Hello, Okay, I'll add my thoughts (again). No, I don't believe the period should be there, except, possibly, for initials. It slows down transcription and isn't correct anyway. (Do you think your ancestors-- those who could write-- signed their name with a period after the first name?) That said, the entire point (no pun intended) would be mooted if David, or one of the programmers, would add two or three lines of code to normalize forenames as is already done with first names and district names. The periods would be stripped out during the match logic. Another point-- there's that word again-- on this matter is one I have also raised in the past. For those syndicates which are double-entering names (as I believe they SHOULD be doing, but that's another discussion), if one transcriber enters a forename with a period and another transcribes without, that counts as a 'no match.' David, respectfully, I disagree to some extent with your statement that we shouldn't have syndicates making their own rules. It is far more important that, WITHIN THE SYNDICATE, everyone is following the same rules. Now, on another matter. Some weeks ago I sent a note asking that entries for London C and London C. be treated as equivalent. I never received a direct answer, but judging from the fact that they are still treated as different as of the current update I gather the answer was 'NO!" This leads to two further questions 1) Why aren't they treated as aliases of one another? 2) What is the proper forum for making such a request? I have several more. Anyone who wants to see a few should call up marriages, first quarter, 1867, surname JONES. You'll see several instances where the district names are obviously the same but are not treated as such. Regards, Rick Elliott

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:32:42 EDT, you wrote: >Hello, >Okay, I'll add my thoughts (again). >No, I don't believe the period should be there, except, possibly, for >initials. >It slows down transcription and isn't correct anyway. (Do you think your >ancestors-- those who could write-- signed their name with a period after the >first name?) No, but we are transcribing the index, not the original certificates One has to ask "does it have any significance" In the case of an initial, it serves to indicate that this is an initial. "William G." means "G" is an initial Could "William George." mean that there are other forenames following George that have been omitted from the index? >That said, the entire point (no pun intended) would be mooted if David, or >one of the programmers, would add two or three lines of code to normalize >forenames as is already done with first names and district names. The >periods would be stripped out during the match logic. We normalise District names by a lookup table. This doesn't involve any character stripping (except for leading and trailing spaces). No other fields are normalised. Yes we can get round this in code (we can get round all manner of odd habits that transcribers have by adding a few lines of code), but it is better if we can get things right to avoid having to insert such code. >Another point-- there's that word again-- on this matter is one I have also >raised in the past. For those syndicates which are double-entering names (as >I believe they SHOULD be doing, but that's another discussion), if one >transcriber enters a forename with a period and another transcribes without, >that counts as a 'no match.' Indeed it does, but as you say, we can code around this. As to syndicates double keying their own ranges; yes this is a separate issue. it is also a central principle that in order to ensure that we have maximum accuracy we have INDEPENDENT transcription and resolution. As we proceed to double keying, proper tools will be put in place to ensure that we can track exactly which records have been modified by the adjudicator because the original entries failed to match. Syndicates choosing to double key themselves, the amending both files to be identical does not amount to a proper proveable double keying. >David, respectfully, I disagree to some extent with your statement that we >shouldn't have syndicates making their own rules. It is far more important >that, WITHIN THE SYNDICATE, everyone is following the same rules. No. Because we will insist on independent double keying, it is important that we all work in the same way. >Now, on another matter. Some weeks ago I sent a note asking that entries for >London C and London C. be treated as equivalent. I never received a direct >answer, but judging from the fact that they are still treated as different as >of the current update I gather the answer was 'NO!" >This leads to two further questions >1) Why aren't they treated as aliases of one another? >2) What is the proper forum for making such a request? I have several more. > Anyone who wants to see a few should call up marriages, first quarter, 1867, >surname JONES. You'll see several instances where the district names are >obviously the same but are not treated as such. There is currently a backlog of over a thousand district aliases awaiting entry into the table. Volunteers for this task are welcome. -- Dave Mayall