Brian, Such gaps should be picked up when the SuperChunksReport <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/QualityAssuranceProcesses.html#superchunk> is reviewed but it would be helpful to report gaps to qa-coord@freebmd.org.uk as they are found so they can be inserted immediately. I will create a task to include this in the TKB. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > I have had many examples over the years where a scan has been duplicated. If > I have been satisfied that a scan is not missing as a result of the > duplication, I have always ignored the duplicate. This has never been raised > as an issue but statement that the gap will be handled...... seems to > suggest that something should have been done about it. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 01 August 2010 08:47 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Duplicated scan pages > > Jeff has answered the question but also the error that caused the the > "phantom" files to be rejected has been corrected. > > The gap will be handled by instructing the system that page 1233 follows > page 1228. > > Barrie > > On 19:59, Richard Oliver wrote: > >> <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">A >> volunteer in my Syndicate, SubmitterID hinkley, is transcribing the >> 'O' surnames from 1839 June Deaths, and reports that some of the scans >> are duplicates of some of the others. And indeed, I see from the >> list of scans that the contents of four of them - 1839D2-C-P-1225 (and >> the three pages following) are then repeated in the next four scans in >> the list, that is, 1839D2-C-P-1229 (to 1232 inclusive). >> >> I couldn't find a clear and unambiguous instruction on how to handle >> this situation - obviously, it would be silly to transcribe each page >> twice, but equally, wouldn't it be a problem to leave four files out >> of the numerical sequence, starting (say) File 1839D2O1225 with >> +PAGE,1225 but ending it with +PAGE,1233 ??? I advised him to raise >> four phantom files with the +PAGE items as usual but with no content >> between, or perhaps just a #COMMENT to explain the absence of >> records. But no, it appears the database has refused them, so please, >> what should my advice have been? >> >> Richard Oliver >> Madrid, Spain >> richol@arrakis.es >> >> >> >> </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 > > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--
Hello Barrie, I will prepare a list of the ones I know and send them to qa-coord@freebmd.org.uk Regards Brian Smart -----Original Message----- From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie Sent: 02 August 2010 08:25 To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Duplicated scan pages Brian, Such gaps should be picked up when the SuperChunksReport <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/QualityAssuranceProcesses.html#superchunk> is reviewed but it would be helpful to report gaps to qa-coord@freebmd.org.uk as they are found so they can be inserted immediately. I will create a task to include this in the TKB. Barrie On 19:59, Brian Smart wrote: > Hello Barrie, > I have had many examples over the years where a scan has been duplicated. If > I have been satisfied that a scan is not missing as a result of the > duplication, I have always ignored the duplicate. This has never been raised > as an issue but statement that the gap will be handled...... seems to > suggest that something should have been done about it. > Regards > > Brian Smart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie > Sent: 01 August 2010 08:47 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Duplicated scan pages > > Jeff has answered the question but also the error that caused the the > "phantom" files to be rejected has been corrected. > > The gap will be handled by instructing the system that page 1233 follows > page 1228. > > Barrie > > On 19:59, Richard Oliver wrote: > >> <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">A >> volunteer in my Syndicate, SubmitterID hinkley, is transcribing the >> 'O' surnames from 1839 June Deaths, and reports that some of the scans >> are duplicates of some of the others. And indeed, I see from the >> list of scans that the contents of four of them - 1839D2-C-P-1225 (and >> the three pages following) are then repeated in the next four scans in >> the list, that is, 1839D2-C-P-1229 (to 1232 inclusive). >> >> I couldn't find a clear and unambiguous instruction on how to handle >> this situation - obviously, it would be silly to transcribe each page >> twice, but equally, wouldn't it be a problem to leave four files out >> of the numerical sequence, starting (say) File 1839D2O1225 with >> +PAGE,1225 but ending it with +PAGE,1233 ??? I advised him to raise >> four phantom files with the +PAGE items as usual but with no content >> between, or perhaps just a #COMMENT to explain the absence of >> records. But no, it appears the database has refused them, so please, >> what should my advice have been? >> >> Richard Oliver >> Madrid, Spain >> richol@arrakis.es >> >> >> >> </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 > > > > --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