Hi Anne, The original discussion on this subject I believe started in the context of just the "death" pages in which there is usually (but not always) a period separating the forename and the Age at death. So the question arose do we/do we not transcibe this period (which some treat as a separator rather than a part of the forename). I agree with you that on the printed Birth and Marriage pages it is impossible to differentiate between a period after an abbreviated forename e.g. "Anne W." and the row of separator dots. I, like you, made a subconscious decison not to follow an initial with a period if it was the last character of the forename field on a births/marriages page Val ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Cruise" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:21 PM Subject: Re: Period After Forename > 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. > > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com > >

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. It would make more sense in my view to omit the period altogether, particularly as most people who have responded to the thread seem to be doing so in any case. If the official line was to omit the period we would have more uniformity as transcribers would be unlikely to ADD a period if it was not required. David Gray Heysham, Lancashire Norton AntiVirus protected