Jeff and all, Your process seems an almost exact replica of my own although I always require new people transcribe a practise page (always the same one) and send it to me for comment, it makes it a little easier because by now I know the page backwards. I would be interested in seeing a copy of your instructions so that I might possibly improve my own. On the idea of a demo of the software. I did once start to create one similar to that of SpeedBMD, albeit a simple text walkthrough, but after about two weeks I gave up as there was simply too much that I was trying to cover - it is VERY difficult to know where to stop! There are a number of packages available which could be used to create a walkthrough and given such a package plus the input of people as to what it should cover I could create such a demo. There are of course a number of caveats - (1) the resultant demo tends to be quite large (possibly 5+Mb) and this would need to be downloaded by everyone. WinBMD is stored on a transcriber's website for which they are paying and I would not wish to extend bandwidth demands any further and we would therefore need to find and pay for an alternative site. (2) We'd have to buy the package to create the demo and that would of course depend on FreeBMD funding. (3) Not every syndicate works in the same way (unfortunately) a! nd this would either require different demos or a single demo that tried to explain all the differences (which I don't like the thought of). I'm still willing to try though, when I have enough spare time - right now I can't even get the new WinBMD helpfile updated! There are a few pages at the start of the WinBMD helpfile which were intended as in introduction - I'm not sure how many people have seen them? If someone would like to extend/amend those then I would be happy to include them in the next version. Regards Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Coleman To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 12:38 PM Subject: Fw: A "demo" of our software? Maybe I am one of the co-ordinators who hit new transcribers with masses of guidance , 'too much too soon', but I try to break it down into steps in separate emails, after an introduction to the processes. - downloading WinBMD downloading the scan and setting up header details transcribing verifying and uploading - I also try to persuade new transcribers to send me their first transcription to check after doing about 50 lines or half a column ( post1900 scans). This means that most systematic errors and misunderstandings can be identified and dealt with early on, before a whole page of effort has been expended on first approximations to district names or incorrect use of Uncertain Character Format. Focussed explanation can then be given about how to avoid misreading 5s as 3s, or 3s as 9s, or 'S' as 'N' or whatever is proving a problem for the transcriber. I can also check the header details are right for the scan. I also ask to see the first completed transcription before uploading, and verify it myself, providing feedback on where my reading varies from the volunteer's. This is also a stage where the intelligent use of secondary sources like page ranges, or occurrence of surnames in online sources can be introduced. Certainly I have had impulsive new volunteers who have raced ahead without reading the information given, but I hope I have used the experience to refine the induction material and process so that more recent volunteers have been less inclined to do so. If any co-ordinator would like copies of my standard starting-up emails to take anything useful for their own use, or to suggest improvements, just ask. Jeff --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04/08/2004

Hi John I've just done a quick analysis of recruitment since my email response on 27 June. We've had 142 new recruits, spread amongst 23 Syndicates. One Syndicate took on the highest number of new recruits (16 new recruits) with 3 of the Syndicates having 1 new recruit each. During this period you took on 5 new recruits. Based on the above and from your recent experience, is your Syndicate requirements being adequately met with regards to " when the syndicate Mentors can anticipate a new transcriber"? Regards Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: 27 June 2004 21:07 Subject: Re: Recruitment >Hi John > >1. The order of Syndicates is random which changes each time you visit the >page. > >The setting up of the new Syndicates has obviously had the desired effect of >making sufficient Syndicates available to satisfy the demands of new >volunteers. > >If you feel you are in desperate need of new volunteers please let me know >and I'm sure I can come up with something to help you? > >2. It was the intention that new volunteers would select the first >Syndicate in the list although this isn't a forced requirement on them. >Sometimes the description of the Syndicate is the deciding factor as to >which Syndicate a volunteer decides to join. > >3. Strange, I can't recollect seeing (Please choose where you want to >help), I'll put a request in to remove this from the page. > >4. When I set up new Syndicates I set their recruitment flag to accepting >volunteers but also add a comment *** New Syndicate - Not Yet Accepting >Volunteers ***. This is purely an administration facility on my part as it >enables me to monitor the correct functioning of new Syndicates during their >setting up. > >Allan Raymond > > >-----Original Message----- >From: John Slann <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >Date: 27 June 2004 12:02 >Subject: Recruitment > > >>Dear Allan, >> >>I have been looking at this page: >> >>http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/list-synd.pl?reader=0 >> >>Having opened the door to new transcribers a week ago and not yet getting >one, I am intrigued by the order of the syndicates listed. We are currently >18th in the pecking order of 19. My memory tells me we were higher than >that when I checked the page a week ago. >> >>There seems to be contradictory advice on the page as in different places >it says: >> 1.. Please choose the first Syndicate on the list unless there is >something in the description that precludes you >> 2.. Please choose where you want to help >>It also seems strange that a page that is supposed to be dedicated to >recruitment includes syndicates with this message: >> >>" New Syndicate - Not Yet Accepting Volunteers" >> >>Can you give any guidance on when the syndicate Mentors can anticipate a >new transcriber >> >>Cheers >> >>John

