Hello Barrie, Re: "The check merely indicates the problem exists; changing the check won't make the problem go away. The issue is, I think, whether a non-syndicate transcription is a problem so let me expand on what I said in my original posting." The problem exists because the checks that are performed includes one that checks if the uploaded file is one that has the transcriber signed up to a specific syndicate. If this part of the check was removed there would be no problem. Re: "* The Suspect Files <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list shows the syndicate of the file; this allows coordinators to see which files they need to be concerned with" I seem to remember that the suspect files report used to indicate both syndicates before this latest change. What is the problem with that? Re: "* Upload Report <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/upload-report.pl> has the option for the results to be dependent on the syndicate of the file (e.g. list only files transcribed for a particular syndicate) While this is true, the only coordinators affected by this are those like me who do not add the person to the syndicate until they have uploaded a file. I am quite happy with that situation. Re: "* The coordinator version of Show File <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/coord-show-file.pl> will allow coordinators to download the file if it has been transcribed for their syndicate." True but again it is only coordinators like me that this affects, thus this is not a valid reason to change the system. Re: * When the database is created the syndicate of the file is used to determine of there is duplication within a syndicate; an entry is not considered to be double keyed if both transcriptions are within a syndicate This is a minor short term problem and not a reason to cause those transcribers like me who do not want the system changed. Re: "So it is quite important that the syndicate a file is transcribed for is correct. If it isn't coordinators will be put to extra work and so I don't understand why not having a syndicate could be considered acceptable." Again the coordinators affected are those like me and I am happy to accept the situation. For me the result is less work not more. Please remove this part of the checking process. Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie Sent: 29 July 2010 17:48 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: Non-syndicate transcriptions Brian, The check merely indicates the problem exists; changing the check won't make the problem go away. The issue is, I think, whether a non-syndicate transcription is a problem so let me expand on what I said in my original posting. When a file is uploaded the system makes a decision about what syndicate it has been transcribed for and that syndicate (or syndicates if it is ambiguous) is recorded with the file. The information about the syndicate is used in (at least) the following ways: * The Suspect Files <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list shows the syndicate of the file; this allows coordinators to see which files they need to be concerned with * Upload Report <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/upload-report.pl> has the option for the results to be dependent on the syndicate of the file (e.g. list only files transcribed for a particular syndicate) * The coordinator version of Show File <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/coord-show-file.pl> will allow coordinators to download the file if it has been transcribed for their syndicate * When the database is created the syndicate of the file is used to determine of there is duplication within a syndicate; an entry is not considered to be double keyed if both transcriptions are within a syndicate So it is quite important that the syndicate a file is transcribed for is correct. If it isn't coordinators will be put to extra work and so I don't understand why not having a syndicate could be considered acceptable. Regards Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > Surely the checking system needs to be changed then the problem would not > exist. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 29 July 2010 00:15 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: RE: Non-syndicate transcriptions > > Brian, > > The clause you mention is not part of the warning; it was part of my > explanation of the possible causes for the warning. > > The system cannot normally differentiate between these these three > causes for the warning, it just knows that the file has not been marked > as transcribed for a syndicate. > > Barrie > > On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > >> Hello Barrie, >> Why not remove the cause: "* they have not been added to the syndicate >> > they > >> are transcribing for" from this Warning/error and then the other two >> possible causes can be errors. >> I fail to see why the fact that the person has not been added to the >> syndicate at the time of the upload should constitute a problem in any >> > way. > >> Regards >> >> Brian Smart >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie >> Sent: 28 July 2010 17:08 >> To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Non-syndicate transcriptions >> >> The error that caused transcriptions to erroneous get reported as _not_ >> being done within a user's syndicate has now been corrected. If users >> get the warning >> >> /You do not appear to be a member of a syndicate transcribing this >> quarter. Please check you have the correct Year, Quarter and Event >> or contact your syndicate coordinator./ >> >> the most likely causes are: >> >> * they have not been added to the syndicate they are transcribing for >> * they have transcribed the wrong quarter >> * they have specified the wrong year or quarter or event in the file >> >> Please note that files identified by this warning will not be allocated >> to any syndicate and therefore coordinators will not be able to use >> coordinator facilities (such as UploadReport for a particular syndicate >> or downloading the file) for such a file. If the issue is that the >> transcriber has not been added to the syndicate, it should be possible >> to correct this by the transcriber uploading the file again (once the >> transcriber has been added to the syndicate). You can use >> http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/show-file.pl to check which syndicate a >> file has been transcribed for. >> >> Because of feedback received this will remain a warning rather than >> being upgraded to an error. >> >> Barrie >> >> >> --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> > without > >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> >> > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Barrie, Re: "The check merely indicates the problem exists; changing the check won't make the problem go away. The issue is, I think, whether a non-syndicate transcription is a problem so let me expand on what I said in my original posting." The problem exists because the checks that are performed includes one that checks if the uploaded file