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

Ruth you are definitely not alone. I get one or two a week and it is a relatively labourious process. I agree with your comments Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ruth" <subs@history.fslife.co.uk> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:51 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 > >

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 >