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 - Paul 77

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
The Common Room / Re: GRO digital images
« on: Thursday 17 August 23 11:09 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Tickettyboo on Tuesday 08 August 23 16:58 BST (UK)
Quote from: Paul 77 on Tuesday 08 August 23 16:30 BST (UK)
Just had a first failure after about a dozen successes so far, what the system has done is combined the bottom half of the entry above my request, and the top half of my requested entry. 

I’ve reported it using their problem page, will let you know how long it takes to fix. I wonder if the same glitch will have affected all the entries on the same page. 

Or will they just refund me and suggest buying the pdf instead?

Paul

I reported a similar case recently. The reply said
We are sorry that you have received an incomplete image.
We have arranged for a full refund of £2.50 to be credited to your account via Worldpay.

As we are unable to manipulate the image, if you still require a copy of the above entry, you will need to place a further order for a PDF image (which can be manipulated) or a certificate.

Which, from what I had read, was what I expected.

Boo

I’ve now got the same message about a refund, has taken just over a week. 

I note that the digital image option is still available so it will presumably fail for anyone else trying.

I’m concerned that their imaging software is making some sort of fundamental error, because the image I received is perfectly aligned horizontally and vertically, just that as I posted earlier it’s been targeted on the horizontal boundary between two records.

2
The Common Room / Re: GRO digital images
« on: Tuesday 08 August 23 16:54 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: farmeroman on Tuesday 08 August 23 16:49 BST (UK)
Quote from: Paul 77 on Tuesday 08 August 23 16:30 BST (UK)
Just had a first failure after about a dozen successes so far, what the system has done is combined the bottom half of the entry above my request, and the top half of my requested entry. 

I’ve reported it using their problem page, will let you know how long it takes to fix. I wonder if the same glitch will have affected all the entries on the same page. 

Or will they just refund me and suggest buying the pdf instead?

Paul

I've had several with varying degrees of offset across the whole record and some where the image is skewed, which probably affects the whole page of records. Some have parts of words missing at the top or bottom, but one has the whole bottom row of text missing and although I can work out what should be there, it's still not ideal.

I very much doubt they will fix it as I believe this will affect a large enough percentage of records to not make it worth their while fixing individually, but a refund is quite likely. Whether a PDF would be any better is another matter; do they do them by hand or just use the same images that we see and transpose them on a template?

Please report back and let us known what they say.

I’ve quite a few pdfs which would have probably been skewed, but they’ve extended the image up and/or down as necessary to catch the whole entry, so I assume what the £7.50 gets you is an element of manual adjustment as well as the cut and paste of the header.

3
The Common Room / Re: GRO digital images
« on: Tuesday 08 August 23 16:30 BST (UK)  »
Just had a first failure after about a dozen successes so far, what the system has done is combined the bottom half of the entry above my request, and the top half of my requested entry. 

I’ve reported it using their problem page, will let you know how long it takes to fix. I wonder if the same glitch will have affected all the entries on the same page. 

Or will they just refund me and suggest buying the pdf instead?

Paul

4
The Common Room / Re: Find a Grave addresses, England
« on: Sunday 13 March 22 14:55 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: bikermickau on Sunday 13 March 22 12:50 GMT (UK)
I had asked this question some time back on a FindaGrave forum and the answer was that they are current addresses.
I find it damn annoying when editing or creating grave sites.

But I’d reply (to whoever said that) they’re not “current addresses” at all. So if they really want to use current addresses they should use the post office preferred format, which doesn’t usually use the words “unitary authority” at all. Indeed they rarely even use county names nowadays…

5
The Common Room / Re: Find a Grave addresses, England
« on: Sunday 13 March 22 12:37 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: rosie99 on Sunday 13 March 22 11:55 GMT (UK)
This is the page that causes the problem
https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery-browse/England/Northumberland?id=state_4235

Clicking on their list of Counties on this link you can see how they have divided up other counties into districts
https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery-browse/England?id=country_5

Yes, and I suppose because Northumberland is a one tier county, it’s already superfluous information. If you were to check say Hampshire,  you get all the districts including Portsmouth and Southampton.  Both areas are unitary authorities within the geographic county but I still don’t think they are needed as part of the location name or addresses...

In other words, where they read  “XYZ cemetery, Southampton, Southampton Unitary Authority, Hampshire, <postcode>“;  the second Southampton &UA is also unnecessary.

6
The Common Room / Re: Find a Grave addresses, England
« on: Sunday 13 March 22 11:38 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: rosie99 on Sunday 13 March 22 11:27 GMT (UK)
Presumably the information was added by the creators of the website  :-\.  Now run by Ancestry

From the one I have just looked at near to me it gives the local authority name and by selecting that it shows all of the cemeteries on the site within that Council area.  It also gives the option to search all council areas in the county.  If I was 'new' to research in that area I would find that information helpful. 

This link takes you to all of those under the Northumberland Unitary Authority 'Banner'.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01rcq/
I can just about see that being of limited use, if you’re trying to be sure you’ve found all the relevant locations, but I believe it shouldn’t be displayed as part of the address the way they’re doing it when creating links to sources.

7
The Common Room / Find a Grave addresses, England
« on: Sunday 13 March 22 11:06 GMT (UK)  »
Something that’s been bugging me for a while, apologies if it’s not new, but search wasn’t helpful.

On the Find-a-Grave website, it’s apparent that someone has systematically added the names of what they consider is the appropriate “unitary authority” to many (most?) cemetery locations. 

For example every cemetery location in Northumberland ends with “Northumberland Unitary Authority, Northumberland”.

I spend so much time deleting this guff from events created from these sources - it is of no relevance to standard address formats as they are normally used. 

Does anyone else think it’s been a mistake to add this info to their database?

8
The Common Room / Re: Great or Grand
« on: Sunday 20 December 20 14:46 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: Gadget on Sunday 20 December 20 13:47 GMT (UK)
Grand is definitely the correct term whatever  :P

https://www.familytreemagazine.com/names/aunts-and-uncles-grand-not-great/

and

https://www.familytreemagazine.com/names/aunts-and-uncles-grand-not-great/

Add- I did a course in kinship as part of my first degree and in our system (bifurcate merging) it is grand.
Are those two links supposed to be leading to the same article?

9
The Common Room / Re: Great or Grand
« on: Sunday 20 December 20 13:26 GMT (UK)  »
Have now had a reply from Ancestry confirming it is an intentional change, (asked for by their staff genealogists).

I still can't see the need for it, but there we are.

Pages: [1] 2 3