search

FreeUKGen / FreeUKRegProductIssues

Repo for user-reported FreeUKReg product issues
2 stars 0 forks source link

Harmonise instructions and practice for illegible dates #841

Open PatReynolds opened 7 years ago

PatReynolds commented 7 years ago

Current practice: enter deduced date. Current instructions: twys

Suggested resolution amend instructions: enter record twice, once twys (UCF), once deduced followed by '?'

edickens commented 7 years ago

If this is to be the standard, then a program change is needed. There will still be records with UCF years which will appear in the decade analysis as 0 year. The server should ignore all records with UCF year (except for a ? after it) when calculating the decade analysis.

Sherlock21 commented 7 years ago

The researcher would then get duplicate results if you create duplicate records. That would be most confusing to say the lease. And the limit of 250 results would need doubling in order to show the del number of result records.

I would not favour this approach as a Transcriber either. Means twice as much typing to get the same number if records transcribed.

What timing effect on upload and processing? What timing effect on a search.?

Not the best solution in my view - given the options that have been put forward.

edickens commented 7 years ago

I don't think that UCF AND being able to "guess" the answer is used that often.

Also, the duplicate record is really only important to use when the year

Sometimes the name will be "guessed" from other entries in the register, and a second entry needs to be created for this. But again, this does not happen often.

E

On 14/11/2016 18:48, Sherlock21 wrote:

The researcher would then get duplicate results if you create duplicate records. That would be most confusing to say the lease. And the limit of 250 results would need doubling in order to show the del number of result records.

I would not favour this approach as a Transcriber either. Means twice as much typing to get the same number if records transcribed.

What timing effect on upload and processing? What timing effect on a search.?

Not the best solution in my view - given the options that have been put forward.

helhyde commented 7 years ago

This is a short term solution only, EricB. If transcribers prefer to continue to not follow the instructions, that is up to them. What is stopping a copy-and-paste of a line?

On 15 November 2016 at 08:50, Eric Dickens notifications@github.com wrote:

I don't think that UCF AND being able to "guess" the answer is used that often.

Also, the duplicate record is really only important to use when the year

  • not just the day and month - is UCF. This is to ensure that the record is found in a year range search. The researcher will not get confused because the entry with UCF will not come up under a year range search, but only if they omit the years.

Sometimes the name will be "guessed" from other entries in the register, and a second entry needs to be created for this. But again, this does not happen often.

E

On 14/11/2016 18:48, Sherlock21 wrote:

The researcher would then get duplicate results if you create duplicate records. That would be most confusing to say the lease. And the limit of 250 results would need doubling in order to show the del number of result records.

I would not favour this approach as a Transcriber either. Means twice as much typing to get the same number if records transcribed.

What timing effect on upload and processing? What timing effect on a search.?

Not the best solution in my view - given the options that have been put forward.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/FreeUKRegProductIssues/issues/841#issuecomment-260582575, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANXTHXwUNNt0rVNIbNIGKUeT2h231SDYks5q-XJigaJpZM4KxiuA .

- -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A charity registered in England and Wales, number 1096940, transitioning to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1904 541411​ +44 7943 145387

36 Albemarle Road, York, YO23 1ER, UK

Captainkirkdawson commented 7 years ago

What is relationship between this and #832 and #833

helhyde commented 7 years ago

832 is the proper fix. #841 is dealing with disparity between the

instructions and the practice, until tech can cope with the practice (#832), and the instructions re-issued as a result (#833).

On 15 November 2016 at 17:20, Kirk Dawson notifications@github.com wrote:

What is relationship between this and #832 https://github.com/FreeUKGen/FreeUKRegProductIssues/issues/832

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/FreeUKRegProductIssues/issues/841#issuecomment-260706117, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANXTHauJ-ewLNoV0NiomL2dgg0HZERNVks5q-enigaJpZM4KxiuA .

- -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A charity registered in England and Wales, number 1096940, transitioning to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1904 541411​ +44 7943 145387

36 Albemarle Road, York, YO23 1ER, UK

AlOneill commented 7 years ago

Updated a couple of weeks ago: http://www.freereg.org.uk/cms/information-for-transcribers/entering-data-from-registers

PatReynolds commented 7 years ago

On 15 December 2016 at 17:26, AlOneill notifications@github.com wrote:

Updated a couple of weeks ago: http://www.freereg.org.uk/cms/ information-for-transcribers/entering-data-from-registers

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/FreeUKRegProductIssues/issues/841#issuecomment-267388260, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGC5BgzxJbyhjYClx-4m-o_OsLu8cd_bks5rIXgxgaJpZM4KxiuA .

-- - -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A charity registered in England and Wales, number 1096940, transitioning to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1904 541411​ +44 7943 145387

36 Albemarle Road, York, YO23 1ER, UK

AlOneill commented 7 years ago

@PatReynolds @edickens I was given to understand that what I added was the outcome of all the discussions.

Should I remove the instruction?

SteveBiggs commented 7 years ago

WinFreeREG will need to allow the use of a '?' after the year - currently it flags up that the entry is badly formatted.

EmJayFry commented 7 years ago

First time I've been involved in this one!

I don't see a need to have to deduce dates. We already have capability to enter the year using _ and * where necessary.

edickens commented 7 years ago

Because if the year is totally unreadable, and you just enter a Star, then a 0 year is generated and the record will never be found in a year search. The full year should be deduced from the position in the register but entered with a ? after it. E

EmJayFry commented 7 years ago

What about double-dating? Where should the ? go?

SteveBiggs commented 7 years ago

Since it's an estimate, we probably don't need to double date, but if we do, the '?' should still go at the end .

Sherlock21 commented 7 years ago

But, Steve, for many users, the lack of a positive year creates a 0 in the start year of that batch - which then negates the value of having from / to years range of a file. If no year is readable ( or even in the record), it was previously advised that the Transcriber should work out the most reasonable date form adjacent records, and use year only and put in a note to say whet they did.

SteveBiggs commented 7 years ago

Yes exactly. That's what I've been saying - put in a valid date (with a '?') so we don't get the 0 problem.

SteveBiggs commented 7 years ago

If we are now allowing UCF in the year, the transcriber help notes will need updating accordingly.

edickens commented 7 years ago

Are we getting ahead of ourselves? I seem to remember that we were going to in V1.6 introduce an extra field being the assumed or searchable year. Just as we will have an extra field for Transcriber's Notes to distinguish them from the Register Notes. Both of these allow for TWYS in the main field.

Captainkirkdawson commented 7 years ago

We have always allowed UCF in dates. We just did not handle them consistently

Kirk Dawson 5220 Riverside Drive Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On 16 August 2017 at 06:29, Eric Dickens notifications@github.com wrote:

Are we getting ahead of ourselves? I seem to remember that we were going to in V1.6 introduce an extra field being the assumed or searchable year. Just as we will have an extra field for Transcriber's Notes to distinguish them from the Register Notes. Both of these allow for TWYS in the main field.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/FreeUKRegProductIssues/issues/841#issuecomment-322755144, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACvdRjILk2JZyIwh0XEPdJRaQyrIUPyWks5sYuCrgaJpZM4KxiuA .

SteveBiggs commented 7 years ago

Technically allowed, but the help notes currently state not to use UCF in the year.

edickens commented 7 years ago

OK in the date, but it is the YEAR which should be complete. A question mark after the date is needed if a year has been deduced.