Richard, I was going to ask a question about 6(aj) as well. My impression is that it has been rewritten recently. One of my transcribers has just misunderstood it and thought he had to put in the surname from the line above. the scan is 1948B1-H-0071 Until recently I was sure that it said you had to put a ? in if a mother or spouse surname field had a long dash, just as you use ? for volume if there is no volume shown in a handwritten addition. It still has the old link to the UCF characters in the new text, but of course a dash is not a UCF character. Checking my outgoing emails I sent one to that effect to a transcriber as recently as 20th March this year, and copied in the URL for the link, so I must have looked at it then. If items in TKB are changed, it would be very helpful if this list is advised at the same time. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Oliver" <richol@arrakis.es> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 8:55 PM Subject: Empty field in Mother's Maiden Surname > One of my transcribers has queried how to handle a handwritten 'extra' > entry that has a long dash in place of the Mother's Maiden Surname; the > scan reference is 1938B3-H-0424. > > I have advised him to use a ? mark as being the proper UCF symbol for a > Field with no content. He has hit back with an item from the > Transcriber's Knowledge Base, copied hereunder: > > _______________________ > 6 (aj) I have an entry in which the Mother's name is just a long dash. > How do I transcribe it? > Transcribe it as a dash (see details of UCF characters). The same applies > to other fields but not to the dash in the Surname field of typeset pages > which means "repeat the above Surname"; for these you repeat the Surname. > > _______________________ > > I have told him that the TKB is wrong in this particular case, and needs > correcting. The only field where a dash means "repeat the above Surname" > is the first field of any record, that is, the Surname of the person whose > BMD record it is. I believe there is no such UCF character as a "dash", > only an underscore meaning "single unreadable character". Incidentally, > since this was a Late Registration filed in Sep 1942, I have checked scan > 1942B3-H-0086 for the typed entry for this record, and the dash is duly > typewritten in the MMS column. > > Richard Oliver > Madrid, Spain > richol@arrakis.es > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

One of my transcribers has queried how to handle a handwritten 'extra' entry that has a long dash in place of the Mother's Maiden Surname; the scan reference is 1938B3-H-0424. I have advised him to use a ? mark as being the proper UCF symbol for a Field with no content. He has hit back with an item from the Transcriber's Knowledge Base, copied hereunder: _______________________ 6 (aj) I have an entry in which the Mother's name is just a long dash. How do I transcribe it? Transcribe it as a dash (see details of UCF characters). The same applies to other fields but not to the dash in the Surname field of typeset pages which means "repeat the above Surname"; for these you repeat the Surname. _______________________ I have told him that the TKB is wrong in this particular case, and needs correcting. The only field where a dash means "repeat the above Surname" is the first field of any record, that is, the Surname of the person whose BMD record it is. I believe there is no such UCF character as a "dash", only an underscore meaning "single unreadable character". Incidentally, since this was a Late Registration filed in Sep 1942, I have checked scan 1942B3-H-0086 for the typed entry for this record, and the dash is duly typewritten in the MMS column. Richard Oliver Madrid, Spain richol@arrakis.es

The Suspect Files <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> listing has recently been updated so that it is easier to process files marked with the message "Unexpected number of entries...". The message now contains a link directly to the page concerned in almost every case (previously a number of links just went to the list of scans). Where there is more than one version of a scan the message now contains a link to each version. Furthermore, I have been through the listing and removed the majority of entries where the _scan_ had fewer than the expected number of entries and thus the file was correct. Thus most of the files marked with "Unexpected number of entries..." represent a multi-column scan where not all of the columns have been transcribed. Such files constitute a significant quality issue for FreeBMD because whilst it may appear (for example from Upload Report <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/UploadReport.pl> or the from the data continuity markers <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/search-faq.html#gap> in the search results) that pages have been completely transcribed there are in fact a significant number of entries missing. There are two other issues that cause a file to get this message; where a scan is incomplete and the incorrect use of +PAGE or +BREAK. In most cases where the scan is incomplete a request for a rescan has been made but I intend to leave the file in the listing until the rescan is available and a re-transcription has been done so it doesn't get forgotten. There are, however, also cases where a rescan has not been requested and this should obviously be done. The incorrect use of +PAGE or +BREAK causes problems for linking to scans and should be corrected. Could I also remind you that the bottom of the listing contains links to files for each syndicate. If you need additional help in processing files for your syndicate please contact me I will see what I can do. I know that a number of coordinators have been correcting these files (and thanks for that) but could I ask everyone to make a special effort to get these files corrected. Thank you Barrie Archer FreeBMD Quality Assurance Coordinator

