Hello Richard I think we have been down this road before. In the Syndicates mailing list I found the answer. Link is http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/freebmd-syndicates/2010-03/1269853820 text is From: Barrie <freebmd@myarcher.net> Subject: Re: Suspect files... OK, but why? Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:15:21 +0100 References: <5FB922DCDD9140C59F92BEE92CF7665D@Richard1> In-Reply-To: <5FB922DCDD9140C59F92BEE92CF7665D@Richard1> 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 > > > > Cheers Bob Phillips ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Oliver" <richol@arrakis.es> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:57 AM Subject: "Suspect" file >I don't know whom to contact, so please excuse my posting this query on the >list. > > One of my team is most indignant that I pointed out his having produced a > 'suspect' file that has appeared following the latest update. > > The file is numbered 1839D2U0776 and the corresponding scan image is at > GUS/1839/Deaths/June/UKD-01/P-Z/1839D2-P-Z-0776.tif. > > It transpires that this page consists of a list of 40 "Unknown" male > corpses, and it would appear to belong to a different Quarter and/or > Year - which would explain why over half the page numbers are > out-of-range. A cursory check suggests the scan should be reassigned to > 1839 September Deaths, where the page ranges fit much better. > > 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