Oxfordshire Records Online?

[Jon_ni]

I have also found problems with the indexing

a whole page of Banbury is indexed to 1696 instead of Jan - March 1796. The full right hand page of the image in the link below. I submitted corrections but seems the search engine does not use submitted dates so basically I wasted my time, still have to search the names in a century out to find the baptisms. Left hand page and next page are OK.

http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/61056/PAR021_1_R1_4_097?pid=1210044&backurl=//search.ancestry.co.uk//cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc%3DEGz3766%26_phstart%3DsuccessSource%26usePUBJs%3Dtrue%26indiv%3D1%26db%3DOxfordshireEarlyParish%26gss%3Dangs-d%26new%3D1%26rank%3D1%26gsln%3Dbay*%26gsln_x%3D1%26msbdy%3D1696%26msbdy_x%3D1%26msbpn__ftp%3DBanbury,%2520Oxfordshire,%2520England%26msbpn%3D86777%26msbpn_PInfo%3D8-%257C0%257C0%257C3257%257C3251%257C0%257C0%257C0%257C5280%257C86777%257C0%257C0%257C%26msbpn_x%3D1%26msbpn__ftp_x%3D1%26MSAV%3D1%26uidh%3Di74%26pcat%3D34%26fh%3D0%26h%3D1210044%26recoff%3D%26ml_rpos%3D1&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=EGz3766&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true#?imageId=PAR021_1_R1_4_097

And in a similar vain to the son/daughter of comment previously made there are no surnames for many at Alkerton. Have a search for burials in Alkerton 1806 - get 10 results all just first names, no surnames despite them being recorded as son of Bloggs. There are clearly only 5 burials for 1806, see attached image. Charlotte and Hannah are earlier in 1804 and Jeremiah 1807. The handwriting is quite clear and legible.

Experimenting further. Perform a Search for All Oxfordshire, England, Church of England Baptism, Marriages, and Burials, 1538-1812 results for John with the exact box ticked. There are 168 pages with 50 persons a page =8400 people with no surname, it is on the 168th page that surnames start with John Aakre-Burial-10 Mar 1714-Swalcliffe [where his name & date is from is a mystery as the image shows that the 10 Mar 1714 has been mouse or damp nibbled away so seems a work of fiction]. Anyway of those 168 pages they do appear in some sort of date order and the earliest ones do look like arabic handwriting for the 1500's but skip forward at random eg page 12 and I can read one I selected that page. Page 23 John Burial 7 Dec 1653 Burford, Oxfordshire and the surname is Munday. Multiply that kind of proportion by all the other William James Mary's etc and there must be over 100000 surnames missing.

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc=EGz3928&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&db=OxfordshireEarlyParish&gss=angs-d&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&gsfn=john&gsfn_x=1&MSAV=1&uidh=i74&gl=&gst=&hc=50&fh=8350&bsk=BEHDumgIgADugAABqpQ-61-&pgoff=11

I used 'Report an issue' with the Gloucestershire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1813 about two weeks ago and that the drop down box which shows Sherrington, Wiltshire should be Shenington, Gloucestershire (pre 1844, subsequently Oxfordshire). They are the Bishops Transcripts that match the Oxfordshire Parish ones just published. If use keyword Shenington instead of Location will bring up the BT too but they don't show if loaction Shenington, Oxfordshire is used. Heard nothing back and situation remains unchanged and they say report issue is the correct thing to do for 'Problems with records, inlcuding missing, unreadable, or incorrect images.'

The images are excellent full marks for effort and quality for those to OFHS but Ancestry's indexing leaves very much to be desired!

[Jon_ni]

Actually need to amend previous comment re-Alkerton 1806. Jeremiah, Ann and Charlotte do appear listed under 1806 if the corresponding image is opened but are Baptisms NOT Burials. Surnames again present and legible yet missing from index.

[dawnsh]

Hi jon_ni

I'm sorry but the images you've posted have been removed to prevent breaches of copyright.

Small portions only are allowed for deciphering purposes.

As to the transcriptions, this is a common failing with Ancestry.

I've been looking at the London & Middlesex records since 2009 when they first went online.

They were not complete then and still aren't, records have been attached to the wrong churches and despite sending emails they are still wrong, and the transriptions can be poor.

I have also reported the situation, as have the LMA who hold the originals.

The standard reply, if you do get one, is this

Please understand that while we receive a large volume of error submissions to our queue, they represent a very small percentage of the total number of records on Ancestry. Due to the volume of error submissions, fixes to errors on Ancestry are posted firstly in the order of those which affect the greatest number of users, and thereafter in the order in which they are reported. This also depends on employee resources. For this reason, there is no foreseeable timeframe as to when these changes will be made. We appreciate your patience.

[horselydown86]

Dear Wendy,

Further to my reply #89 on this thread regarding pages of burials missing from the Wroxton image set for 1548 - 1812, there is also at least one page of burials missing between 1685 and 1688.

Image 86 finishes with the burial of Christopher COX on June 13, 1685.

Image 87 commences with the burial of Jane, the wife of John CAKEBREAD on June 15, 1688.

The transcripts list approximately twenty burials between these two.  For example, Temperance, the wife of Edward LUCAS on March 9, 1686.

Thank you for your help.

[Iffley]

Dear Wendy,

Further to my reply #89 on this thread regarding pages of burials missing from the Wroxton image set for 1548 - 1812, there is also at least one page of burials missing between 1685 and 1688.

Image 86 finishes with the burial of Christopher COX on June 13, 1685.

Image 87 commences with the burial of Jane, the wife of John CAKEBREAD on June 15, 1688.

The transcripts list approximately twenty burials between these two.  For example, Temperance, the wife of Edward LUCAS on March 9, 1686.

Thank you for your help.

Thanks for the information!

Wendy

[smudwhisk]

Is it me or are there real problems with how the search results on the Oxfordshire 1538-1812 data set are currently showing?  I don't remember having this problem when I last searched the collection some weeks back.

I'm trying to search for Sabin entries in Wardington (I know some of the marriage registers in the 1700s are missing from a previous post on this thread) by putting Sabin in the surname and Wardington in the keyword (I don't use "place" because haven't found it very reliable in the past) but I'm getting results with entries from other parishes (but not with surname of Wardington) and lots of entries missing which I've found by browsing.   I've also tried narrowing down by including the parent's first names but that gives me entries for completely different couples.

If I do the same in the Northamptonshire collection I don't have any issues.

Its really annoying because I'm struggling to find the entries I'm looking for without having to browse the whole register.

[PrawnCocktail]

It was doing the same thing for me on the PCC Wills yesterday - just would not produce a search by parish. I mean, to search for Towcester and get Kent, Gloucester and Middlesex. is some feat!

 

[smudwhisk]

Thanks PrawnCocktail, glad its not just me.  I did wonder if it was just for the Oxfordshire collection but obviously not.