I think I have seen something on this before, but cannot now find it. Has someone a definitive answer on transcribing a handwritten entry where neither district name nor number is present. The entry was 1902B40182 Fellingham, Owen See Dec 1929. A transcriber has had problems uploading a file where she inserted ? for the missing district field. I tried ?,? and had no problem getting a file accepted, though the series of warning boxes came up, of course. She, however, could not get a file accepted with ?,? at all and finally uploaded the file without the entry and edited it on the site under File Management. I know that *,* will work perfectly, though technically this would not be correct. Melda Brunette, Brunette Syndicate

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 12:37:50 +1200, you wrote: >I think I have seen something on this before, but cannot now find it. >Has someone a definitive answer on transcribing a handwritten entry >where neither district name nor number is present. > >The entry was 1902B40182 Fellingham, Owen See Dec 1929. > >A transcriber has had problems uploading a file where she inserted ? for >the missing district field. > >I tried ?,? and had no problem getting a file accepted, though the >series of warning boxes came up, of course. She, however, could not get >a file accepted with ?,? at all and finally uploaded the file without >the entry and edited it on the site under File Management. Is she using SpeedBMD? In SpeedBMD, it would be ?;? not ?,? -- Dave Mayall

A new recruit to my Syndicate has been making heavy weather of his first steps, and is clearly one of those people who don't like reading instruction manuals - but aren't we all a bit like that? FreeBMD now has so many Help buttons, Hints for Beginners, F.A.Q.s etc. (and that's not including my own briefing notes).... that there's a temptation to say, "oh, sod it!" and just dive in. He did, with predictable results. Now he's talking of resigning, his computer is up the spout etc. However, he has produced one interesting idea. Has there ever been, or is there any plan to devise, a simple 'demo' as to transcribing records - say, on WinBMD? Lots of computer programs offer a simple, animated, step-by-step walkthrough showing novices how to get started, how to proceed, things to watch out for etc. It seems to me that this would save volunteers a lot of pain in the early stages, especially for those many who can type with two fingers, but are comparatively computer-scared. It might also save Co-ordinators hours of patiently translating terms like Batch Header, Pick List etc. And it might help make our work more consistent across many scores of co-ordinators, and many thousands of volunteers. I wonder whether our program designer(s) would find this too much of a chore? Richard Oliver Madrid, Spain [email protected]

I have 3 scans in my allocation with handwritten notes pinned to them. The files are additional scans to show the notes and are named as eg. 1887b3-218a.tif The notes say for example from the above scan :- "Please check entry Grosvenor, Percy, Wandsworth, 1d (followed by) dec 1891 page 218 sep 1889" Do we somehow include these notes and in what form ? Perhaps in their logical place followed by a #COMMENT line ? Ted Southcombe

To Co-ordinators Most of you will be aware I have been actively involved with the co-operation of others to eliminate all the suspect files in the Suspect Report at: http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/SuspectFiles.html There were lots of suspects file way back on 23 February 2003 which was whittled down to about 400 by 8 Oct 2003. Currently the number of suspects files stands at 88 and is going down on a daily basis. We are continually tweaking the Suspect Report criteria to weed out more suspect files. The co-operation of Co-ordinators in checking the Suspect Report on a regular weekly basis to identify and assist any of their volunteers with suspect files would be appreciated. I find I'm spending a lot of time dealing with volunteers who have suspect files which is an area perhaps better dealt with by the intervention of Co-ordinators. There may be a surprise for some Co-ordinators if they visited Suspect Report! I monitor the number of suspect files on a daily basis and my aim is to get the list down to zero figures by the end of August 2004. I'm actively involved in correcting the files of one volunteer who has the predominate number of suspect files. Regards Alan Raymond

I appreciate the time everyone who has sent me replies to this query from my transcriber has taken. For any of you to whom I have not personally replied, thank you. Lots of interesting suggestions and problem solved for the time being. Melda Brunette, Co-ordinator, Brunette Syndicate.

I’ve had 2 new volunteers in the past week who have “lost” files, and have had to start again after a thorough search of their systems. I’m also dealing with another 2 who sent me partially completed files, which they swear were completed, and saved, for me to do their first verify & feedback sessions on. I thought they had just done something bizarre in WinBMD, but now I am not so sure! Lisa Dominey ID4 Syndicate --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.722 / Virus Database: 478 - Release Date: 18/07/2004

Further to my posting of earlier this morning I now have further details from my transcriber. She had the data entry box in the top left corner of her screen and the Verify programme on the bottom. Here is an extract from her e-mail: All of a sudden, and just out of the blue, the top square I put the info in, just went, and also at the same time, the Verifyer went into black, but still on a my normal screen display. I don't know what caused it, and don't think a power surge, otherwise I would have lost everything on the screen and that did not happen. Mystery. This is the initial part of her problem. The recovery of her transcribed file is another - I have suggested the normal search route through C;\Programs ect, but have not heard back from her on that one. From the rest of her mail I infer she has redone the file and verified without problem. So my question to Dave, Ian, David Lang essentially, is this: is there a known glitch in the software that could cause this to happen, or is it more likely something eh has inadvertently done? We have tried to replicate her problem by experimenting with different function keys - assuming a key selection error - and cannot do so. Melda Brunette I

Lisa, I'm cannot see how files could be lost using BMDVerify which has no affect on files at all - it seems more likely that they are looking in the wrong place for their saved files. Since this version of WinBMD was released something like 18 months ago I've had a number of people email me about lost files, each time when I reply explaining how to find files (as I did to Melda on this list a couple of days ago) every one of them has managed to find them. There is something very strange in this version of WinBMD where clicking an entry on the recently used file list (the list of files on either of the FILE menus) sometimes doesn't work, either that and/or they have inadvertently changed where files are saved (via the File menu>Define Save Path). I have yet to come across a true case where a file has simply vanished, although your people might be the first. I would agree that searching for a file via Windows Explorer *should* find it but this assumes they enter exactly the right filename and that isn't always easy to do. If they are unsure where to look for the correct (possibly 'latest' in the case of people sending partially complete files) get them to send you a file called WinBMD.ini which they will find in their WinBMD folder (ie normally C:\Program Files\WInBMD\WinBMD.ini) and look in that file using Notepad - you will find a line saying "Savepath=xyz" and xyz will be where their files are, OR, if they have changed it after saving their files (or if the line simply says "Savepath=") they will be in C:\Program Files\WinBMD\Output. Please let me know if that doesn't help. Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Dominey To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:19 AM Subject: File lost while using BMD Verify I’ve had 2 new volunteers in the past week who have “lost” files, and have had to start again after a thorough search of their systems. I’m also dealing with another 2 who sent me partially completed files, which they swear were completed, and saved, for me to do their first verify & feedback sessions on. I thought they had just done something bizarre in WinBMD, but now I am not so sure! Lisa Dominey ID4 Syndicate --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.722 / Virus Database: 478 - Release Date: 18/07/2004 ==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ==== To find out about the FreeBMD project please start at http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

