On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:55:35 +0100, you wrote: >If it's difficult to keep the transcribers supplied with sufficient scans of >acceptable quality, then I would have thought it imminently suitable and >sensible to spend time correcting existing entries. Why the big aversion to >this?? It was Dave Mayall in his message to the Discuss list on 11th August >that said.... I don't believe there is an aversion to it. >Quote >4) Should we have people going to the FRC to check entries? >a) Yes, and at some point we will arrange this formally Of course, the number of transcribers who could do this is very small. Starting this as a project isn't going to dent the problem of insufficient source availability. >5) Should we be producing suspect entry reports? >a) Yes, and we will. >Unquote The code needs to be written. >I still think that while Derek Hopkins (and other syndicate co-ords) may OPT >to take on upwards of 3,300 transcribers, if those transcribers do not get >the support they need and the co-ords have to place e-mails like Derek >Hopkins did, then FreeBMD should not ALLOW that many volunteers in a single >syndicate. I think that you are being unfair to Derek here. His transcribers DO get the support they need 99% of the time. It is unfortunate that a time of high support need coincided with Derek's right hand woman being on holiday. > Allan Raymond says below that there are more volunteers for >syndicate co-ords waiting in the wings. Why not accept them and get >syndicates started on correcting entries??? 1) We haven't got the code written to extract the information for them 2) We haven't got the code written to process the correction files 3) The teams doing this work are going to be small (typically 3 people), and composed of experienced transcribers, they are never going to absorb vast numbers of people. -- Dave Mayall