Hi Brian, Brian Smart wrote: > > In answer to my comment: > > "For my own reasons I did not use the numbering system as in the September > quarter, thus the March quarter has unique numbers for each file." > > > Graham said: > > > > "My feeling about using your own numbering system is that we lose the > > opportunity of matching page to page when we come to match the double > > entry keying of that quarter so I would prefer that we all were > > consistent." > > > It seems to me that nobody has thought through this issue and things have > been left to the Coordinators. This is particularly the case when it comes > to naming files. Naming files is of absolutely no consequence to the central system. It is of consequence to coordinators and transcribers and therefore to SpeedBMD, MacBMD and WinBMD. The PAGE flag has been thought through a lot. There had to be a way of identifying separate pages so that an easy check could be made to see if ranges had ben completed or not and to help sequencing during the double entry. > If definitive rules were specified, we would not be in the position where we > are trying to formulate them after the work has been done. The +PAGE has been in existence since the start and the way we are saying to use it now is no different that that at day one. > One of the obvious problems, from my point of view, is that as a coordinator > I do not know the way the overall system works. While this may not concern > all coordinators, I feel that if I don't know the system I can't be expected > to make rational decisions. The Syndicates list has existed from the start of the coordinators with the express purpose of coordinators asking questions on it and discussing issues. The way the project woprks is that transcribers ask coordinators and cordinators refer back to us where they do not know the answer. This takes the load away from us and stops us being a bottleneck to the process. In most cases this has worked well. If questions are not asked by the coordinators, it is impossible for us to know that things are unclearin certain areas. Please ask questions about the system and we can answer them It became obvious that things were unclear in the +PAGE area and we are trying to clarify it. > As a final comment, given that indexes are used to speed the process of > answering peoples search queries what difference does it make which order > the files are collated? It makes a big difference in terms of double keying. In order to compare your range with the double keyed range, we need to have the records in the correct order. Can I add a plea for the posts to calm downa bit in their content. As we all know, we are all volunteers with other things to do in real life and its better to have a rational discussion than to snap at each other. Everyone, transcribers, coordinators and organiser put a lot of time into the project. From our point of view, we make mistakes and we try to rectify them where we can. Things will inevitably change during the course of a project and have to be adjusted. Syndicates didn't exist at the start of the project for example. Someone has to decide what the ruls are or aren't and that falls on he 4 of us organising things. There will be misunderstandings on both sides and we will do our best to come to a solution that fits the project as best it can. My comments to you about your own page numbering were intended as a view. However, it is more important that there are +PAGE present, than the numbers going after them. The fact that you have used your own numbering system is not a disaster and doesn't invalidate the work you have done in any way. We recognise that the project will have transcribers around who not follow the system, this is one reason why we keep the transcriber's files in their own directories. It allows us to narrow down those files that are lkely to have a particular error and fix them if necessary. We will have to adjust things at times, its the nature of the beast. Apologies if I have been snappy with anyone in this discussion, it was not intentional. Cheers Graham > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Graham Hart [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 28 October 2001 14:57 > > To: Brian Smart > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: +PAGE > > > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > Brian Smart wrote: > > > > > > Having moved the following to a different list, could I > > please have an > > > answer! > > > > You may have noticed its been somewhat busy today ! ... and > > answers need > > to be thought out .. I may not be the best person to answer a > > particular > > query ..... etcetcetc > > > > > > > > > > The explanation I was given regarding the need for > > +PAGE,???? on the end of > > > a file was as follows. > > > The data compiler looks for the +PAGE entry to know which > > is the next file > > > in the sequence. I had no problems with that, and it seems perfectly > > > logical. > > > > > > How is the following explained? > > > > > > In the 1845 births there are three strands of numbers all > > starting from 1. > > > Thus unless action is taken to avoid it, there will be > > three files with the > > > same +PAGE number at the end of the file. Although at > > present +PAGE has not > > > been added, two files that show this are 45B3A002 and 45B3J002. > > > > > > If the data compiler can overcome this, is +PAGE really needed? > > > > Yes, without the +PAGE we have no idea where a page starts > > and ends and > > can't easily identify missing pages. > > > > The +PAGE gives us checkpoints for the matching process. > > > > Where there are multiple strands of page numbers, I would have thought > > that the alphabetical sequence would make it clear which was which .. > > when the matching starts, the code should be able to warn > > that the page > > sequence dropped from z back to n or whatever. This can then be > > investigated and checked. > > > > > For my own reasons I did not use the numbering system as in > > the September > > > quarter, thus the March quarter has unique numbers for each file. > > > > My feeling about using yor own numbering system is that we lose the > > opportunity of matching page to page weh we come to match the double > > entry keying of that quarter so I would prefer that we all were > > consistent. However, I am not thinking clearly at the moment > > (headache) > > and have a nagging doubt on this ... Dave is probably better > > positioned > > to answer it when he returns to the fray. > > > > Cheers > > > > Graham > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Brian Smart > > > > > > ============================== > > > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > > > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query! > >