Talk:Multiline optical-character reader

Globalize Tag

I noticed that the globalization tag has been sitting on this page for several month, and the basis of it seems to be that, since there is a single line stating that Canada uses the same type of machine, this isn't a complete article and should be expanded. While I have no doubt that the project this represents is perfectly valid and necessary for many things, I fail to see why an article about a single type of machinery that was designed for the USPS, and which is in limited use elsewhere needs to have specific sections about it's uses in other countries. If we start requiring articles on every piece of machinery that is not used specifically only in the US, we are going to have a lot of these tags all over the place. I think that the burden should be on the person who put this tag on to show that the use represented is unrepresentative, rather than just tagging it and walking away. However, I have tried to assume good faith and have spent about 45 minutes trying to find any indication that the machine is not used in the exact same way in Canada, and no matter how I search, either in Google or at the Canada Post website, I find nothing about it's use. I will now delete the tag, but would be willing to discuss the matter with anyone who is adamant that it stays on, and would be willing to work with that person to identify whatever information is felt is necessary to add to the article. Thanks! --Drake Maijstral 05:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that this article talks about things like RBCS and ZIP+4 codes, which are USPS-specific, before even mentioning the USPS, as if it's just assumed that the USA is the default country in Wikipedia and only articles about what goes on elsewhere need to specify the country they're talking about. The problem could be easily sorted out by specifying that this article is about something used by the USPS, but the mention of Canada shows that they are used elsewhere. One solution would be to rearrange general information first, then details of usage in different postal systems under a subheading. So far we could have a section on the USPS and a brief mention of Canada, so the article might still be incomplete in its coverage, but at least it would be clear about what was being covered. 79.68.156.147 (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO... other countries like Australia Post use the generically termed "MLOCR", which although is a similar machine to what is described in this article, has some defined differences. The MLOCR in Australia sorts to each address, assigning a DPID (delivery point ID) via fluorescent barcode which is then used down the line to either round sort or even sequence sort. It also uses a floating buffer that allows around 30 seconds for video coding, if required. After that time however, if the mail piece is not decoded then it is rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.40.31 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ML-OCRs as in OCR systems capable of reading multiple address lines have been the standard since at least the late 80s - early 90's in new builds and since about then in the US when the ML upgrades started getting fielded in a big way. So the statement saying that ML-OCRS are also used by Canada Post and Australia is misleading. Dozens of countries have OCR systems capable of reading multiple address lines and have had for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.97.90 (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]