is one that has the transcriber signed up to a specific syndicate. If this part of the check was removed there would be no problem. Re: "* The Suspect Files <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list shows the syndicate of the file; this allows coordinators to see which files they need to be concerned with" I seem to remember that the suspect files report used to indicate both syndicates before this latest change. What is the problem with that? Re: "* Upload Report <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/upload-report.pl> has the option for the results to be dependent on the syndicate of the file (e.g. list only files transcribed for a particular syndicate) While this is true, the only coordinators affected by this are those like me who do not add the person to the syndicate until they have uploaded a file. I am quite happy with that situation. Re: "* The coordinator version of Show File <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/coord-show-file.pl> will allow coordinators to download the file if it has been transcribed for their syndicate." True but again it is only coordinators like me that this affects, thus this is not a valid reason to change the system. Re: * When the database is created the syndicate of the file is used to determine of there is duplication within a syndicate; an entry is not considered to be double keyed if both transcriptions are within a syndicate This is a minor short term problem and not a reason to cause those transcribers like me who do not want the system changed. Re: "So it is quite important that the syndicate a file is transcribed for is correct. If it isn't coordinators will be put to extra work and so I don't understand why not having a syndicate could be considered acceptable." Again the coordinators affected are those like me and I am happy to accept the situation. For me the result is less work not more. Please remove this part of the checking process. Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie Sent: 29 July 2010 17:48 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: Non-syndicate transcriptions Brian, The check merely indicates the problem exists; changing the check won't make the problem go away. The issue is, I think, whether a non-syndicate transcription is a problem so let me expand on what I said in my original posting. When a file is uploaded the system makes a decision about what syndicate it has been transcribed for and that syndicate (or syndicates if it is ambiguous) is recorded with the file. The information about the syndicate is used in (at least) the following ways: * The Suspect Files <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list shows the syndicate of the file; this allows coordinators to see which files they need to be concerned with * Upload Report <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/upload-report.pl> has the option for the results to be dependent on the syndicate of the file (e.g. list only files transcribed for a particular syndicate) * The coordinator version of Show File <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/coord-show-file.pl> will allow coordinators to download the file if it has been transcribed for their syndicate * When the database is created the syndicate of the file is used to determine of there is duplication within a syndicate; an entry is not considered to be double keyed if both transcriptions are within a syndicate So it is quite important that the syndicate a file is transcribed for is correct. If it isn't coordinators will be put to extra work and so I don't understand why not having a syndicate could be considered acceptable. Regards Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > Surely the checking system needs to be changed then the problem would not > exist. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 29 July 2010 00:15 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: RE: Non-syndicate transcriptions > > Brian, > > The clause you mention is not part of the warning; it was part of my > explanation of the possible causes for the warning. > > The system cannot normally differentiate between these these three > causes for the warning, it just knows that the file has not been marked > as transcribed for a syndicate. > > Barrie > > On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > >> Hello Barrie, >> Why not remove the cause: "* they have not been added to the syndicate >> > they > >> are transcribing for" from this Warning/error and then the other two >> possible causes can be errors. >> I fail to see why the fact that the person has not been added to the >> syndicate at the time of the upload should constitute a problem in any >> > way. > >> Regards >> >> Brian Smart >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie >> Sent: 28 July 2010 17:08 >> To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Non-syndicate transcriptions >> >> The error that caused transcriptions to erroneous get reported as _not_ >> being done within a user's syndicate has now been corrected. If users >> get the warning >> >> /You do not appear to be a member of a syndicate transcribing this >> quarter. Please check you have the correct Year, Quarter and Event >> or contact your syndicate coordinator./ >> >> the most likely causes are: >> >> * they have not been added to the syndicate they are transcribing for >> * they have transcribed the wrong quarter >> * they have specified the wrong year or quarter or event in the file >> >> Please note that files identified by this warning will not be allocated >> to any syndicate and therefore coordinators will not be able to use >> coordinator facilities (such as UploadReport for a particular syndicate >> or downloading the file) for such a file. If the issue is that the >> transcriber has not been added to the syndicate, it should be possible >> to correct this by the transcriber uploading the file again (once the >> transcriber has been added to the syndicate). You can use >> http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/show-file.pl to check which syndicate a >> file has been transcribed for. >> >> Because of feedback received this will remain a warning rather than >> being upgraded to an error. >> >> Barrie >> >> >> --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> > without > >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> >> > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Barrie In the WinBMD header, the relevant field is labelled 'Syndicate (or country)' so some transcribers will put England, Australia etc. in there, rather that a syndicate name. In such cases presumably the system has to check whether the quarter the file belongs to is being transcribed by a syndicate on whose list the transcriber appears. Is there any need to give any different advice to transcribers about how to fill in that field? Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barrie" <freebmd@myarcher.net> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:47 PM Subject: Re: RE: RE: Non-syndicate transcriptions > Brian, > > The check merely indicates the problem exists; changing the check won't > make the problem go away. The issue is, I think, whether a non-syndicate > transcription is a problem so let me expand on what I said in my > original posting. > > When a file is uploaded the system makes a decision about what syndicate > it has been transcribed for and that syndicate (or syndicates if it is > ambiguous) is recorded with the file. The information about the > syndicate is used in (at least) the following ways: > > * The Suspect Files <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> > list shows the syndicate of the file; this allows coordinators to > see which files they need to be concerned with > * Upload Report <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/upload-report.pl> has > the option for the results to be dependent on the syndicate of the > file (e.g. list only files transcribed for a particular syndicate) > * The coordinator version of Show File > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/coord-show-file.pl> will allow > coordinators to download the file if it has been transcribed for > their syndicate > * When the database is created the syndicate of the file is used to > determine of there is duplication within a syndicate; an entry is > not considered to be double keyed if both transcriptions are > within a syndicate > > So it is quite important that the syndicate a file is transcribed for is > correct. If it isn't coordinators will be put to extra work and so I > don't understand why not having a syndicate could be considered > acceptable. > > Regards > > Barrie > > On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: >> Hello Barrie, >> Surely the checking system needs to be changed then the problem would not >> exist. >> Regards >> >> Brian Smart >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie >> Sent: 29 July 2010 00:15 >> To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: RE: Non-syndicate transcriptions >> >> Brian, >> >> The clause you mention is not part of the warning; it was part of my >> explanation of the possible causes for the warning. >> >> The system cannot normally differentiate between these these three >> causes for the warning, it just knows that the file has not been marked >> as transcribed for a syndicate. >> >> Barrie >> >> On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: >> >>> Hello Barrie, >>> Why not remove the cause: "* they have not been added to the syndicate >>> >> they >> >>> are transcribing for" from this Warning/error and then the other two >>> possible causes can be errors. >>> I fail to see why the fact that the person has not been added to the >>> syndicate at the time of the upload should constitute a problem in any >>> >> way. >> >>> Regards >>> >>> Brian Smart >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com >>> [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie >>> Sent: 28 July 2010 17:08 >>> To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com >>> Subject: Non-syndicate transcriptions >>> >>> The error that caused transcriptions to erroneous get reported as _not_ >>> being done within a user's syndicate has now been corrected. If users >>> get the warning >>> >>> /You do not appear to be a member of a syndicate transcribing this >>> quarter. Please check you have the correct Year, Quarter and Event >>> or contact your syndicate coordinator./ >>> >>> the most likely causes are: >>> >>> * they have not been added to the syndicate they are transcribing >>> for >>> * they have transcribed the wrong quarter >>> * they have specified the wrong year or quarter or event in the file >>> >>> Please note that files identified by this warning will not be allocated >>> to any syndicate and therefore coordinators will not be able to use >>> coordinator facilities (such as UploadReport for a particular syndicate >>> or downloading the file) for such a file. If the issue is that the >>> transcriber has not been added to the syndicate, it should be possible >>> to correct this by the transcriber uploading the file again (once the >>> transcriber has been added to the syndicate). You can use >>> http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/show-file.pl to check which syndicate a >>> file has been transcribed for. >>> >>> Because of feedback received this will remain a warning rather than >>> being upgraded to an error. >>> >>> Barrie >>> >>> >>> --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >>> >> without >> >>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Brian, The check merely indicates the problem exists; changing the check won't make the problem go away. The issue is, I think, whether a non-syndicate transcription is a problem so let me expand on what I said in my original posting. When a file is uploaded the system makes a decision about what syndicate it has been transcribed for and that syndicate (or syndicates if it is ambiguous) is recorded with the file. The information about the syndicate is used in (at least) the following ways: * The Suspect Files <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list shows the syndicate of the file; this allows coordinators to see which files they need to be concerned with * Upload Report <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/upload-report.pl> has the option for the results to be dependent on the syndicate of the file (e.g. list only files transcribed for a particular syndicate) * The coordinator version of Show File <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/coord-show-file.pl> will allow coordinators to download the file if it has been transcribed for their syndicate * When the database is created the syndicate of the file is used to determine of there is duplication within a syndicate; an entry is not considered to be double keyed if both transcriptions are within a syndicate So it is quite important that the syndicate a file is transcribed for is correct. If it isn't coordinators will be put to extra work and so I don't understand why not having a syndicate could be considered acceptable. Regards Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > Surely the checking system needs to be changed then the problem would not > exist. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 29 July 2010 00:15 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: RE: Non-syndicate transcriptions > > Brian, > > The clause you mention is not part of the warning; it was part of my > explanation of the possible causes for the warning. > > The system cannot normally differentiate between these these three > causes for the warning, it just knows that the file has not been marked > as transcribed for a syndicate. > > Barrie > > On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > >> Hello Barrie, >> Why not remove the cause: "* they have not been added to the syndicate >> > they > >> are transcribing for" from this Warning/error and then the other two >> possible causes can be errors. >> I fail to see why the fact that the person has not been added to the >> syndicate at the time of the upload should constitute a problem in any >> > way. > >> Regards >> >> Brian Smart >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie >> Sent: 28 July 2010 17:08 >> To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Non-syndicate transcriptions >> >> The error that caused transcriptions to erroneous get reported as _not_ >> being done within a user's syndicate has now been corrected. If users >> get the warning >> >> /You do not appear to be a member of a syndicate transcribing this >> quarter. Please check you have the correct Year, Quarter and Event >> or contact your syndicate coordinator./ >> >> the most likely causes are: >> >> * they have not been added to the syndicate they are transcribing for >> * they have transcribed the wrong quarter >> * they have specified the wrong year or quarter or event in the file >> >> Please note that files identified by this warning will not be allocated >> to any syndicate and therefore coordinators will not be able to use >> coordinator facilities (such as UploadReport for a particular syndicate >> or downloading the file) for such a file. If the issue is that the >> transcriber has not been added to the syndicate, it should be possible >> to correct this by the transcriber uploading the file again (once the >> transcriber has been added to the syndicate). You can use >> http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/show-file.pl to check which syndicate a >> file has been transcribed for. >> >> Because of feedback received this will remain a warning rather than >> being upgraded to an error. >> >> Barrie >> >> >> --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> > without > >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> >> > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

Hello Barrie, Surely the checking system needs to be changed then the problem would not exist. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie Sent: 29 July 2010 00:15 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Non-syndicate transcriptions Brian, The clause you mention is not part of the warning; it was part of my explanation of the possible causes for the warning. The system cannot normally differentiate between these these three causes for the warning, it just knows that the file has not been marked as transcribed for a syndicate. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > Why not remove the cause: "* they have not been added to the syndicate they > are transcribing for" from this Warning/error and then the other two > possible causes can be errors. > I fail to see why the fact that the person has not been added to the > syndicate at the time of the upload should constitute a problem in any way. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 28 July 2010 17:08 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Non-syndicate transcriptions > > The error that caused transcriptions to erroneous get reported as _not_ > being done within a user's syndicate has now been corrected. If users > get the warning > > /You do not appear to be a member of a syndicate transcribing this > quarter. Please check you have the correct Year, Quarter and Event > or contact your syndicate coordinator./ > > the most likely causes are: > > * they have not been added to the syndicate they are transcribing for > * they have transcribed the wrong quarter > * they have specified the wrong year or quarter or event in the file > > Please note that files identified by this warning will not be allocated > to any syndicate and therefore coordinators will not be able to use > coordinator facilities (such as UploadReport for a particular syndicate > or downloading the file) for such a file. If the issue is that the > transcriber has not been added to the syndicate, it should be possible > to correct this by the transcriber uploading the file again (once the > transcriber has been added to the syndicate). You can use > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/show-file.pl to check which syndicate a > file has been transcribed for. > > Because of feedback received this will remain a warning rather than > being upgraded to an error. > > Barrie > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Barrie, Thanks. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie Sent: 29 July 2010 00:14 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: Suspect Files Brian, You are quite correct that the Suspect Files evaluation ignores +BREAK. This is because the use of +BREAK is quite rare and it is sometimes mis-used and needs to be checked. In the case of sjp159/62B20727 the use is correct and, now I have been alerted to the situation, I will exclude the file from the listing. I have checked the scans and in the original versions page 616 was displaced from the middle of page 615 (hence the +BREAK). In the rescan of page 615 the entries from the original page 616 have been inserted into the _first column_ of the original page 615. The handwritten gloss on the rescan of page 615 which says "contd on page 616" must hence refer to the rescan of page 616 which presumably has the second column of the original page 615. Oh, what confusion! Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Allan, > christy26 uploaded 66D10010 on the 29th June but is still on the list. > > In the case of sjp159/62B20727 the system obviously ignores the fact that > there are entries after a +BREAK in the middle of the data. > > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond > Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file > which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the > Suspect Report. > > Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect > Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from > the report. > > Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or > there is a bug in the system? > > Allan Raymond > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Barrie > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > > Brian, > > The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the > introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the > update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a > particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. > > Barrie > > > On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > > Hello Barrie, > > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > > Regards > > > > Brian Smart > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Suspect Files > > > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > > > Barrie > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Barrie, Correction in hand. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie Sent: 28 July 2010 23:36 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: Suspect Files Brian, If you do a search in the database on the records in this transcription you will see that the district is in italics for 26 of the 40 entries which is where the 65% comes from. The reason for this that the districts have "slipped" down the page because Redruth has been transcribed twice (in the third entry) and therefore the district in each subsequent entry applies to the entry preceding it. The file needs correcting. I have come across this error on a number of occasions and I believe it is due to transcribing "vertically" rather than "horizontally". Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Allan, > Further to my last email: In the case of rkingsley/52B41492 where 65% of > pages are outside the range according to the report, my check suggests that > this is invalid. The scan is difficult to read and it is possible that some > of the pages are incorrect but > only a few and certainly not 65%. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond > Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file > which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the > Suspect Report. > > Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect > Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from > the report. > > Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or > there is a bug in the system? > > Allan Raymond > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Barrie > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > > Brian, > > The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the > introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the > update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a > particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. > > Barrie > > > On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > > Hello Barrie, > > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > > Regards > > > > Brian Smart > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Suspect Files > > > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > > > Barrie > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Allan, As I said in the previous email it is not my day. I will get this file corrected or replaced. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond Sent: 28 July 2010 23:28 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files Hi Brian File rkingsley/52B41492 is correctly in the Suspect Report. If you carefully check out the entries against the scan you will see the page numbers in the file are one line out of synchronization with the corresponding entries in the scan. This is applies to the third entry all the way to the last entry If you check out the third entry in the file: HARRIS,Sarah,Redruth,5c,1 you will see the District is shown as Redruth rather than the correct E London. As a consequence all the other Districts have slipped one entry compared to what is in the scan. All credit to the Suspect Report for picking this up. Regards Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Smart To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:15 PM Subject: RE: RE: Suspect Files Hello Allan, Further to my last email: In the case of rkingsley/52B41492 where 65% of pages are outside the range according to the report, my check suggests that this is invalid. The scan is difficult to read and it is possible that some of the pages are incorrect but only a few and certainly not 65%. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the Suspect Report. Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from the report. Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or there is a bug in the system? Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Barrie To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files Brian, The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Suspect Files > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > Barrie > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Barrie, Surely the checking system needs to be changed then the problem would not exist. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie Sent: 29 July 2010 00:15 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Non-syndicate transcriptions Brian, The clause you mention is not part of the warning; it was part of my explanation of the possible causes for the warning. The system cannot normally differentiate between these these three causes for the warning, it just knows that the file has not been marked as transcribed for a syndicate. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > Why not remove the cause: "* they have not been added to the syndicate they > are transcribing for" from this Warning/error and then the other two > possible causes can be errors. > I fail to see why the fact that the person has not been added to the > syndicate at the time of the upload should constitute a problem in any way. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 28 July 2010 17:08 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Non-syndicate transcriptions > > The error that caused transcriptions to erroneous get reported as _not_ > being done within a user's syndicate has now been corrected. If users > get the warning > > /You do not appear to be a member of a syndicate transcribing this > quarter. Please check you have the correct Year, Quarter and Event > or contact your syndicate coordinator./ > > the most likely causes are: > > * they have not been added to the syndicate they are transcribing for > * they have transcribed the wrong quarter > * they have specified the wrong year or quarter or event in the file > > Please note that files identified by this warning will not be allocated > to any syndicate and therefore coordinators will not be able to use > coordinator facilities (such as UploadReport for a particular syndicate > or downloading the file) for such a file. If the issue is that the > transcriber has not been added to the syndicate, it should be possible > to correct this by the transcriber uploading the file again (once the > transcriber has been added to the syndicate). You can use > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/show-file.pl to check which syndicate a > file has been transcribed for. > > Because of feedback received this will remain a warning rather than > being upgraded to an error. > > Barrie > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Barrie, Thanks. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie Sent: 29 July 2010 00:14 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: Suspect Files Brian, You are quite correct that the Suspect Files evaluation ignores +BREAK. This is because the use of +BREAK is quite rare and it is sometimes mis-used and needs to be checked. In the case of sjp159/62B20727 the use is correct and, now I have been alerted to the situation, I will exclude the file from the listing. I have checked the scans and in the original versions page 616 was displaced from the middle of page 615 (hence the +BREAK). In the rescan of page 615 the entries from the original page 616 have been inserted into the _first column_ of the original page 615. The handwritten gloss on the rescan of page 615 which says "contd on page 616" must hence refer to the rescan of page 616 which presumably has the second column of the original page 615. Oh, what confusion! Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Allan, > christy26 uploaded 66D10010 on the 29th June but is still on the list. > > In the case of sjp159/62B20727 the system obviously ignores the fact that > there are entries after a +BREAK in the middle of the data. > > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond > Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file > which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the > Suspect Report. > > Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect > Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from > the report. > > Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or > there is a bug in the system? > > Allan Raymond > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Barrie > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > > Brian, > > The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the > introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the > update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a > particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. > > Barrie > > > On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > > Hello Barrie, > > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > > Regards > > > > Brian Smart > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Suspect Files > > > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > > > Barrie > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Barrie, Correction in hand. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie Sent: 28 July 2010 23:36 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: Suspect Files Brian, If you do a search in the database on the records in this transcription you will see that the district is in italics for 26 of the 40 entries which is where the 65% comes from. The reason for this that the districts have "slipped" down the page because Redruth has been transcribed twice (in the third entry) and therefore the district in each subsequent entry applies to the entry preceding it. The file needs correcting. I have come across this error on a number of occasions and I believe it is due to transcribing "vertically" rather than "horizontally". Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Allan, > Further to my last email: In the case of rkingsley/52B41492 where 65% of > pages are outside the range according to the report, my check suggests that > this is invalid. The scan is difficult to read and it is possible that some > of the pages are incorrect but > only a few and certainly not 65%. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond > Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file > which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the > Suspect Report. > > Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect > Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from > the report. > > Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or > there is a bug in the system? > > Allan Raymond > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Barrie > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > > Brian, > > The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the > introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the > update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a > particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. > > Barrie > > > On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > > Hello Barrie, > > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > > Regards > > > > Brian Smart > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Suspect Files > > > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > > > Barrie > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Allan, As I said in the previous email it is not my day. I will get this file corrected or replaced. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond Sent: 28 July 2010 23:28 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files Hi Brian File rkingsley/52B41492 is correctly in the Suspect Report. If you carefully check out the entries against the scan you will see the page numbers in the file are one line out of synchronization with the corresponding entries in the scan. This is applies to the third entry all the way to the last entry If you check out the third entry in the file: HARRIS,Sarah,Redruth,5c,1 you will see the District is shown as Redruth rather than the correct E London. As a consequence all the other Districts have slipped one entry compared to what is in the scan. All credit to the Suspect Report for picking this up. Regards Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Smart To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:15 PM Subject: RE: RE: Suspect Files Hello Allan, Further to my last email: In the case of rkingsley/52B41492 where 65% of pages are outside the range according to the report, my check suggests that this is invalid. The scan is difficult to read and it is possible that some of the pages are incorrect but only a few and certainly not 65%. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the Suspect Report. Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from the report. Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or there is a bug in the system? Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Barrie To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files Brian, The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Suspect Files > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > Barrie > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Allan, Not my day is it! A replacement file for 66D10010 has been uploaded assigned to a different transcriber. The original one has been deleted. Re 62B20727, this was transcribed using the original UKD-01 scan, hence the +BREAK in the middle. You will recall that I kept saying that the tif scans needed to be replaced with jpgs but this was over eight years ago. The rescan in the UKD-01 set is presumably invalid. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond Sent: 28 July 2010 22:10 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files Hi Brian 66D10010 is correctly shown in the Suspect Report because it only contains the first two columns of a three column scan. It was uploaded on 29 June but it was in year 2003 not 2010. You will need to get the extra column inserted into the file to enable it to be removed from the Suspect Report. sjp159/62B20727 I assume is a file which Barrie will need to check out and decide how best to deal with the +BREAK? The scans for this file is quite confusing: We have scans http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1862/Births/June/UKD-01/1862B2-K-0727.tif and a rescan version http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1862/Births/June/UKD-01/1862B2-K-0727-resca n.JPG which has different records to that in the scan above. in addition we have a different series scan at: http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1862/Births/June/ANC-05/1862B2-K-0615.jpg which is similar to the first of the scans above. To be quite fair to the Suspect Report file sjp159/62B20727 is also a file not uploaded during the last couple of months, it was last uploaded 8 January 2002 and the report has picked up a problem with the file due to the +BREAK. This really is where Coordinators are requested to contact the qa coordinator as mentioned at the top of the Suspect Report. Regards Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Smart To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:15 PM Subject: RE: RE: Suspect Files Hello Allan, christy26 uploaded 66D10010 on the 29th June but is still on the list. In the case of sjp159/62B20727 the system obviously ignores the fact that there are entries after a +BREAK in the middle of the data. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the Suspect Report. Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from the report. Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or there is a bug in the system? Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Barrie To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files Brian, The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Suspect Files > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > Barrie > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Brian, The clause you mention is not part of the warning; it was part of my explanation of the possible causes for the warning. The system cannot normally differentiate between these these three causes for the warning, it just knows that the file has not been marked as transcribed for a syndicate. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > Why not remove the cause: "* they have not been added to the syndicate they > are transcribing for" from this Warning/error and then the other two > possible causes can be errors. > I fail to see why the fact that the person has not been added to the > syndicate at the time of the upload should constitute a problem in any way. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 28 July 2010 17:08 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Non-syndicate transcriptions > > The error that caused transcriptions to erroneous get reported as _not_ > being done within a user's syndicate has now been corrected. If users > get the warning > > /You do not appear to be a member of a syndicate transcribing this > quarter. Please check you have the correct Year, Quarter and Event > or contact your syndicate coordinator./ > > the most likely causes are: > > * they have not been added to the syndicate they are transcribing for > * they have transcribed the wrong quarter > * they have specified the wrong year or quarter or event in the file > > Please note that files identified by this warning will not be allocated > to any syndicate and therefore coordinators will not be able to use > coordinator facilities (such as UploadReport for a particular syndicate > or downloading the file) for such a file. If the issue is that the > transcriber has not been added to the syndicate, it should be possible > to correct this by the transcriber uploading the file again (once the > transcriber has been added to the syndicate). You can use > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/show-file.pl to check which syndicate a > file has been transcribed for. > > Because of feedback received this will remain a warning rather than > being upgraded to an error. > > Barrie > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

Brian, You are quite correct that the Suspect Files evaluation ignores +BREAK. This is because the use of +BREAK is quite rare and it is sometimes mis-used and needs to be checked. In the case of sjp159/62B20727 the use is correct and, now I have been alerted to the situation, I will exclude the file from the listing. I have checked the scans and in the original versions page 616 was displaced from the middle of page 615 (hence the +BREAK). In the rescan of page 615 the entries from the original page 616 have been inserted into the _first column_ of the original page 615. The handwritten gloss on the rescan of page 615 which says "contd on page 616" must hence refer to the rescan of page 616 which presumably has the second column of the original page 615. Oh, what confusion! Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Allan, > christy26 uploaded 66D10010 on the 29th June but is still on the list. > > In the case of sjp159/62B20727 the system obviously ignores the fact that > there are entries after a +BREAK in the middle of the data. > > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond > Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file > which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the > Suspect Report. > > Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect > Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from > the report. > > Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or > there is a bug in the system? > > Allan Raymond > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Barrie > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > > Brian, > > The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the > introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the > update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a > particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. > > Barrie > > > On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > > Hello Barrie, > > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > > Regards > > > > Brian Smart > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Suspect Files > > > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > > > Barrie > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

Brian, If you do a search in the database on the records in this transcription you will see that the district is in italics for 26 of the 40 entries which is where the 65% comes from. The reason for this that the districts have "slipped" down the page because Redruth has been transcribed twice (in the third entry) and therefore the district in each subsequent entry applies to the entry preceding it. The file needs correcting. I have come across this error on a number of occasions and I believe it is due to transcribing "vertically" rather than "horizontally". Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Allan, > Further to my last email: In the case of rkingsley/52B41492 where 65% of > pages are outside the range according to the report, my check suggests that > this is invalid. The scan is difficult to read and it is possible that some > of the pages are incorrect but > only a few and certainly not 65%. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond > Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file > which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the > Suspect Report. > > Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect > Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from > the report. > > Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or > there is a bug in the system? > > Allan Raymond > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Barrie > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM > Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files > > > Brian, > > The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the > introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the > update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a > particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. > > Barrie > > > On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > > Hello Barrie, > > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > > Regards > > > > Brian Smart > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Suspect Files > > > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > > > Barrie > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

