In my posting to this list on Sun, 9 Nov 2008 I explained the difference between the SuspectFiles report and the SuspectFilesAlias report. Both these reports contain information about files that may contain erroneous transcriptions. It is hoped that they will provide a useful resource for syndicate coordinators to check the quality of the transcriptions done by their syndicate. The report http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html (which is referred to from the Transcribers' Page) includes aliases in the surname and given name fields. It does NOT include aliases in the associate name field. The report http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesAlias.html (which is NOT referred to from the Transcribers' Page) includes aliases in the surname, given name and associate name fields. The reason for having two reports was that the latter was very large and the associate name aliases overwhelmed other information. Having two reports was always intended to be a temporary measure; http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html would eventually contain associate name aliases. Currently http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html contains 134 entries and http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesAlias.html contains 1412entries. Whilst this is a lot better than it was the latter still rather overwhelms the former. Could I therefore ask syndicate coordinators to look at the report http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFilesAlias.html and try to get it reduced so we can merge it with the report http://www.freebmd.org.uk/SuspectFiles.html. Please note that the warning "Pages outside range" was intended to pick up transcriptions where the quarter and/or event had been incorrectly specified. However, the ones I have looked at are transcriptions where, instead of using UCF for illegible words, transcribers have just made up words (particularly districts and sometimes plainly wrong). I have also noted that there are a number of transcribers who are ignoring the warning about aliases and are still uploading transcriptions with aliases incorrectly transcribed. I will be sending syndicate coordinators concerned the details. Thanks Barrie FreeBMD Quality Assurance Coordinator --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

Hi all My syndicate is transcribing 1939 Births. I've noticed that in handwritten entries, some clerks have added a full stop in *every* field, for example: --- Elizabeth. Adcock. Manchester. 8D. see S. 46. http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1939/Births/March/ANC-05/A-J/1939B1-H-0471.jpg There's also a variation where full stops appear in every field except volume and page number, as in: Kimberley. Avril. M. Bingham. Middlesbro'. 9D 746A http://images.freebmd.org.uk/GUS/1939/Births/March/ANC-05/K-Z/1939B1-K-0013.jpg I'm a bit conflicted about what advice to give my volunteers on these. Under "Deviations from Type What You See", Hints & Help for Beginners says: "Do not transcribe: [. . .] 3. Full stops after Age, Volume or Page Number. These are all merely data separators, and carry no data value." The following section, "Transcribing full stops", says that if there definitely is one in the forename field, it should be put in. However, it doesn't deal with stops in other fields. My own feeling is that in these entries, *all* the full stops are there merely as separators. Our scans don't have an Age column, but leaving out the stops after volume and page number/reference while including them after surname (if present), forename, mother's name and un-abbreviated district doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. The clerks themselves were inconsistent. On K-0013 referred to above, there's another late entry at the foot of column 2 in the same distinctive handwriting. This time, though, the only full stop is after the mother's name. Any thoughts or suggestions, please? -- Nowl

One possibility is that a transcriber is not sure whether the file has been received by FreeBMD and sends it again. Another is that the transcriber remembers something that should have been corrected, and sends a revised version. One of my transcribers puts several pages into one file, and uploads it each time he adds another page to it (a habit he acquired in another syndicate). That gives an interesting pattern of upload dates for the first file in the series. Jeff

I think I may regret setting this one loose, especially as Allan Raymond quickly pointed out that my own example was actually a true duplicated upload following a warning from FreeBMD that the file did include an error which I then corrected - I'm afraid my memory does let me down these days. I get the information from the standard Upload Reports - using Report recent. I only know the dates, not the times. Trying to analyse a full report on my current batch of scans - 1942M1 - I can see that it is in the block of uploads after the update, as signalled by the line "The following entries were added since the last update......" where these apparent duplicates appear, which makes sense. There are two issues - one where transcribers have clearly made corrections, usually at a later date. A number of examples of this probably come from a warning I sent out to my team recently when I realised that several were not treating alternative spouse names correctly with a comment line (despite my regularly reissued Transcriber's Notes which cover that point). The second (probably unimportant) issue is where the Upload Report contains (after the update line) several examples from a number of different transcribers of duplicate or even triplicate entries for the same file with the same upload date. I'm sure they can't all be uploading twice, can they ? As I said, it is probably not very important as FreeBMD takes the latest version of the file, but I do find it rather curious. Ted Southcombe . ----- Original Message ----- From: "david mayall" <david.mayall@googlemail.com> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Cc: "FreeBMD Syndicates" <FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:22 PM Subject: Re: Repeated uploads > > 2009/6/9 Ted Southcombe <ted@southcombe1.freeserve.co.uk> > >> I have often noticed over the years that many uploads seem to be >> repeated, >> sometimes on the same day, often up to 10 days apart. eg >> jango/1942M1K0240 >> to K0244 >> >> Transcribers I have queried about this don't seem to be able to explain >> it. >> And it has recently happened to me although I know I only clicked once on >> the 'Send file to FreeBMD' menu item, but the file is there twice on the >> database. eg TedS/1935D1G0318 both with the same date 25/05/2009. >> >> I realise that only the latest upload is used by FreeBMD, but any >> explanations anyone ? >> > > Where are you getting the file date and time information from? > > -- > Dave Mayall > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > This message has been processed by Firetrust Benign. >

2009/6/9 Ted Southcombe <ted@southcombe1.freeserve.co.uk> > I have often noticed over the years that many uploads seem to be repeated, > sometimes on the same day, often up to 10 days apart. eg jango/1942M1K0240 > to K0244 > > Transcribers I have queried about this don't seem to be able to explain it. > And it has recently happened to me although I know I only clicked once on > the 'Send file to FreeBMD' menu item, but the file is there twice on the > database. eg TedS/1935D1G0318 both with the same date 25/05/2009. > > I realise that only the latest upload is used by FreeBMD, but any > explanations anyone ? > Where are you getting the file date and time information from? -- Dave Mayall

I have often noticed over the years that many uploads seem to be repeated, sometimes on the same day, often up to 10 days apart. eg jango/1942M1K0240 to K0244 Transcribers I have queried about this don't seem to be able to explain it. And it has recently happened to me although I know I only clicked once on the 'Send file to FreeBMD' menu item, but the file is there twice on the database. eg TedS/1935D1G0318 both with the same date 25/05/2009. I realise that only the latest upload is used by FreeBMD, but any explanations anyone ? Ted Southcombe

Should there be a change to the picklist to avoid mistakes as there have been some in the past where we have had to go through and change the volume through Human Error Debz -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Coleman" <Jeff.Coleman@ntlworld.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 8:31 AM To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: Bootle 8c > There were two different Bootle districts in quite different places > > Bootle 10b in Cumberland 1837 to 1939 > http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/districts/bootle1.html > and > Bootle 8b in Lancashire created 1Oct 1934 which is the one in the > picklist > as 8c > http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/districts/bootle2.html > > Jeff > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Debz" <debzv@vodafone.co.nz> > To: "FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L" <FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:45 PM > Subject: Bootle 8c > > >> It has been bought to my attention that there could be an error with the >> volume number on the WinBMD pick list for Bootle, 8c >> >> Registration County : Lancashire. >> Created : 1.10.1934 (out of West Derby district). >> Sub-district : Bootle. >> GRO volumes : 8b (1934-46); 10B (1946-74). >> Looks as if Bootle was 8b from 1934 and/or 10b up to 1939 and after >> 1946, >> but never 8c >> >> Regards >> Debz N Z >> > > > ------------------------------- > 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

It has been bought to my attention that there could be an error with the volume number on the WinBMD pick list for Bootle, 8c Registration County : Lancashire. Created : 1.10.1934 (out of West Derby district). Sub-district : Bootle. GRO volumes : 8b (1934-46); 10B (1946-74). Looks as if Bootle was 8b from 1934 and/or 10b up to 1939 and after 1946, but never 8c Regards Debz N Z

There were two different Bootle districts in quite different places Bootle 10b in Cumberland 1837 to 1939 http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/districts/bootle1.html and Bootle 8b in Lancashire created 1Oct 1934 which is the one in the picklist as 8c http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/districts/bootle2.html Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Debz" <debzv@vodafone.co.nz> To: "FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L" <FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:45 PM Subject: Bootle 8c > It has been bought to my attention that there could be an error with the > volume number on the WinBMD pick list for Bootle, 8c > > Registration County : Lancashire. > Created : 1.10.1934 (out of West Derby district). > Sub-district : Bootle. > GRO volumes : 8b (1934-46); 10B (1946-74). > Looks as if Bootle was 8b from 1934 and/or 10b up to 1939 and after 1946, > but never 8c > > Regards > Debz N Z >

Hi Kevin My apologies I missed the (ai) and looked at (a) then scrolled down a bit and couldn't see what you were directing me to. Too much of a hurry I think Regards Debz -------------------------------------------------- From: "KSHDouble Syndicate" <kshdouble@blueyonder.co.uk> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 6:21 PM To: "'Debz'" <debzv@vodafone.co.nz>; <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Subject: RE: 1927-B4-T-0384 > Hi Debz, > Not sure I understand why you feel that the knowledge base article is at > odds with the solution provided by Dave? > > I believe they are in essence saying the same thing! > They are definitely trying to solve the same problem. > > If you can advise in detail why you think they give different advice I > will > see if we can get the KB article updated to clarify. > > Cheers > Kevin. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debz [mailto:debzv@vodafone.co.nz] > Sent: 03 June 2009 23:46 > To: kshdouble@blueyonder.co.uk; freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: 1927-B4-T-0384 > > Sorry Kevin but it doesn't apply in this case > here is what David Mayall said to do which I have done and it was a typo > > The usual way to deal with rogue pages such as this is; > > 1. Check that the pages either side have the "correct" header details > 2. Check that the first and last names on the page are consistent with > the pages either side > 3. Check that the first and last names are inconsistent with the page > belonging in sequence with the quarter of the header (dec 1928) > 4. Check that there is a page in 384 in Q4 1928 that matches that > quarter > > Provided the page checks out, you can assume that the header is a mistake > (it usually is, although we did have one infamous case where half of 1887 > Q2 > Marriages were actually for a different quarter, so it's good to check). > > An entry in the TKB might be worthwhile. > > regards > Debz > > > > : "KSHDouble Syndicate" <kshdouble@blueyonder.co.uk> > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:19 AM > To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> > Subject: RE: 1927-B4-T-0384 > >> Hi Debz, >> http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6ai >> Applies >> Kevin. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Debz >> Sent: 03 June 2009 20:06 >> To: FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L >> Subject: 1927-B4-T-0384 >> >> Can I please have help with this problem. >> >> 1927-B4-T-0384 show 1928 at the top of the scan >> >> How do I proceed? >> >> Regards >> Debz NZ >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > >

Sorry Kevin but it doesn't apply in this case here is what David Mayall said to do which I have done and it was a typo The usual way to deal with rogue pages such as this is; 1. Check that the pages either side have the "correct" header details 2. Check that the first and last names on the page are consistent with the pages either side 3. Check that the first and last names are inconsistent with the page belonging in sequence with the quarter of the header (dec 1928) 4. Check that there is a page in 384 in Q4 1928 that matches that quarter Provided the page checks out, you can assume that the header is a mistake (it usually is, although we did have one infamous case where half of 1887 Q2 Marriages were actually for a different quarter, so it's good to check). An entry in the TKB might be worthwhile. regards Debz : "KSHDouble Syndicate" <kshdouble@blueyonder.co.uk> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:19 AM To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Subject: RE: 1927-B4-T-0384 > Hi Debz, > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6ai > Applies > Kevin. > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Debz > Sent: 03 June 2009 20:06 > To: FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L > Subject: 1927-B4-T-0384 > > Can I please have help with this problem. > > 1927-B4-T-0384 show 1928 at the top of the scan > > How do I proceed? > > Regards > Debz NZ > > ------------------------------- > 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

