Thanks for replying Jeff. I'd like to stress that I'm not suggesting any deviation from TWYS. I'm only trying to make a small improvement in consistency between TKB 6(d) and TKB 6(q). You write "If two separate entries appear, they should be treated as two separate entries, even if it seems probable that they refer to the same birth, and even if they are identical." I certainly agree with you that we should transcribe them as two entries. But if we apply TKB 6(d) to the situation where there's a handwritten amendment at the bottom of a column to an original entry that isn't crossed out, then we should also add a #COMMENT(2) between the original entry and the amended one. I agree too about not jumping to conclusions, but I also think there's a judgement to be made here. In all three of the examples I gave, the Surname, Forename and initials, Mother's Maiden Surname, and District fields all matched. The surnames are relatively uncommon. In my judgement these pairs of entries definitely refer to the same people, and so we're justified in treating the handwritten entries as amendments rather than separate, unrelated entries. Far from jumping to conclusions, I think not to do so would be to ignore the obvious and so make our transcriptions slightly less useful. Perhaps if you still don't agree, we should consider instead altering the advice in TKB 6(d) by removing the reference to amendments at the bottom of the page. Cheers, Mike On 21 July 2010 23:23, Jeff Coleman <Jeff.Coleman@ntlworld.com> wrote: > My advice to transcribers (we are transcribing 1948 births with some > similar > situations) is Type What You See. > > If two separate entries appear, they should be treated as two separate > entries, even if it seems probable that they refer to the same birth, and > even if they are identical. > > We should not jump to conclusions. There is a risk that we may link > together erroneously entries which do not refer to the same person. We are > also giving transcribers extra work if we expect them to look for such > links. > I would therefore oppose Mike's suggested change to TKB 6(q) > > If a handwritten addition such as J67 or See M51 appears on the typed > line (either next to the page number or occasionally elsewhere on the line > where there is enough space, such as after the surname) then TKB 6(d) > applies. > > Sometimes there are two such annotations , such as 1234/S J54. In this > case each is transcribed separately with a #COMMENT(2) or #COMMENT(3) in > between, depending on whether the original page number has been crossed > through (following TKB 6(d) and 6(am)). > > Jeff > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Thomas" <mikethomas2@gmail.com> > To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:27 PM > Subject: Transcribers' Knowledge Base advice on Late Registration > references > > > > My syndicate is currently transcribing 1946 births. A transcriber has > > asked > > me about transcribing hand written late registration references when they > > appear to duplicate or amend original typed entries which have not been > > crossed out (obviously the page column will be different, and often the > > volume). > > > > There are examples of such entries in 1946B2A0002: > > ACKLAND,DAVID,ACKLAND,SOUTHAMPTON "A",6B,J66 > > appears to be an amendment to: > > Ackland,David,Ackland,Southampton,2c,183 > > and in 1946B3A0001: > > Abbott,Rita C.,Smith,Chatham,5B,see S.63 > > appears to be an amendment to: > > Abbott,Rita C.,Smith,Chatham,5b,675 > > and: > > Abbott,Terence S.,Bailey,York,2D,see J.60 > > appears to be an amendment to: > > Abbott,Terence S.,Bailey,York,2d,see J60 > > In this last example the original page number has been crossed out. > > > > The transcriber originally asked whether late registration references > > needed > > a #COMMENT after them - I referred her to TKB section 6(q) > > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6q and said no. She then > explained > > that she'd come across examples like the ones above and asked whether TKB > > section 6(d) http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6d should apply, > and, > > if > > so, suggested that the advice in section 6(q) could be extended to cover > > this situation. > > > > It seems to me that #COMMENT(2) lines linking these entries would be > > appropriate (as advised in 6(d)), as surely any FreeBMD user finding one > > half of any of these pairs of entries would want to be alerted to the > > existence of the other. Perhaps we could add a sentence to TKB section > > 6(q) > > along the lines of: > > "If the late entry appears to be an amendment to an original entry in the > > index then 6(d) also applies." > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mike > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 Mike Apologies for butting in. I see your point but I'm with Jeff on this one. I think there is a danger that we could link entries incorrectly, and that it could be difficult for transcribers to judge when it was warranted and when it wasn't. It would also make the rules more complicated, having implications for 6(g) on handling insertions, and 6(z) as well. We very often see "pairs" of handwritten entries, where the first has been crossed out and another very similar written in. Wouldn't your suggestion also apply to these? >Perhaps if you still don't agree, we should consider instead altering the >advice in TKB 6(d) by removing the reference to amendments at the bottom of >the page. The advice I give my volunteers is that 6(g) refers to separate complete entries, 6(d) to partial amendments -- it mentions "parts of an entry" and "if the original field" is or is not crossed out. That way it's easy to remember which rule applies. I can't help but feel the suggestion would make things a lot less clear for very little gain. -- Jackie Reynolds