> No, and we aren't trying to make it difficult at all. Well, Allan's original email asked for comments on the wording of the instruction to be entered in the knowledge base, not the content. Whilst Allan's concern was the +PAGE consideration, the problem lay with the actual content as both the instruction to treat the image as one file and the file name format displayed were contrary to how I do things. Some transcribers may have believed from the content of Allan's proposed instruction meant that they were giving their transcribers the wrong instructions, as all Allan asked coordinators to comment on, was the wording, not the instruction. It would, perhaps, have been better if Allan had sought information about how these files are approached by syndicates before making any attempt to word an instruction, though he can't be blamed for not realising that some syndicates treat the images as two files as I myself had no idea that some coordinators treat the image as one file! Please note that I didn't decide myself to enter the image as two files (despite the obvious logic in doing so) but sought advice from higher up prior to allocating scans. Anyway, if either way is acceptable, as long as that is made clear then there is no problem, Steve Gaunt Croscan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:29 AM Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:07:25 +0100, you wrote: > > >Alan, > >Why are we making this so difficult? This syndicate has all double page > >scans transcribed as two single pages, almost a complete quarter, following > >the practice in the John Slann syndicate. It means all pages can be checked > >as having been completed, and if a transcriber only does one, it happens, we > >are immediately aware of it. Does this mean that we will all have to conform > >to these unwieldy files. > > No, and we aren't trying to make it difficult at all. > > Your syndicate splits the files into single pages. Other syndicates, > because of the way they allocate work to transcribers need them to be > transcribed as two pages to a file. > > Each syndicate should proceed in the way that suits it best. We aren't > going to make you combine files, neither are we going to make other > syndicates split their files. > > -- > Dave Mayall > > > ==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ==== > Want to help FreeBMD? > Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >