Peter Hendy-Ibbs wrote: > Sorry, I didn't explain myself well. The frustration felt by some of the contributors > was for the data they have gleaned *prior* to the GRO acquisition dates, i.e. > pre1911/12 for Spouse and Mother and pre-1856 for Age at Death. Ah, OK. > > Would it be reasonable for FeeBMD to incorporate > > > non-GRO, non-verified fields which would not form part of the formal > > > transcription, indexing and verification process? > > > > Short answer.... > > > > Yes, we could incorporate a postems type facility, which would allow transcribers > > to add virtual post-it notes to records that they have information about, and to > > have that information displayed to enquirers. > > > > Longer Answer... > > ... but it will take a while to implement. > > > > Sounds hopeful, though. Although the search and display for such a Post-'em facility > is not a priority it may be useful to incorporate an option to accept and store such > information at a relatively early stage since we are approaching 20% of the target. Search and display is the easy bit! Accept and transfer on rebuild are much harder. -- Dave Mayall