Dear Mr Fairlie Linda who is doing a magnificent job along with the other Syndicate Co-ordinators is certainly NOT wrong, if anyone is wrong the finger should be pointing at me. Apologies to Linda may be in order. I'm happy to eat humble pie should I be seen to be incorrect regarding my response below. I've been given the FreeBMD sole authority to allocate events and periods to Syndicates in a fair and equitable fashion, which I do to the best of my ability. As you made a fundamental error in quoting 1883 instead of 1882 I will give you the low-down on the correct year 1882. On 7 August 2003 I put out a broadcast to Syndicate Co-ordinators on the Syndicates List, advising I had located new scans which had just been uploaded to the FreeBMD site. These included the 1882 deaths scans. These were then allocated to Syndicate Co-ordinators based on their requests to me. Prior to allocating 1882 deaths I even went as far as downloading copies of "Upload Reports" for 1882 deaths to my PC, these being based on the situation as at 26 July 2003. I therefore have evidence to back up what I'm telling you. Other than odd entries uploaded by one name individuals, no Syndicate at that time had uploaded any files for 1882 deaths. Therefore in my capacity as the sole individual for allocating slots to Syndicates I allocated 1882 deaths to the Syndicates shown in my temporary web page at: http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/FreeBMD_Scan_Source_Temp.html If I can now turn through 180 degrees, please demonstrate to me by documentary evidence that I have allocated 1882 deaths for double keying to Syndicates other than shown on my Web Page. Where I have INTENTIONALLY allowed double keying to take place I have advised the Syndicates Co-ordinators accordingly. For example my email on the Syndicates list dated 23 July 2003. A search of the archives will verify this email. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 11 September 2003 13:52 Subject: RE: Shortage of Scans >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 >> 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: 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!!! >> > >> >[This e-mail originally sent privately to Allan, but at his prompt, is >> being >> >sent publicly] >> > >> >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: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:54 PM >> >To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >> >Subject: Re: Shortage of Scans >> > >> > >> >I'm don't have the authority to answer about 1837online. >> > >> >However I am competent to answer the other queries. >> > >> >Good quality scans were provided to all Syndicates who requested them, >very >> >recently. More on their way. >> > >> >We are taking on 6 new volunteers every day. >> > >> >2 Syndicates are currently accepting new volunteers. >> > >> >82,000 records added every day, if this isn't moving towards our target I >> >don't know what is. >> > >> >If you are having difficulty in obtaining more source material to >> transcribe >> >please let me know and I should be able to place you with a Syndicate who >> >can oblige? >> > >> >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 21:14 >> >Subject: Shortage of Scans >> > >> > >> >>If the project is slowed by the shortage of decent scans, why don't we >get >> >>scans from 1837online.com? OK, OK, I know we have to pay for them, but >we >> >>are currently having to buy film from GRO, buy expensive scanners and do >> >>scanning, all of which costs FreeBMD money. It has all already been >done >> >by >> >>the 1837online chaps. >> >> >> >>And if the shortage of scans is not the limiting factor in moving the >> >>project forward faster - what is? Do we want more transcribers? >> >> >> >>John Fairlie >> >>Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >> >>Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> >> >> >> >> >>============================== >> >>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 >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >============================== >> >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 >> > >> > >> >> ______________________________ > > >============================== >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 >