FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L Archives

Archiver > FREEBMD-DISCUSS > 2008-04 > 1208770553


From: "Archer Barrie" <>
Subject: RE: System Entries - Corrections to IncorrectIndexEntriesConfirmedbythe GRO
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:35:53 +0100
References: <BAY119-DAV7442F0BDF03043E81F31BD2160@phx.gbl><4EE1F57B66CB4BDAB5AAD11BB2D1AE43@OwnerPC><012301c8a36f$023934e0$6600a8c0@Desktop>
In-Reply-To: <012301c8a36f$023934e0$6600a8c0@Desktop>


The source given was "GRO advises that the index is in error. Ref
MCP07/08028"

1) Having reviewed the email trail I am not sure where #THEORY came into
the picture and why. #THEORY is used in a transcription to indicate a
possible error in the index and is a potential indicator that a system
entry is needed. It is not relevant in the context of corrections.

As previously indicted we are struggling somewhat with coming up with a
way that will allow valid system entry requests to be submitted without
opening the floodgates to inappropriate requests. In this context it
should be noted that we received 558 correction requests in the last
week (we don't count rejections). Keeping up with this number is
difficult enough so allowing additional ones needs to be carefully
thought out, in particular submitting more information is not
necessarily going to help.

Comments from the Corrections Coordinator would be useful at this point.

2) I have raised a task to provide such a facility. The Corrections
Coordinator can comment on whether the full source text can be included
in the response.

3) No. The subject of GRO published corrections has been raised
recently. There appears to be no method available to subscribe to such
changes (as indicated in the response you received).

4) Yes. How we handle this is addressed in 1)

5) Covered by 3) and 4)

6) There are no such facilities at the moment. Addressed in 1).

