RootsChat.Com
Research in Other Countries => Australia => Topic started by: sparrett on Tuesday 02 September 14 22:48 BST (UK)
-
Regarding the idea of "one hit day" to NSW BMD
This linked thread suggests a few of us would like to take part.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=697869.18
Shall we set next Monday morning 8th September
In essence the suggestion ----
quote-
I am wondering whether a "one day hit" from the members here to the department in question would have any effect.
Meaning we all send an email on the same nominated day saying the same thing though not necessarily in the same words.
Basically short and to the point... such as-
"With regard to the implementation of “upgraded” NSW BMD Family History Search System.
As one representatives of a large online genealogy forum, I wish to express my dissatisfaction with the following-
Current level of site functionality.
Current lack of access to information.
Current site formatting.
Lack of visible action taken towards improvement.
It is clear to all who attempt to use it that the new system is extremely inadequate in all its aspects and makes a very sorry comparison with the systems of other Australian states."
Just add your name and email it
quote
Sue
-
Yes, Monday would be a great day.
I am going to send my email to the NSW Attorney General.
Cheers, JM
-
Perhaps I will send mine to both.
This is the email address you have given for the Attorney General I think?
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/members.nsf/0/72A7ACD532A44F804A25674500016571
Sue
-
Yes, I will send my email to the Ministerial Office.
You do NOT have to be a resident of NSW to make a complaint, and the Minister's office would be a sensible address, afterall, whether you are NSW based, or anywhere else in Australia or overseas, and you are currently trying to access the online index, particularly with a view to purchase an historical record, you really have many reasons to complain about the current service.
Cheers, JM
-
Hi,
From my own past experience at the commonwealth level (maybe its the same with the State Governments) but a written complaint to the Minister's Office generally had a quick tunaround time for a response back to the complainant from the Minister's Office.
The Section Manager in a Department of which the complaint was about or referred to had a very short time to respond back to the Minister's Office specifically addressing the elements of the complaint. The Minister's Office would then respond back to the complainant.
I think that writing to a Minister's Office would be better than emailing, hard copy and all that, although maybe not in 2014.
Gerry
-
From my own past experience at the commonwealth level (maybe its the same with the State Governments) but a written complaint to the Minister's Office generally had a quick tunaround time for a response back to the complainant from the Minister's Office.
Generally a 'Ministerial' (communication from the Minister to their Department regarding a complaint) requires a written response back to the Minister within one week... and the response had better be in full and 'good' otherwise the Minister will 'not be happy'. I'd think a 2 week turnaround time to the complaint would be 'normal'.
-
I will email also Monday morning.
I have no idea why the changed the Site at all. I found it extremely user friendly as it was!
Trish :)
-
Trish,
Are you OK with still accessing the old site?
If not, let us know if you need help with it.
Many here now think like you, the old model was not wonderful, but it was better than the new,
which has cost a staggering amount ::)
Sue
-
I will be directing two emails on Monday. One to the Minister setting out why we are emailing and the lack of response from BDM to the problem, the other to the BDM saying that I have emailed the minister with these complaints and is anything going to be done?
Neil
-
Smart strategy Neil ;D ;D
Sue
-
the other (email) to the BDM saying that I have emailed the minister with these complaints and is anything going to be done?
How would you respond to the second email as BDM? ???
I don't think the second email is at all helpfull and I'd advise strongly against it. What response are you trying to gain by the second email? Maybe the most appropriate response from the BDM to your second email is "We will respond to the Minister and the Minister will then respond to you ". Adds nothing and identifies you to the BDM.
-
Warin, Maybe if you let the BDM know how to respond they can do so in like manner. As for me I don't care who knows who I am at either the BDM or the Ministers office. The BDM can respond in whatever manner they like, but as I am not given to going behind peoples back, I intend to let them know that I have communicated to their Ministerial overseer and a response is actually required. If they attempted to do as you say, "fob me off" and only reply to the minister, they would be well outside of their brief as a government department and as such could be taken to task in any number of ways not only by me but also the responsible ministerial dept.
Neil
MODIFIED.
I meant to add that when someone actually complains to the BDM about product or service then the email goes to the Attorney Generals Department anyway. see: bdm-complaints@agd.nsw.gov.au
-
I think email the Minister and email the BDM direct is sensible. To me, you are being 'transparent' in your actions. To me this is in contrast to the BDM, for several of their responses to my enquiries seem to be trying to "turn" my complaint into ME not knowing how to use a computer, or an assumption on their call centre operators that IF you use a landline phone to contact them, then you must be TOO OLD to understand ... anything. (Try asking the call centre about Early Church Records, and why the online index has removed the Volume numbers .... so earlier this week I have been TOLD by the operator that I do not need to know WHY the index has changed ! just that it has been changed )
Ummm.... the fact that I have been preparing a great number (several trunk loads) of private papers for lodging with the Mitchell Library, and that these include original NSW Supreme Court certs, and certified NSWBDM issues certificates from those same Early Church Records with the Volume no. on these, and many fully referenced Theses and the like ........ all with the NSW BDM references cited throughout, ...... WHICH NOW CHANGE due to this update to the ONLINE index, ..... errrr .... Obviously it is the NSWBDM operator who does NOT understand.
Cheers, JM
-
I receive an email from one of the accredited transcription agents who commented on the NSW BDM website ....
Problems with the new index
There are several problems which the Registry currently have under review. These include (but are not limited to)
*The index does not show the Volume number for pre 1856 Early Church Records.
*Both a groom and bride’s name is required to conduct a marriage search.
*Sometimes the search times out, especially when the * wildcard is used.
*It needs to be clearer which fields are required and which can be left blank – you do NOT need to know the registration number or district to be able to search.
We are working with the Registry to identify the issues and suggest what needs to be done to make the index easier for researchers to use.
BUT are the staff who deal with the public understand the issues....obviously not ::) ::)
Links provided by the transcription agent to the old search engine
http://www.shortfamilytree.com/nswbdm/nsw_bdm_search.php
Cando
-
Hi
Article in the Newcastle Herald today on the web site or page 9 in hard copy "Dad in limbo after Mum's death " concerning a fathers wait for vital documentation after the death of his wife and a birth certificate for his child, also highlights other problems concerning BDM's
I had to sign probate papers for my late husband yesterday and was told of the problems the lawyers are having and the waiting times for documents from BDMs.
So I think BDMs are well aware of all of the issues, they just do not know how to solve them quickly
Muss
-
I keep thinking about the cost :o.....
Well for $17.3 MILLION that this LifeLink Project has cost so far I'd expect a lot better >:(
Merlin
I think we all agree with Merlin's comment.
Candp
-
Will you join the Monday hit Cando?
Sue
-
Yes happy to send a third email :)
Cando
-
>Quote from message of 5 September:
>I received an email from one of the accredited transcription agents
>who commented on the NSW BDM website ....
>
>There are several problems which the Registry currently have under review.
>These include (but are not limited to) *The index does not show the
> Volume number for pre 1856 Early Church Records.
> We are working with the Registry to identify the issues and suggest
> what needs to be done to make the index easier for researchers to use
<snip>
The abolition of early church volume numbers is very obviously directed at
increasing BDM Registry revenue by forcing researchers to obtain certificates
instead of being able to personally look up a record in the microfilms. As such
their abolition is in the interest of the transcription agents who will experience
a big jump in applications and hence revenue. The abolition retains all the errors
present in the church numbers that prior to the abolition could be ascertained
from the microfilms that the Registry "upgrade" has sought to make redundant.
-
Just read the last email from John99 and what a lot of 'gobbledegook' or politician speak. I get so sick and tired of those who use all those words and really do not say a thing as your eyes start to glaze over during reading and nothing gets through,.
Why can't they just come out and say that it need fixing.
Bev
-
Bev John has quoted an email I received from a transcription agent. Reply#13
I don't think it is gobbledygook...the transcription agent has outlined some of the problems encountered when searching [on behalf of clients] the new search engine on NSW BDM.
John there is an 'insert quote' button on the toolbar.
I don't agree that the omission of the Volume numbers was to increase revenue for anyone. I think it is probably one of the many problems they are attempting to address.
Cando
-
Sorry Cando,
I only read the last page and will read through the whole lot before I put my bib in.
Kind regards
Bev
-
;D ;D
Bev there are a couple of threads about the updated NSWbdm website.
Cheers :)
Cando
-
Hi again Cando,
Just had a quick read through but my question is why didn't they just update the records and leave the process as it was.
I will be quite happy to send an email tomorrow
Bev
-
I have just emailed at 4.59pm the Minister Responsible along with the tech people at NSW BDM.
The Ministers letter, I will await a reply ::)
The Honourable Bradley Ronald Hazzard MLA.
"Dear Sir
I wish to call to your attention some problems that have occurred with the New Births, Marriages and Deaths online facility for family History Research.
As you would know the site was updated to Lifelink in June of this year. Since that update some two months back there have been many, many problems in attempts to perform what would ordinarily be a simple search. This has confounded the most experienced family historian experts and wrought a barrage of criticism from them onto the complaints section of the site.
I am a member of a free international family history help site where experts of long standing use their expertise to aid new searches seeking answers to complete a family tree. This as you would be aware is a booming field. These problems have log jammed the system in NSW since the introduction in June and have left most users scratching their heads trying to get answers to simple searches that were easily accommodated on the old site. My real query is why after the somewhat expensive exercise, are we left with a system that cannot outperform its earlier counterpart? It would seem that members of the NSW BDM responsible for replying to Telephone and emails believe that the complainants are either stupid or old or both, certainly not technically qualified. It could possibly be explained to these people that without people such as us, they wouldn't have the current technology they now use.
A further unfortunate consequence of this upgrade is the bad name which has now traveled around the world and sets us up as a State that cannot accomplish with the new technologies available."
Neil