Problem with Findmypast Kent records

[Top-of-the-hill]

  Not a big problem, just a niggle. When I search baptisms, including variants for both forename and surname, the list always includes 5 blank entries for Ash-next-Ridley. Is there a simple fix for this please?

[grandarog]

Try searching just  ASH NEXT RIDLEY . Slide the Search radius to EXACT , With dates blank you get 35,011 results .then select year you want and try search again.Just scroll through using the Dates you want with the  Surname  for  the person.. Hopefully you will find what you want.

[BumbleB]

No problem for me.  I just tried the surname "Kendall", nothing else.  A lot of entries, but if I then stipulated "Ash-next-Ridley" no entries at all.  Same for "Appleyard".

[grandarog]

BunbleB,
                 Try the way I suggested loads of Appleyards on there .But they show as Caister. Bit of a C-up unless there werent't any Kendalls or Appleyards Baptised at ASH NEXT RIDLEY.

[Top-of-the-hill]

  Grandarog - I don't want entries for Ash-next-Ridley. I probably wasn't clear in my post. This the end of the list, but I have only snipped 2 of the Ash entries.

[BumbleB]

Sorry, grandarog - I wasn't really looking for either Kendall or Appleyard in Ash or anywhere else in Kent.  I was merely trying out TOTH's problem to see whether it was the same for any surname.  As far as I know I have no family connections at all with Kent, other than I lived in Rainham for a number of years 

[grandarog]

No Problem BumbleB Nothing ventured nothing gained. Often hit cliches on FindMyPast.

[Tickettyboo]

No real idea, but 'perhaps' there are 5 entries in the Ash-next-Ridley registers that were so badly faded or damaged that the transcriber wasn't able to make anything out?
If so and they indicated that , perhaps with a '-', within the relevant fields as they were transcribing, then these five entries would be 'possible' results for any search?


Boo

[Gadget]

Ash-Next-Ridley  isn't included in the list of parishes at the end of the results page under 'About Kent Baptisms' but it does list Ash-Next-Sevenoaks.  At just put in Ash-Next-Ridley and it produced ove 11,000 records just like yours. 

Maybe a dummy file was produced but didn't get deleted or completed.

The transcriptions are copyright Val Brown

Add - sorry , I meant to say that if you tick the variations boxes, then it will throw up all variations that fit the algorithm