Hi Brian File rkingsley/52B41492 is correctly in the Suspect Report. If you carefully check out the entries against the scan you will see the page numbers in the file are one line out of synchronization with the corresponding entries in the scan. This is applies to the third entry all the way to the last entry If you check out the third entry in the file: HARRIS,Sarah,Redruth,5c,1 you will see the District is shown as Redruth rather than the correct E London. As a consequence all the other Districts have slipped one entry compared to what is in the scan. All credit to the Suspect Report for picking this up. Regards Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Smart To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:15 PM Subject: RE: RE: Suspect Files Hello Allan, Further to my last email: In the case of rkingsley/52B41492 where 65% of pages are outside the range according to the report, my check suggests that this is invalid. The scan is difficult to read and it is possible that some of the pages are incorrect but only a few and certainly not 65%. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the Suspect Report. Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from the report. Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or there is a bug in the system? Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Barrie To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files Brian, The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Suspect Files > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > Barrie > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Brian 66D10010 is correctly shown in the Suspect Report because it only contains the first two columns of a three column scan. It was uploaded on 29 June but it was in year 2003 not 2010. You will need to get the extra column inserted into the file to enable it to be removed from the Suspect Report. sjp159/62B20727 I assume is a file which Barrie will need to check out and decide how best to deal with the +BREAK? The scans for this file is quite confusing: We have scans http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1862/Births/June/UKD-01/1862B2-K-0727.tif and a rescan version http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1862/Births/June/UKD-01/1862B2-K-0727-rescan.JPG which has different records to that in the scan above. in addition we have a different series scan at: http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1862/Births/June/ANC-05/1862B2-K-0615.jpg which is similar to the first of the scans above. To be quite fair to the Suspect Report file sjp159/62B20727 is also a file not uploaded during the last couple of months, it was last uploaded 8 January 2002 and the report has picked up a problem with the file due to the +BREAK. This really is where Coordinators are requested to contact the qa coordinator as mentioned at the top of the Suspect Report. Regards Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Smart To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:15 PM Subject: RE: RE: Suspect Files Hello Allan, christy26 uploaded 66D10010 on the 29th June but is still on the list. In the case of sjp159/62B20727 the system obviously ignores the fact that there are entries after a +BREAK in the middle of the data. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the Suspect Report. Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from the report. Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or there is a bug in the system? Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Barrie To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files Brian, The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Suspect Files > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > Barrie > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Allan, christy26 uploaded 66D10010 on the 29th June but is still on the list. In the case of sjp159/62B20727 the system obviously ignores the fact that there are entries after a +BREAK in the middle of the data. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the Suspect Report. Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from the report. Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or there is a bug in the system? Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Barrie To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files Brian, The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Suspect Files > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > Barrie > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Allan, Further to my last email: In the case of rkingsley/52B41492 where 65% of pages are outside the range according to the report, my check suggests that this is invalid. The scan is difficult to read and it is possible that some of the pages are incorrect but only a few and certainly not 65%. Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Allan Raymond Sent: 28 July 2010 14:06 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files I would still be interested in knowing from Brian an example of one file which was corrected a couple of months ago but which still appears in the Suspect Report. Strictly if was corrected in line with the original details in the Suspect Report then after amendment (taking into an update) it should disappear from the report. Either the file wasn't corrected in line with the suspect report details or there is a bug in the system? Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: Barrie To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:49 PM Subject: Re: RE: Suspect Files Brian, The list is updated approximately weekly. The actual date is in the introductory paragraph. However, some tests are performed during the update and will only change after an update; where this applies to a particular problem it is mentioned in the description of the problem. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > How often is this file updated. There are a number on the list that were > corrected and uploaded a couple of months ago. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 26 July 2010 21:03 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Suspect Files > > Please note that there is now only one Suspect Files > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list - aliases in the > associate name are now incorporated into the Suspect Files list and are > not in a separate list (SuspectFilesAlias). Viewing > SuspectFilesAlias.html takes you to the standard Suspect Files list. > > Barrie > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner-- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message