Richard, We run a number of Quality Assurance checks on files to try to pick up systematic errors and when we find such problems the files are reported as "suspect". We don't know they are wrong but they are worth investigating. If, after investigation, we find that they are correct we exclude them from the listing. There is a link on the Suspect Files page to report files that should be excluded. Regarding these two files, if you crtl+click on the two files in the Suspect Files listing you will see that they are both predicted to be 1839D3 not 1839D2. As Bob has mentioned this is probably due to mis-binding the index. The content of page 782 supports this theory - it is out of sequence putting 'Male' entries in the middle of 'Female' entries. Also there are no 'Unknowns' for 1939D3. If you do a FreeBMD search on 'Unknown' in 1839D2 and 1839D3 you will find that System Entries have been created to handle the situation. I don't know if we have previously reported this to the GRO but I will do so. I am not hopeful that they will do anything because I doubt they have a process to handle such an eventuality, and without a process... I will exclude these files from the Suspect Files listing. Barrie On 19:59, Richard Oliver wrote: > Two files, 1839D2U0777 and 1839D2U0782, uploaded by submitterID bobj274, a member of my Syndicate, have appeared in the "Suspect files" list following last week's update. The reason for including them is that both files contained entries with over 60% of the page numbers "out of range". > > I am curious to know why! My transcriber has Typed What He Saw, working from scans of exceptional clarity, and as far as I can see with impeccable accuracy. > > Since we are second-keying 1839 June Deaths, the expected page ranges are at http://www.freebmd.org.uk/district-page-reverse-map-index.html and it is a fact that quite a number of the numbers are out of range. If anyone is "suspect", though, it is the clerk who compiled these pages of the Index. Or is there some other angle? The Deaths in question are from the list of "Unknown" or "Not Named", which may itself give an explanation. > > Richard Oliver > Madrid, Spain > richol@arrakis.es > > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

Hello Richard I think we've been down this road before but maybe not with you and your syndicate. This is what I remember so it may be wrong. We investigated the page numbers and they fit if you align them to another qtr, which one I can't remember. We looked at the page layouts (left/right and writing) and it fitted in with this other qtr. We came to the conclusion that these 2 pages had been put in this qtr when the books were rebound. I can't remember what we did about it. Hopefully this will trigger someone who can remember. cheers Bob Phillips ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Oliver" <richol@arrakis.es> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 11:38 AM Subject: Suspect files... OK, but why? > Two files, 1839D2U0777 and 1839D2U0782, uploaded by submitterID bobj274, a > member of my Syndicate, have appeared in the "Suspect files" list > following last week's update. The reason for including them is that both > files contained entries with over 60% of the page numbers "out of range". > > I am curious to know why! My transcriber has Typed What He Saw, working > from scans of exceptional clarity, and as far as I can see with impeccable > accuracy. > > Since we are second-keying 1839 June Deaths, the expected page ranges are > at http://www.freebmd.org.uk/district-page-reverse-map-index.html and it > is a fact that quite a number of the numbers are out of range. If anyone > is "suspect", though, it is the clerk who compiled these pages of the > Index. Or is there some other angle? The Deaths in question are from > the list of "Unknown" or "Not Named", which may itself give an > explanation. > > Richard Oliver > Madrid, Spain > richol@arrakis.es > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Two files, 1839D2U0777 and 1839D2U0782, uploaded by submitterID bobj274, a member of my Syndicate, have appeared in the "Suspect files" list following last week's update. The reason for including them is that both files contained entries with over 60% of the page numbers "out of range". I am curious to know why! My transcriber has Typed What He Saw, working from scans of exceptional clarity, and as far as I can see with impeccable accuracy. Since we are second-keying 1839 June Deaths, the expected page ranges are at http://www.freebmd.org.uk/district-page-reverse-map-index.html and it is a fact that quite a number of the numbers are out of range. If anyone is "suspect", though, it is the clerk who compiled these pages of the Index. Or is there some other angle? The Deaths in question are from the list of "Unknown" or "Not Named", which may itself give an explanation. Richard Oliver Madrid, Spain richol@arrakis.es

