Why, o, why does a simple request/question get so quickly tangled. I as a humble transcriber just see ONE organisation - i.e. FreeBMD. When I joined I was asked to work within one syndicate - but as I understand (understood?) it this was under the 'FrreBMD' banner. When I see statistics & methods of processing I assume they are on behalf of FreeBMD. What is all this discussion about 'concerns regarding a SPECIFIC syndicate' (my emphasis, not shouting!!)? How is the h. transcriber to know how all this works and who is responsible for what? (and don't point me to some obscure sentence in some further http:/etc !! I accept that you have a wide organisation , but finger pointing of this kind does not seem to give a good impression. I rest my case. ..... as a developer myself, however, I do accept the reply that the problem is noted and will be dealt with - meanwhile I shall use the 25th and 26th hour in each of my days to get on with some transcribing. Good luck to all - just trying to be helpful really. Dick 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 >