Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - MuttleyS

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
The Common Room / Re: Date abbreviation meaning
« on: Thursday 23 December 10 14:19 GMT (UK)  »
HeatherLynne - this example shows that I think your first thought was correct, just the comma in the wrong place -

http://www.rootschat.com/links/0awf/

Moderator comment: link shrunk

2
The Common Room / Re: Date abbreviation meaning
« on: Thursday 23 December 10 14:04 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks for the replies.

HeatherLynne you could be right about the comma but it seemed odd that it was a capital O rather than a small o which I think would be more likely if it meant 'of Ticknall....'

I have found other examples as well such as here-

http://www.rootschat.com/links/0awe/

and a few others.

I suppose it is still possible that the comma was placed wrongly several times.

Thanks for the advice mosiefish. I am fairly new at this game so any advice from more experienced people like yourself and HeatherLynne is welcome.

I was just wondering if the 'Of' was a well known abbreviation relating to dates that I hadn't come across yet. Obviously not!

Moderator comment: link shrunk

3
The Common Room / Date abbreviation meaning
« on: Thursday 23 December 10 13:00 GMT (UK)  »
I have come across some dates on the familysearch (LDS) website  that have the letters 'Of,' after the year.

e.g. About 1737 Of, Ticknall, Derby, England

As in this page http://www.rootschat.com/links/0awd/

Does anybody know what this 'Of,' means?

Moderator comment: link shrunk

4
The Common Room / Family Tree Maker 2010 - serious problem with 'Find'
« on: Friday 15 October 10 16:57 BST (UK)  »
I think I may have found a very serious bug in my version of Family Tree Maker 2010, and I wondered if anybody else could confirm or not that this is the case with all versions.

If this is the case then it is an extremely serious shortcoming of a programme which is entirely based on dates.

It seems that the 'Find' function does not look in the 'Date' field of any facts data. And so you cannot find and replace any dates.

When I use the 'Find' option to find a date which I know is there in the 'date' field of say a Birth fact it doesn't find the result I expect BUT neither does it return with 'No Results Found'.

It just returns to the initial 'Find And Replace' window after a brief flicker.

For instance, a person shown in the UK FreeBMD Births Index as being born in the Mar quarter, I have entered as, "Abt. Feb" in the FTM 'Birth Fact' data 'Date' field.

I would like to replace this with "Bet. Jan-Mar".

When I enter "Abt." in the 'Find' box of the 'Find And Replace' window, the 'Find And Replace' window flickers briefly but nothing else happens. No results are returned.

I have tried this on three different computers.

I have created a simple, test, two person database and it fails to work with that.

I have tried all combinations of the tick boxes on the 'Find And Replace' window.

Of course I could do this manually for each one of several hundred entries, but can anybody tell me if I should be able to use 'Find And Replace' to do this globally?

You can't seem to 'Find' any part of the date (day, month, or year) if it is in the date field of ANY fact data, such as Address, Birth, Baptism, Occupation, Death, Marriage, Christening, Burial. In fact ANY fact data that has a date field associated with it.

It won't even Find 'Feb' for example, which I KNOW exists in many, many Fact Data 'Date' fields.

This MUST be a serious problem for FTM isn't it?

Has anybody else met this problem or can confirm or otherwise my experience?

Maybe this has been fixed with 2011. Anybody know or can test if it has?

The version I have installed is:-

Family Tree Maker 2010

Version 19.0.0.206

Product Code 039599F00

Windows XP Professional SP3

5
The Common Room / Re: Proof of identity - 1857- completed
« on: Sunday 01 August 10 12:26 BST (UK)  »
jjbeach hi.

I am really sorry to bring this up but I was so amused by the comment

Thank you.

Kind of proves what I thought!!!  Doesn't help that the spelling keeps changing backwards and forward!!!

Thanks for your information!

JJ

in your latest post I have just got to ask you if you were being ironic with your spellings in your earlier post?

Hi Folks,

A quick question which may proof the brick wall is impenetrable!!

In 1857 in Scotland, when presenting your parents name for marriage cert purposes, was any proof required as to the information supplied??

Think this wall might be made of steel instead of bricks!!

Thank you

JJ

Maybe it is just a typo and you meant to say, "...which may (be) proof...."

