Hi I don't have a problem with deciding what to put as regards the transcribing rules and I wasn't intending to query one scan. As usual I don't make myself clear. I don't know how many entries there will be for this quarter but I would estimate that 50% (very rough) of the entries will have uncertain or unknown page numbers. This means we are building up an enormous quantity of entries that will require checking at the source. Re-entering via the original scan will not cure it. The number of entries that require checking must be already large but it seems silly to purposely add to it. By checking I mean someone going to the original fiche which is what I believe is intended, not the double entering which I believe is also intended. The scrapping of the scans for this entire quarter would be a management decision depending on the cost of rescanning, the likelihood that re-scans would be any better which they would be if in 16 grey scale and the availability of other quarters for transcribing. This is not a moan, I'll transcribe anything. I am just worrying that we are making an almost insoluble problem. We are up to scan 600+, surname Collins, at 40 entries a scan; that equals 24,000. We are, almost deliberately, putting 12,000 20,000 or 30,000 extra entries in that require later checking. Bob Phillips ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Hart" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Hand written scans > Hi, > > Bob Phillips wrote: > > > > Hi > > The syndicate I am in are doing 1846B1. They are handwritten and the scans are very variable in quality. > > As an example I have Brown, Mary, a whole sheet of them, very easy, only have to check first and last and that's fine. Although I am certainly not entering what I see. For the Districts and Volumes they can be "worked out" with a high degree of accuracy, probably 100%. The page numbers are 90% unreadable. > > As long as what you are interpreting is what you think is written rather > than what you tink should have been written :) > > You shouldn't be correcting districts and volumes that happen not to > match what you think they should be according to SpeedBMD and the like. > But is, after looking at the district or the volume you can understand > the writing clearer then that is ok. > > > Should this scan be rejected or transcribed. > > That's a difficult one. If the scan is transcribed then it clearly needs > to be transcribed with the correct unreadable character terminology in > the page numbers. > > As to whether the scan should be rejected .. I'll be interested in > Dave's view cos he has been managing a scan syndicate for a while and > probably has come across this more than I have. > > Cheers > > Graham > > > > Bob Phillips > > > > ============================== > > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query! > > > ============================== > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query! >

2p worth ... If they do need checking, then at least the scale of the problem is better known. So transcribe and upload. If I'm searching for a person, I'd prefer a full 100% record obviously. But even a "check needed" result is better than nothing. At least I know which books on the shelf to go and look for. So transcribe and upload. Mark - - >Hi > I don't have a problem with deciding what to put as regards the >transcribing rules and I wasn't intending to query one scan. As usual I >don't make myself clear. > I don't know how many entries there will be for this quarter but I would >estimate that 50% (very rough) of the entries will have uncertain or unknown >page numbers. This means we are building up an enormous quantity of entries >that will require checking at the source. Re-entering via the original scan >will not cure it. > The number of entries that require checking must be already large but it >seems silly to purposely add to it. By checking I mean someone going to the >original fiche which is what I believe is intended, not the double entering >which I believe is also intended. > The scrapping of the scans for this entire quarter would be a management >decision depending on the cost of rescanning, the likelihood that re-scans >would be any better which they would be if in 16 grey scale and the >availability of other quarters for transcribing. > This is not a moan, I'll transcribe anything. I am just worrying that >we are making an almost insoluble problem. We are up to scan 600+, surname >Collins, at 40 entries a scan; that equals 24,000. We are, almost >deliberately, putting 12,000 20,000 or 30,000 extra entries in that >require later checking. >Bob Phillips > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Graham Hart" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 10:30 AM >Subject: Re: Hand written scans > > >> Hi, >> >> Bob Phillips wrote: >> > >> > Hi >> > The syndicate I am in are doing 1846B1. They are handwritten and >the scans are very variable in quality. >> > As an example I have Brown, Mary, a whole sheet of them, very >easy, only have to check first and last and that's fine. Although I am >certainly not entering what I see. For the Districts and Volumes they can >be "worked out" with a high degree of accuracy, probably 100%. The page >numbers are 90% unreadable. >> >> As long as what you are interpreting is what you think is written rather >> than what you tink should have been written :) >> >> You shouldn't be correcting districts and volumes that happen not to >> match what you think they should be according to SpeedBMD and the like. >> But is, after looking at the district or the volume you can understand >> the writing clearer then that is ok. >> >> > Should this scan be rejected or transcribed. >> >> That's a difficult one. If the scan is transcribed then it clearly needs >> to be transcribed with the correct unreadable character terminology in >> the page numbers. >> >> As to whether the scan should be rejected .. I'll be interested in >> Dave's view cos he has been managing a scan syndicate for a while and >> probably has come across this more than I have. >> >> Cheers >> >> Graham >> >> > > > Bob Phillips

In message <[email protected]>, Bob Phillips <[email protected]> writes >Hi > I don't have a problem with deciding what to put as regards the >transcribing rules and I wasn't intending to query one scan. As usual I >don't make myself clear. > I don't know how many entries there will be for this quarter but I would >estimate that 50% (very rough) of the entries will have uncertain or unknown >page numbers. This means we are building up an enormous quantity of entries >that will require checking at the source. Re-entering via the original scan >will not cure it. > The number of entries that require checking must be already large but it >seems silly to purposely add to it. By checking I mean someone going to the >original fiche which is what I believe is intended, not the double entering >which I believe is also intended. > The scrapping of the scans for this entire quarter would be a management >decision depending on the cost of rescanning, the likelihood that re-scans >would be any better which they would be if in 16 grey scale and the >availability of other quarters for transcribing. > This is not a moan, I'll transcribe anything. I am just worrying that >we are making an almost insoluble problem. We are up to scan 600+, surname >Collins, at 40 entries a scan; that equals 24,000. We are, almost >deliberately, putting 12,000 20,000 or 30,000 extra entries in that >require later checking. I think Bob makes a number of valid points. What is the position wrt "rejected" scans? I've had to highlight 5 scans as being completely blank. Does my syndicate leader feed that back up the chain and what is the [theoretical] next step? What is the position wrt patchy scans - scans that are otherwise ok but have a very poor [illegible] section? Should these be mentioned to syndicate leaders? PP

Philip Powell wrote: > What is the position wrt "rejected" scans? I've had to highlight 5 scans > as being completely blank. Does my syndicate leader feed that back up > the chain and what is the [theoretical] next step? The co-ordinator will check scans either side to determine whether these are intentionally blank pages. > What is the position wrt patchy scans - scans that are otherwise ok but > have a very poor [illegible] section? Should these be mentioned to > syndicate leaders? The general rule is that if a scan is hard to read, asking for a re-scan is the default way of proceeding. If the rescan is no better we make the best we can of it. -- Dave Mayall