Graham wrote, We can run through the data in that quarter and identify the +PAGE numbers and print out the sequence. This can easily highlight missing and odd ones eg. where there is a +PAGE,362 followed by a +PAGE,368 in the sequence (from different files, tho) we know that some pages are 'missing' and will check back with you. Its quick to look and see that these were blank. Graham you say "quick", but, I am not so sure. For instance pages with a large initial only (those denoting a surname change) will appear as blanks. Not all have been reported by transcribers and they will show as gaps. Each will want investigation, a thorough job means looking at the tiff before, the alleged blank, and the tiff afterwards. That will take 5 minutes, 26 times to get through the alphabet, say two hours. Then in the case of 1846BQ1 there are at least 19 runs of blanks. Similar checking applies, but this time only 2 lookups required to look at the tiff at each end of the blanks to make sure the sheets either side with data do follow on in an alphabetical sequence. Say 3 minutes at least 19 times means another hour. That looks like three hours to check for blanks. And (tongue in cheek) can I get on the site? I know I do not have to do it all at once but it is not quick. So Graham, thanks for helping, I feel that progress is being made, but we must not minimise the problem (and I must not overstate it!) John

hi, John Slann wrote: > > Graham wrote, > > We can run through the data in that quarter and identify the +PAGE numbers > and print out the sequence. This > can easily highlight missing and odd ones eg. where there is a +PAGE,362 > followed by a +PAGE,368 in the sequence (from different files, tho) we know > that some pages are 'missing' and will check back with you. Its quick to > look and see that these were blank. > > Graham you say "quick", but, I am not so sure. For instance pages with a > large initial only (those denoting a surname change) will appear as blanks. > Not all have been reported by transcribers and they will show as gaps. Each > will want investigation, a thorough job means looking at the tiff before, > the alleged blank, and the tiff afterwards. That will take 5 minutes, 26 > times to get through the alphabet, say two hours. Then in the case of > 1846BQ1 there are at least 19 runs of blanks. Similar checking applies, > but this time only 2 lookups required to look at the tiff at each end of the > blanks to make sure the sheets either side with data do follow on in an > alphabetical sequence. Say 3 minutes at least 19 times means another hour. > That looks like three hours to check for blanks. And (tongue in cheek) can > I get on the site? :)) I would have thought it would take longer than three hours :)) ... I meant quick compared with the original transcription time. It will take time to clean a quarter and the people doing it will spend some time doing. I meant that 3 hours is not a lot in the scheme of things. There will be other checking that will take far far longer !.. I didn't mean to imply that it would be you looking at the scans, btw. Cleaning should be done by volunteers, who may also happen to be coordinators, of course, but not necessarily. I don't see the cleaning being a role of the cordinator.... > I know I do not have to do it all at once but it is not quick. > > So Graham, thanks for helping, I feel that progress is being made, but we > must not minimise the problem (and I must not overstate it!) No, I wouldn't minimise it ... but 'quick' is relative :) Cheers Graham > > John

In message <[email protected]>, Graham Hart <[email protected]> writes >hi, > >John Slann wrote: >> >> Graham wrote, >> >> We can run through the data in that quarter and identify the +PAGE numbers >> and print out the sequence. This >> can easily highlight missing and odd ones eg. where there is a +PAGE,362 >> followed by a +PAGE,368 in the sequence (from different files, tho) we know >> that some pages are 'missing' and will check back with you. Its quick to >> look and see that these were blank. >> >> Graham you say "quick", but, I am not so sure. For instance pages with a >> large initial only (those denoting a surname change) will appear as blanks. >> Not all have been reported by transcribers and they will show as gaps. Each >> will want investigation, a thorough job means looking at the tiff before, >> the alleged blank, and the tiff afterwards. That will take 5 minutes, 26 >> times to get through the alphabet, say two hours. Then in the case of >> 1846BQ1 there are at least 19 runs of blanks. Similar checking applies, >> but this time only 2 lookups required to look at the tiff at each end of the >> blanks to make sure the sheets either side with data do follow on in an >> alphabetical sequence. Say 3 minutes at least 19 times means another hour. >> That looks like three hours to check for blanks. And (tongue in cheek) can >> I get on the site? > >:)) > >I would have thought it would take longer than three hours :)) ... I >meant quick compared with the original transcription time. It will take >time to clean a quarter and the people doing it will spend some time >doing. > >I meant that 3 hours is not a lot in the scheme of things. There will be >other checking that will take far far longer !.. > >I didn't mean to imply that it would be you looking at the scans, btw. >Cleaning should be done by volunteers, who may also happen to be >coordinators, of course, but not necessarily. I don't see the cleaning >being a role of the cordinator.... > >> I know I do not have to do it all at once but it is not quick. >> >> So Graham, thanks for helping, I feel that progress is being made, but we >> must not minimise the problem (and I must not overstate it!) > >No, I wouldn't minimise it ... but 'quick' is relative :) Perhaps co-ordinators could remind all subscribers of the need to report blanks to them. That may allow for some checking during relatively quiet periods and reduce the load at the end? Just a thought. -- Philip Powell