If it is of any use to anyone, I have prepared (based on page ranges for relevant quarters) lists of districts current in 1943 and 1947 with both their 1943 and 1947 volumes shown. We moved from 1943 pages to 1948 pages. Contact me off-list if you would like copies (xls and csv format) Jeff Coleman Jeff.Coleman@ntlworld.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barrie Archer" <barrie@myarcher.net> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:38 PM Subject: Re: District volumes >I have had the following reply from Martin Cope of the District Aliasing > Team: > > The following are the known cases where districts move between volumes > (in date order). Many were not known in advance but discovered after > transcribing reached the transition point. > > Kington > 11a from 1870J to 1870D; 6a from 1871M > > Dudley > 6c to 1912D; 6b from 1913M to 1935M; 6c from 1935J > > Kings Norton > 6c to 1912D; 6b from 1913M > > York > 9d to 1937D; 9c from 1938M > > Newmarket > 3b to 1938J; 4a from 1938S > > (A major revision of volumes with many districts changed from 1946S > onwards) > > Hendon > 5f to 1947S; 5e from 1947D > > Bridport, Poole, Sturminster, Weymouth > 6a to 1958D; 7c from 1959M > > (Another major revision with many districts changed from 1965J onwards) > Bootle is a cause of confusion because a new district was introduced > with a name similar to an existing district. > > The District Aliasing Team's approach is to split the district > definition into parts - one for each volume. This allows us flexibility > in aliasing correctly and also ensures that the WinBMD picklist includes > the correct volume for the quarter being transcribed. > > Barrie > > On 19:59, Ted Southcombe wrote: >> <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">I have a >> difficulty about which I'm hoping I can get some guidance from my >> syndicate coordinator colleagues. I've been trying with mixed success >> to get my team to enter correct district volumes. Our current >> problem centres on York which for 1942 Marriages should be 9c, but 9d >> keeps getting entered from the pick list. I've done it myself. I >> know this has been aired recently in mailing lists and that new >> District files are being automatically downloaded. I suspect the >> problem, as has been suggested before, is due to older additions to >> the district pick list turning up when they are no longer relevant. >> >> Doing a Database search using the terms - York 9d F* March >> (for examples) I've found that not only my syndicate but others in >> adjacent years are producing about the same quite high error rate. >> >> I've been encouraging my team to check up on their uploads and some >> have been diligently correcting their files, but others have not. >> >> I know there are some other districts - Dudley, Bootle - where the >> same situation can occur. Three questions :- >> >> 1. Can you let me know of other districts with similar volume >> confusions that you have come across. >> >> 2. What has to be done. It could amount to a very large task. >> >> 3. What approach does the District Aliasing Team take >> >> Regards, Ted Southcombe >> >> >> >> >> >> </div> > > > --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 >

Apologies to any Coordinator in not getting any sort of response from me for the last three weeks or so. My PC was feeling unwell about 3 weeks ago and went in for repairs. Shortly after it was repaired I also went down down with an illness and was taken to to hospital with jaundice. Came home from hospital yesterday and need to take it easy whilst inflammation of my gallbladder subsides to enable me to have it removed in the next 6 weeks. I'll only be spending a short while each day on the PC and will attempt to clear any outstandng queries ASAP. Regards Allan Raymond

