Quoting David Gray <[email protected]>: > Hi all, > > Although the discussion list is supposed to be for experienced > transcribers > and I have been transcribing for only a few weeks, I hope you will > excuse my > input as I feel that I have enough experience to make a contribution. Experienced is a moveable target! Some people know what they are talking about after a very short time, others never get there :-) > Taking Dave Mayall's advice to move the thread from the Admin list, I > would > like to request that the period following a forename be omitted from > the > transcription. Val Turner has already pointed out that including the > period > when using WinBMD (also SpeedBMD) causes considerable problems and so > transcribing a page will take much longer that it would otherwise do. > > Of course the time factor would be irrelevant if the information was > important and needed to be transcribed. However, in this case the period > is > quite obviously just a separator, and not part of the name itself. This bit of what you say seems persuasive, provided we can be sure that we can easily explain what is and is not a separator. As soon as you put an "except" into the transcribe what you see rules somebody starts sulking about their own pet wish to put something different ("Well if you can omit a dot why can't I correct that spelling" kind of thing). Are there any cases that would be a "but you do include it here" > It would seem to me also, that if a period was included, then anyone > searching for such a name would have to include the period in the > search > criteria as though it was part of the name, otherwise the name would not > be > found, and how many people would do that? This bit of the argument however is not nearly so persuasive. If part of the data causes confusion in the search program, we modify the program to work around it. We must NEVER change the data to fit the search facilities. > Taking everything on balance, it seems to me that the period after the > forename is not needed, although others may disagree. Could we please > have > some input so we can get a definitive answer to this? The one area that you haven't considered is that in changing the way we do things, the matching routines will have to be changed to account for the fact that people will have done it both ways. Of course, the fact that some syndicates have been advising transcribers to do it this way already means that we a stuck with having to make these changes anyway, so the issue goes away. *IF* we are sure that we can make the instruction unambiguous, then I have no profound objection to the change. What I *do* have a problem with is an apparently never ending stream of "local" instructions issued by syndicate co-ordinators to their transcribers that conflict with the official position agreed for all syndicates, or at best attempt to issue advice on matters that have never been considered project-wide. Syndicate Co-ordinators have a vital part to play in using their extensive experience to direct transcribers to the correct answers to questions that they might have. They also have an important role to play by contributing to discussions on setting policy. That role cannot extend to making policy decisions on the hoof without discussion. -- Dave Mayall ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through UK Online webmail

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:02 PM Subject: Re: Period After Forename > Quoting David Gray <[email protected]>: > > It would seem to me also, that if a period was > included, then anyone > > searching for such a name would have to > include the period in the > > search > > criteria as though it was part of the name, > otherwise the name would not > > be > > found, and how many people would do that? Dave Mayall's Response: > This bit of the argument however is not nearly so > persuasive. If part of the data causes confusion > in the search program, we modify the program to > work around it. We must NEVER change the data to > fit the search facilities. I agree entirely with you on this Dave. We must all strive to transcribe the records as accurately as possible so that genealogists now and in the future have the best possible chance of finding the records they are searching for. Where I might disagree with you however, is what constitutes 'data'. In my opinion, the period after the forename is not part of the data, and therefore by not transcribing the period, the original record would not be compromised. David Gray Heysham, Lancashire Norton AntiVirus protected

In message <[email protected]>, David Gray <[email protected]> writes >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:02 PM >Subject: Re: Period After Forename > > >> Quoting David Gray <[email protected]>: > > >> > It would seem to me also, that if a period was included, then >> >anyone searching for such a name would have to include the period >> >search criteria as though it was part of the name, otherwise the >> >name would not be found, and how many people would do that? > >Dave Mayall's Response: > > This bit of the argument however is not nearly so > > persuasive. If part of the data causes confusion > > in the search program, we modify the program to > > work around it. We must NEVER change the data to > > fit the search facilities. > >I agree entirely with you on this Dave. We must all strive to transcribe the >records as accurately as possible so that genealogists now and in the future >have the best possible chance of finding the records they are searching for. >Where I might disagree with you however, is what constitutes 'data'. In my >opinion, the period after the forename is not part of the data, and >therefore by not transcribing the period, the original record would not be >compromised. This was somewhat passing me by as all bar the first half dozen scans that I've done have been handwritten 1845 Births. However, I looked back at the early printed scans for 1868 Births and in each legible entry there is quite clearly a single period[0] after the final forename or initial and before the District. To me, these [certainly in the case of a period following a full name] seem like separators but if not then: If these periods should be included, would it not be easier to program an option [configurable] in WinBMD/SpeedBMD to insert a period in the forename field after either the last name or a single letter? Just a thought. 0: the one case where the period was definitely "missing" [clearly due to a scratch on the scan or film] was an initial (-: Philip Powell Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland to The Cheviot

Good day. I am not sure how I can possibly edit the previous mailings on this point (sorry,bad pun) so have left it all in as it all seems relevant. I transcribe from photocopies using SpeedBMD. I try to adhere to the "type what you see" mantra. I find it *impossible* to decipher a period/point/full stop after abbreviated forenames when there then follows the separator dots - in fact, looking back I think I must have made a subconscious assumption (I know, I know) that the modern practice of omitting points was as prevalent then as now. I do know that the abbreviations of District names have points sometimes but not always, and they *are* visible. I therefore follow "TWYS" and put them in or omit as appropriate. For example, I have London C AND London C. in my modified District Picklist. I check *very* carefully as to which one I should input. If I cannot see any difference between the point and the separator dots in the forenames HOW do I decide what I should be typing? There surely must either be a hard-and-fast rule that ALL abbreviated names have points *or* the search engine must ignore all punctuation in that field so those who *can* see the difference type as they see. Best wishes Anne Cruise Dave Mayall wrote: > > Quoting David Gray <[email protected]>: > > > Hi all, > > > > Although the discussion list is supposed to be > for experienced > > transcribers > > and I have been transcribing for only a few > weeks, I hope you will > > excuse my > > input as I feel that I have enough experience > to make a contribution. > > Experienced is a moveable target! Some people > know what they are talking about after a very > short time, others never get there :-) > > > Taking Dave Mayall's advice to move the thread > from the Admin list, I > > would > > like to request that the period following a > forename be omitted from > > the > > transcription. Val Turner has already pointed > out that including the > > period > > when using WinBMD (also SpeedBMD) causes > considerable problems and so > > transcribing a page will take much longer that > it would otherwise do. > > > > Of course the time factor would be irrelevant > if the information was > > important and needed to be transcribed. > However, in this case the period > > is > > quite obviously just a separator, and not part > of the name itself. > > This bit of what you say seems persuasive, > provided we can be sure that we can easily > explain what is and is not a separator. As soon > as you put an "except" into the transcribe what > you see rules somebody starts sulking about their > own pet wish to put something different ("Well if > you can omit a dot why can't I correct that > spelling" kind of thing). > > Are there any cases that would be a "but you do > include it here" > > > It would seem to me also, that if a period was > included, then anyone > > searching for such a name would have to > include the period in the > > search > > criteria as though it was part of the name, > otherwise the name would not > > be > > found, and how many people would do that? > > This bit of the argument however is not nearly so > persuasive. If part of the data causes confusion > in the search program, we modify the program to > work around it. We must NEVER change the data to > fit the search facilities. > > > Taking everything on balance, it seems to me > that the period after the > > forename is not needed, although others may > disagree. Could we please > > have > > some input so we can get a definitive answer to > this? > > The one area that you haven't considered is that > in changing the way we do things, the matching > routines will have to be changed to account for > the fact that people will have done it both ways. > > Of course, the fact that some syndicates have > been advising transcribers to do it this way > already means that we a stuck with having to make > these changes anyway, so the issue goes away. > > *IF* we are sure that we can make the instruction > unambiguous, then I have no profound objection to > the change. > > What I *do* have a problem with is an apparently > never ending stream of "local" instructions > issued by syndicate co-ordinators to their > transcribers that conflict with the official > position agreed for all syndicates, or at best > attempt to issue advice on matters that have > never been considered project-wide. > > Syndicate Co-ordinators have a vital part to play > in using their extensive experience to direct > transcribers to the correct answers to questions > that they might have. They also have an important > role to play by contributing to discussions on > setting policy. That role cannot extend to making > policy decisions on the hoof without discussion.