Ancestry Parish Register image links - severe database corruption going on

[melba_schmelba]

I found more examples than these below, but I forgot to save.

If I click the link for Martha Burnell's burial in Hackney on 5th October, 1842
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/5985470:1558

I end up on a page of 1876 burials

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/1558/images/31280_199163-00634

If I search one of those 1876 burials, i.e. Elizabeth Rising buried 19th August, 1876
https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=1559&h=9467761

I end up on the 1842 burials page where none other than Martha Burnell turns up 
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/1559/images/31280_199163-00231

In neither case, does the description re date of the register match, and in both cases, the register is going backwards in time as you go forward .

If I search for the marriage of John Leonard & Maria Martin in 1861 in Plumstead
https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=1623&h=4116308

I get taken to a page of 1839 marriages in Plumstead
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/1623/images/31280_198918-00354

If I then search for the marriage of John Lawrie and Elizabeth Alison on that page, in 1839

https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=1623&h=4115044

If I click the link to the image, who is there, none other than John Leonard & Maria Martin in 1861
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/1623/images/31280_198918-00032

In this case the description of the parish record re: dates covered is correct, but as before, the images are going backwards as you go forward .

What is going on

[familydar]

You're not alone, I've come across this sort of thing too. I think I've reported it on the instances I've found but I'm not holding my breath for anything to be done about it.

Another issue with ancestry is their attribution of many London parishes to the wrong borough, plus indexing them wrongly.  I have learned not to dismiss Tower Hamlets Old Ford CMBs out of hand for my west London ancestors as they stand a good chance of being Brentford CMBs.

And don't get me started on the 1990 probate indices which have been wrong for years - if not down to poor ocr, someone had finger trouble and the complete year is indexed as 1900.

Jane :-)

[melba_schmelba]

You're not alone, I've come across this sort of thing too. I think I've reported it on the instances I've found but I'm not holding my breath for anything to be done about it.

Another issue with ancestry is their attribution of many London parishes to the wrong borough, plus indexing them wrongly.  I have learned not to dismiss Tower Hamlets Old Ford CMBs out of hand for my west London ancestors as they stand a good chance of being Brentford CMBs.

Yes, I've noticed the churches being linked to the wrong records - in fact I think one of the above is one of those cases - St. Thomas Hoxton instead of St. John's Hackney? What is worrying is I don't think at least one of these errors was originally there, which indicates databases and/or the image indexing system has been corrupted during system 'upgrades' at some point . I think part of the problem is, a lot of people just add records to their trees with the Hints system, but never actually look at, or download the images, so it is only a minority of us more enthusiast or professional users who actually are noticing this problem.

And don't get me started on the 1990 probate indices which have been wrong for years - if not down to poor ocr, someone had finger trouble and the complete year is indexed as 1900.

Jane :-)

Yes I've noticed this one too, and reported it. To be honest, that is the sort of thing that stops me getting an annual subscription, I'm sure it makes no difference to them but it makes me feel better!

[familydar]

Something else - I'm going from memory here and I think it was London records - is that a record may be indexed as a particular event and parish, but if you view the image you'll find its hierarchical placement (the words at the top that tell you where you are digitally) is somewhere else entirely. And the heading at the top of the scan, eg baptisms recorded in the parish of xyz for the year ccyy, may be for something different again.

On the up side, generally on these occasions the person indexed does appear on the page with a date matching the index, just not necessarily for the life event or location you were expecting. All adds to life's rich pattern.

Jane :-)

[coombs]

Ancestry has gone downhill for years in terms of speed and relevance. Some say it is the DNA testing people do and upload to the site and the site just cannot cope but that is just speculation. 

I often get told there are results in a certain category but when I click in, I get zippo, zilch, nada.

[melba_schmelba]

Ancestry has gone downhill for years in terms of speed and relevance. Some say it is the DNA testing people do and upload to the site and the site just cannot cope but that is just speculation. 

I often get told there are results in a certain category but when I click in, I get zippo, zilch, nada.

It seems like some kind of database corruption to me. That's the only thing that makes sense to me, that linked records seem to have been swapped from one page to another within the same church's register. Maybe someone with an IT background might be able to work it out more precisely (gadget?)? I think I remember discussion some years back of when there was supposedly a big IT upgrade, yet people then noticed records had gone amiss - actually that might be when the birth/death date search started to no longer work for baptisms and burials and you had to use the 'Any' field.

[coombs]

Some of the Essex nonconformist records for Terling are listed as being in the Meeting House in Gaol Street in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. I very much doubt people in Terling would travel all the way, 120 odd miles to Great Yarmouth to baptised their children in a meeting house. So a database corruption I think.

[familydar]

I think I've cracked it, and hopefully the method will work for other people.

Trying to locate the image of a marriage at St Simon's church in Hammersmith in 1883.  The link takes you to a 1910 marriage at St Thomas church at Hackney, the dataset incidentally has been filmed in reverse order.

So I searched the index for one of the 1910 Hackney marriages.  And found myself looking at the Hammersmith parish I was after in the first place.  I needed to scroll around a bit to find the page I needed, and again it was in reverse order, but at least I'd landed in the right record set.

I've not brought it to Ancestry's attention for fear that they'll "pull" the images.

[melba_schmelba]

I think I've cracked it, and hopefully the method will work for other people.

Trying to locate the image of a marriage at St Simon's church in Hammersmith in 1883.  The link takes you to a 1910 marriage at St Thomas church at Hackney, the dataset incidentally has been filmed in reverse order.

So I searched the index for one of the 1910 Hackney marriages.  And found myself looking at the Hammersmith parish I was after in the first place.  I needed to scroll around a bit to find the page I needed, and again it was in reverse order, but at least I'd landed in the right record set.

I've not brought it to Ancestry's attention for fear that they'll "pull" the images.

Thanks familydar for this example, yes it's exactly the same phenomenon that I observed in my first post. Not good at all that is must be happening with a large number of parish registers, is it only London ones I wonder? I don't think the London Metropolitan Archives would be too pleased in this mess up, when they have entrusted Ancestry to digitize and make them available to the public.