

Hi, John Fairlie wrote: > If one syndicate has a whizzo system, why don't other syndicates adopt it? > Surely the syndicate leader who developed the whizzo system isn't against > others adopting that system. After all, we are all on the FreeBMD project > working for the benefit of a wider group are we not??? Yes, of course we are... however, I am sure you wouldn't expect syndicate coordinators to keep changing their working practices whenever another syndicate coordinator comes up with a different way of doing things. Each syndicate has a great deal of flexibility in how they manage their syndicates as long as they confirm to certain standards for the project as a whole. Derek happens to have a separate website for Scan2 which contains the status of his syndicate members and the work they are currently doing. The information he is providing is to help him manage where he is within his syndicate. The information provided by FreeBMD as a whole is to do with what has or hasnt been uploaded to the site and incorporated in a rebuild. I wouldn't expect the other syndicate coordinators to necessarily work in the same way .. hence the information on the Scan2 website is not the same as for other syndicates. > Then questions about why a column of data has a fault or ambiguity in it IS > a comment for the FreeBMD project as a whole. They would be if the everyone used the same method, which, as described above, they don't... Experience has show that, the more questions there are about a specific syndicate method of working the more confusion there is for transcribers not within that syndicate. Cheers Graham