NSW BDM online UPGRADE June 2014

[sparrett]

Link to summary of the interview (I think)

I personally am not seeing the slightest  improvement despite the purported round the clock team of "increased staff" working on it 


http://omnyapp.com/shows/47e37308-8be1-412c-8013-a219009797db/technical-issues-delay-funerals-across-the-state

Sue

[cando]

That's appalling

I did receive a reply to my 'complaint' ..all the usual we are working to improve our service etc etc.....We cannot go back to the old way.  As in all things change is sometimes hard but it will improve and you will find the new site easy once you are used to it.   


Cando

[sparrett]

That's appalling

I did receive a reply to my 'complaint' ..all the usual we are working to improve our service etc etc.....We cannot go back to the old way.  As in all things change is sometimes hard but it will improve and you will find the new site easy once you are used to it.   


Cando

So now the problem has become the user's lack of intellectual ability to learn new ways and lack of flexibility in regard to change.


It is amazing that the range of their excuses and waffle stretches to attribute the tragic time lags, error messages and omissions of essential information to the user

Sue

Sue

[cupoflife]

Shame BDM Shame!!! Stop trying to defend the indefensible. Lame-Ass excuses won't work.
Launching an "upgrade" that was not thoroughly tested was a Major Stuff Up!!! Removing the old site prematurely was another Big Mistake!!!
It only highlights the incompetence and lack of expertise in a vital government department. Heads need to roll at NSW BDM.      

[judb]

All I can say (with tongue firmly in cheek  ) is that we all suspected that the likes of Rootschatters (and especially Sue, Cando, JM, CofLife) would be such poor researchers that they will need to be familiar with the new site before they can use it properly.

HUMPH - what rubbish!

I emailed NSW BMDs a couple of weeks ago and got a standard reply implying that it would all be ok in the end. Again - what rubbish!

I am especially disgusted by the patronising and ridiculous comments received by Cando.

Unfortunately many of us do not live in NSW so writing to the appropriate minister would probably not be productive however, I hope those of us who do might think of ringing/writing to their local member.

It would be interesting to know what the three accredited agents think of this fiasco, although perhaps they don'tr need to use the indexes very often.

Judith

[franh1946]

I noticed today that the search page at least allows one to scroll down to find the search button if one is using a  very large font, or shows the search button without scrolling if one uses other than the very smallest font, which is what worried Neil and myself, and which I submitted a complaint about.  No district as yet though. I've abandoned the site and am concentrating on 18th c England! Fran

[majm]

Well, they seem to be getting around to co-operating finally, or at least understanding the difficulties they made, all by their own endeavours, for anyone wanting to actually spend money on obtaining copies of any of historic official records that they hold.   

I should also mention that there's been some adjustments to the reference nos. for the Early Church Records (the "V" series, basically pre civil registrations).    So, I share an earlier experience.   Several years ago, I was TOLD by a family history buff that the V stood as an abbreviation for VITAL.   I said
No, it is for VOLUME, and refers to the 1912 project that bound those holdings in Volumes.    That friend said (in effect), well you had better tell NSW BDM call centre operators that they are wrong.   

Ummm, so eventually I got passed those call centre operators, even past the email respondents, and spoke directly with a member of the "Executive team".    They in turn checked and errr, finally responded and basically agreed with not just ME, but of course with the NSW State Records Office, and with the State Library, and with a retired senior officer of the BDM.    (he is one of my very reliable elderly rellies, and has a wonderful sense of humour, and I so wish he would join RChat, as he has so much background knowledge !    and frequently reads the threads as a Guest).

So, although NSW BDM has not restored the reference column to match how it used to be, we can now see the Volume and its respective line no. for the baptisms, the burials and the marriages that are part of the Early Church Records.   

So, not only are the technocrats attending to the practicals but also to the substance !    Eventually it will be 'all back to normal' hopefully before too many have given up on sending funds to obtain the information that is available to the general public.    Afterall, funds are always needed for the commercial benefit of the state of NSW.           

Cheers,  JM

[sarra]

Well I'm not impressed with their service.
 Back in August (20th) I ordered a Death Record (year 1967), to be sent by email I am still waiting.  The turnaround time on their website said 8 weeks - it is now 10 weeks and I have not received it.
Wonder what their excuse is for this. I'll know to use a Transcription Agent next time.
My credit card was charged within a few days.

Not a happy Sarra

[Warin]

  The turnaround time on their website said 8 weeks - it is now 10 weeks and I have not received it.

My credit card was charged within a few days.

Humm .. contact them and say if they fail to respond to this email within 1 week you will be contacting the credit card provider for a refund for failure to provide the goods.

If they respond with a further delay .. possibly cancel the transaction for a full refund and then use the transcription agent?

-----------
Use to be that credit cards were only charged when goods were dispatched? Maybe they have 'reserved the funds' to check that you have the funds .. some people do that so they don't find the card has not enough funds for the goods they have just sent.