I have this note from a transcriber who appears to have completely lost a file while verifying it. Have never heard of it before. Has anyone any answers. (Sorry not much detail in the note, but I think she probably had the file on the lower tool bar and was editing on the fly). I feel the file must be there somewhere, but have no idea how to help her. Hi there Did all of 0152 and was Verifying it when it disappeared never to be seen again. This after F3 saving often, but it does not default to anything to hold it would seem. Have looked everywhere even in the Recycle bin and nothing. I have to start again needless to say. Very frustrating. I only report this to you because I fancy you might be interested to know, and if "they" do anything with the programme it might be to spend time on the saving aspect of what has been transcribed, as a top priority. Melda Brunette, Brunette Syndicate

Melda, I have heard of a couple of people who have had a crash when viewing a scan using Verify and also opening one via WinBMD at the same time. Both of these programs use the same routine for scan viewing but, in theory this should not cause a problem, but it seems that in practise it does. I have no idea why and, to be honest, I haven't got around to trying it for myself. Her transcribed file should not be lost though unless she hadn't saved it (but then the recovery routine should take care of that) - if it was saved then it will still exist. The simplest way is for her to start a NEW file in WinBMD (the details don't matter as long as they don't clash with any she's done so far), when she gets to the data input form look on the File when where there is an item called "Define Save Path) - DO NOT click on this item as she will have to change the path - instead beside that menu item in brackets is where her files are being saved to. Quit WinBMD, start it up again, Answer No to continue with the old batch, then on the Header Form, click the file menu, navigate to the path where her files are being saved and the "missing" file should be there. Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Melda Brunette To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 3:54 PM Subject: FreeBMD Problem with Verify Further to my posting of earlier this morning I now have further details from my transcriber. She had the data entry box in the top left corner of her screen and the Verify programme on the bottom. Here is an extract from her e-mail: All of a sudden, and just out of the blue, the top square I put the info in, just went, and also at the same time, the Verifyer went into black, but still on a my normal screen display. I don't know what caused it, and don't think a power surge, otherwise I would have lost everything on the screen and that did not happen. Mystery. This is the initial part of her problem. The recovery of her transcribed file is another - I have suggested the normal search route through C;\Programs ect, but have not heard back from her on that one. From the rest of her mail I infer she has redone the file and verified without problem. So my question to Dave, Ian, David Lang essentially, is this: is there a known glitch in the software that could cause this to happen, or is it more likely something eh has inadvertently done? We have tried to replicate her problem by experimenting with different function keys - assuming a key selection error - and cannot do so. Melda Brunette I ==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ==== For those in -L mode, to unsubscribe from this mailing list please send the command UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message to - [email protected] ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

