Barrie A cursory glance at the latest Suspect Report indicates the files with "No +S, +B, +U, +M or +F line in file" are in fact those that suffered problems during the server problem earlier this month. This was the situation where some files finished up with Zero contents. I had already emailed the bulk of the volunteers with this problem with the exception of about 4 of the files (some belong to Co-ordinators). I'm either working with volunteers to replace these Zero content files or have sent follow up reminders to these who haven't responded. There were about 240 files from 140 volunteers with the Zero entry files problem which has been whittled to more manageable figures. It's gives me some confidence in that your enhancement to Suspect Report produces the same outstanding list is that already held be me. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Archer Barrie <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: 09 October 2004 11:03 Subject: RE: Suspect files and syndicate names Allan, There are two further refinements Check for +S, etc. This has thrown up a number of files that are in fact empty. Page number cannot be derived from either the file name or +PAGE. Not strictly speaking "suspect" in the normal sense but important if we are to succeed in linking entries to scans. There are very few of these - which is good news. Barrie > -----Original Message----- > From: Allan Raymond [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 08 October 2004 13:38 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Suspect files and syndicate names > > > 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 > >