FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L Archives

Archiver > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES > 2008-01 > 1201217074


From: "Archer Barrie" <>
Subject: RE: Handwritten addition crossed out...
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:24:34 -0000
References: <008701c85c44$4d062900$2101a8c0@nombreel92r0zn><002501c85de3$4e0292d0$135f4654@14spring><Pine.LNX.4.64.0801231232370.25614@mccoy.aps.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801231232370.25614@mccoy.aps.org>


We have always taken the view that if you enter too much information you
can discard it. If you discard information you have no means of
recovering it if you subsequently decide you want it. Hence we have the
ruling http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6z

It should also be noted that
(a) it is only a supposition that "it would have been changed...with no
permant record" and
(b) in the only example so far cited the entries were not identical

Barrie

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> Peter Adams
> Sent: 24 January 2008 15:18
> To:
> Subject: Re: Handwritten addition crossed out...
>
> I concur with Richard and Ted. An entry which has been crossed
> out or changed on an original index page means exactly that. If the
> facility to actually change such an entry had existed then, as it
> does now, it would have been changed (corrected ?) with no permanent
> record of the transaction being kept.
>
> Peter Adams
> The MacPack
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Ted Southcombe wrote:
>
> > We've encountered quite a lot of these in 1916 Births. I
> have followed a
> > similar line to Richard in advising transcribers to ignore
> the crossed out
> > version and transcribe the second one, which in most,
> probably all, cases is
> > identical and without a #Comment. I have also wondered
> about the reason for
> > these amendments.
> >
> > Regards, Ted Southcombe
> > .
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Oliver" <>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 3:42 PM
> > Subject: Handwritten addition crossed out...
> >
> >
> >> Advice, please, from my fellow Co-ordinators:
> >>
> >> We are transcribing 1928 March Births and are coming
> across an increasing
> >> number of instances where
> >>
> >> 1) a handwritten record is added at the foot of a column,
> and an insertion
> >> point indicated above;
> >> 2) the same record is crossed out;
> >> 3) the same record is written in again, in a different
> hand and with
> >> practically no difference, and not crossed out.
> >>
> >> One example of this can be seen on scan 1928B1-J-0182.
> >>
> >> I am advising my transcribers only to enter the second
> record, since it is
> >> identical to the first and entering it twice, with a
> #COMMENT after the
> >> first, is surely carrying TWYS too far, and adds nothing
> to the database?
> >> I imagine it originated with some procedural muddle at the GRO....
> >>
> >> Richard Oliver
> >> Madrid, Spain
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------------------------
> >> 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 message has been processed by Firetrust Benign.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > 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: