Good, I can now get on with writing up the contents of the instructions! Hindsight is a marvellous thing. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Steve Gaunt <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: 15 July 2004 18:23 Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans >> 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 >> >> > > >==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ==== >Want to help FreeBMD? >Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how. > >============================== >You can manage your RootsWeb-Review subscription from >http://newsletters.rootsweb.com/ > >