In order to understand what is going on with Syndicate Duplicates one has to appreciate that the system has no knowledge of what syndicate is transcribing which quarter. Therefore the only information on which Syndicate Duplicates can be determined is the syndicates that the transcribers are members of. So the system sees that CharlotteB and zielle are both in Brunette Syndicate and therefore the transcription could be a syndicate duplicate. So, yes Syndicate Co-ordinators need to take action on Syndicate Duplicates for their syndicate, that action being, as you have done, to report that the duplicates are not, in fact, duplicates because (a) the syndicate was not transcribing that quarter or (b) one or both of the transcribers were not transcribing for the syndicate. Where you personally have transcribed for another syndicate then it is the responsibility of the coordinator of that syndicate to take action, not you. However, at the next update we hope to take account of the syndicate name in the first comment line of the file. This is expected to alleviate the problem and therefore it would be prudent for Syndicate Coordinators to wait till after the next update when the task may be less daunting. Barrie > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Melda Brunette > Sent: 31 January 2009 21:39 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Duplicate files > > I am equally flummoxed but for a different reason and, like Richard, > wonder whether someone has any ideas on how to proceed. I > have lists of > duplicate files under my syndicate name for several quarters > that were > not transcribed by my syndicate - 1863 births. However, the two > transcribers involved, CharlotteB and zielle do transcribe > for us, and > Charlotte does for Allan's orphans - as I also used to do. In other > places I can see duplicates in my name with other transcribers in the > defunct Kelly Seltzle syndicate. > > Charlotte's and zielle's files for these quarters are not within the > same syndicate anyway and should therefore be recognised as first and > second transcriptions - which they are not - and I have sent the file > list to support@. However, this really only concerns me because the > quarter duplicates are assigned to my syndicate when they are > actually > for Beautiful BC and Western Oz! I can't do anything about them. > > I am well aware of where duplicates occur within my own > syndicate - and > they are there for all kinds of reasons, often coordinator error in > accidently assigning the same block to different people! And > there are > other reasons to do with transcriber error, incomplete files etc. > > My main question is this: do we, as coordinators, really have to take > any action on these sorts of duplicate problems? It looks a > daunting task. > > Melda Brunette, > Brunette Syndicate > Auckland, New Zealand > > > > Richard Oliver wrote: > > >Advice please from my fellow Syndicate Co-ordinators, and/or > the gurus up > >there... > > > >We are transcribing 1839 December Births, and one of my team > has come across > >a peculiarity: four pages in the Index have been written > out twice and > >bound as separate pages in proper numerical sequence. This > is NOT a case of > >same pages scanned twice, but of two almost (but not quite) > identical > >versions of: > > > >1839B4-P-0139 repeated as 1839B4-P-0141 > >1839B4-P-0140 repeated as 1839B4-P-0142 > >1839B4-P-0143 repeated as 1839B4-P-0145 > >1839B4-P-0144 repeated as 1839B4-P-0146 > > > >Our question is: How should these be transcribed: 1) each > page twice, > >given that this will produce double-keying for 160 records, > and numerous > >out-of-sequence warnings? Or 2) duplicated pages only > transcribed once, > >given that there are minor variations between versions, and > that numerical > >sequence would be broken? > > > >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 >

Barrie My query about Duplicates (posted yesterday on Syndicates List) seems to have got somewhat swamped by Melda's more complicated situation involving multiple transcribers and Syndicates. My situation relates to a single transcriber, working on a single bundle of scan pages, within my own Syndicate. He wants to know: given that four of the pages in his allocation of scans are duplicates of four other pages, also in his allocation - not copies, but second versions, each of the same forty records and presumably written-up by two individual clerks - (though the handwritings are very similar)...... what should he do? Should he transcribe each of these pages twice, given that he will be double-keying his own work and uploading four pairs of semi-identical files? Please tell me how to advise him! Richard Oliver Madrid, Spain richol@arrakis.es ----- Original Message ----- From: "Archer Barrie" <Barrie.Archer@uk.fujitsu.com> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:11 AM Subject: RE: Duplicate files > In order to understand what is going on with Syndicate Duplicates one > has to appreciate that the system