Barry The answer to you query is in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13b which is the link I gave to your earlier query. Perhaps I should have added the link http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13j ? Item 13b in the Transcribers' Knowledge Base was written specifically to cover similar issues to that raised by you? I'm always happy to accept amendments to Item 13b from you or anyone else if this would help to clarify your concerns? Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 29 March 2004 13:14 Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 >Thanks, Allan. That's fair enough. > >I still think it's a mistake to prioritise C20 data, especially where the >marriage entries include the spouses names, over a great gap in the C19, >where the written pages are often difficult to read on microfiches. I've >checked JOHNSON and WARD marriages for all the missing years, and while some >microfiches are unclear, the microfilmed pages are fine. I don't understand >the rationale of leaving these years until later in the project, if maximum >usefulness is the criterion. > >Still, our not to reason why, ours but to .... carry on transcribing. > >Barry > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 8:23 PM >Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 > > >> Barry >> >> In fairness to you, your interpretation isn't too far off the mark. >> >> http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl gives the present state of play >> on allocations made to Syndicates and also those slots which are Free for >> Allocation. >> >> Anyone who emails us regarding a Free for Allocation slot are then advised >> whether or nor scan source exists. >> >> It would be an administration nightmare trying to keep >> http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl fully in Synchronisation with >> scan availability. Also not all Syndicates are working from scans. >> >> Regards >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 28 March 2004 17:20 >> Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 >> >> >> >Thanks, Allan. I obviously misunderstood >> >http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl ("Syndicate Allocation from >> 1861 >> >to 1870" - marriages), taking "Free for Allocation" to mean free for >> >allocation to syndicates, especially as we're invited to "Email us to >start >> >a Syndicate Here". >> > >> >An excusable misunderstanding on my part, I think! >> > >> >Barry >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >> >To: "Barry Johnson" <saint.cybi@virgin.net>; >> ><FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:29 PM >> >Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 >> > >> > >> >> I can't set up Syndicates for your Cinderella periods at present, no >> scans >> >> available. >> >> >> >> Please see: >> >> >> >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html - 7th December 2003. >> >> >> >> An update to the 7 December 2003 Item - >> >> >> >> The films for Marriages 1843, 1845, 1847, 1857, 1861, 1862 & 1863 are >> with >> >> our scanning organisation waiting scanning. >> >> >> >> and also see >> >> >> >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13b >> >> >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> >> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> >> Date: 27 March 2004 12:40 >> >> Subject: Marriages 1861 - 63 >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Marriages for the 1860s appear to be the Cinderella of FreeBMD, with >> none >> >> of >> >> >the 1861-63 pages allocated at all. I don't understand why so much >> >effort >> >> >is going into the transcribing of pages from the C20 when the latter >are >> >so >> >> >much easier to look up (more entries per page) and read (printed >rather >> >> than >> >> >handwritten). >> >> > >> >> >I have an interest to declare - a missing marriage from these years, >> >> >possibly involving some very inventive surname spelling. I've >uploaded >> >the >> >> >results of my GRO Index searches from 1854 to 1863, involving some 400 >> >> >entries, but that's the merest drop in the ocean, and the syndicate >I'm >> >> >transcribing for mainly covers births and deaths. >> >> > >> >> >Please someone, start a syndicate for 1861-63 marriages. I'll be your >> >> first >> >> >volunteer! (And in answer to the inevitable - and reasonable - >question: >> >> I'm >> >> >afraid I don't have the time, or probably the expertise, to set up and >> >run >> >> a >> >> >syndicate.) >> >> > >> >> >Barry Johnson >> >> >Monmouthshire .ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237