At 08:59 01/11/01 +0000, Graham Hart wrote on the Admin list: >I answered him privately once and then again after yesterday's post to >correct misunderstandings. I believe he went to his local registrar >with the numbers. > >He also believes we are a professional organisation etcetcetc .. I have >tried to correct this .. not sure there is much that can be done. I don't think we need be too defensive about the nature of the FreeBMD exercise. If this were a professional (by which I suspect is implied commercial) operation, leaders and syndicate coordinators would have more power over the more incompetent or troublesome of us, and I can imagine how you might long for that. But years ago I was involved in the computerisation of a modest (750,000) population index, and a certain level of error had to be accepted as part of the contract. When we consider the amount of time that transcribers are often spending poring over faint or damaged copies, or struggling with difficult manuscript, it is evident that this could not be justified if it had to be paid for. >I >don't sub to the Yorksgen list but I think enough do to explain things >to him .. but, if someone doesn't want to listen then there's not a lot >that can be done in the end. Genealogy attracts a very varied collection of individuals and we shouldn't take criticism too personally. But there is the risk that if the project gets too much flak transcribers will be demoralised and the whole project will suffer. I repeat my view that many people genuinely don't understand the imperfections in the original register, why creating a new one from scratch isn't an obvious solution, or that transcription can't be perfect. We have come to take computerised indexes for granted, but people who really ought to know better still regard the IGI as a reliable source, or believe that the 1881 British census transcription is wholly accurate, for example. We can't win because the more we emphasise the inevitable imperfections in the BMB index transcription, the less people will value it, and if we don't try and point them out the more justified they will feel in complaining if they have 'wasted' their money seeking a certificate that is not as described. One thing to do in the longer run is to work on the FreeBMD website to try and make sure that these various misunderstandings are explained at the appropriate points. Then that those who take the trouble to read get the message, and those who don't can be quickly pointed to it. >Jean Spence wrote: > > > > Recently on a Genealogy list I am on a member was very angry because he had > > sent for 5 certificates to various registration offices and they were all > > incorrect. Someone suggested the references numbers are only for the GRO > > and you only need name and quarter but no number for the registration > > offices. Are the numbers we transcribe only for the GRO. > > > > We had quite a bit of discussion on the list, it seems unlikely that anyone > > transcribed 5 numbers incorrectly so can anyone explain what probably > > happened. The writer still seems critical of our efforts to transcribe > > correctly. and our policy of transcribing exactly what we see. > > jean in S. australia. Andrew Hingston <http://www.amhinja.demon.co.uk>