6
The Common Room / Re: GRO fees
« on: Sunday 01 August 10 12:14 BST (UK)  »
Readers may be interested in a similiar discussion here:-
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,465491.0.html

genreaserch did you ever get a reply from GRO regarding how their system actually works? I think we would all like to be better informed.

Mutley,

It is probable that you were lucky enough to get a photocopy of the original book that was sent to the GRO.  I have just emailed teh GRO to obtain an absolute answer..........

Rob

7
The Common Room / Re: GRO fees
« on: Tuesday 13 July 10 12:57 BST (UK)  »
Mutley,

You are showing your lack of knowledge on this subject.  Certs from the GRO are not printed off any microfiche they are in fact handwritten or type written copies of the copies of the originals.  These are stored in large volumes.  As someone as already mentioned only the indexes have been digitised and then by companies such as Ancetry.  The work that was being carried out by Siemens was stopped when it ran over budget and the government realised they couldn not legally do this. (that was their excuse)  The last time I looked at the relevant website they were looking at a new possibility.

As for Scotland two things spring to mind.  One Civil registration didnt start there till much later and the country is much smaller than England and Wales so the records are fewer.  Their certs though carry far more information than ours.

I agree with Guy that the sales of Goods act is the route to go if the cert is wrong however I believe that if you dont put as much info as you can and the cert matches what you have put (even if not your family) then there would be no claim.  I do stand to be corrected on this point.

Rob

I bow to your superior knowledgs but I am still not sure that that is entirely correct.

1. I have definitely read somewhere that the process is automated. In other words no human intervention.

2. The most recent certificates I have received are basically in two sections. A generic form with additional generic information such as 'Registrastion District' typed in. In the centre of the form is the specific record information which is clearly a copy of a section of an old documnet which has been over printed onto the generic form. You can tell this by the dirt and noise introduced by the copying process. The hand script appears to be an old style too.

There is no handwriting on the certificates that isn't original.

8
The Common Room / Re: GRO fees
« on: Tuesday 13 July 10 12:14 BST (UK)  »
The problem with making the information available on-line is quite simple.  Currently only the indexes have been digitised.  Various projects to achieve this have failed due to lack of money, although I am not sure what is the current situation.

David

Mmm! I don't really understand that.

OK so they may have not been digitised but they must be on microfiche or something similar in order for the GRO to print them off.

Why can't the microfiche copies be stored at Kew?

I understand that the whole process of printing certificates at Southport is automated. How could that be if they were not digitised?

9
The Common Room / Re: GRO fees
« on: Tuesday 13 July 10 11:41 BST (UK)  »
Quote

Whoa there. Bit of an exaggeration. A few GRO certs are hardly a great holiday or a new home as I would do lots of research before choosing a dream holiday or home. If there are two Thomas Wilson's registered in the same quarter in the same year in the same district then you have to take a gamble with one at first. It may be the right one. If not then it is not the end of the world as you can order the other one. Simple.
Quote

Yes I agree but look at it this way:- over the years you could easily buy 2 or 3 hundred certificates. (3 Births Deaths Marriages for each person - that is only 63 people). If only 10% are wrong (you could go wrong more than once on a person) that would be 20 or 30 wasted certificates. At £9-25 each that could be £277.50.

That might not be a lot of money to you but to a pensioner like me.........(don't get out the violins just yet)

Also, if lots of enthusiasts are doing roughly the same then the GRO are making tens of thousands a year supplying useless documents.

As I said earlier, not only is it a waste of everybody's money it is also a waste of the GROs time and the world resources.

Oh, and believe me, it doesn't matter how much research you do beforehand, buying a house or a holiday can go very wrong for unforseen circumstances.

There HAS to be some consumer protection.

Yes I see what you mean there but I think a lot of companies want more money and I think the GRO also rely on people buying wrong certs as it generates them revenue. But I suppose if we returned the cert they could give us at least a partial refund.

Good point.

Fundamentally I cannot see what would be the problem with making the information available at the Records Centre in Kew (or better still online).

The information must be there (at least on microfiche but I suspect it is digitised by now) for the GRO to be able to print it.

There would then be no problem because you would be sure of what you are buying having seen it.

Pages: [1] 2 3