Family Search BMDs - problem

[Taidquest]

Still having some problems but my Mary Mcgrath Mooney
shows up on both the pilot site and the Beta version as
mother to 2 siblings for my grandmother that were not on
 either link earlier,tis' like swings 'n'roundabouts at the moment.
Looks like it will be very useful once the  problems are sorted.
By the way I put nothing except my great grandmothers name
and got the 2 results,now if only the other 6 children would turn
 up,at least I now know the marriage I'm looking for is earlier
 than i thought.
                                                                             Anne

                                                                       

[shanew147]

I've put together and sent to FS some examples searches of cases where the place filter option does not display, and/or the list of counties displayed is incomplete or includes incorrect entries (e.g. South Australia). I think the simple original examples may have confused things a little bit, as it is usually easy to pick out the correct record for these, even without the location option in the search or the placename filter.

I've also mentioned that the counties are no longer shown on the record results in case this is may be connected.

Will update when I hear anything back.


Shane

[shanew147]

response received today from familysearch support re the problem with location searches on the Irish Civil BMD Index, which I think may be the key to many (if not all) the recent problems  :

"We have notified the engineers that changes in the location filter have made the search less usable, they're currently working on fixing that."


Shane

[HugoBeauchamp]

Thanks for keeping us posted Shane - good know they are working on it!

H

[Taidquest]

Thats great Shane,I've been getting most results today except something a bit odd and I'm not sure if its just me.When I search for even the most common surname for Dublin and use between the years 1890 to 1900 most of the results are just for Balrothery.
                                                                     Anne

[annclare]

Shane
Thanks very much for all your efforts- much appreciated.
annclare

[eadaoin]

yes, Shane, thanks - maith fear!

eadaoin

[shanew147]

no problem...

It's tantalizing knowing that the index details we are looking for are all on their database but we cant find then due to a faulty search. Given the range of different types of data, and huge number of records they hold it's not surprising that an upgrade causes a few problems. I deal with database storage as part of my work so I know some of the kinds of issues that can arise.

Hopefully providing them with bit of a bit of user feedback describing the problem(s) as best we can will help them to resolve the issue.

In the meantime I've found the new extracted IGI type records mentioned earlier to be very useful - found quite a few interesting matches and some include the civil index page reference which can help narrow down civil details, especially on marriages. 

 Births, 1864-1881
 Marriages, 1845-1870
 Deaths, 1864-1870 (not many included)

The search screen caption state the details cover from 1619 to 1898, but all the records I've seen so far look like extracted civil records.


Shane

[eadaoin]

In the meantime I've found the new extracted IGI type records mentioned earlier to be very useful
 Births, 1864-1881
 Marriages, 1845-1870
 Deaths, 1864-1870 (not many included)

These seem to be the dates covered by the microfilms available in the Family History Centre - if so they're microfilms of the GRO certs. I must have a look - did all my family as known years back,but have added branches since then!

eadaoin