Thanks for this and to the other who wrote in.
It's clear that I'm behind others on the debate.
I do feel however that the fact that local history is a
subject for many people with no links with educational
institutions who do a first-class job with no funding,
needs to be stressed in any discussions. I would be happy
if the PRO will simply agree to make micro-fiche available
to anyone at a reasonable cost as per the previous censuses.
David
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 19:58:25 +0000 "P. and J. Crowther"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I thought that members might find it useful to see the following which
> was on a recent GENBRIT file. Jan Crowther
>
>
> Background
> ==========
> Ever since the PRO announced their plans for digitisation and Internet
> access for the 1901 census of England and Wales, there has been a lively
> debate in this news group and across the country in other forums. This
> debate has focused on 2 main issues, access and quality - issues that
> are inevitably linked.
>
> On 28 Jan 2000 I had a meeting with Iain Watt (Head of the Reader
> Information Services Department) and David Annal who is closely involved
> in census access projects at the FRC (Family Records Centre). The
> objective of the meeting from my side was to raise these issues face to
> face with them, to see if a way forward could be found. From the PRO's
> side they were keen to discuss these issues, and to build public
> confidence in what they see as an important project.
>
> For the record I have sent a copy of this message to the PRO in advance
> for them to correct any factual inaccuracies before I publish it, but
> the opinions expressed are my own.
>
> The remainder of this message is a summary of these discussions.
>
> News group/Internet focus
> =========================
> The staff at the PRO read this newsgroup <soc.genealogy.britain> as well
> as all the messages sent to them at <[log in to unmask]>. They are
> clearly stung by the criticisms of the project that have been voiced
> here and want to find ways of working with the Family History community
> towards mutually satisfactory conclusions. I got the impression that
> this is a sincere commitment on their side. This has to be good news for
> the future of the project and is an endorsement of the value of all the
> many expressions of concern that have been aired in the news group.
>
> Quality issues
> ==============
> The initial concern that many of us felt was that the prison workforce
> would be insufficiently motivated, skilled, experienced and trained to
> become effective transcribers. To compound this there was a fear that
> insufficient checking for adequate quality (where quality is defined as
> fitness for purpose) would be done in QC (Quality Control) mode,
> resulting in an unusable index. Couple that with the restricted access
> to the microfiche facsimile of the 1901 census data (compared to the
> similar data for the 1891 census say), and you have a recipe for
> disaster. I was also, and remain, concerned about the focus on QC rather
> than QA (Quality Assurance), and stressed the need for independent
> assessment of quality in addition to internal QC. I was not given full
> details of the transcription process, mainly I suspect because its final
> aspects are yet to be settled. The process in outline as I understand it
> will be:
>
> 1) Two independent prison inmates will transcribe a section of a CEB
> (Census Enumerator's Book) into a database file.
>
> 2) The two transcripts will be compared by a program to produce a
> difference file that will be used by an assessor to produce a master
> file for that section. DERA will also carry out checks (as described in
> previous press releases) on quality, supervised by an experienced family
> historian.
>
> 3) The PRO will take a sample of the master files from each section
> transcribed and compare it to the original CEB. If it falls below the
> defined quality level (I am not yet sure what that will be), the entire
> section will be rejected and returned for reworking by different
> transcribers. This process (steps 1-3) will loop until the PRO's samples
> meet the quality standard.
>
> 4) The PRO have now added an additional QC stage that will be
> independent of themselves and DERA. They will approach Family History
> groups such as the FFHS (Federation of Family History Societies), SoG
> (Society of Genealogists) and BALH (British Association for Local
> History) and have offered their representatives, under the terms of a
> suitable non-disclosure/release agreement, the opportunity to measure
> transcription accuracy on a sample of their own selection. This new move
> has to be welcomed.
>
> I was given further information on transcriber recruitment. The PRO
> estimate that less than 1% of the prison population will be involved.
> These people should be to a large extent self-selecting as the more
> intelligent and interested part of the prison population. Prison Service
> staff responsible for the checking process will be trained by the PRO.
> The final output of the data transcribing and checking is aimed to be a
> set of database tables that will be searchable via the Internet. The
> concern I repeated was that if the data sample quality meets the PRO's
> standards in 3) and 4) above, yet still gives too long a list of search
> results, we still have a problem. Perhaps a repetition of my previous
> example here will explain this.
>
> My great grandfather was John William SMITH (1860-1912). If he follows
> the pattern of his previous entries he will appear as John SMITH. I
> suspect that he could have been in either Bradford YKS or London MDX in
> 1901, and his precise whereabouts is of interest to me as he was in the
> process of separating from my great grandmother at this time. If I were
> to be restricted to a free search for John SMITH in London or John SMITH
> in Bradford, I'd be presented with a hit list of >1000 for the first and
> probably around 200 for the second. How would I be able to find the
> right one even if the index was 100% accurate?
>
> Free searches / Paid searches?
> ==============================
> The original PRO suggestion was for a 3 tier approach to Internet page
> access. The lowest level would be a free search on restricted numbers of
> fields, the second level would be a paid for search on probably any
> field at 50p a search, and the final level would be a copy of the
> facsimile CEB page for around 80p found by links from either of the two
> lower level searches. There was no clear definition of what we would be
> able to get from a free Internet search. The PRO had at one time
> suggested that it would include as a minimum the person's name and
> census place, and some of us had feared the worst that this would be all
> we'd get when looking for our John SMITHs. The PRO's position is that,
> what we will get for a free search should be set at the level that
> enables us to identify the people we want to find, and that from that
> free search it should be possible for us to go directly to the facsimile
> page of the CEB. I suggested therefore that there really was no need for
> an intermediate paid search, if this free search was to be organised in
> this way.
>
> So, on this issue of what will be accessible to us in a free search on
> the Internet, the PRO is still open to receive feedback on what we as
> family historians need. Here is an opportunity for all of us,
> individually and more importantly collectively, to influence the PRO's
> final decision on this. My opening shot on this is that as family
> historians we'd most like to be able to search on combinations of name
> (both parts), age, occupation, census place and birthplace, with the
> ability to use either wildcards or some kind of synonym searching
> (similar to the LDS 1881 CDs).
>
> Personally I think it's unlikely that we'll get every field returned
> from a free search, but again the PRO would like to know what would be
> the minimum useful set of fields to be returned by a free search. My
> opening shot was that we would need relationship to head and name of
> head in addition to the search field data itself.
>
> Sending feedback on this question to the PRO
> ============================================
> Any of us is free to send our views to the <[log in to unmask]>
> address at any time. However, the PRO would particularly welcome the
> majority opinions of larger groups and societies as well. If you are a
> member of a local society, can I ask that you take a copy of this
> message and copy it to members of your society so that they can consider
> the issues and respond on behalf of that society to the PRO? Similarly
> for this news group, I think it would be useful if we set up a series of
> options that participants could vote for, so that the PRO could be sent
> the balance of opinion over time. There'll undoubtedly be more of this
> in the near future.
>
> Pilot project
> =============
> The PRO plans to send out further information on the whole 1901 project
> in the next few days, both on their website and to those of us who have
> registered with them to receive updates by e-mail. (Let them know on
> <[log in to unmask]> if you'd like to receive this). One of the
> important things they'll be announcing is that a whole county (Norfolk)
> of the 1891 census will be transcribed, checked, quality controlled,
> indexed and placed on the Internet for search. The aim of this is that
> the county will be of a reasonable size and representative of both rural
> and industrial/urban areas. Those with Norfolk ancestors will be
> ecstatic to learn that they'll soon have census indexes that are
> computer searchable for 1851 and 1881 (LDS CD-ROMs) and 1891 and 1901
> (PRO online indexes).
>
> When this whole county 1891 data is up on the Internet, it will serve as
> a testbed for the kind of free searches and charged facsimiles that will
> be possible from the whole country 1901 census. The target is to have
> this county up and running early in 2001, so that there will be ample
> opportunity for us all to give the PRO feedback on what works and what
> does not. They have then committed to analysing this feedback and coming
> up with a free search/charged facsimile system that will give us what we
> want as family/local historians. I've little doubt from my discussions
> that this is a sincere proposal from the PRO and a practical way
> forward. I hope at the end of the day that their view of what is needed
> and the Family History communities' views coincide, but I'll reserve
> judgment on that till we see the pilot project in action.