I have had the following reply from Martin Cope of the District Aliasing Team: The following are the known cases where districts move between volumes (in date order). Many were not known in advance but discovered after transcribing reached the transition point. Kington 11a from 1870J to 1870D; 6a from 1871M Dudley 6c to 1912D; 6b from 1913M to 1935M; 6c from 1935J Kings Norton 6c to 1912D; 6b from 1913M York 9d to 1937D; 9c from 1938M Newmarket 3b to 1938J; 4a from 1938S (A major revision of volumes with many districts changed from 1946S onwards) Hendon 5f to 1947S; 5e from 1947D Bridport, Poole, Sturminster, Weymouth 6a to 1958D; 7c from 1959M (Another major revision with many districts changed from 1965J onwards) Bootle is a cause of confusion because a new district was introduced with a name similar to an existing district. The District Aliasing Team's approach is to split the district definition into parts - one for each volume. This allows us flexibility in aliasing correctly and also ensures that the WinBMD picklist includes the correct volume for the quarter being transcribed. Barrie On 19:59, Ted Southcombe wrote: > <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">I have a > difficulty about which I'm hoping I can get some guidance from my > syndicate coordinator colleagues. I've been trying with mixed success > to get my team to enter correct district volumes. Our current > problem centres on York which for 1942 Marriages should be 9c, but 9d > keeps getting entered from the pick list. I've done it myself. I > know this has been aired recently in mailing lists and that new > District files are being automatically downloaded. I suspect the > problem, as has been suggested before, is due to older additions to > the district pick list turning up when they are no longer relevant. > > Doing a Database search using the terms - York 9d F* March > (for examples) I've found that not only my syndicate but others in > adjacent years are producing about the same quite high error rate. > > I've been encouraging my team to check up on their uploads and some > have been diligently correcting their files, but others have not. > > I know there are some other districts - Dudley, Bootle - where the > same situation can occur. Three questions :- > > 1. Can you let me know of other districts with similar volume > confusions that you have come across. > > 2. What has to be done. It could amount to a very large task. > > 3. What approach does the District Aliasing Team take > > Regards, Ted Southcombe > > > > > > </div> --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

My two penn'orth: I'm very pleased to see the latest version of the Districts list includes York,9c -- thanks, Ian. Quite a few transcribers in my team prefer to use File Management to upload, so we need to remind those people to check manually for updates. This can be done from WinBMD 6's File menu. In version 5.x, if a volunteer adds York,9c it will appear before the 9d version in the picklist and become the default choice for auto-complete. Interestingly, in our current quarter when last checked there were more York errors from the GRO clerks than from transcribers; three mistakes by volunteers but 8 pages where 9d *was* what was on the scan. So blanket corrections wouldn't work, and I think Barrie's suggestion is a good one, though it's likely to make the suspect files list rather long :-) In 1939 Births I have also seen a couple of York volume errors in pages that seem to have been uploaded by a single-name researcher. Is there any way of correcting these, or could system entries be added, perhaps? -- Nowl Barrie wrote on Tue, 23 Mar 2010: >I have forwarded this message to the District Aliasing Team because I am >not sure the members are on the Syndicates list. > >Please note that the correct pick list will only be available using >version 6 of WinBMD. Yesterday 55% of uploads were done using version 6. > >Regarding what has to be done, there is no alternative but for the files >to be corrected. If particular errors are identified (such as 9d for >York after 1938) we can change the Suspect Files ><http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list to include them. > >Barrie > >On 19:59, Ted Southcombe wrote: >> <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">I have a >> difficulty about which I'm hoping I can get some guidance from my >> syndicate coordinator colleagues. I've been trying with mixed success >> to get my team to enter correct district volumes. Our current >> problem centres on York which for 1942 Marriages should be 9c, but 9d >> keeps getting entered from the pick list. I've done it myself. I >> know this has been aired recently in mailing lists and that new >> District files are being automatically downloaded. I suspect the >> problem, as has been suggested before, is due to older additions to >> the district pick list turning up when they are no longer relevant. >> >> Doing a Database search using the terms - York 9d F* March >> (for examples) I've found that not only my syndicate but others in >> adjacent years are producing about the same quite high error rate. >> >> I've been encouraging my team to check up on their uploads and some >> have been diligently correcting their files, but others have not. >> >> I know there are some other districts - Dudley, Bootle - where the >> same situation can occur. Three questions :- >> >> 1. Can you let me know of other districts with similar volume >> confusions that you have come across. >> >> 2. What has to be done. It could amount to a very large task. >> >> 3. What approach does the District Aliasing Team take >>

