RootsChat.Com

Thanks jon and Molly.

Reporting an entry correction usually results in a long delay, so you don't know when to check back for an alteration and eventually you have to infer it has been rejected.

This^.  There was a time where FreeBMD would send an email to confirm a correction had been accepted or rejected, but that seemed to stop.  Understandable that emails which need to be manually sent take someone's time to send, but if an automated system is being used to reject corrections then it would help the user to get some feedback on that.

I've got the information I needed from the GRO site, so only wanted to report the missing data to FreeBMD to help improve the accuracy of the database and maybe help someone else in the future.

How do others keep motivated to carry on? And is there anything else I can do to break this stalemate?

From the start, about 25 years ago, I figured it would be easier to go back in time and further up the tree at some point in the future when more records were available online.

So I've done what I can with the information easily available in the here and now, and each time I've got to a brick wall I've gone off to look at expanding a different branch of my tree.

My motivation is in finding new connections and the social/geographic aspects which keeps me interested, then every now and again a new dataset comes available online (the Suffolk PRs is the latest for me) which might give some answers to move up another generation or two.

Occasionally (all too rarely) researching one of the branches gives a clue for one of the main lines - for example an elderly relative staying on census night, or a surname unexpectedly being used as a given name for a child.

So if you are stuck, spend some time going back over records you've already found seeing if there are things you've missed.  Account for all people in a census household, find the full names of children where you only have initials.  Also, check any unidentified witnesses of marriages (although in my experience these seem more likely to be friends rather than family).

Keep digging, something will turn up.

Probably not but I haven't really decided yet.

If it is correct that a report of a misaligned image and refund results in the whole page of entries becoming unavailable as digital images then you might not want to wait too long before getting the adjacent entry... assuming it isn't too late already.

I vaguely seem to recall seeing a working party about the tendering for the scanning.

Tax payers' money was spent to do this and for the project to work, even if purchasers got a bit of the adjoining entry top and bottom.

Commercial companies manage to scan images from microfilm.

Therefore, I find any government excuses rather poor!

Mark

As I posted above, I don't think there was an original intention for the digitised images to be made available to the public, therefore the scanning was probably done on the basis that GRO staff would manipulate the page as necessary to produce the certificate in PDF or paper form.

The public access project "MAGPIE" was for access to the index only (hence the 'I' of MAGPIE) as far as I remember, and this is what we now have (in part) on the GRO website.

My guess (and I'm happy to be corrected) is that the digital images have been made available by using automated image manipulation software to 'extract' the portion of a scanned image the customer requests - therefore it may have nothing at all to do with the original scanning.

Personally I'm happy that I can see an entry for the cost of £3, rather than paying the full cost of a certificate - which is what we had to do before the new index was made available.  If that means a compromise on quality and the occasional error then so be it.  Those seeking something better can still buy a PDF/paper certificate.  I see it as a win-win.

...
So that is why, some entries are no longer instant!

I wonder if we are shooting ourselves in the foot, a bit, by complaining, if withdrawing all the entries of that page is going to be their answer.

Mind you, I suppose if I buy a pint of milk, I expect a pint. Not 7/8 ths of a pint

I think there is some foot shooting going on... buying the 'other half' of an misaligned image costs £3 and is instant.  Buying a PDF costs £8 and can take a few days.

So buy two 'half' images for £6, or have a refund and wait for the PDF for £8.   I know which I'd do.

There also seems to be the issue that reporting results in the page being taken out of the digital option - which means anyone else looking for an entry on that page will also have to pay at least £8, rather than having the £3/£6 option available to them.