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--
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 >