Using a part extract from your email, in hindsight in my initial email I should have stated "I am also seeking information about how these files are approached by syndicates to ensure any instructions cover existing practice in a formal way". Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Steve Gaunt <[email protected]> To: Allan Raymond <[email protected]> Date: 15 July 2004 20:12 Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans >>Hindsight is a marvellous thing. >Sorry Allan, you have lost me >Steve >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 7:32 PM >Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans > > >> Good, I can now get on with writing up the contents of the instructions! >> >> Hindsight is a marvellous thing. >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steve Gaunt <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Date: 15 July 2004 18:23 >> Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans >> >> >> >> No, and we aren't trying to make it difficult at all. >> > >> >Well, Allan's original email asked for comments on the wording of the >> >instruction to be entered in the knowledge base, not the content. >> > Whilst Allan's concern was the +PAGE consideration, the problem lay with >> >the actual content as both the instruction to treat the image as one file >> >and the file name format displayed were contrary to how I do things. >> > Some transcribers may have believed from the content of Allan's proposed >> >instruction meant that they were giving their transcribers the wrong >> >instructions, as all Allan asked coordinators to comment on, was the >> >wording, not the instruction. >> > It would, perhaps, have been better if Allan had sought information >about >> >how these files are approached by syndicates before making any attempt to >> >word an instruction, though he can't be blamed for not realising that >some >> >syndicates treat the images as two files as I myself had no idea that >some >> >coordinators treat the image as one file! Please note that I didn't >decide >> >myself to enter the image as two files (despite the obvious logic in >doing >> >so) but sought advice from higher up prior to allocating scans. >> >Anyway, if either way is acceptable, as long as that is made clear then >> >there is no problem, >> >Steve Gaunt >> >Croscan >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> >> >To: <[email protected]> >> >Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:29 AM >> >Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans >> > >> > >> >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:07:25 +0100, you wrote: >> >> >> >> >Alan, >> >> >Why are we making this so difficult? This syndicate has all double >page >> >> >scans transcribed as two single pages, almost a complete quarter, >> >following >> >> >the practice in the John Slann syndicate. It means all pages can be >> >checked >> >> >as having been completed, and if a transcriber only does one, it >> happens, >> >we >> >> >are immediately aware of it. Does this mean that we will all have to >> >conform >> >> >to these unwieldy files. >> >> >> >> No, and we aren't trying to make it difficult at all. >> >> >> >> Your syndicate splits the files into single pages. Other syndicates, >> >> because of the way they allocate work to transcribers need them to be >> >> transcribed as two pages to a file. >> >> >> >> Each syndicate should proceed in the way that suits it best. We aren't >> >> going to make you combine files, neither are we going to make other >> >> syndicates split their files. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dave Mayall >> >> >> >> >> >> ==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ==== >> >> Want to help FreeBMD? >> >> Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. >> >> >> >> ============================== >> >> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >> >> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >> >> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ==== >> >Want to help FreeBMD? >> >Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. >> > >> >============================== >> >You can manage your RootsWeb-Review subscription from >> >http://newsletters.rootsweb.com/ >> > >> > >> >> >> >> ==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ==== >> Thank you Rootsweb for hosting the FreeBMD project and its mailing lists. >See http://www.rootsweb.com/ >> >> ============================== >> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >> >> >

Good, I can now get on with writing up the contents of the instructions! Hindsight is a marvellous thing. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Steve Gaunt <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: 15 July 2004 18:23 Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans >> No, and we aren't trying to make it difficult at all. > >Well, Allan's original email asked for comments on the wording of the >instruction to be entered in the knowledge base, not the content. > Whilst Allan's concern was the +PAGE consideration, the problem lay with >the actual content as both the instruction to treat the image as one file >and the file name format displayed were contrary to how I do things. > Some transcribers may have believed from the content of Allan's proposed >instruction meant that they were giving their transcribers the wrong >instructions, as all Allan asked coordinators to comment on, was the >wording, not the instruction. > It would, perhaps, have been better if Allan had sought information about >how these files are approached by syndicates before making any attempt to >word an instruction, though he can't be blamed for not realising that some >syndicates treat the images as two files as I myself had no idea that some >coordinators treat the image as one file! Please note that I didn't decide >myself to enter the image as two files (despite the obvious logic in doing >so) but sought advice from higher up prior to allocating scans. >Anyway, if either way is acceptable, as long as that is made clear then >there is no problem, >Steve Gaunt >Croscan > ----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:29 AM >Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans > > >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:07:25 +0100, you wrote: >> >> >Alan, >> >Why are we making this so difficult? This syndicate has all double page >> >scans transcribed as two single pages, almost a complete quarter, >following >> >the practice in the John Slann syndicate. It means all pages can be >checked >> >as having been completed, and if a transcriber only does one, it happens, >we >> >are immediately aware of it. Does this mean that we will all have to >conform >> >to these unwieldy files. >> >> No, and we aren't trying to make it difficult at all. >> >> Your syndicate splits the files into single pages. Other syndicates, >> because of the way they allocate work to transcribers need them to be >> transcribed as two pages to a file. >> >> Each syndicate should proceed in the way that suits it best. We aren't >> going to make you combine files, neither are we going to make other >> syndicates split their files. >> >> -- >> Dave Mayall >> >> >> ==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ==== >> Want to help FreeBMD? >> Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. >> >> ============================== >> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >> >> > > >==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ==== >Want to help FreeBMD? >Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. > >============================== >You can manage your RootsWeb-Review subscription from >http://newsletters.rootsweb.com/ > >

