Quoting Brian Smart <brian.smart@blueyonder.co.uk>: > Hello Dave and Kevin, > I am sorry but I do not agree with what is happening. If there are specific problems, then they can be addressed, but those specific problems don't IMO negate the value of carrying out corrections. Also, as I said in my original message, discussion of the rights and wrongs of how we do things does NOT belong on the syndicates list. Can any further discussion please be directed to the DISCUSS list. > Most of the > corrections are coming from the District alias group and as far as I can see > they are doing what transcribers are told not to do. Assumptions are being > made about volumes based on the districts. Some clearly cannot be read but > miraculously they are specified in full. There other examples where I would > not agree with what is indicated. Look at scan: > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/GUS/1849/Births/September/UKD-02/I-R/1849B3-R-09 > 54.tif Many corrections come from the District Alias Team, but I don't think "most" would be an accurate analysis. Yes, the team use all the information available to them to try and assist with their reading of the entries, but at the end of the day, that must be backed up by a scan that fits with the extrapolated information. > and the change proposed below. > > Current Entry: RABY,Lucy,_landf* _r,XIV,571 > Proposed Entry: RABY,Lucy,Glandford B,XIV,371 > > While 'Glandford B' may be correct, it certainly can't be read, and the > correction to the page number is clearly wrong. I agree that the page number correction seems wrong (although looking at other "3"s and "5"s on this page, it isn't as obvious as all that). As to the reading of the District, I believe that the initial "G" can be made out quite easily, as can the distinctly separate terminal "B", so what is in dispute is "ord" I see 3 characters, all incomplete, consisting of; a small stroke which moves right as it ascends a small, heavy stroke which has a uniform right lean a longish, light stroke with a more pronounced right lean Now, looking at the spacing of the marks, it is clear that the first two form the left of a character, and that the third is the right part of a character. For each character, it is now necessary to consider which characters the extant mark could possibly be a part of. Worked this way, I don't believe that reading those 3 mards as "ord" is unreasonable. > I know that transcribers have the option of not making the changes but most > will believe that if the change comes from an 'official' source, it must be > correct. In which case, part of what must be done is to disabuse them of that notion! > Most of the changes are the removal of doubt from the entry. You stated: > "If we do (leave the errors), it could lead to adverse reactions from > searchers who would lose confidence in the FreeBMD database." > This is more likely if doubt is removed. At least an incomplete entry will > ensure that the entry is fully checked before money is spent on > certificates. I agree that removal of doubt where there is doubt is a bad thing. > I repeat what I said before, I have serious doubts about this process and > changes which are the result of the district alias team seem to be the most > questionable. Where there is a problem, we will fix it. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net