Barrie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Sitton [mailto:]
> Sent: 21 April 2008 06:18
> To:
> Subject: Re: System Entries - Corrections to Incorrect
> IndexEntriesConfirmedbythe GRO
>
> I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this subject, with a
> view to having
> a searchable entry made available on FreeBMD as well as a
> postem. Having
> submitted a correction request (attaching it to the incorrect
> Siswick entry)
> through the normal channels, this request has now been
> rejected by the
> co-ordinator with the reason:
>
> Quote from rejection message dated 20/4/2008:
> >The FreeBMD project transcribes the GRO indicies as is, and will
> >not make changes unless they are supported by the GRO index itself
> >
> >The details of the rejected correction(s) are
> >
> >Reference is: 2008-03-0397
> >Submitted on: 2008-03-04 23:39:10
> >EventYearQuarter Marriages 1863 Dec
> >Current Entry: Siswick,William Henry,,St Martin,1a,655
> >Proposed Entry: Sitton,William Henry,,St Martin,1a,655
> >Source Valid = Yes
> >Comments (if any): The entry is correctly transcribed as per
> the FreeBMD
> >HANDWRITTEN Index. No change will be made
> >FreeBMD Scan File name: 1863M4-S-0094.jpg
> >
> Unquote.
>
> My questions for the Discuss List are therefore:
>
> 1) Did I complete the correction request with the right
> information as to
> #THEORY? Unfortunately I have no copy of the text used in
> the submitted
> correction request form. If I didn't submit the form properly
> and this is
> the sole cause of the rejection, then please ignore questions
> 3) to 5)
> below.
>
> Reading Allan Raymond's email dated 03 March, 2008 below, I
> may easily have
> omitted #THEORY on the basis that I couldn't find a way to submit the
> supporting GRO information e-mail within the limited number
> of characters
> provided in the source details field and without the ability
> to submit a
> file in support of the request. Question 6) below refers.
>
> 2) Would it be possible please to have the change details and
> source text
> for submitted correction requests automatically e-mailed to
> the submitter
> upon initial acceptance by FreeBMD of a correction request
> form, such an
> auto-acknowledgement e-mail being triggered in the event that
> the user ticks
> a box (default to be none) requesting the e-mail
> confirmation? I would find
> this useful at any time but especially when submitting
> multiple corrections,
> as well as in cases such as the one above. Alternatively, would it be
> possible for the acceptance/rejection e-mail to state the
> precise content of
> the source field's original text at submission?
>
> 3) Is it true that FreeBMD requires an officially sourced and
> GRO revised
> copy of the index page before the corrections co-ordinator
> will favourably
> consider such a correction request and if true, what
> mechanisms exist for
> FreeBMD to obtain or to be provided with index pages that may
> have been
> recently corrected by the GRO?
>
> 4) Is it true that GRO confirmation such as in the
> immediately following
> e-mail text is considered as valid evidence that such an
> index entry will
> exist and thus be an acceptable source? If acceptable, how
> should one submit
> it? The GRO e-mail is available as an eml file.
>
> 5) If neither 3) nor 4) is true, what, if anything, does
> FreeBMD regard as
> an acceptable source in such instances where the GRO admit
> that the index
> available to FreeBMD is in error?
>
> 6) In any event, how can one provide FreeBMD with an
> acceptable FILE source
> through the normal correction request channels, bearing in
> mind that no
> facilities appear to exist for the submission of files in support of
> correction requests whether they be revised index pages or
> GRO written
> confirmations?
>
> My experience using the Correction Request facility also
> suggests that
> source details that do not contain one of a number of
> specific text strings
> concerning the source are rejected at submission and whilst I
> can readily
> understand the reasons for those restrictions, the process seems
> extraordinarily difficult for such instances as the one I
> have on my hands.
> Subsequent-to-scan GRO corrections are sadly not so rare as
> to be treated as
> entirely exceptional. One also wonders how FreeBMD might, in
> due time, treat
> a potential need to review the indices for GRO corrections
> made subsequent
> to the production of the index page scans you have now on
> file. Please don't
> feel the need to reply to that remark as a formal question;
> not just yet at
> least.
>
> I suspect that as your project advances, the number of
> user-originated
> correction requests of this nature will probably accelerate
> since more
> errors at the GRO will come to light simply as a result of
> the data being
> more FreeBMDly available. For sure, processing the enormous number of
> correction requests received cannot be an easy task for the
> co-ordinator. I
> do hope however, that the FreeBMD project will eventually
> cater more readily
> for truly valid index corrections which are outside of the scope of
> relatively simple transcription error correction requests,
> given the time
> and priorities involved. If your corrections policy is such that
> subsequent-to-scan GRO corrections are not to be considered
> as valid, as
> suggested in the rejection advice, then I would be happy to
> know that and to
> close my own file on the topic.
>
> Kind regards,
> Chris Sitton
>
> Quote from GRO e-mail dated 11/01/2008:
> >Dear Mr Sitton
> >
> >Re: Indexes for December quarter 1863 Vol 1a Page 655
> >
> >Marriage of William Henry SITTON and Jane WILSON
> >
> >Further to your correspondence relating to the surname of
> the groom being
> >spelt incorrectly in the marriage indexes. I have now
> checked the records
> >of the General Register Office and I can confirm that the
> entry clearly
> >shows the surname of the groom to be Sitton and not Siswick.
> It would
> >appear that when the quarterly return was received at this Office the
> >indexer read Sitton incorrectly and therefore indexed as
> they interpreted
> >the incumbents hand writing.
> >
> >I will make arrangements for the indexes held at this Office to be
> >corrected through our Receipt and Indexing department who
> will make an
> >alteration to our records. Although I must advise you that
> this will not
> >be automatically replicated on the indexes which are held by
> individuals or
> >on the internet.
> >
> >Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, please
> be advised that
> >your file will now be closed.
> >
> >Yours sincerely
> >
> >Sarah Gxxxxx {surname obscured for the sender's privacy protection}
> >Marriages and Civil Partnerships Branch
> >General Register Office
> >
> >
> >NB If replying to this by e-mail please include "Enquiry"
> in the subject
> >field.
> >
>
> Unquote. (Disclaimers and footers deleted)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Allan Raymond" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:57 AM
> Subject: Re: System Entries - Corrections to Incorrect Index
> EntriesConfirmedbythe GRO
>
>
> > I'm not advocating the use of #THEORY in this context.
> >
> > But if it is used then #THEORY Surname should be XXXXXXXXXX (or
> > whatever...)
> > on its own without supporting information is somewhat meaningless.
> >
> > Don't forget we are transcribing the Index and there should
> be a reason
> > why
> > #THEORY is considered appropriate.
> >
> > Allan Raymond
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Riley" <>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:57 PM
> > Subject: RE: System Entries - Corrections to Incorrect Index Entries
> > Confirmedbythe GRO
> >
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > In response to my (similar question):
> >
> >>2. PRIVILEGE or PROCESS. How does one request EITHER
> >> the "Can create/modify/delete System Entries" privilege
> >> OR for a description of the process (required to submit
> >> requests)? In my own ONS I definitely have a few of
> >> these - and look forward to hopefully adding some -
> >> or at least requesting such entries (thru appropriate
> >> justification)?
> >
> > Archer Barrie replied on Sunday, 24 February 2008 11:32 PM
> >
> > 2. Requests for System Entries should be made through the normal
> > corrections
> > process. If the entry does not exist attach it to the
> nearest one. Some
> > background here. One big issue for FreeBMD is processing
> corrections
> > because
> > it is very time consuming to make such corrections and it is very
> > difficult
> > to get people to only submit valid corrections. This is why
> the process is
> > so clumbersome and why we point to Postems which are often more
> > appropriate.
> > Hence the reason why we don't publicise System Entries as
> such in the
> > correction process.
> >
> > So I have just been using the corrections facility (making
> the appropriate
> > change) and adding appropriate text :
> >
> > GRO Advice
> > #THEORY Surname should be XXXXXXXXXX (or whatever...)
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Steve
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> Chris Sitton
> > Sent: Monday, 3 March 2008 9:34 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: System Entries - Corrections to Incorrect Index
> Entries Confirmed
> > bythe GRO
> >
> > I have confirmation from the GRO, Marriages and Civil
> Partnerships Branch
> > concerning an incorrectly indexed item in the marriages for
> the December
> > quarter of 1863.
> >
> > Could someone please send me a link to the FreeBMD procedure for
> > submitting
> > this information to you for the purpose of generating a
> System Entry as I
> > have not been able to find a reference to that procedure.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris Sitton
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without
> > the
> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without
> > the
> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without
> > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> >
>
>
>
>

This thread: