Corrections to our typos are always most welcome, but I can understand Volunteer Transcriber (VT) Joe Bloggs getting a little miffed when he has not been given the opportunity of seeing the new improved source from which the corrections are being extracted. When new sources become available it would seem reasonable to advise the VT's involved and give them the chance of resubmitting their ambiguous files! Would this be possible? For the moment quality source material is not always available, but I have found that a second copy from LDS of the same source is sometimes helpful. Are there any other ways of obtaining quality material? Best wishes Chris Preece Barossa South Oz > ---------- > From: Anne Cruise[SMTP:anne.cruise@ntlworld.com] > Sent: 05 March 2004 09:26 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Systematic correction requests > > Hi! > > I don't wish to add much to this debate, but I would like to point out > that Kevin, the Corrections Coordinator, doesn't have a marvellous > insight into how many corrections are going to be reported, by users of > FreeBMD who have information that they report to him to say "our" > transcription is incorrect! > > The process is fairly automated and the email is standardised. If the > correction is one for the District, it may come from the District > Aliasing Team, is likely to be combined with other corrections from the > same file, and will refer only to the last month's uploads. Otherwise > you may receive a whole series of corrections - any outsider can "help" > by submitting the results of their day out at the local LDS! > > The sentence > > "I believe that the source is Valid, and if it is not our scan image, it > is > > possibly a source of better quality than our scan image. This correction > > request has been checked by the correction cordinator and is > > believed to be correct." > > is an attempt to show that the source quoted by the "correction > submitter" refers to a valid source (not "my gran said she was born...") > and the "possibly" tries to indicate that if your "error" is a UCF, then > the quoted source _may_ be a better one. The District Aliasing Team may > refer to the FreeBMD scan, though. Kevin himself does not check out the > source - he checks the validity only, which is the reason he only > "believes" the correction to be worth making! > > The end of the email gives you the opportunity to amend or not amend, > and report to Kevin which choice was yours. > > The files are registered in your name - they are "yours" - and if the > central team tried to amend them all - firstly they could forget about > their normal lives! and secondly, the furore from some trannies would be > immense! ("How dare someone alter..."). > > I hope this has helped in the understanding of the processes at work > here. > > -- > Anne > > > John and Val Turner wrote: > > > > I was contemplating a mail along similar lines when I read this one from > > Ruth. I too am receiving frequent requests for multiple corrections - |I > > have completed about 30 items, and have about another 50 waiting for > > attention. Some of these relate to errors I have made (for which thank you) > > but quite a few are concerned with characters that I couldn't read when I > > downloaded the scan - and still can't be definite about the second time > > around - therefore asking me to make a decision about them seems > pointless. > > The requests are accompanied by the comment > > > > "I believe that the source is Valid, and if it is not our scan image, it is > > possibly a source of better quality than our scan image. This correction > > request has been checked by the correction cordinator and is > > believed to be correct." > > Does this imply that I should "correct" my version even if I still feel the > > character is ambiguous? This seems to go aganst the TWYS guidance. > > > > It is also quite a chore to have to re-visit the same file to check out > > first one uncertainty then another - hence the backlog. > > > > I certainly don't have any problem with correcting genuine errors, but it > > would help enormously if all requests relating to a particular file could > be > > sent together, and if I could also reference the better quality scans that > > the "corrector" appears to have access to. I realise also that this may be > > an issue relating to a particular syndicate rather than a general FREEBMD > > issue. If it's inappropriate for this mailing list I apologise. > > > > Val > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ruth" <subs@history.fslife.co.uk> > > To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 6:51 PM > > Subject: Systematic correction requests > > > > > I'm receiving a large number of correction requests from the FreeBMD > > > Corrections Coordinator. These have all been reported by the same > > > person and relate to scattered pages from 1902 marriages which I keyed > > > many months ago. Some of the corrections are for genuine typing errors > > > - others are for where I've used unreadable character coding. > > > > > > I believe all of the pages involved have been second keyed by another > > > Scan2 member and so assume that someone is systematically going through > > > mismatches and sorting out corrections. > > > > > > Obviously I have no problem with us all trying to make the transcription > > > even more accurate than it currently is, but I have a number of > > > questions which I'm hoping someone can help me with. > > > > > > * Is there a full checking exercise underway? I'm feeling rather picked > > > on at the moment and am sure that cannot be the intention! > > > * If there is a checking exercise underway, I had understood that second > > > keying by Scan2 members didn't count, as we were using the same source > > > material. Has that policy changed? (I certainly think it should be > > > changed, as this comparison is throwing up typing errors and resolving > > > them.) > > > * Is there not a more efficient way of implementing the corrections? > > > I've received several emails. Some have referred to a page which I've > > > already corrected for another entry. Each one requires me to track down > > > the image on my C: drive or from the FreeBMD website; find the original > > > file I keyed; amend it in WinBMD; upload to FreeBMD; upload to Scan2. > > > Quite a performance for one entry! Surely if there's a comprehensive > > > exercise being undertaken by experienced checkers, they should be able > > > to implement the corrections as they go - a much more efficient use of > > > time, especially as currently every correction has to be tracked, > > > presumably in case the transcriber fails to implement it. > > > * Even if it's not possible to implement a more streamlined procedure > > > for most corrections, what is the point in sending me corrections where > > > I've been unable to decipher the character and have had to give two > > > options? I've already given it my best shot. If the person correcting > > > has a clearer source material then surely they should implement the > > > correction? This isn't a question of not being able to decipher > > > handwriting and suddenly seeing it when someone else points it out. > > > This is illegible typescript. > > > > > > Sorry for such a long email, but I haven't seen anyone else raise this > > > and it seems the right time to do so. > > > > > > Ruth > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >

Chris Preece asked :- > For the moment quality source material is not always available, but I have > found that a second copy from LDS of the same source is sometimes helpful. Are > there any other ways of obtaining quality material? This may raise a hackle or two, but whenever I use '1837online' I take the opportunity to download any scans which have troubled me. At effectively 10 pence per page this is cheaper than occasional visits to my nearest Records Office which I used to do and often the scans are of better quality; sometimes however they look just the same. I can then edit my uploaded files with corrections especially to any unreadable characters. Ted