Another district with this problem is King's Norton. Here's an message I sent to the Discuss list back in February in response to one from Phil Osbourn who was also flagging up problems with York: I noticed a similar problem with King's Norton sometime ago when working on 1923 marriages. The volume had changed from 6c to 6d in 1912, but because there are several different ways of abbreviating King's Norton it's likely that any transcriber who'd worked on quarters earlier than 1912 would have added one or more of those abbreviations to his/her Districts file with the 6c Volume. I spotted that I was putting the wrong Volume, and went back and corrected the half dozen or so files I'd already uploaded, but I've just done a search on 1923 Marriages, all Quarters, District King's Norton (1913-1924), Volume 6c - and have come up with 108 results, all with the various abbreviations for King's Norton in italics to show the mismatch with the Volume. I spot checked three of them at random, and in each of those cases the scan shows the Volume as 6d. I suspect the problem is far wider than 1923 marriages, affecting Births, Marriages and Deaths from 1913 to 1924. Apologies in advance if this has already been flagged up and there's a solution in hand. Cheers, Mike On 23 March 2010 09:06, Barrie <freebmd@myarcher.net> wrote: > I have forwarded this message to the District Aliasing Team because I am > not sure the members are on the Syndicates list. > > Please note that the correct pick list will only be available using > version 6 of WinBMD. Yesterday 55% of uploads were done using version 6. > > Regarding what has to be done, there is no alternative but for the files > to be corrected. If particular errors are identified (such as 9d for > York after 1938) we can change the Suspect Files > <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list to include them. > > Barrie > > On 19:59, Ted Southcombe wrote: > > <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">I have a > > difficulty about which I'm hoping I can get some guidance from my > > syndicate coordinator colleagues. I've been trying with mixed success > > to get my team to enter correct district volumes. Our current > > problem centres on York which for 1942 Marriages should be 9c, but 9d > > keeps getting entered from the pick list. I've done it myself. I > > know this has been aired recently in mailing lists and that new > > District files are being automatically downloaded. I suspect the > > problem, as has been suggested before, is due to older additions to > > the district pick list turning up when they are no longer relevant. > > > > Doing a Database search using the terms - York 9d F* March > > (for examples) I've found that not only my syndicate but others in > > adjacent years are producing about the same quite high error rate. > > > > I've been encouraging my team to check up on their uploads and some > > have been diligently correcting their files, but others have not. > > > > I know there are some other districts - Dudley, Bootle - where the > > same situation can occur. Three questions :- > > > > 1. Can you let me know of other districts with similar volume > > confusions that you have come across. > > > > 2. What has to be done. It could amount to a very large task. > > > > 3. What approach does the District Aliasing Team take > > > > Regards, Ted Southcombe > > > > > > > > > > > > </div> > > > --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 >

I have forwarded this message to the District Aliasing Team because I am not sure the members are on the Syndicates list. Please note that the correct pick list will only be available using version 6 of WinBMD. Yesterday 55% of uploads were done using version 6. Regarding what has to be done, there is no alternative but for the files to be corrected. If particular errors are identified (such as 9d for York after 1938) we can change the Suspect Files <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html> list to include them. Barrie On 19:59, Ted Southcombe wrote: > <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">I have a > difficulty about which I'm hoping I can get some guidance from my > syndicate coordinator colleagues. I've been trying with mixed success > to get my team to enter correct district volumes. Our current > problem centres on York which for 1942 Marriages should be 9c, but 9d > keeps getting entered from the pick list. I've done it myself. I > know this has been aired recently in mailing lists and that new > District files are being automatically downloaded. I suspect the > problem, as has been suggested before, is due to older additions to > the district pick list turning up when they are no longer relevant. > > Doing a Database search using the terms - York 9d F* March > (for examples) I've found that not only my syndicate but others in > adjacent years are producing about the same quite high error rate. > > I've been encouraging my team to check up on their uploads and some > have been diligently correcting their files, but others have not. > > I know there are some other districts - Dudley, Bootle - where the > same situation can occur. Three questions :- > > 1. Can you let me know of other districts with similar volume > confusions that you have come across. > > 2. What has to be done. It could amount to a very large task. > > 3. What approach does the District Aliasing Team take > > Regards, Ted Southcombe > > > > > > </div> --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

I have a difficulty about which I'm hoping I can get some guidance from my syndicate coordinator colleagues. I've been trying with mixed success to get my team to enter correct district volumes. Our current problem centres on York which for 1942 Marriages should be 9c, but 9d keeps getting entered from the pick list. I've done it myself. I know this has been aired recently in mailing lists and that new District files are being automatically downloaded. I suspect the problem, as has been suggested before, is due to older additions to the district pick list turning up when they are no longer relevant. Doing a Database search using the terms - York 9d F* March (for examples) I've found that not only my syndicate but others in adjacent years are producing about the same quite high error rate. I've been encouraging my team to check up on their uploads and some have been diligently correcting their files, but others have not. I know there are some other districts - Dudley, Bootle - where the same situation can occur. Three questions :- 1. Can you let me know of other districts with similar volume confusions that you have come across. 2. What has to be done. It could amount to a very large task. 3. What approach does the District Aliasing Team take Regards, Ted Southcombe

Some considerable time ago it was decided by Dave Mayal after considerable discussion that the brackets round Male and Female should NOT be treated as an exception to the TWYS rule and they should be included in transcriptions. Derek Lowe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barrie" <freebmd@myarcher.net> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:03 PM Subject: Brackets round male, female, etc. > In a recent Admins posting it was mentioned that the brackets could be > omitted round male, female, etc. There is no such exception to TWYS in > Submission Formats <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/Format.shtml> although > there is code to handle it. Can anyone clarify what the situation is > please? > > 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

In a recent Admins posting it was mentioned that the brackets could be omitted round male, female, etc. There is no such exception to TWYS in Submission Formats <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/Format.shtml> although there is code to handle it. Can anyone clarify what the situation is please? Barrie --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

Thanks, page found and allocated to a transcriber to work on. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "KSHDouble Syndicate" <kshdouble@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 6:50 PM Subject: RE: Missing page 1943M4-T-0353 > Jeff, > A copy of this missing page has been upaloded today, and should appear in > the GUS structure tomorrow. > > Best wishes > Kevin. > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Coleman > Sent: 27 February 2010 20:03 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Missing page 1943M4-T-0353 > > This page is not available. If there is a list of missing pages being > made. > please add it. > > Jeff > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Occasionally it is necessary for pages to be re-transcribed as a replacement for the original transcription. In these circumstances it is important that the original transcription is not deleted until after the replacement has been uploaded. This applies even if the original transcription appears in the Suspect Files list. Not adhering to this process causes various problems with the update that take quite a lot of effort to investigate and sort out. It can also give rise to support requests when researchers find that records have disappeared; again this takes effort to investigate and sort out. Thanking you in anticipation for your co-operation. Barrie FreeBMD Quality Assurance Co-ordinator --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

Thanks Kevin Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "KSHDouble Syndicate" <kshdouble@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 6:38 PM Subject: RE: Missing page 1943M4-T-0353 > Hi Jeff, > The page should appear in GUS tomorrow. > > Best wishes > Kevin. > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Coleman > Sent: 27 February 2010 20:03 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Missing page 1943M4-T-0353 > > This page is not available. If there is a list of missing pages being > made. > please add it. > > Jeff > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Jeff, A copy of this missing page has been upaloded today, and should appear in the GUS structure tomorrow. Best wishes Kevin. -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Coleman Sent: 27 February 2010 20:03 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Missing page 1943M4-T-0353 This page is not available. If there is a list of missing pages being made. please add it. Jeff ------------------------------- 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 Jeff, The page should appear in GUS tomorrow. Best wishes Kevin. -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Coleman Sent: 27 February 2010 20:03 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Missing page 1943M4-T-0353 This page is not available. If there is a list of missing pages being made. please add it. Jeff ------------------------------- 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