If you think my remarks were to mean that co-ordinators are not to be trusted to co-ordinate then you comments are doing me a great disservice. Please reread my two emails: The first mentioned to co-ordinators "I thought I would run this past you before I arrange for either "Hints and Help Guide" or "Transcriber's Knowledge Base" to be changed, comments or suggested improvements to the wording is appreciated?" My last was to say I'll wait until the debate finishes between co-ordinators before I devise suitable words to cover the both situations (i.e. two pages to a file or one page to a file) This in no way infers that transcribers should not go to their co-ordinators as the first port of call for queries. What isn't good enough is for co-ordinators to do their own thing without thought to the Project as an whole. In this context and the reason why I sent out my first email is that at least 2 co-ordinators have asked me of recent how to transcribe a two page scan, should it be one or two pages to a file plus I have picked up that some volunteers have not been inserting the intermediate correct +PAGE between the two pages of a double page transcribed file. This isn't something I plucked out of thin air, it was a genuine attempt to make sure that all co-ordinators spoke from the same hymn sheet regardless of whether they wish they volunteers to do two pages to a file. Now that I know co-ordinators are advising their volunteers to do either one or two pages to a scan I can prepare advise to cover both scenario as per my least email. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Derek Lowe <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: 12 July 2004 11:50 Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans >Why is it not 'good enough' to ask their coordinators? Are co-ordinators >not to be trusted to co-ordinate? > >Derek Lowe > >Allan Raymond wrote: > >>I'll wait until the debate finishes between Co-ordinators on the use of one >>or two files per double page scan and reword my original suggestion to cover >>both scenario. >> >>My man concern was to get volunteers to include the correct +PAGE where the >>two pages are in the one file. >> >>It's not good enough for it to be left up in the air by asking volunteers to >>ask their Co-ordinator. >> >>Suitable words can be devised to cover both situations. >> >>Allan Raymond >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Steve Gaunt <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >>Date: 11 July 2004 07:35 >>Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans >> >> >> >> >>>If syndicates deal with the transcription of double page scans in different >>>ways as now seems to be the case, the main difference being a one file or a >>>two file transcription, then the only thing that can be put in the "Hints >>>and >>>Help Guide" or "Transcriber's Knowledge Base" is the following: >>>Q. What is the process for transcribing a double page scan (i.e. two >>> >>> >>index >> >> >>>pages to a scan) >>>A. Ask your syndicate coordinator. >>> >>>Steve Gaunt >>>Croscan >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Allan Raymond" <[email protected]> >>>To: <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 3:47 PM >>>Subject: +PAGE's for double page scans >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >==== 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 >