Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - locksmith

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 7
10
Worcestershire / Pedmore - Familysearch records for 1800 are wrong
« on: Thursday 26 January 12 10:38 GMT (UK)  »
Whilst responding to a post on here I was checking familysearch.com for a marriage in 1800, as when I did some research a few years ago on the old familysearch I had only found a member submitted entry. Well I found my marriage but the place was given as Pedmore (near Stourbridge), nowhere near where expected.

But then when I looked at the Familysearch records for Pedmore in 1800, there were 1202 marriages and 3184 baptisms and 2361 burials, a whopping 18 events a day every day of the year. Clearly an indexing problem which appears to have created thousands of incorrect transcriptions.

So, as far as I can see, if you find an event in Pedmore in 1800 on familysearch don’t believe it as it is almost certainly wrong.

If I can find out how to report problems like this on familysearch, I’ll let them know.

Simon

11
Census and Resource Discussion / GenesReunited search changes
« on: Monday 13 June 11 22:27 BST (UK)  »
Hi any GR users,

Up until recently when you searched on GR you got what you searched for. eg if I searched for the surname Johns, all I got was a list of Johns. This I did quite often to look at any additions in, say, the past 2 days.  Using the surname summary page, as of today it tells me there are 22 Johns added in the last 2 days (sounds about right for the Johns name).  When I select to see these 22 Johns, I am confronted with a list of 300 names nearly all Johnson and Johnstone. How helpful is that? 


Assuming this to be a temporary error I contacted GR asking why this was happening. I received the following pre-prepared response with my name stuck on the front that appears to go to anyone who queries any changes that they may have implemented:

Dear Simon

Thank you for taking the time to write to us.

I am sorry that you are not happy with the recent changes that we have made to the Genes Reunited website.

We have reacted to feedback from our members to make these latest developments but inevitably, some of the changes suit certain member use more than others.

We are currently receiving a lot of feedback and suggestions from our members so I will not reply to your points in detail but please accept my assurance  that your email will be individually read by  our Management team and will be taken into consideration as we work to continually enhance the website over the coming weeks and months.

Kind Regards etc.

I'm not sure what infuriates me more, a not very well implemented improvement which regresses, (this isn't even a soundex, it just gives a completely different unrelated name, couldn't they have implemented a simple selection of 'exact match') or the lazy automated response. I will respond again but I think what's the point.

Got that off my chest for the moment

Simon



12
US Lookup Requests / 1880 Census Sacramento - Robert Meller
« on: Saturday 04 June 11 14:23 BST (UK)  »
Robert Mellor is shown in the transcript for the 1881 Census in Sacramento, born 1852 New Jersey.
If someone has access to the original, could they see if it has been transcribed incorrectly (hopefully it should be Rupert Meller) or whether it has been recorded as Robert Mellor and transcribed correctly. In the 1871 census his name was written as something that looked like Roophart.

Simon

13
US Lookup Requests / 1910 Census Denver - Rupert Meller
« on: Saturday 04 June 11 14:12 BST (UK)  »
Rupert Meller is in Denver in 1910. Is it possible for someone to tell me his occupation and date of naturalisation please.

Simon

14
The Lighter Side / Huge tree - too impersonal?
« on: Friday 01 April 11 21:10 BST (UK)  »
On a public tree on ancestry I discovered a distant relative with my family name.  Hoping to contact a possible cousin, I opened up the tree, only to discover it had over 240,000 names :o :o  Not only that, the person I was looking up had me as the source for their marriage. I can only assume that this tree is made up of other trees being bolted on when a link is found. I like to "know" everyone I add to my family. How can you do that with so many names, it's so impersonal.

I don't think I'll make contact and enquire how we might be related :) :)

Simon

15
The Common Room / Marriage in Leamington Registered in Rochdale
« on: Sunday 13 February 11 14:14 GMT (UK)  »
FamilySearch has a transcription in their Warwickshire Parish Registers collection of a marriage which took place in St Paul's church in Leamington, Warwickshire. However, the marriage is registered in Rochdale. The bride's sister was living in Rochdale at the time so she could have been in there after the recent death of an elder sibling. The Groom has no connection to Rochdale. The bride's name is completely unique.

How was this possible?

Simon


16
Census and Resource Discussion / How not to transcribe
« on: Monday 13 December 10 22:29 GMT (UK)  »
Oh dear, in the census for Bodmin in 1871, Ancestry have transcribed Elizth Rowe's birthplace of Ceylon as Sri Lanka :-\ . This is not a transcription error, but someone trying to be smart by the look of it. Not only that Sri Lanka didn't exist for another 100 years.

Simon

17
Oxfordshire Lookup Requests / Look up parish record - Cropedy baptism
« on: Friday 27 August 10 18:55 BST (UK)  »
Hi,
I have found a possible marriage for an ancestor which gives the bride's name as Esther Claydom (probably Claydon). If this is the correct marriage then Esther gives her place of birth in the 1851 census as Great Bourton and her birth would have been about 1797.

I understand that at this time the baptisms for Great Bourton would have been at Cropredy. Is it possible for someone to check the baptism records for me around this time on the chance that Esther Claydom(n) is there? (Lotteex's kind offer during one of her library visits maybe).

Regards
Simon


18
Census and Resource Discussion / Findmypast Super Fast Transcript Correction
« on: Friday 14 May 10 07:04 BST (UK)  »
I submitted a transcript correction at 20.58 last night for some errors in the 1861 Census on Findmypast. The email to accept the correction arrived just 4 hours 10 mins later at 01.08 this morning and yes the corrections had been done.

So why haven't they corrected the 30 or 40 corrections on the 1911 Census that they have accepted from me in the last 4 months?  >:( >:( >:(

Simon

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 7