FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L Archives

Archiver > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES > 2006-12 > 1166449420


From: "Dave Mayall" <>
Subject: Re: GRO page connection all wrong for GORDON 1841 deaths
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:43:40 +0000 GMT
References: <2000031219-1166383694-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-30010-@engine53-cell01.bwc.produk.on.blackberry><PAEHIEACCGDLBHKKBJLHKEFMJKAA.brian.smart@blueyonder.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <PAEHIEACCGDLBHKKBJLHKEFMJKAA.brian.smart@blueyonder.co.uk>


It was more an observation, than directed at anybody.

There has been a great deal of discussion, but it appears to be generating more heat than light.

Links to scans from transcriptions are generated by a set of "rules" written in the software.

Those rules are necessarily complex, because they must deal with a bewildering variety of data which has idiosyncracies that have crept in over the years. (When we started, we never imagined that we would link to scans)

Whilst it is easy for a real human to work out which scan is correct, a real human has a huge advantage. He can actually view the scan.

The algorithm must decide based only on the content and name of the transcribed file, and the scan name.

Sometimes, that isn't enough, and we need to give the algorithm "hints".

For this, we hold a table of those years that have known ambiguities.

Clearly, until this issue was raised, scan linkage wasn't given much priority by anybody on an ongoing basis. The table was populated with the known cases, and that was that. It appeared to work, and we knew that more modern scans didn't need it.

This discussion has shown that there are some quarters that were missed.

It doesn't mean that the lookup table isn't working. It does mean that the lookup table needs aditional data to work for a particular quarter.

So, it seems to me that all that is needed is to get the problematic quarters into the table, and the problem ceases to be a problem!

I don't expect co-ords to populate the table, because it isn't that user friendly. So it will fall to Barrie or me to do that bit. All we need is the relevant info, usually from the co-ord about exactly what transforms have taken place.

So, if any co-ords are aware of poor linkage to scans in a quarter, just send an e-mail to describing the problem, and detailing what naming conventions are in use, and we will look at the necessary table entries.

It may, of course, be that there is a simpler algorithm, but I have yet to see it!

-----Original Message-----
From: "Brian Smart" <>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:11:32
To:<>
Subject: RE: GRO page connection all wrong for GORDON 1841 deaths

Hello Dave,
Who was your comment aimed at?
Brian Smart


> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:]On Behalf Of Dave Mayall
> Sent: 17 December 2006 20:26
> To:
> Subject: Re: GRO page connection all wrong for GORDON 1841 deaths
>
>
> Lookup tables only work if there are relevant entries in there!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Brian Smart" <>
> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:18:05
> To:<>
> Subject: RE: GRO page connection all wrong for GORDON 1841 deaths
>
> Hello Dave,
> It can't always be used, otherwise the original email that
> started this off
> would never have been written!
> Regards
>
> Brian Smart
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [mailto:]On Behalf Of
> >
> > Sent: 17 December 2006 14:01
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: GRO page connection all wrong for GORDON 1841 deaths
> >
> >
> > Quoting Brian Smart <>:
> >
> > > Hello Barrie,
> > > Surely all you have to do is decide which of the options the
> > current system
> > > finds is the right one. I use a look up table. If you did the
> > same you would
> > > know which one is correct as the surname being searched is
> > available from
> > > the search criteria.
> >
> > That is exactly what the offsets table does, where required.
> >
> > It only comes into play where there is potential ambiguity in
> one or both
> > sides.
> >
> > With more modern scans, where we avoid ranges such as E-V in
> file naming,
> > there is never any ambiguity.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > 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
>
>



-------------------------------
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: