That doesn't negate my argument - if the index books themselves are unreadable and our records are annotated as such, then another action is required - but it does mean that our transcription is still as accurate as possible. Also it will stop any arguments as to the 'correctness' of any of the transcriptions if the record is noted as unreadable in the index books. Regards John Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's Conde Salop. Anytime ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Hattam <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:38 PM Subject: Re: Suspect entries > Some of the index books on the shelves at the FRC have exactly the > same unreadable details as the scans. Looks like some books are > prints of film copies of the originals which have > blotches/spots/whatever. > > When we've done our best, it probably should be possible to > "re-create" the index and suggest the likelist match given analysis > of "missing" entries. > > Mark Hattam > > - - > > >Hi > > > >What about appointing some adjudicators that have access to FRC and have > >them check disputed records from the actual indexes. > > > >These can then be taken as the definitive records and the respective > >transcribers can then amend their records accordingly. > > > >Otherwise we will be in the area of decreasing circles until an orifice > >appears to disappear into. > > > >Regards > > > >John > > > >Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) > >Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's > >Conde Salop. Anytime > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Dave Mayall <[email protected]> > >To: <[email protected]> > >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:01 PM > >Subject: Re: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-D Digest V01 #98 > > > > > >> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:01:55 +1000, you wrote: > >> > >> > Dave Mayall wrote..... > >> >>"As transcription and more formal checking proceeds, the people who are > >given >responsibility for deciding between 2 variant readings by different > >transcribers will be given >appropriate access to flag entries as incorrect > >(although they STILL can't alter what you have > >> >>transcribed)" > >> > > >> >Don't know if there may be some technical, philosophical, or logical) > >reason against this idea..... > >> >if people go to all the trouble to look at the variant readings and > >decide which one is *definitely* correct; then wouldn't it be better that > >they be given access to alter what is incorrect and and have *their* id > >placed against the corrected entry? > >> > >> We want to recognise that even the person resolving the differences > >> might be wrong, so; > >> > >> 1) They *will* enter the correction under their ID. > >> 2) The site will show the "adjudication" as the "favoured" reading, > >> but will still note that there was doubt and that transcriber "abc123" > >> felt it should read "1234" > >> > >> -- > >> Dave Mayall > >> > >> > >> ============================== > >> Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > >> http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 > >> > > > > > >============================== > >Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > > ============================== > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > your heritage! > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog >