Jennifer To add to Dave's separate comments. I had my own personal concerns about what appeared to be a systematic approach to multiple error corrections. Following my initial response to your query on 6 March 2004 I've been actively involved with other members of the Project team on the way forward. I've identified the instigator of the large number of systematic corrections and we've finally been in contact with each other within the last couple of days. This individual was working on his own initiative to improve the accuracy of our records and assumed his systematic methodology in identifying and reporting any perceived errors would aid the Project. Whilst the accuracy of his correction reports is not in doubt the method by which he generated them is of concern , based on your and other volunteers comments. The individual has now ceased the practice of systematic corrections and it would be impractical to backtractck on the corrections issued to date. I would however recommend that any corrections which have been sent to volunteers are acted upon if the corrections are deemed to be valid. As Dave mentioned we are still discussing the issue and will report back when we have something more positive. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: CLARK1528@aol.com <CLARK1528@aol.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 14 March 2004 22:00 Subject: Re: Correction Requests >Then, I guess I'm back to my original question: > >Could we please be informed how our records are being checked so that we can >understand why we are getting multiple requests to make corrections to an >individual file rather than one request with multiple corrections. > >I am now up to at least 10 separate requests to correct one particular file. >And, this is happening with multiple files. > >One would think that pages are checked from beginning to end, with errors >noted, then going on to the next page. But, this is not what appears to be >happening. > >Thank you, >Jennifer Clark > >In a message dated 3/14/04 2:39:11 PM Central Standard Time, >david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk writes: >Discussion is still ongoing. > >However, that discussion is centred around whether there are certain >types of correction which are unlikely to result in transcribers >making changes in accordance with TWYS. > >There is a possibility that we will refine the filtering of >corrections to cut out some of the ones that tend simply to waste the >time of transcribers. > >However the advice to transcribers as to how they should deal with >corrections received will not change, and it will not be practical to >tell each transcriber which corrections already sent would not have >been sent under the new guidelines, so there is no point in holding >back from dealing with corrections that you have already received. > >-- >Dave Mayall > > >============================== >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

If..... "The individual has now ceased the practice of systematic corrections",...... then I wonder why this is? Did you ask them to stop Allan?? Surely we should have a good system of handling corrections instead of suppressing a persons drive to increase accuracy of the database? John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:23 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Correction Requests Jennifer To add to Dave's separate comments. I had my own personal concerns about what appeared to be a systematic approach to multiple error corrections. Following my initial response to your query on 6 March 2004 I've been actively involved with other members of the Project team on the way forward. I've identified the instigator of the large number of systematic corrections and we've finally been in contact with each other within the last couple of days. This individual was working on his own initiative to improve the accuracy of our records and assumed his systematic methodology in identifying and reporting any perceived errors would aid the Project. Whilst the accuracy of his correction reports is not in doubt the method by which he generated them is of concern , based on your and other volunteers comments. The individual has now ceased the practice of systematic corrections and it would be impractical to backtractck on the corrections issued to date. I would however recommend that any corrections which have been sent to volunteers are acted upon if the corrections are deemed to be valid. As Dave mentioned we are still discussing the issue and will report back when we have something more positive. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: CLARK1528@aol.com <CLARK1528@aol.com> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 14 March 2004 22:00 Subject: Re: Correction Requests >Then, I guess I'm back to my original question: > >Could we please be informed how our records are being checked so that we can >understand why we are getting multiple requests to make corrections to an >individual file rather than one request with multiple corrections. > >I am now up to at least 10 separate requests to correct one particular file. >And, this is happening with multiple files. > >One would think that pages are checked from beginning to end, with errors >noted, then going on to the next page. But, this is not what appears to be >happening. > >Thank you, >Jennifer Clark > >In a message dated 3/14/04 2:39:11 PM Central Standard Time, >david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk writes: >Discussion is still ongoing. > >However, that discussion is centred around whether there are certain >types of correction which are unlikely to result in transcribers >making changes in accordance with TWYS. > >There is a possibility that we will refine the filtering of >corrections to cut out some of the ones that tend simply to waste the >time of transcribers. > >However the advice to transcribers as to how they should deal with >corrections received will not change, and it will not be practical to >tell each transcriber which corrections already sent would not have >been sent under the new guidelines, so there is no point in holding >back from dealing with corrections that you have already received. > >-- >Dave Mayall > > >============================== >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 ============================== 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 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004

Quoting John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk>: > If..... "The individual has now ceased the practice of systematic > corrections",...... then I wonder why this is? Did you ask them to stop > Allan?? Surely we should have a good system of handling corrections instead > of suppressing a persons drive to increase accuracy of the database? The corrections that were being submitted fell into two distinct classes; 1) True corrections, where the original transcriber had made an error, and was being asked to correct that error 2) Improvements, typically where the transcriber had used the UCF due to unclear source. The latter class are not best dealt with via the corrections route. If a transcriber couldn't read something, and transcribed it accordingly, they are unlikely to be able to make the correction. What has happened is that we have identified a more apropriate way of handling the latter class. We have developed a good system, and nobodies drive to improve the databse is suppressed. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net