One Day Email HIT on NSW BMD

[John99]

>Quote from message of 5 September:
>I received an email from one of the accredited transcription agents
>who commented on the NSW BDM website ....
>
>There are several problems which the Registry currently have under review.
>These include (but are not limited to) *The index does not show the
> Volume number for pre 1856 Early Church Records.
> We are working with the Registry to identify the issues and suggest
> what needs to be done to make the index easier for researchers to use
<snip>

The abolition of early church volume numbers is very obviously directed at
increasing BDM Registry revenue by forcing researchers to obtain certificates
instead of being able to personally look up a record in the microfilms. As such
their abolition is in the interest of the transcription agents who will experience
a big jump in applications and hence revenue. The abolition retains all the errors
present in the church numbers that prior to the abolition could be ascertained
from the microfilms that the Registry "upgrade" has sought to make redundant.

[BevL]

Just read the last email from John99 and what a lot of 'gobbledegook' or politician speak.  I get so sick and tired of those who use all those words and really do not say a thing as your eyes start to glaze over during reading and nothing gets through,.
Why can't they just come out and say that it need fixing.
Bev

[cando]

Bev John has quoted an email I received from a transcription agent.  Reply#13

I don't think it is gobbledygook...the transcription agent has outlined some of the problems encountered when searching [on behalf of clients] the new search engine on NSW BDM.

John there is an 'insert quote' button on the toolbar. 

I don't agree that the omission of the Volume numbers was to increase revenue for anyone.  I think it is probably one of the many problems they are attempting to address.

Cando

[BevL]

Sorry Cando,
I only read the last page and will read through the whole lot before I put my bib in.
Kind regards
Bev

[cando]

 

Bev there are a couple of threads about the updated NSWbdm website.

Cheers
Cando

[BevL]

Hi again Cando,
Just had a quick read through but my question is why didn't they just update the records and leave the process as it was.
I will be quite happy to send an email tomorrow
Bev

[Neil Todd]

I have just emailed at 4.59pm the Minister Responsible along with the tech people at NSW BDM.
The Ministers letter, I will await a reply
The Honourable Bradley Ronald Hazzard MLA.

 

"Dear Sir

I wish to call to your attention some problems that have occurred with the New Births, Marriages and Deaths online facility for family History Research.

As you would know the site was updated to Lifelink in June of this year. Since that update some two months back there have been many, many problems in attempts to perform what would ordinarily be a simple search. This has confounded the most experienced family historian experts and wrought a barrage of criticism from them onto the complaints section of the site.

I am a member of a free international family history help site where experts of long standing use their expertise to aid new searches seeking answers to complete a family tree. This as you would be aware is a booming field.  These problems have log jammed the system in NSW since the introduction in June and have left most users scratching their heads trying to get answers to simple searches that were easily accommodated on the old site. My real query is why after the somewhat expensive exercise, are we left with a system that cannot outperform its earlier counterpart? It would seem that members of the NSW BDM responsible for replying to Telephone and emails believe that the complainants are either stupid or old or both, certainly not technically qualified. It could possibly be explained to these people that without people such as us, they wouldn't have the current technology they now use.

A further unfortunate consequence of this upgrade is the bad name which has now traveled around the world and sets us up as a State that cannot accomplish with the new technologies available."

Neil