At 10:22 AM +0100 7/23/01, Dave Mayall wrote: >Brian Smart wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> I am sorry to say this again but we must move to creating the scans using 8 >> bit rather than 1 bit. The files may be bigger but at least we may be able >> to read them. Is this something that can be used for the future. > >We can discuss it with Ancestry, but we aren't in a position to insist. Sure we are. Is the goal speed, or accuracy? I say accuracy. Since i'm sure you would agree with me there, i belive we most certainly should reject 1 bit scans. We can afford to wait a bit longer for Derek or Camilla to get to them if it means we get 25% more accuracy. -Ben -- NOTE: Please change my address in your address book from bhines at san.rr.com to bhines at alumni.ucsd.edu as my UCSD address will be permanent. <http://freepages.sf.rootsweb.com/~bhines/> - My Genealogy Pages

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:28:29 -0700, you wrote: >At 10:22 AM +0100 7/23/01, Dave Mayall wrote: >>Brian Smart wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> I am sorry to say this again but we must move to creating the scans using 8 >>> bit rather than 1 bit. The files may be bigger but at least we may be able >>> to read them. Is this something that can be used for the future. >> >>We can discuss it with Ancestry, but we aren't in a position to insist. > > >Sure we are. Is the goal speed, or accuracy? I say accuracy. Since >i'm sure you would agree with me there, i belive we most certainly >should reject 1 bit scans. We can afford to wait a bit longer for >Derek or Camilla to get to them if it means we get 25% more accuracy. The goal is accuracy, and marking entries as unreadable in part doesn't conflict with that. The volume of scans that we can provide without the Ancestry input simply isn't enough to keep all our transcribers supplied. -- Dave Mayall