> No, and we aren't trying to make it difficult at all. Well, Allan's original email asked for comments on the wording of the instruction to be entered in the knowledge base, not the content. Whilst Allan's concern was the +PAGE consideration, the problem lay with the actual content as both the instruction to treat the image as one file and the file name format displayed were contrary to how I do things. Some transcribers may have believed from the content of Allan's proposed instruction meant that they were giving their transcribers the wrong instructions, as all Allan asked coordinators to comment on, was the wording, not the instruction. It would, perhaps, have been better if Allan had sought information about how these files are approached by syndicates before making any attempt to word an instruction, though he can't be blamed for not realising that some syndicates treat the images as two files as I myself had no idea that some coordinators treat the image as one file! Please note that I didn't decide myself to enter the image as two files (despite the obvious logic in doing so) but sought advice from higher up prior to allocating scans. Anyway, if either way is acceptable, as long as that is made clear then there is no problem, Steve Gaunt Croscan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:29 AM Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:07:25 +0100, you wrote: > > >Alan, > >Why are we making this so difficult? This syndicate has all double page > >scans transcribed as two single pages, almost a complete quarter, following > >the practice in the John Slann syndicate. It means all pages can be checked > >as having been completed, and if a transcriber only does one, it happens, we > >are immediately aware of it. Does this mean that we will all have to conform > >to these unwieldy files. > > No, and we aren't trying to make it difficult at all. > > Your syndicate splits the files into single pages. Other syndicates, > because of the way they allocate work to transcribers need them to be > transcribed as two pages to a file. > > Each syndicate should proceed in the way that suits it best. We aren't > going to make you combine files, neither are we going to make other > syndicates split their files. > > -- > Dave Mayall > > > ==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ==== > Want to help FreeBMD? > Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:07:25 +0100, you wrote: >Alan, >Why are we making this so difficult? This syndicate has all double page >scans transcribed as two single pages, almost a complete quarter, following >the practice in the John Slann syndicate. It means all pages can be checked >as having been completed, and if a transcriber only does one, it happens, we >are immediately aware of it. Does this mean that we will all have to conform >to these unwieldy files. No, and we aren't trying to make it difficult at all. Your syndicate splits the files into single pages. Other syndicates, because of the way they allocate work to transcribers need them to be transcribed as two pages to a file. Each syndicate should proceed in the way that suits it best. We aren't going to make you combine files, neither are we going to make other syndicates split their files. -- Dave Mayall

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:21:19 +0100, you wrote: >Have been asked a question regarding Scottish Ancestry. >Are there any plans in the future for transcribing Scottish Records? No. The Scottish records have already been placed online on a paid for basis at http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/ Transcription projects such as FreeBMD can only transcribe records if we get permission from the relevant authorities, and GROS will not grant that permission. -- Dave Mayall

Scottish BMDs to 1953 are already online, as are old parish records and some censuses, at http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/ There is a charging system for searching, but once you find a record of interest there is an online system for ordering the certificate. There is a free surname search to tell you how many records they hold. Jeff --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.719 / Virus Database: 475 - Release Date: 12/07/2004