Thanks for the speedy reply David Just as you said it appears to be a typo Regards Debz

Hi Debz, Not sure I understand why you feel that the knowledge base article is at odds with the solution provided by Dave? I believe they are in essence saying the same thing! They are definitely trying to solve the same problem. If you can advise in detail why you think they give different advice I will see if we can get the KB article updated to clarify. Cheers Kevin. -----Original Message----- From: Debz [mailto:debzv@vodafone.co.nz] Sent: 03 June 2009 23:46 To: kshdouble@blueyonder.co.uk; freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: 1927-B4-T-0384 Sorry Kevin but it doesn't apply in this case here is what David Mayall said to do which I have done and it was a typo The usual way to deal with rogue pages such as this is; 1. Check that the pages either side have the "correct" header details 2. Check that the first and last names on the page are consistent with the pages either side 3. Check that the first and last names are inconsistent with the page belonging in sequence with the quarter of the header (dec 1928) 4. Check that there is a page in 384 in Q4 1928 that matches that quarter Provided the page checks out, you can assume that the header is a mistake (it usually is, although we did have one infamous case where half of 1887 Q2 Marriages were actually for a different quarter, so it's good to check). An entry in the TKB might be worthwhile. regards Debz : "KSHDouble Syndicate" <kshdouble@blueyonder.co.uk> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:19 AM To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Subject: RE: 1927-B4-T-0384 > Hi Debz, > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6ai > Applies > Kevin. > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Debz > Sent: 03 June 2009 20:06 > To: FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L > Subject: 1927-B4-T-0384 > > Can I please have help with this problem. > > 1927-B4-T-0384 show 1928 at the top of the scan > > How do I proceed? > > Regards > Debz NZ > > ------------------------------- > 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

Can I please have help with this problem. 1927-B4-T-0384 show 1928 at the top of the scan How do I proceed? Regards Debz NZ

Wow, I never knew we already had a TKB entry for it! 2009/6/3 KSHDouble Syndicate <kshdouble@blueyonder.co.uk> > Hi Debz, > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6ai > Applies > Kevin. > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Debz > Sent: 03 June 2009 20:06 > To: FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L > Subject: 1927-B4-T-0384 > > Can I please have help with this problem. > > 1927-B4-T-0384 show 1928 at the top of the scan > > How do I proceed? > > Regards > Debz NZ > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- Dave Mayall

The usual way to deal with rogue pages such as this is; 1. Check that the pages either side have the "correct" header details 2. Check that the first and last names on the page are consistent with the pages either side 3. Check that the first and last names are inconsistent with the page belonging in sequence with the quarter of the header (dec 1928) 4. Check that there is a page in 384 in Q4 1928 that matches that quarter Provided the page checks out, you can assume that the header is a mistake (it usually is, although we did have one infamous case where half of 1887 Q2 Marriages were actually for a different quarter, so it's good to check). An entry in the TKB might be worthwhile. 2009/6/3 Debz <debzv@vodafone.co.nz> > Can I please have help with this problem. > > 1927-B4-T-0384 show 1928 at the top of the scan > > How do I proceed? > > Regards > Debz NZ > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- Dave Mayall

Hi Debz, http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6ai Applies Kevin. -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Debz Sent: 03 June 2009 20:06 To: FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L Subject: 1927-B4-T-0384 Can I please have help with this problem. 1927-B4-T-0384 show 1928 at the top of the scan How do I proceed? Regards Debz NZ ------------------------------- 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

