Hi All, Many thanks for your comments Dave - I've interspersed a few comments. Regards Ian >The idea of file ownership does bring advantages! >1) You can load a page with some unreadable stuff, then replace it later once you have had chance to look at entries again. >2) When a query comes in, it is quite likely that somebody central will not have a copy of the fiche to check the transcription. >3) Splitting the files out by transcriber allows us to identify any potential cases of seriously suspect files and to discard them. >4) Identifying by transcriber ensures that we can show that double keying was truly independent. >5) Ownership ensures that at the stage where we apply corrections to the data, there is no prospect of a "rogue" checker overwriting the data held. Most of these (except #2) seem to relate to tying the file back to the original transcriber. But it doesn't sound too difficult to store this info in the header of the record when it was moved to a central store. ?>Much of the problem seems to result from people not appreciating the data model. I disagree with this entirely. The problems I was trying to address are (1) that no-one (excluding yourself and maybe 3 others) other than the original transcriber has access to the data to make legitimate changes/corrections. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be able to change files but there is surely a case for providing access to either syndicate coordinators and/or a person appointed for that task. (2) That questions/comments etc are being sent to people who have in the past uploaded files but now are no longer associated with the project and don't wish to receive them. In some cases, where the email address stored in the FreeBMD record is no longer valid then these questions are coming in to Virginia and in some cases to the Admins list. Neither of these has anything to do with the data model. >The path of asking a transcriber to correct his data is very much part of the early process in the months immediately after transcription, prior to double transcription. Why? Surely questions can arise from someone querying the database and this can happen at anytime. Facilities are already being developed for the later stages of the project, where corrections to records will be applied by other people. These facilities will NOT involve editing the submitted files. The last point here is well taken but what about data that needs to be corrected in the early stages? Personally I would like to see a facility whereby syndicate coordinators 'own' data uploaded by their syndicate and can access it as though it were theirs - this would certainly solve the problem that I am currently experiencing. Regards Ian

Hi, one of my syndicate members is having the following problem: ----- I have started transcribing & I am going ok except that I can't get the District Picklist to work.Every time I use it it shuts down the Program & I have to reopen it.The Forename Picklist works ok.Do you have any ideas? ----- He has reinstalled WinBMD but this has not helped the problem. Are there any suggestions? Bye for now Mary Muir [email protected] http://www.genealogy.bc.ca/

Hi All, I've been reading comments on this subject with interest. I usually just keep my head down and get on with transcribing but I'd like to ask a question. I go to the FRC four times a year to do research, and since I joined FreeBMD I have taken prints of my allocations with me and amended the unreadable bits by checking the indexes. There are still many outstanding but I felt pleased that I had achieved at least some improvement to my uploaded data. My question is....Am I wasting my time as this is going to be done in due course by syndicate leaders and co-ordinators? Linda ______________________________________________ Linda Pattinson Email : [email protected] Genealogy Web Site : www.stevenwillingale.com -----Original Message----- From: Ian Brooke [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 October 2001 22:23 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: File Owning Hi All, Many thanks for your comments Dave - I've interspersed a few comments. Regards Ian >The idea of file ownership does bring advantages! >1) You can load a page with some unreadable stuff, then replace it later once you have had chance to look at entries again. >2) When a query comes in, it is quite likely that somebody central will not have a copy of the fiche to check the transcription. >3) Splitting the files out by transcriber allows us to identify any potential cases of seriously suspect files and to discard them. >4) Identifying by transcriber ensures that we can show that double keying was truly independent. >5) Ownership ensures that at the stage where we apply corrections to the data, there is no prospect of a "rogue" checker overwriting the data held. Most of these (except #2) seem to relate to tying the file back to the original transcriber. But it doesn't sound too difficult to store this info in the header of the record when it was moved to a central store. ?>Much of the problem seems to result from people not appreciating the data model. I disagree with this entirely. The problems I was trying to address are (1) that no-one (excluding yourself and maybe 3 others) other than the original transcriber has access to the data to make legitimate changes/corrections. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be able to change files but there is surely a case for providing access to either syndicate coordinators and/or a person appointed for that task. (2) That questions/comments etc are being sent to people who have in the past uploaded files but now are no longer associated with the project and don't wish to receive them. In some cases, where the email address stored in the FreeBMD record is no longer valid then these questions are coming in to Virginia and in some cases to the Admins list. Neither of these has anything to do with the data model. >The path of asking a transcriber to correct his data is very much part of the early process in the months immediately after transcription, prior to double transcription. Why? Surely questions can arise from someone querying the database and this can happen at anytime. Facilities are already being developed for the later stages of the project, where corrections to records will be applied by other people. These facilities will NOT involve editing the submitted files. The last point here is well taken but what about data that needs to be corrected in the early stages? Personally I would like to see a facility whereby syndicate coordinators 'own' data uploaded by their syndicate and can access it as though it were theirs - this would certainly solve the problem that I am currently experiencing. Regards Ian ______________________________

Hi Linda The simple answer is no, you are not wasting your time. The more accurate you can get your transcription the better it will be for the Project. Just out of interest you may wish to check out our "Transcription and Verification Process" guide at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/process.html (don't worry at this stage about the bulk of the content) Almost at the top of the page is the following quote: The primary methods of ensuring accuracy will be; Vigilance and accuracy from transcribers Hope this will put your mind at ease. Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Pattinson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 06 October 2001 15:20 Subject: RE: File Owning Hi All, I've been reading comments on this subject with interest. I usually just keep my head down and get on with transcribing but I'd like to ask a question. I go to the FRC four times a year to do research, and since I joined FreeBMD I have taken prints of my allocations with me and amended the unreadable bits by checking the indexes. There are still many outstanding but I felt pleased that I had achieved at least some improvement to my uploaded data. My question is....Am I wasting my time as this is going to be done in due course by syndicate leaders and co-ordinators? Linda ______________________________________________ Linda Pattinson Email : linda.pattinson[email protected] Genealogy Web Site : www.stevenwillingale.com -----Original Message----- From: Ian Brooke [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 October 2001 22:23 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: File Owning Hi All, Many thanks for your comments Dave - I've interspersed a few comments. Regards Ian >The idea of file ownership does bring advantages! >1) You can load a page with some unreadable stuff, then replace it later once you have had chance to look at entries again. >2) When a query comes in, it is quite likely that somebody central will not have a copy of the fiche to check the transcription. >3) Splitting the files out by transcriber allows us to identify any potential cases of seriously suspect files and to discard them. >4) Identifying by transcriber ensures that we can show that double keying was truly independent. >5) Ownership ensures that at the stage where we apply corrections to the data, there is no prospect of a "rogue" checker overwriting the data held. Most of these (except #2) seem to relate to tying the file back to the original transcriber. But it doesn't sound too difficult to store this info in the header of the record when it was moved to a central store. ?>Much of the problem seems to result from people not appreciating the data model. I disagree with this entirely. The problems I was trying to address are (1) that no-one (excluding yourself and maybe 3 others) other than the original transcriber has access to the data to make legitimate changes/corrections. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be able to change files but there is surely a case for providing access to either syndicate coordinators and/or a person appointed for that task. (2) That questions/comments etc are being sent to people who have in the past uploaded files but now are no longer associated with the project and don't wish to receive them. In some cases, where the email address stored in the FreeBMD record is no longer valid then these questions are coming in to Virginia and in some cases to the Admins list. Neither of these has anything to do with the data model. >The path of asking a transcriber to correct his data is very much part of the early process in the months immediately after transcription, prior to double transcription. Why? Surely questions can arise from someone querying the database and this can happen at anytime. Facilities are already being developed for the later stages of the project, where corrections to records will be applied by other people. These facilities will NOT involve editing the submitted files. The last point here is well taken but what about data that needs to be corrected in the early stages? Personally I would like to see a facility whereby syndicate coordinators 'own' data uploaded by their syndicate and can access it as though it were theirs - this would certainly solve the problem that I am currently experiencing. Regards Ian ______________________________ ============================== Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com