has no knowledge of what syndicate is > transcribing which quarter. Therefore the only information on which > Syndicate Duplicates can be determined is the syndicates that the > transcribers are members of. So the system sees that CharlotteB and > zielle are both in Brunette Syndicate and therefore the transcription > could be a syndicate duplicate. > > So, yes Syndicate Co-ordinators need to take action on Syndicate > Duplicates for their syndicate, that action being, as you have done, to > report that the duplicates are not, in fact, duplicates because (a) the > syndicate was not transcribing that quarter or (b) one or both of the > transcribers were not transcribing for the syndicate. Where you > personally have transcribed for another syndicate then it is the > responsibility of the coordinator of that syndicate to take action, not > you. > > However, at the next update we hope to take account of the syndicate > name in the first comment line of the file. This is expected to > alleviate the problem and therefore it would be prudent for Syndicate > Coordinators to wait till after the next update when the task may be > less daunting. > > Barrie > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of >> Melda Brunette >> Sent: 31 January 2009 21:39 >> To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Duplicate files >> >> I am equally flummoxed but for a different reason and, like Richard, >> wonder whether someone has any ideas on how to proceed. I >> have lists of >> duplicate files under my syndicate name for several quarters >> that were >> not transcribed by my syndicate - 1863 births. However, the two >> transcribers involved, CharlotteB and zielle do transcribe >> for us, and >> Charlotte does for Allan's orphans - as I also used to do. In other >> places I can see duplicates in my name with other transcribers in the >> defunct Kelly Seltzle syndicate. >> >> Charlotte's and zielle's files for these quarters are not within the >> same syndicate anyway and should therefore be recognised as first and >> second transcriptions - which they are not - and I have sent the file >> list to support@. However, this really only concerns me because the >> quarter duplicates are assigned to my syndicate when they are >> actually >> for Beautiful BC and Western Oz! I can't do anything about them. >> >> I am well aware of where duplicates occur within my own >> syndicate - and >> they are there for all kinds of reasons, often coordinator error in >> accidently assigning the same block to different people! And >> there are >> other reasons to do with transcriber error, incomplete files etc. >> >> My main question is this: do we, as coordinators, really have to take >> any action on these sorts of duplicate problems? It looks a >> daunting task. >> >> Melda Brunette, >> Brunette Syndicate >> Auckland, New Zealand >> >> >> >> Richard Oliver wrote: >> >> >Advice please from my fellow Syndicate Co-ordinators, and/or >> the gurus up >> >there... >> > >> >We are transcribing 1839 December Births, and one of my team >> has come across >> >a peculiarity: four pages in the Index have been written >> out twice and >> >bound as separate pages in proper numerical sequence. This >> is NOT a case of >> >same pages scanned twice, but of two almost (but not quite) >> identical >> >versions of: >> > >> >1839B4-P-0139 repeated as 1839B4-P-0141 >> >1839B4-P-0140 repeated as 1839B4-P-0142 >> >1839B4-P-0143 repeated as 1839B4-P-0145 >> >1839B4-P-0144 repeated as 1839B4-P-0146 >> > >> >Our question is: How should these be transcribed: 1) each >> page twice, >> >given that this will produce double-keying for 160 records, >> and numerous >> >out-of-sequence warnings? Or 2) duplicated pages only >> transcribed once, >> >given that there are minor variations between versions, and >> that numerical >> >sequence would be broken? >> > >> >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 >> > > >

What appears to have happened is that two scribes have copied the same batches of returns since the pages are in a different hand and have different folio numbers. As such they represent a check on the copying (as you note the content is not identical). Checking back I cannot find any definite ruling on this situation. My inclination is to opt for keying all the pages, otherwise how do you choose which data to transcribe and which to discard (given they are not identical)? Barrie > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Richard Oliver > Sent: 01 February 2009 20:03 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Duplicate files > > Barrie > > My query about Duplicates (posted yesterday on Syndicates > List) seems to > have got somewhat swamped by Melda's more complicated > situation involving > multiple transcribers and Syndicates. My situation relates > to a single > transcriber, working on a single bundle of scan pages, within my own > Syndicate. He wants to know: given that four of the pages in his > allocation of scans are duplicates of four other pages, also in his > allocation - not copies, but second versions, each of the > same forty records > and presumably written-up by two individual clerks - (though the > handwritings are very similar)...... what should he do? Should he > transcribe each of these pages twice, given that he will be > double-keying > his own work and uploading four pairs of semi-identical files? > > Please tell me how to advise him! > > Richard Oliver > Madrid, Spain > richol@arrakis.es > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Archer Barrie" <Barrie.Archer@uk.fujitsu.com> > To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:11 AM > Subject: RE: Duplicate files > > > > In order to understand what is going on with Syndicate > Duplicates one > > has to appreciate that the system has no knowledge of what > syndicate is > > transcribing which quarter. Therefore the only information on which > > Syndicate Duplicates can be determined is the syndicates that the > > transcribers are members of. So the system sees that CharlotteB and > > zielle are both in Brunette Syndicate and therefore the > transcription > > could be a syndicate duplicate. > > > > So, yes Syndicate Co-ordinators need to take action on Syndicate > > Duplicates for their syndicate, that action being, as you > have done, to > > report that the duplicates are not, in fact, duplicates > because (a) the > > syndicate was not transcribing that quarter or (b) one or > both of the > > transcribers were not transcribing for the syndicate. Where you > > personally have transcribed for another syndicate then it is the > > responsibility of the coordinator of that syndicate to take > action, not > > you. > > > > However, at the next update we hope to take account of the syndicate > > name in the first comment line of the file. This is expected to > > alleviate the problem and therefore it would be prudent for > Syndicate > > Coordinators to wait till after the next update when the task may be > > less daunting. > > > > Barrie > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > >> [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > >> Melda Brunette > >> Sent: 31 January 2009 21:39 > >> To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > >> Subject: Duplicate files > >> > >> I am equally flummoxed but for a different reason and, > like Richard, > >> wonder whether someone has any ideas on how to proceed. I > >> have lists of > >> duplicate files under my syndicate name for several quarters > >> that were > >> not transcribed by my syndicate - 1863 births. However, the two > >> transcribers involved, CharlotteB and zielle do transcribe > >> for us, and > >> Charlotte does for Allan's orphans - as I also used to do. > In other > >> places I can see duplicates in my name with other > transcribers in the > >> defunct Kelly Seltzle syndicate. > >> > >> Charlotte's and zielle's files for these quarters are not > within the > >> same syndicate anyway and should therefore be recognised > as first and > >> second transcriptions - which they are not - and I have > sent the file > >> list to support@. However, this really only concerns me > because the > >> quarter duplicates are assigned to my syndicate when they are > >> actually > >> for Beautiful BC and Western Oz! I can't do anything about them. > >> > >> I am well aware of where duplicates occur within my own > >> syndicate - and > >> they are there for all kinds of reasons, often coordinator error in > >> accidently assigning the same block to different people! And > >> there are > >> other reasons to do with transcriber error, incomplete files etc. > >> > >> My main question is this: do we, as coordinators, really > have to take > >> any action on these sorts of duplicate problems? It looks a > >> daunting task. > >> > >> Melda Brunette, > >> Brunette Syndicate > >> Auckland, New Zealand > >> > >> > >> > >> Richard Oliver wrote: > >> > >> >Advice please from my fellow Syndicate Co-ordinators, and/or > >> the gurus up > >> >there... > >> > > >> >We are transcribing 1839 December Births, and one of my team > >> has come across > >> >a peculiarity: four pages in the Index have been written > >> out twice and > >> >bound as separate pages in proper numerical sequence. This > >> is NOT a case of > >> >same pages scanned twice, but of two almost (but not quite) > >> identical > >> >versions of: > >> > > >> >1839B4-P-0139 repeated as 1839B4-P-0141 > >> >1839B4-P-0140 repeated as 1839B4-P-0142 > >> >1839B4-P-0143 repeated as 1839B4-P-0145 > >> >1839B4-P-0144 repeated as 1839B4-P-0146 > >> > > >> >Our question is: How should these be transcribed: 1) each > >> page twice, > >> >given that this will produce double-keying for 160 records, > >> and numerous > >> >out-of-sequence warnings? Or 2) duplicated pages only > >> transcribed once, > >> >given that there are minor variations between versions, and > >> that numerical > >> >sequence would be broken? > >> > > >> >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 > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >