Allan R may have double allocated intentionally, being short of material, and reckoning that they will be double keyed anyway at some time. Else he may have just done it in error. But Dave Mayall has asked us to await investigations, and that I am doing. It is true that FreeBMD has said it will double key, and yes, I am on FreeBMD's transcriber books. But FreeBMD has also said it will key all years from 1837 and as there are big gaps in the early years, not even first keyed yet, I want to be employed doing those as I feel that moves the project forward best. I also feel that the older years have the worst fiche in my local library, and the urgency to get them transcribed is the highest. Also Dave Mayall has said that double keying has not been officially started yet. They do not yet have the comparison software, arbitration procedures etc. At the end of the day, I will contribute to the FreeBMD charity (and a registered charity is what it is) in any way I want. If I want to write a cheque out for £50 and send it to Dave Mayall to help him to buy scans, I damn well will. You help them your way, I'll help them mine. And yes, I did make a typo, meaning 1882 not 1883, and no, I'm not too proud to admit it! John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Mark Hattam [mailto:mark@dxradio.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 2:10 PM To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans In my normal understanding of English ... an error can't be made intentionally. Also, if you were to read Linda's email, you would see that she wrote 1882 not 1883. When I signed up for being a FreeBMD transcriber, I read the project's aims, and these included the double keying of data to try and ensure its accuracy. It seems to matter little whether any particular trancriber happens to key it first or second, since the keyings are independent. So as long as you don't double key your own work, why not key your allocation first, and let the other tramscribers be the "second keyers"? Mark -- At 1:48 pm +0100 11/9/03, John Fairlie wrote: >Linda, > >Then you are certainly wrong. Talk to Allan Raymond who has allocated >1883D3 (at least) to Scan2 as well as WebScan. He may have made an error, >in which OK, we all do at times, but so far he has not said whether this was >intentional or not. > >Yes, I could do hand-written for you, or for Brian Smart. I'll be in touch. > >John Fairlie >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FreeBMD [mailto:freebmd.scanrequests@btopenworld.com] >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:23 PM >To: John Fairlie; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans > > >As far as I was aware 1882 Q3 and Q4 Deaths are both first key. > >I have plenty of handwritten stuff which is definitely first key stuff, >perhaps you would like to do some of that. > >Linda >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Fairlie" <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:30 AM >Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans > > >> Allan and all, >> >> It is certainly an option for me to change syndicates, and I will consider >> that. Can it be clarified please what syndicates do what, and how well >> stocked each are with source. I for one never actually chose my current >> syndicate (Web Scan), it was just what we all were swept into when posting >> fiche's about was found to be impractical. Hence the name of that >> syndicate. So I might assume that others would rather be employed single >> keying new records in a different syndicate than second keying in the one >> they are in at the moment as well. >> >> But with respect, you have still not answered the question!! You are >> allocating typeset material to two syndicates at the same time. If you >are >> telling the syndicate leaders so, they are certainly not telling the >> transcribers when they allocate pages. I have particularly requested >first >> keyings because I want to move that side of the project forward fastest, >and >> the project themselves have said that second keying has not been >officially >> rolled out yet. And I STILL get second keyings! All this while early >> hand-written remains waiting for first keying. >> >> I will ask again.....If the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor >in >> moving the project forward faster - what is? Do we want more >transcribers? >> 82,000 records a day may sound good, indeed it IS good, but with 5,000 >> transcribers, it only averages 16 records a day each. I still feel the >> project could be moved forward faster if you say what you need most. >> >> I will leave the subject of us buying scans from 1837online to Dave Mayall >> to answer publicly then. He has already kindly exchanged with me off >list. >> > > John Fairlie > > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:31 AM >> To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans >> >> >> John >> >> I requested you to redirect your private reply to the DISCUSS list as the >> discussion started off here and should finish here. >> >> You are entitled to you opinion as to whether you believe what I say is >> correct or incorrect. >> >> I can only state the facts. >> >> If I can direct you to the FreeBMD-Admins-L Archives and ask you to browse > > for the following item from Dave Mayall >> >> >*************************************************************************** * >> ******* >> From: Dave Mayall <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> >> Subject: Scanned Source availability >> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:01 +0000 >> >> For many months, an oft repeated (and valid) criticism has been that there >> is a >> shortage of scanned source material, and/or that the scanned source has >been >> of >> poor quality. >> etc etc. >> >*************************************************************************** * >> ***** >> >> Progress HAS been made in some of the scanning mentioned in Dave's email >> above. Dave and I are in discussion on what still needs to be done to >> provide scans for all years not previously catered for. This either means >> providing scans where none currently exits or replacing the poor qualiy >> scans. This will be undertaken by Archive CD Books as per Dave's email >above >> >> I would have come back a little earlier in my response, but I was >arranging >> for more available scans to be added to the Scan Allocation Web Page. >> >> Volunteers are totally at liberty to decline to participate in double >> keying. >> >> If you feel so inclined I will use my best endevours to place you with a >> Syndicate who is single keying earlier years. Please let me know if this >> avenue suits you best? >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 10 September 2003 22:24 >> Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans >> >> >> >Allan, >> > >> >But there IS a shortage of scans!! You allocated 1882D3 to both Scan2 >and >> >Webscan!! Net result: despite me stressing to Linda Bailey that I did >NOT >> >want second keyings, I am now duplicating what John Renner and Lucille >> >Hambling are doing! i.e., 1882D3 pages 11-35 are mine, but Lucille is >> doing >> >27-36 and John Renner is doing 17-25. >> > >> >Meanwhile, many gaps exist between 1837, and (generally) the time when >> >typeset starts. >> > >> >You speak with forked tongue!!! > > > > > >John Fairlie > > > ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237