FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L Archives

Archiver > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES > 2009-02 > 1234740330


From: "Jeremy Hakes" <>
Subject: RE: Revised district lists for WinBMD
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:25:30 -0000
In-Reply-To: <COL0-DAV42C1DF066F8CEE4F78745CB7B60@phx.gbl>


Thank you Ian

As the Co-ordinator that has just been allocated 1937 Births - and lost no
time in pointing out the potential problem, I should be pleased to trial the
programme for you.

I would expect to start allocations to transcribers in a few weeks time but
may well transcribe the odd page myself before that to see where any
potential pitfalls are.

Kind Regards
Jeremy Hakes
All Scan Syndicate


-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Ian Brooke
Sent: 15 February 2009 22:22
To:
Subject: Re: Revised district lists for WinBMD


The only quick fix would be for me to send a version of the WinBMD program
which allows numbers to the coordinator and let him/her give it to the
transcribers, they could just save it into their WinBMD folder.

The longer this program is used, the more I find that some of the checks
that the program is doing are no longer valid . I'm not sure if this is
because they have changed with time or if I was simply too rigorous. They
were or at least seemed a good idea at the time, even though they duplicate
checks that the FreeBMD upload carries out, it seemed better that the
transcriber finds errors before trying to upload. I don't really know what
the best long-term answer is - to remove them altogether or try to bring
them back in line with FreeBMD or something else. Does anyone have any
thoughts on this?

Ian



----- Original Message -----
From: "Allan Raymond" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Revised district lists for WinBMD


> In addition to keeping the WinBMD standard District Picklist up to
> date
> how are we going to deal with Districts such as "Northumberland North
> First" which came into being on 1 January 1937.
>
> I'm now starting to allocate 1937 to Syndicates and scans are showing
> "Northumberland North First" as "Nthhmbld.N.1st". WinBMD doesn't accept
> numerals in the District Field and it isn't really on to expect
> transcribers to adopt the process in
> http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vol_faq.html#6ah which really was to cover a
> possible mistype in the District name?
>
> Allan Raymond
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Archer Barrie" <>
> To: <>;
> <>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:34 AM
> Subject: Revised district lists for WinBMD
>
>
> I am discussing with Ian Brooke how the next version of WinBMD can be
> enhanced to address the problem of the district list getting out of
> date.
>
> The issue is that the District Aliasing Team are continually revising
> the district information on the system but transcribers using WinBMD
> are working with an out of date version of this information. The
> current proposal is that when WinBMD uploads a file to the system it
> will also download a new version of the district file if one exists.
> This means that subsequently the transcriber will be working with the
> new districts list.
>
> The transcriber's locally added districts will not be affected by
> downloading the new districts list.
>
> If anyone can see any issues with this, or would like clarification of
> the proposal, please let me know.
>
> Barrie
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/14/09
18:01:00


This thread: