RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Parmesan on Saturday 21 November 15 21:21 GMT (UK)
-
They at least are being up front about the reasons, unlike FindMyPast who have been anything but!
"Findmypast have removed The National Archives catalogue reference from search results in response to concerted efforts by some online groups to share and even build apps and spreadsheets encouraging the manipulation of the embedded file references which allows people to access large amounts of information without paying. The remedial action was taken by Findmypast to prevent this systematic breach of their terms and conditions and fair usage policy and to protect their income.
You can still search using The National Archives’ catalogue reference in the advanced search and the reference is returned when accessing the full transcript and image."
Source:http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/1939-register-census-census/ (Nell Brown - bottom of the page)
-
Ah! I tried looking for the reference numbers on FindMyPast and wondered where they were. Missed out on that one!
Ceeoh
-
Genealogist Martin James posted on FindMyPast Findmypast page. - Interesting!
-
I knew it was only a matter of time
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=734302.msg5797102#msg5797102
And quite understandable from a business viewpoint
-
I knew it was only a matter of time
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=734302.msg5797102#msg5797102
And quite understandable from a business viewpoint
It's not so much the reasons behind removing the references, it's more the ducking and dodging of full and truthful explanations to their customers that I object to. It shouldn't have been the TNA who had to explain. Although I don't think there was every any doubt about the reasons.
-
I agree, FindMyPast should have explained straight away.
-
I agree, FindMyPast should have explained straight away.
I am dismayed that FindMyPast were forced to remove the reference from the preview screen in the first place.
If users had any common decency about them they would have used the reference as a finding aid and then purchased the image. Instead what was happening was users bragging they could get the details from all the open records at an address simply by using the reference number.
It seems I am one of the few to condemn such behaviour, yet at the same time people condemn others who don't thank them for help provided.
Seems to me common decency has become very onesided in this day and age.
Cheers
Guy
-
Surely a genealogist uses all means at their disposal? It's an investigation so you use all the evidence provided. They provided the evidence, it was used, why so shocked? FindMyPast treat their customers like dullards. Who would have thought the references would be used to ascertain you had the correct family before purchasing the record? ::)
This common decency thing IS lopsided. They expect folks to pay for records that are very likely to be wrong - names like Smith, Jones, Taylor etc, the list is endless. If you discover an error on an unrelated family on the page your family is on, they expect you to buy the correct family (on the same page you already have) to report the error. Who in their right mind would do that? You are just trying to be helpful and improve the service but FindMyPast want their pound of flesh. I condemn that behaviour.
-
Seems they have also updated error correction times. Do they EVER think things through?
It has gone from 36-72 hours to 6wks :o
-
Seems they have also updated error correction times. Do they EVER think things through?
It has gone from 36-72 hours to 6wks :o
A sign of how many errors have been found maybe ? I know when i took advantage of the free searches a few years ago they got all five requests wrong in the first instance. Maybe a sign of how bad the writing is on some records (they later got them all right after I explained where the places were geographically)
I am dismayed that FindMyPast were forced to remove the reference from the preview screen in the first place.
Guy
OK i think you can stop over egging this now Guy. I have read all the "discussions" you have had with people over this and I think you are being obsessive and not doing your cause any good, and that is from someone who largely agrees with you on the issue
-
Seems they have also updated error correction times. Do they EVER think things through?
It has gone from 36-72 hours to 6wks :o
A sign of how many errors have been found maybe ? I know when i took advantage of the free searches a few years ago they got all five requests wrong in the first instance. Maybe a sign of how bad the writing is on some records (they later got them all right after I explained where the places were geographically)
No doubt. They are still claiming 98.5% accuracy though. I do wish they would treat us as intelligent life forms 8)
-
Surely a genealogist uses all means at their disposal? It's an investigation so you use all the evidence provided. They provided the evidence, it was used, why so shocked? FindMyPast treat their customers like dullards. Who would have thought the references would be used to ascertain you had the correct family before purchasing the record? ::)
If they did use all the means at their disposal I would agree but if you read what has been written on the forums you will see many are not.
They are using the transcriptions but not going on and looking at what is the "original resource" in this case the image.
That is what is shocking to me.
This is not my imagination they admit on the forums they have not purchased the image.
This common decency thing IS lopsided. They expect folks to pay for records that are very likely to be wrong - names like Smith, Jones, Taylor etc, the list is endless. If you discover an error on an unrelated family on the page your family is on, they expect you to buy the correct family (on the same page you already have) to report the error. Who in their right mind would do that? You are just trying to be helpful and improve the service but FindMyPast want their pound of flesh. I condemn that behaviour.
If it was only people researching ancestors with common names then yes, I could agree but unfortunately it is not.
It includes people with far less popular names.
People are complaining of transcription errors when they have not even looked at the image so how can they possibly know whether the transcription is in error or it is an accurate transcription of what is written.
It is very easy to moan and condemn something but at least they have made the effort.
Try looking at the situation from their point of view.
I have even seen people asking if they will be able to ask for look ups from it when it becomes part of the subscription site. If you were in charge of FindMyPast would that king of posting make you think I shall add the 39 to the subscription or would it make you think, no way mate it will stay as pay as you go for as long as possible?
-
They at least are being up front about the reasons, unlike FindMyPast who have been anything but!
"Findmypast have removed The National Archives catalogue reference from search results in response to concerted efforts by some online groups to share and even build apps and spreadsheets...
I know rootschatters (including me) used a fair bit of ingenuity, but unless I missed 'em, "apps and spreadsheets" wasn't us.
Anyone know more?
EDIT; I've done considerable googling using my professional knowledge of web programming, screen scraping, HTML parsing etc to look for forums discussing such things and come up empty.
BugBear
-
I know rootschatters (including me) used a fair bit of ingenuity, but unless I missed 'em, "apps and spreadsheets" wasn't us.
Anyone know more?
EDIT; I've done considerable googling using my professional knowledge of web programming, screen scraping, HTML parsing etc to look for forums discussing such things and come up empty.
BugBear
I know of at least two apps, there may be more as I saw a number that I thought were duplicates of the same one.
One was from the UK based on a spreadsheet and one from New Zealand.
Cheers
Guy
-
I know rootschatters (including me) used a fair bit of ingenuity, but unless I missed 'em, "apps and spreadsheets" wasn't us.
Anyone know more?
EDIT; I've done considerable googling using my professional knowledge of web programming, screen scraping, HTML parsing etc to look for forums discussing such things and come up empty.
BugBear
I know of at least two apps, there may be more as I saw a number that I thought were duplicates of the same one.
One was from the UK based on a spreadsheet and one from New Zealand.
Cheers
Guy
Apps?! You mean iPhone/Android telephone resident apps?
EDIT; I've found a web page based on a spreadsheet. Both do no more than take a "full" TNA reference, break it down, and feed the piece and item numbers parts to the normal 1939 Register Person search.
This is trivial to do manually, of course.
Is there anything more sophisticated? (It's a good job I never coded the Address finder I designed in my head whilst finding an address manually...)
BugBear
-
If they did use all the means at their disposal I would agree but if you read what has been written on the forums you will see many are not.
They are using the transcriptions but not going on and looking at what is the "original resource" in this case the image.
That is what is shocking to me.
This is not my imagination they admit on the forums they have not purchased the image.
Do they HAVE to buy an image? Most people would want the image but it would have to be the right image and worth the cost. In the same way we think BMDs from the GRO are an excessive price, we need to be sure we are requesting the right certificate before we can make a decision as to whether we think the purchase is worth the cost. I have no concern about an organisation's profit margin!
This morning I was searching on Manchester City Council's Burial record search. I got a few possibilities but the initial search only gives you the name, burial date, cemetery name and plot number - all great information - if it's the right person! So I used the GRO index to search the death and found the person I thought could be right is too old, so I didn't continue and buy the image. Am I duping MCC? Do I feel ashamed? Certainly not! I am quite willing to buy a right image but I think I have too many brain cells to buy record after record that prove to be wrong. I am more concerned about my bank balance than anyone elses!
-
Is Guy saying there are apps which can take the reference and get past FindMyPast's paywall to the transcripts and images? I only have 35 years of IT experience, including managing some very expert web developers, and do not see a way to do that.
My gripe with FindMyPast is that there is no way, except email to support, to report errors which are obvious from the ordinary search. For example, I searched for my current address. In the list of addresses found I chose and opened/unlocked my home address but I noticed that our local was misnamed as "The Croos Inn" and it had 2 entries in the search results. On the image the name of the pub, you will probably have guessed, was clearly "The Cross Inn". The family under the second entry actually lived at number 13, again very clear on the image. I emailed these two errors and the response was that I needed to pay and unlock the records to report the errors through their system.
-
Is Guy saying there are apps which can take the reference and get past FindMyPast's paywall to the transcripts and images?
No, he isn't
-
No, he isn't
In that case all these apps do is automate what anyone can do manually. How can anyone have a problem with that? That is what computers are for.
-
"the manipulation of the embedded file references which allows people to access large amounts of information without paying"
I can't really see what these "large amounts of information" are. You're only getting to the preview information, which is what the free search allows you to do anyway. People are just seeking to confirm that the people they're interested in are actually in the same household, and not random people with the same names.
-
Absolutely agree with DmTomo and Sloe Gin. I can't see the problem myself.
-
Do they HAVE to buy an image? Most people would want the image but it would have to be the right image and worth the cost. In the same way we think BMDs from the GRO are an excessive price, we need to be sure we are requesting the right certificate before we can make a decision as to whether we think the purchase is worth the cost. I have no concern about an organisation's profit margin!
No of course they don't have to buy an image but if they want to have an accurate tree and follow the correct lines rather than spurious lines then yes they do have to buy the images and certificates etc.
Look at how many inaccurate trees there are online many of which have been constructed from using online indexes instead of paying out and buying certificates etc.
This morning I was searching on Manchester City Council's Burial record search. I got a few possibilities but the initial search only gives you the name, burial date, cemetery name and plot number - all great information - if it's the right person! So I used the GRO index to search the death and found the person I thought could be right is too old, so I didn't continue and buy the image. Am I duping MCC? Do I feel ashamed? Certainly not! I am quite willing to buy a right image but I think I have too many brain cells to buy record after record that prove to be wrong. I am more concerned about my bank balance than anyone elses!
No but you could be duping yourself.
You are relying on an index to convince yourself that a burial record is the wrong one. It could be but it could also be the correct one and without either buying the certificate or checking the burial plot you will never know for certain.
That's how mistakes are made.
That's how trees show marriages before the first husband is dead or children being born after their father has died, etc.
People don't bother working through their tree looking for supporting records to add weight to their assumptions.
Too many are happy to take a birth certificate or a marriage certificate at face value rather than looking for supporting evidence to "prove" the connection.
Other's myself included are always looking for addition records to confirm our assumptions, even if the new record does not contain new information it provides useful confirmation, or it could throw up a doubt that needs checking.
That is why some of us prefer to get certificates from the Superintendent Registrar whenever we can rather than the GRO as there is less chance of an error.
Cheers
Guy
-
Guy, could you answer my question in #16 and perhaps comment on FindMyPast's attitude as in my example there please?
-
I agree, but my point is I am trying to narrow down the possibilities before outlaying restricted funds on wrong images/certificates! By using all the resources available to me I can do that and I have a 98.5% success rate so far ;) ;D (actually better than that!)
With the TNA references you had a better chance of accessing the right image, particularly with common names. I don't think it's too much to ask.
As an aside, inaccurate trees are irritating but I try not to get muddied up in all that. I have tried pointing out errors to people and they ignore, I can't change that. It ain't a perfect world in any shape or form and there will always be name collectors etc.
-
I agree, but my point is I am trying to narrow down the possibilities before outlaying restricted funds on wrong images/certificates! By using all the resources available to me I can do that and I have a 98.5% success rate so far ;) ;D (actually better than that!)
With the TNA references you had a better chance of accessing the right image, particularly with common names. I don't think it's too much to ask.
As an aside, inaccurate trees are irritating but I try not to get muddied up in all that. I have tried pointing out errors to people and they ignore, I can't change that. It ain't a perfect world in any shape or form and there will always be name collectors etc.
That is why I am so annoyed about this.
FindMyPast provided the resource with the reference on the prview screen so that people could confirm they were buying the right image, but instead of doing that people were bragging about how they could use the reference to get the details of all the people in a house without having to buy an image.
No company is going to put up with that.
Even free sites such as Freebmd put had restrictions because of "abusive use" of their sites because people were using spiders and ripping programs to download chunks of their free site.
In the end the people who really suffer are the genuine researchers.
Cheers
Guy
-
That is why I am so annoyed about this.
FindMyPast provided the resource with the reference on the prview screen so that people could confirm they were buying the right image, but instead of doing that people were bragging about how they could use the reference to get the details of all the people in a house without having to buy an image.
No company is going to put up with that.
I haven't seen any "bragging". All people were doing was using TNA references as a short cut. It didn't show us anything beyond the previews. The same results would have been obtained by searching for names separately, but it takes longer. Now we have no sure way of checking if we have the right people. I think F M P have been a bit spiteful and childish over this.
For my own part, I have ascertained that the details of most of the people that interest me have been withheld anyway, so there is no point in my paying to see the households at this stage. I would have got the same result by laboriously searching for them one by one, so it makes no difference.
-
That is why I am so annoyed about this.
While I agree with some of what you've been saying, Guy, I don't understand why you're taking this so personally
From what I've seen while I've been a member of this site, you're rigorous in your research, don't accept wishy-washy excuses from those who aren't as rigorous, and campaign for greater access to records.
As I understand it, your next/current big project is for GRO certificates to be more easily available / cheaper. Is the success of that in some way linked to the successful commercial release of the '39 register?
Or what?
-
As I understand it, your next/current big project is for GRO certificates to be more easily available / cheaper. Is the success of that in some way linked to the successful commercial release of the '39 register?
Or what?
Interesting comment!
-
May not be 1939 related as such but I hear the "become a transcriber then" response to people who want bigger access to genealogical records, well that is difficult if you live hundreds of miles from your ancestral counties where records are stored, or a long way from national registers such as 1939 register, WW2 record archives.
I am not happy but not surprised the 1939 TNA ref numbers have been pulled. FindMyPast wants to make money, a lot of it will go back into putting more records online.
-
While I agree with some of what you've been saying, Guy, I don't understand why you're taking this so personally
From what I've seen while I've been a member of this site, you're rigorous in your research, don't accept wishy-washy excuses from those who aren't as rigorous, and campaign for greater access to records.
As I understand it, your next/current big project is for GRO certificates to be more easily available / cheaper. Is the success of that in some way linked to the successful commercial release of the '39 register?
Or what?
Why on earth should you think it has anything to do with the release of the 1939 National Register?
I resent you implication that I have received some kind of financial incentive, the only benefit I get from these campaigns is access to otherwise withheld records.
The only connection between the 1939 National Register and the Historic registers is that after I had won the decision on the 1939 back in November 2009 I was able to put more of my own time and money into campaigning for the Historic registers being “released”
If you look at my record of campaigning for the release of records you will see that some of my campaigns are ones which I can push through myself by taking legal action against the archive that is withholding the records such as the 1911 census and the 1939 National Register, other campaigns such as the 1921 census and the Historic Registers are campaigns that need the support of others.
The 1921 census I dropped as there were only about 6000 genealogists willing to support the petition to parliament and the only way to get that changed is by weight of numbers of constituents.
The campaign to enable the release of non certified copies of Births, Marriages and Deaths is something that has been running since at least 1993.
Family Tree Magazine featured it (Easier & Cheaper Access to Registers, FTM vol 14 No 6, April 1998 page 8) for a number of months back in 1998 but it died down for a while and I have been pushing it hard since around 2009 trying to get people to contact their MPs and Members of the House of Lords.
There was a bit of movement in February of this year with Lady Scott’s amendment to the Deregulation Bill which became law in at the end of that Parliament.
Cheers
Guy
-
Why on earth should you think it has anything to do with the release of the 1939 National Register?
It was speculation because
I don't understand why you're taking this so personally
which you haven't answered
I resent you implication that I have received some kind of financial incentive
If it's there, it wasn't intended
-
I am not taking it personall but I do understand that there are very few companies like Findmypast and Familytree magazine who actively support genealogy.
Other companies such as Ancestry are just in it for the return they look at the bottom line all the time rather than what they can do to promote research.
But companies like FindMyPast do help by digitising records and supporting family history in general.
If we as family historians alienate such companies we are the losers in the long run.
Cheers
Guy
-
Thanks, Guy
-
I am not taking it personall but I do understand that there are very few companies like Findmypast and Familytree magazine who actively support genealogy.
Other companies such as Ancestry are just in it for the return they look at the bottom line all the time rather than what they can do to promote research.
But companies like FindMyPast do help by digitising records and supporting family history in general.
If we as family historians alienate such companies we are the losers in the long run.
Cheers
Guy
Oh come on, they're not that altruistic, they are a company, in it to make £££££££££££s, same as any other company.
There is no question, imho, that their records are second to none, it's why I subscribe. However, since Spring 2014, in all other aspects, FindMyPast has gone from hero to zero. The staff turnover has been huge, and I would hazard a guess that a lot of them know nothing of genealogy and what is required from a search. Searches are inconsistent, transcription errors are rife etc, etc. In fact, a lot of errors that were corrected pre the changeover somehow managed to revert back to the error after the new platform was launched. I don't think they know what proof reading or quality control is! Their customer service is questionable, lots of C&P responses.
While we are talking transcription errors, I have no idea why the old system of emailing an acknowledgement of the error report and the subsequent heads up of the correction being made in a timely fashion, now takes NINETY DAYS otherwise known as 'how long is a piece of string?' Why would you change from an efficient and customer focused response to one of, what appears to be, complete disinterest?
Saying all that, yes I still subscribe because of the quantity of records in one place and if I want to view them then they have me! I don't always have the confidence I used to have that my searches return the full and correct data though.
-
I am not taking it personall but I do understand that there are very few companies like Findmypast and Familytree magazine who actively support genealogy.
Other companies such as Ancestry are just in it for the return they look at the bottom line all the time rather than what they can do to promote research.
But companies like FindMyPast do help by digitising records and supporting family history in general.
If we as family historians alienate such companies we are the losers in the long run.
Cheers
Guy
Oh come on, they're not that altruistic, they are a company, in it to make £££££££££££s, same as any other company.
There is no question, imho, that their records are second to none, it's why I subscribe. However, since Spring 2014, in all other aspects, FindMyPast have gone from hero to zero. The staff turnover has been huge, and I would hazard a guess that a lot of them know nothing of genealogy and what is required from a search. Searches are inconsistent, transcription errors are rife etc, etc. In fact, a lot of errors that were corrected pre the changeover somehow managed to revert back to the error after the new platform was launched. I don't think they know what proof reading or quality control is! Their customer service is questionable, lots of C&P responses.
While we are talking transcription errors, I have no idea why the old system of emailing an acknowledgement of the error report and the subsequent heads up of the correction being made in a timely fashion, now takes NINETY DAYS otherwise known as 'how long is a piece of string?' Why would you change from an efficient and customer focused response to one of, what appears to be, complete disinterest?
Saying all that, yes I still subscribe because of the quantity of records in one place and if I want to view them then they have me! I don't always have the confidence I used to have that my searches return the full and correct data though.
Agreed - FindMyPast is a very good on-line repository of scanned records.
That are nigh unsearchable. :)
Compared to 1950's genealogy (go to the Rectory and read the Parish Register in person),
it saves a lot of road miles, but compared to a decently indexed/searchable
database, it's far, far from ideal.
The true joy (under some heavy assumptions) of a fully indexed and searchable
database is that you don't need to know the structure (or even the existence)
of a dataset to find information about your ancestors inside it.
Would I have gone to manually search the Master Mariner records on the off chance
an ancestor might have been a sailor (with no prior evidence to that effect)?
Would I hell.
Did a normal Ancestry search simply pop up the record?
Why, yes it did.
BugBear
-
One reason why Ancestry searches can give better results than F M P is because Ancestry accept ALL corrections from contributors, and add them to the index. F M P, on the the other hand, stick slavishly to the "transcribe exactly what you see" mantra, which means that mistakes in the original just get copied and perpetuated. They won't accept corrections based on personal knowledge, whereas Ancestry add everything without removing the original transcription. It's not just family knowledge either - I've sometimes noticed mistranscriptions of an obscure village name in poor handwriting and been able to add the correct spelling on Ancestry, because I am familiar with the place, whereas the transcriber was not and made a best guess.
An index is simply a finding aid, so it doesn't matter how many variations it contains as long as it helps you find the entry you seek. Once you have found it, you can view the original and make your own judgement. But you have to be able to find it first! Ancestry's system ensures that the transcriptions are preserved, but are accompanied by informed alternative interpretations as well.
-
One reason why Ancestry searches can give better results than F M P is because Ancestry accept ALL corrections from contributors, and add them to the index. F M P, on the the other hand, stick slavishly to the "transcribe exactly what you see" mantra, which means that mistakes in the original just get copied and perpetuated.
Ancestry accept alternatives, some of which may well be corrections and these are used in their searches. They do not correct transcription errors. FindMyPast stick "slavishly" to exact transcriptions as this is exactly what transcriptions are and has nothing to do with knowledge or what anyone thinks it should be. Many of the alternatives given by people on ancestry are are very good reason that it shouldn't be left to someone with 'knowledge".
Simon
-
Ancestry were the slowest website to complete amendments because of transcription errors, until Findmypast updated their website 18 months ago. In 2005 I told Ancestry of an error and gave up reminding them in 2010. (It did only involve a couple of thousand census images which were not connected properly). I cannot recall any of the transcription errors I reported to them being corrected. They just put them in as "alternatives". I don't believe Ancestry actually check any of the errors, they just accept anything as being an "alternative"
Since April 2014 I have told Findmypast of several thousand errors, many of them being their system faults. None have been corrected.
Sorry this is wandering of topic!
-
I cannot recall any of the transcription errors I reported to them being corrected. They just put them in as "alternatives". I don't believe Ancestry actually check any of the errors, they just accept anything as being an "alternative"
As long as the corrections are picked up in searches, that's all that' matters, surely?
I tend to add my corrections on Ancestry as "Variations" as you can usually see why things have been transcribed as they have. Got a couple of (presumably automated) thank you emails from Ancestry too!
-
I cannot recall any of the transcription errors I reported to them being corrected. They just put them in as "alternatives". I don't believe Ancestry actually check any of the errors, they just accept anything as being an "alternative"
As long as the corrections are picked up in searches, that's all that' matters, surely?
I tend to add my corrections on Ancestry as "Variations" as you can usually see why things have been transcribed as they have. Got a couple of (presumably automated) thank you emails from Ancestry too!
That's exactly the point. What good does it do anyone to stick to a misleading transcription? I've added lots of "alternatives" to Ancestry. One of my families has been entered on a census with the wrong surname - the whole lot of them - and I can only guess why it happened. I know it's them because all the names and ages match, and the address exactly matches the address on the b/c of one of the children born just before that census. It took me a long, long time to track them down, so I have offered the true surname as a alternative for the index. Now anyone else searching for them will be pointed to that family in the search results, and they can decide for themselves whether it's them or not. The wrong name (which happens to be the wife's maiden name) still appears in the index, so nothing has been lost.
I don't believe Ancestry actually check any of the errors, they just accept anything as being an "alternative"
And that's fine. It just gives people somewhere else to look, that may have been otherwise missed.
-
If you think there is a mistake in the transcription/indexing of a record in The National Archives catalogue, or in Digital Downloads you can submit a correction. But it will only be accepted if the transcription is wrong; if it is an accurate transcription of an original record which is wrong in itself, it won't be changed. This was also the practice adopted in the original 1901 census project, which came out at about the same time as DocumentsOnline, the precursor of Digital Downloads. FindMyPast have adopted the same model, while Ancestry will accept all 'alternate' information, regardless of its merits. There are advantages and disadvantages in both approaches.
For what it's worth, I have submitted a number of corrections to the 1939 Register and several of them were updated on the site within a few days.
-
I prefer the approach Ancestry takes with listing alternatives (if substantiated of course).
I found a marriage record on FindMyPast a few weeks ago and needed to search for it again this morning (could not find where I downloaded it to). I remember that I had had difficulty finding it the first time, and went through all the common misspellings of the groom's name. The problem was that the clerk filling out the record had misspelt the groom's name, when writing out the marriage record. But the groom had clearly signed his name with the correct spelling. (this was original PR not BT). The transcriber had transcribed what they saw from the heading of the record, without checking against the parties signatures. On Ancestry another record (again a marriage record) that I was looking for has bride surname indexed as Heltham with a note that she signed Eltham, unfortunately this is only a transcript, so I cannot check the original, but I expect the clerk wrote Heltham on the top as this was how many of the family liked to pronounce the name!
-
That's right, Lizzie, there can be all kinds of back stories behind the reasons things were wrongly entered.
The bottom line is that the index is not a historic document that needs to be protected from corruption, just a finding aid to help us find our way to the original source. Any alternatives submitted may be helpful, and they are certainly harmless as they do not affect the original in any way.
-
Agree Sloe Gin.
This is *well* worth a read
http://www.oneplacestudy.org/blog/?p=793
-
My problem with Ancestry's system is that they rarely acknowledge that they have made an error and CHANGE their transcription.
-
We know that
We just don't know why you find it a problem