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

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--

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 >

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 >>