"Access the Birth, Marriage and Death Index for nothing"

[mc8]

Mc8 - Can we all come to the party?

of course-but you will need to be able to ski and get to Courchevel 
maybe see you at the Rootschat meet though?
Monique

[loo]

To give you an idea of exactly how incomplete the ancestry version is -
I have previously transcribed ALL the 1837online listings for the death of persons with a certain common name over a 20-year period;  I have 646 deaths. 
When I searched ancestry just now for the same name and the same time period, they came up with 579 deaths.
Perhaps there are some that ancestry has that 1837 doesn't have, but I don't know that, and I would rather have the larger list.
(By the way, I was able to access the data although am not an ancestry subscriber, as I get it free at my library when I go there - a nuisance, as I have to save up what I'm searching for, but it seems like better value to do that.)
L

['Tricia]

" I would rather have the larger list. "

Didn't cancel my units, Loo

Tricia

[miss marple]

Like so many others, I was caught out by the 1837online half price units offer before Christmas. Oh, well! Should have known better!

I haven't had any problems accessing the Ancestry BMD and found it much quicker to load than 1837online (I do have broadband), but the indexing is dreadful! There might be some excuse for the handwritten entries (though the slightest bit of common sense would have avoided many of the mistakes) but they've even got it wrong on the later, typewritten entries, by frequently indexing on a forename instead of the surname at the end of the page. It wastes a lot of time trying to sort out which are the pages you actually need.

OK, so it's a free extra for subscribers, but it's a shame they couldn't have made a bit better job of it. I hope they do improve it, as some rootschatters seem confident they will – but somehow I doubt it...

[lizdb]

Like lots of others I was excited to see the full BMD index pages free on Ancestry. I have often said on Rootschat how I dont know how anyone can do Family History without looking at the full indexes - and that meant going to Myddleton Str or paying for 1837online.

HOWEVER, I have just spent about half an hour looking up some things, and whilst some pages are fine, they have RUINED the whole thing on others by some stupid 'lack of common sense' mistakes.

Anyone with half a brain can see it is an alphabetical list. Apart from whoever set up the ancestry version!

So, I am looking for a surname beginnig with E . It leads me to a page they say is Bowley to Rule.  Obviously far to big a range, and sure enough when I view it, it is actually Rowley to Rule.
There is NO WAY t view any pages from Bowley to Rowley - because of this error.

SO STUPID!!! Even if the first entry on the page looked like Bowley (it didnt) due to a smudge or inksplodge, anyone with an ounce of common sense could see it was actually Rowley. In an alphabetical list there would not be a Bowley in the middle of Rowleys!

And this happened twice - the second time exactly the same principal. Imposible to look at the page for a E.

If I havent explained what I mean try looking for a birth of an Edmonds in OND 1907, or birth of an Edmonds in OND 1872 (Think I have got those right) but I am SO MAD and SO FRUSTRATED that they can ruin something by being SO STUPID!!

Rant over , I think..........

[D ap D]

Have you reported it to Ancestry?

sometimes minor glitches are ironed out very quickly.

Mind I've been  waiting for 1851 Ruabon for 3 months. At least they've acknowledged its missing.

[jorose]

Temporary workaround - look for something else near Edmonds.  I.E. if you look for Edwards in 1872, it comes up with two sets of pages - the Bowley to Rule set and a second set which is correct.  If you click on the second set it comes up with '2 of 5' which covers the second half of Edwards (from 'James Edwards onwards), but one back is 'Edmonds'

Further, you can browse pages like this:

http://content.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/list.aspx?dbid=8964&path=

Choose year, then quarter, then first letter.  Unfortunately slower than it would be otherwise - but it does let you get around the problem for now.

(I have run across one page so far that wouldn't load at all! Anybody else had this problem?)

['Tricia]

After the initial euphoria lots agree with you.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,121430.0.html Topics merged.

It's not just the indexing - there seem to be missing pages as well.

You pays your money(or not) and takes your choice

Tricia

[Tati]

OK, so it's a free extra for subscribers

Just went to the site without logging in - they say free access (for non subscribers, apparently) is limited in time...

Tanja