David Gray wrote: > > Hi Val, > > I have sent this reply via the Discuss list, as the thread somehow had moved > to the Admin list. > > Val Turner wrote: > > >Hi David, > >I was intrigued so went back to look at previous pages I had > transcribed. > >However hard I look I can't detect any periods after forenames on > my > birth > >or marriage pages (1893). > >Val > > The births I have transcribed have been from 1872, and there is definitely a > period after the forename. This just goes to show how much confusion exists > over this issue. We could have a situation where someone searching for a > birth would have to enter the name without a period, and anyone searching > for a death would have to include a period. No, no, no. In considering what we transcribe, it is VITAL that you exclude considerations as to how the search will work. The search will be made to work such that the queries that people enter will find the data. We MUST NOT try and modify our transcriptions to make searches easier. To do so risks compromsing the data, and is based upon false assumptions (unless you have read the source code to search.pl!) -- Dave Mayall

Dave, You wrote: > No, no, no. > > In considering what we transcribe, it is VITAL that you exclude considerations > as to how the search will work. > > The search will be made to work such that the queries that people enter will > find the data. I have seen a similar thread to this one in the archives from last year and nothing has been done to make the search work since then. The data did not originate with a period and so is being corrupted by including the period, not preserved. You said the other day that you had no profound objection to the change "*IF* we are sure that we can make the instruction unambiguous". What could be more unambiguous than "Do not transcribe the period after the forename"? People are more likely to follow this instruction than the alternative. You also said: 1) Discussion on changing the way things are done should take place on the DISCUSS list rather than here. 2) If what we lay down does need changing, it is very important that it is discussed so that we can establish a common policy for all syndicates. It is extremely damaging if one syndicate decides that they will establish their own rules separate from the rest. >From giving the impression that you would consider the change if people wanted it, your most recent response gives the impression that you are not prepared to consider a change, or perhaps I have misread it. If you are not prepared to consider a change have we wasted our time in discussing it? David Gray Heysham, Lancashire Norton AntiVirus protected ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 9:48 AM Subject: Re: Period > David Gray wrote: > > > > Hi Val, > > > > I have sent this reply via the Discuss list, as the thread somehow had moved > > to the Admin list. > > > > Val Turner wrote: > > > > >Hi David, > > >I was intrigued so went back to look at previous pages I had > > transcribed. > > >However hard I look I can't detect any periods after forenames on > > my > > birth > > >or marriage pages (1893). > > >Val > > > > The births I have transcribed have been from 1872, and there is definitely a > > period after the forename. This just goes to show how much confusion exists > > over this issue. We could have a situation where someone searching for a > > birth would have to enter the name without a period, and anyone searching > > for a death would have to include a period. > We MUST NOT try and modify our transcriptions to make searches > easier. To do so risks compromsing the data, and is based upon false assumptions > (unless you have read the source code to search.pl!) > > > -- > Dave Mayall > > > ============================== > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query! > >