>
> Overall though I think this is a useful step forward, and one we should
> all support with evaluation and feedback a year from now.
>
> Access issues
> =============
> One of the biggest issues in the minds of many family historians is the
> right of access to microfiche copies of the 1901 census. The statements
> from the PRO so far show that they were prepared to put a single copy of
> the whole thing on public access at one PRO site (probably Kew), and
> would supply CROs (County Record Offices) and other archives with copies
> (sold) of their local areas. I repeated the view that I think they
> should provide sold copies to any bona fide library or research group
> that wanted to buy copies from them, since this was the established
> precedent in the case of the 1891 census microfiche, and anything less
> would be a disenfranchisement of those family historians who do not or
> cannot use the Internet.
>
> I'm afraid the PRO has made no commitment to do this as yet, although
> the positive side is that they will be willing to listen to the
> arguments for it from individuals and groups (see feedback above). The
> argument I put to them is that the Family History community can be
> divided into two camps that have little overlap: those who will use the
> Internet, and those who cannot/will not. If there genuinely is little
> overlap between these two groups, what have the PRO to lose in providing
> fiche to the latter? The fiche will be purchased just as they are for
> the 1891 census.
>
> The PRO does not, I think, disbelieve this argument, it's just that it
> seems to me that it is not high on their agenda. If we want it to become
> so, we'll have to let them know with cogent arguments and expressions of
> the numbers of us that think so. I got the impression, although this was
> not stated, that the PRO is so focused on getting the Internet access
> right first time, that this was either on the back burner or ignored. I
> put it to them that if they did not have the resources to make and
> distribute fiche copies, then another independent group could be found
> who could do this (SoG, FFHS, etc).
>
> CD-ROM indexes?
> ===============
> Similarly many of us have felt that it would be useful and desirable to
> have CD-ROM versions of the indexes with similar search capabilities to
> those that will be finally settled for the free Internet searches.
>
> The PRO indicated that this is by no means impossible and that they will
> be in discussion with DERA to see if this is practical and desirable.
> The CD-ROM would replicate the free element of the Internet service.
> Again, it's up to us as individual and collective family historians to
> let the PRO know our views on this (see feeback above).
>
> Personally I feel that CD-ROM indexes (that would need to be purchased
> just as the LDS 1881 ones are) are a great boon. They allow one to sit
> and think and use quality time in doing difficult searches - something
> that is often difficult when the telephone clock is ticking online.
>
> Public consultation events
> ==========================
> In the next announcement that the PRO will be making on their website
> and via e-mail, there will be a list of public family history events at
> which the PRO will be attending with the specific aim of soliciting
> discussion and feedback on the proposals. They have chosen venues that
> are in all parts of the country as the initial meetings had more of a
> London and SE bias. If you get the chance to go along to one of those,
> I'd urge you to do so. Your views are important and the PRO need to hear
> them.
>
> Summary
> =======
> On the positive side the PRO have made moves towards improving the QC
> side of the transcription process, and will be providing us with a real
> testbed of a whole county 1891 census pilot project on which to evaluate
> it. They have also expressed a willingness to engage in dialogue with
> the Family History community to agree what kind of free searches will be
> ideal for finding people and families.
>
> On the negative side the questions of access to microfiche copies of the
> 1901 census have still not been addressed.
>
> The PRO have indicated that they will be soliciting and evaluating
> further feedback, and I therefore feel it's up to us individually and
> collectively to provide that to them so that together we can get it
> right. Yes folks, I do feel that these are people we can work together
> with rather than faceless bureaucrats, but it's up to us to play our
> part and contribute too.
>
> I apologise if there were other issues that some of you may have liked
> to see raised, but there simply wasn't time to go through everything. If
> you'd like to follow these yourselves with the PRO, the ball is in your
> court.
> --
> Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake
>
> Drake Software web site: http://www.tdrake.demon.co.uk
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|