Barrie You've just saved me a lot of work as I was about to start the manual process of checking out 120 SubmitterIDs for the appropriate Syndicate. Please don't have any qualms about refinements to the checking process. I can say quite categorically that in the many hundreds of files I've checked since Suspect Report was introduced not one has been "duff" with regards to their suspect nature. Unfortunately I can't say what percentage of the suspect files had/have incorrect contents as I delete any records once the file has been corrected. I would hazard a guess that about 10 to 20% of the files have/had incorrect contents as I have sent out quite a number of emails out to transcribers to correct the content of their files. Also the Syndicate that has been involved with sorting out large number of files uploaded by their volunteers has also corrected contents of some files (they may well ask how do I know that?). Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Archer Barrie <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: 08 October 2004 07:58 Subject: Suspect files and syndicate names The Suspect Files list at http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/SuspectFiles.html now contains the syndicate(s) of the transcriber. I would like to express my thanks to everyone for the work done on addressing these anomolies, especially, of course, Allan Raymond who must have put in many hours of work. I do have certain qualms when I find new ways of doing the quality check because I known that when I incorporate them into the Suspect Files process it means work for other people! As a matter of interest I would be quite interested to hear (probably from Allan) what the percentage is of wrong content against wrong filename. Whilst getting the filename right has real benefits, getting the content right is even more important. Barrie