Found it! http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?vlnk=4203 Search engines! This document is titled "Births: 1938-2004 Live births, (b) quarter of occurrence" yet a search of the National Statistics website for "births quarter" produced no hits. It appears that their search engine defaults to "exact phrase" although this is nowhere stated. The progress charts have been updated. You may need to refresh the page to get the revised graphs. Barrie Barrie wrote: > It looks like the first is where we got our existing data from (I > haven't checked the values). The second would be what we want except > that it only gives data per year, not per quarter. I have emailed ONS > requesting the information. > > Barrie > > Allan Raymond wrote: > >> Is this where we got or can get the totals? >> >> Births: 1837-1937 - >> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/xsdataset.asp?vlnk=4202&More=Y >> >> Births: 1938-2004 - >> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/xsdataset.asp?vlnk=4274&More=Y >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 11:48 PM >> Subject: Re: Progress Bar-charts not updated? >> >> >> A fairly accurate number of birth records for 1938 March Births is 159607. >> >> Derived from 1057 pages in the Index for this quarter multiplied by 151 >> (entries per page) >> >> Why 151? >> >> Because 322 pages uploaded to date for this quarter realised 48670 entries >> (48670/322 = 151.15). >> >> The same could be done for the other quarters. >> >> Or is this a flawed way to calculate the totals? >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Barrie" <freebmd@myarcher.net> >> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 11:07 AM >> Subject: Re: Progress Bar-charts not updated? >> >> >> The reason turns out to be that, for Births, we only have totals from >> the GRO up to 1937. For Marriages and Deaths we have the totals up to 1983. >> >> Since the graphs are percentages, not having the total makes it kinda >> difficult! >> >> I have no idea how we got the totals from the GRO but I will investigate. >> >> Barrie >> >> Richard Oliver wrote: >> >> >>> Someone is going to ask me this question in the next few hours, so can >>> someone else please help me with a ready answer? >>> >>> My Syndicate has been busying away at 1938 March Births for 6-7 weeks, and >>> we have collectively uploaded around 235 page files (35,000 records), >>> around 23% of the Quarter. And yet the chart at >>> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/progressB.shtml#1930 suggests we haven't done >>> a stroke of work, and shows zero. >>> >>> The chart itself must be out of sync, as a random check - on just a couple >>> of records uploaded by me - shows they are indeed in the database. So how >>> come a discrepancy like that? >>> >>> Richard Oliver >>> Madrid, Spain >>> richol@arrakis.es >>> >>> >>> >>> >> --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-- > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--

2009/5/26 Barrie <freebmd@myarcher.net> > It looks like the first is where we got our existing data from (I > haven't checked the values). The second would be what we want except > that it only gives data per year, not per quarter. I have emailed ONS > requesting the information. > That's where we start to engage in a bit of calculation! We need to xref the values from page counting for 4 quarters with the yearly totals, and modify accordingly. -- Dave Mayall

This probably gives a good estimate. It can obviously be perturbed by blank pages, etc. If we cannot get the information from ONS it is a route we may have to take. Barrie Allan Raymond wrote: > A fairly accurate number of birth records for 1938 March Births is 159607. > > Derived from 1057 pages in the Index for this quarter multiplied by 151 > (entries per page) > > Why 151? > > Because 322 pages uploaded to date for this quarter realised 48670 entries > (48670/322 = 151.15). > > The same could be done for the other quarters. > > Or is this a flawed way to calculate the totals? > > Allan Raymond > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Barrie" <freebmd@myarcher.net> > To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 11:07 AM > Subject: Re: Progress Bar-charts not updated? > > > The reason turns out to be that, for Births, we only have totals from > the GRO up to 1937. For Marriages and Deaths we have the totals up to 1983. > > Since the graphs are percentages, not having the total makes it kinda > difficult! > > I have no idea how we got the totals from the GRO but I will investigate. > > Barrie > > Richard Oliver wrote: > >> Someone is going to ask me this question in the next few hours, so can >> someone else please help me with a ready answer? >> >> My Syndicate has been busying away at 1938 March Births for 6-7 weeks, and >> we have collectively uploaded around 235 page files (35,000 records), >> around 23% of the Quarter. And yet the chart at >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/progressB.shtml#1930 suggests we haven't done >> a stroke of work, and shows zero. >> >> The chart itself must be out of sync, as a random check - on just a couple >> of records uploaded by me - shows they are indeed in the database. So how >> come a discrepancy like that? >> >> Richard Oliver >> Madrid, Spain >> richol@arrakis.es >> >> >> > > > --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--