John You may have noticed from follow up correspondence to my email that some Syndicate Co-ordinators insist on two pages to a file whilst others are happy to go down the one page to a file. The two pages to a file and how to add the +PAGE has been mentioned on the Syndicates and Admin lists in the past so this shouldn't be seen as something I've conjured out of thin air. I can't recollect any Co-ordinator saying "hang on a minute we don't do it that way" when the queries were initially sent to the Syndicates and Admin lists. My aim was formalise the process by adding the instructions to our "Hints and Help Guide" or "Transcriber's Knowledge Base" Following from the comments from Co-ordinators who mentioned they adopted one or other process I sent a follow up email on 12/07/2004 mentioning "Suitable words can be devised to cover both situations" , that is one page to a file or two pages to a file. Therefore if you are using one page to a file carry on, similarly if other Syndicate are using two pages to a file they carry on in exactly their same way. My reworded instructions will mirror my comments above but will also indicate how and where to insert the correct +PAGES, in particular where two pages to a file are involved. Long files should only be rejected where they don't conform to the standard protocol, generally absence of the correct +PAGEs. Incidentally, it is quite easy to check if all pages have been transcribed for files containing double page scans, so long as transcribers insert the correct +PAGEs. Cheers Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: JOHN PINGRAM <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: 13 July 2004 09:09 Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans >Alan, >Why are we making this so difficult? This syndicate has all double page >scans transcribed as two single pages, almost a complete quarter, following >the practice in the John Slann syndicate. It means all pages can be checked >as having been completed, and if a transcriber only does one, it happens, we >are immediately aware of it. Does this mean that we will all have to conform >to these unwieldy files. Long files seem currently to be rejected. >Kind regards, >John > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:47 PM >Subject: +PAGE's for double page scans > > >> To Co-ordinators >> >> I thought I would run this past you before I arrange for either "Hints and >> Help Guide" or "Transcriber's Knowledge Base" to be changed, comments or >> suggested improvements to the wording is appreciated? >> >> The query revolves around double page scans (i.e. two Index pages to a >> scan). I've just noticed that some volunteers are not inserting a +PAGE to >> separate the two pages within the transcription. >> >> If the decision is taken to go down "Transcriber's Knowledge Base" route, >> I'm proposng the following addional Q & A. >> >> Q. What is the process for transcribing a double page scan (i.e. two >index >> pages to a scan) >> >> A. You transcribe the scan as one file and name the file exactly as if >was >> a one page scan. >> >> For example, the double page scan 1874b4-520 would have a file name >> 1874B4W0520. >> >> You also need to add three +PAGEs, one at the start of the entries, one at >> the end of the entries and a further one in the middle of the entries to >> denote the end of the first index page and the start of the second. >> >> For example, the file for the double page scan 1874b4-520 would contain >the >> following +PAGEs >> >> +PAGE,0520 >> WAKEFIELD,Henry John,Coventry,6d,516 >> other entries on first page down to >> WALGROVE,John William,"Bradford, Y",9b,258 >> +PAGE,0521 >> WALKER,Charles,W. Bromwich,6b,849 >> other entries on second page down to >> WALKER,Martha Ann,Medway,2a,493 >> +PAGE,0522 >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I th >> Sorry for the delay. >> > >> > You upload as one file with the appropriate +PAGE, to separate the >actual >> > two pages of the Index. >> > >> > Thus, if you were transcribing a double page scan such as >1871B4-342.tiff. >> > >> > File name would be similar to 1871B40342. >> > >> > The file +PAGE's would be: >> > >> > +PAGE,0342 >> > Owens,John etc >> > ... (other page 342 entries) >> > Page,Herbert Frank etc >> > +PAGE,0343 >> > Page,Horace Archibald etc >> > ... (other page 113 entries) >> > Palmer,Emma etc >> > +PAGE,0344 >> > >> > To add to the confusion the two page scan which I choose at random also >> has >> > Surnames "Page". >> > >> > How does my suggestion sound to you? >> > >> > To my recollection, we haven't given any advice on how to deal with two >> page >> > scans. I'll see of I can put some words together within the next day or >so >> > Co-ordinators can thrash out by best approach. >> > >> > > >==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ==== >For those in -L mode, to unsubscribe from this mailing list please send the command UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message to - >[email protected] > >============================== >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >