FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L Archives

Archiver > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES > 2004-07 > 1089743034


From: "Allan Raymond" <>
Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:23:54 +0100


John

You may have noticed from follow up correspondence to my email that some
Syndicate Co-ordinators insist on two pages to a file whilst others are
happy to go down the one page to a file.

The two pages to a file and how to add the +PAGE has been mentioned on the
Syndicates and Admin lists in the past so this shouldn't be seen as
something I've conjured
out of thin air. I can't recollect any Co-ordinator saying "hang on a minute
we don't do it that way" when the queries were initially sent to the
Syndicates and Admin lists.

My aim was formalise the process by adding the instructions to our "Hints
and Help Guide" or "Transcriber's Knowledge Base"

Following from the comments from Co-ordinators who mentioned they adopted
one or other process I sent a follow up email on 12/07/2004 mentioning
"Suitable words can be devised to cover both situations" , that is one page
to a file or two pages to a file.

Therefore if you are using one page to a file carry on, similarly if other
Syndicate are using two pages to a file they carry on in exactly their same
way.

My reworded instructions will mirror my comments above but will also
indicate how and where to insert the correct +PAGES, in particular where two
pages to a file are involved.

Long files should only be rejected where they don't conform to the standard
protocol, generally absence of the correct +PAGEs.

Incidentally, it is quite easy to check if all pages have been transcribed
for files containing double page scans, so long as transcribers insert the
correct +PAGEs.

Cheers

Allan Raymond

-----Original Message-----
From: JOHN PINGRAM <>
To: <>
Date: 13 July 2004 09:09
Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans


>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. Long files seem currently to be rejected.
>Kind regards,
>John
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Allan Raymond" <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:47 PM
>Subject: +PAGE's for double page scans
>
>
>> 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?
>>
>> The query revolves around double page scans (i.e. two Index pages to a
>> scan). I've just noticed that some volunteers are not inserting a +PAGE
to
>> separate the two pages within the transcription.
>>
>> If the decision is taken to go down "Transcriber's Knowledge Base" route,
>> I'm proposng the following addional Q & A.
>>
>> Q. What is the process for transcribing a double page scan (i.e. two
>index
>> pages to a scan)
>>
>> A. You transcribe the scan as one file and name the file exactly as if
>was
>> a one page scan.
>>
>> For example, the double page scan 1874b4-520 would have a file name
>> 1874B4W0520.
>>
>> You also need to add three +PAGEs, one at the start of the entries, one
at
>> the end of the entries and a further one in the middle of the entries to
>> denote the end of the first index page and the start of the second.
>>
>> For example, the file for the double page scan 1874b4-520 would contain
>the
>> following +PAGEs
>>
>> +PAGE,0520
>> WAKEFIELD,Henry John,Coventry,6d,516
>> other entries on first page down to
>> WALGROVE,John William,"Bradford, Y",9b,258
>> +PAGE,0521
>> WALKER,Charles,W. Bromwich,6b,849
>> other entries on second page down to
>> WALKER,Martha Ann,Medway,2a,493
>> +PAGE,0522
>>
>> Allan Raymond
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I th
>> Sorry for the delay.
>> >
>> > You upload as one file with the appropriate +PAGE, to separate the
>actual
>> > two pages of the Index.
>> >
>> > Thus, if you were transcribing a double page scan such as
>1871B4-342.tiff.
>> >
>> > File name would be similar to 1871B40342.
>> >
>> > The file +PAGE's would be:
>> >
>> > +PAGE,0342
>> > Owens,John etc
>> > ... (other page 342 entries)
>> > Page,Herbert Frank etc
>> > +PAGE,0343
>> > Page,Horace Archibald etc
>> > ... (other page 113 entries)
>> > Palmer,Emma etc
>> > +PAGE,0344
>> >
>> > To add to the confusion the two page scan which I choose at random also
>> has
>> > Surnames "Page".
>> >
>> > How does my suggestion sound to you?
>> >
>> > To my recollection, we haven't given any advice on how to deal with two
>> page
>> > scans. I'll see of I can put some words together within the next day or
>so
>> > Co-ordinators can thrash out by best approach.
>> >
>>
>
>
>==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ====
>For those in -L mode, to unsubscribe from this mailing list please send the
command UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message to -
>
>
>==============================
>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
>




This thread: