Yesterday I received an e-mail from someone who described himself as a syndicate co-ordinator and commented on what he thought one of my transcribed entries should have been. He'd had an enquiry from one of his volunteers, checked the source data, and mailed me to tell me what he "definetely" (sic) thought it was; and then asked me if I would edit the file. He also saw fit to mention a point relating to the use of asterisks, even though the way that I had entered it was appropriate for what I saw as "multiple unreadable characters". The issues this raises for me are:- 1. Just because he said that he is a syndicate co-ordinator doesn't neccessarily mean he is. He could be anyone one of a million people who have stumbled onto the FreeBMD website. 2. Even taking it on face value that he is a syndicate co-ordinator, he is not *my* syndicate co-ordinator or one of the Admin people and therefore his *opinion* on what he sees carries only as much weight as any other transcriber. I'm not in the least bit interested in receiving heaps of e-mails from people who think that just because an entry is a *definite* for them, that I should therefore amend what I have seen. I work on the basis of "type exactly what you see" except when I am unsure of the characters involved. Even after having another look at the scan file I thought there was still some uncertainty. 3. File ownership:- if the files/entries I have sent to FreeBMD are to be carrying my name and my e-mail address, then to me it makes sense that *I* have to be satisfied in my own mind about what I have seen and transcribed; not to be told by a syndicate co-ordinator or anyone else what editing I *should* do because of what they "definetely" see in a scan. The alternative that I see to this is once a file is sent to FreeBMD, then transcribers give up all rights and responsibilities for their content and admin people or veteran transcribers fix up any errors contained therein. What do others think? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 6:00 AM Subject: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-D Digest V01 #95

Hi Steve I maintain the list of Syndicate co-ordinators, so if you would like to email details off list I can verify his credentials for you. You may wish to elaborate on the point about "use of asterisks" to enable an informed comment to be made on your concerns. It may very well be that the source used by the "co-ordinator" was the original from which the scans were made and therefore may be a more pristine copy for identifying possible transcription errors. My own personal opinion is that until we start the formal "Transcription and Verification Process" as defined in http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/process.html it is up the to the actual transcriber of the record to decide what is correct. The caveat on this is that some Syndicate co-ordinators already undertake their own verification process (which is quite separate to the formal "Transcription and Verification Process") and therefore transcribers in these particular syndicates may be requested to amend their files after verification by the co-ordinator. Again on a personal front I agree with your comments in para 3 that you have to be satisfied that you agree with any suggested amendments. Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 01 September 2001 23:19 Subject: Re: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-D Digest V01 #95 Yesterday I received an e-mail from someone who described himself as a syndicate co-ordinator and commented on what he thought one of my transcribed entries should have been. He'd had an enquiry from one of his volunteers, checked the source data, and mailed me to tell me what he "definetely" (sic) thought it was; and then asked me if I would edit the file. He also saw fit to mention a point relating to the use of asterisks, even though the way that I had entered it was appropriate for what I saw as "multiple unreadable characters". The issues this raises for me are:- 1. Just because he said that he is a syndicate co-ordinator doesn't neccessarily mean he is. He could be anyone one of a million people who have stumbled onto the FreeBMD website. 2. Even taking it on face value that he is a syndicate co-ordinator, he is not *my* syndicate co-ordinator or one of the Admin people and therefore his *opinion* on what he sees carries only as much weight as any other transcriber. I'm not in the least bit interested in receiving heaps of e-mails from people who think that just because an entry is a *definite* for them, that I should therefore amend what I have seen. I work on the basis of "type exactly what you see" except when I am unsure of the characters involved. Even after having another look at the scan file I thought there was still some uncertainty. 3. File ownership:- if the files/entries I have sent to FreeBMD are to be carrying my name and my e-mail address, then to me it makes sense that *I* have to be satisfied in my own mind about what I have seen and transcribed; not to be told by a syndicate co-ordinator or anyone else what editing I *should* do because of what they "definetely" see in a scan. The alternative that I see to this is once a file is sent to FreeBMD, then transcribers give up all rights and responsibilities for their content and admin people or veteran transcribers fix up any errors contained therein. What do others think? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 6:00 AM Subject: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-D Digest V01 #95 ============================== Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2