Author Topic: 1939 - At last! TNA explain why references removed  (Read 8451 times)

Offline DmTomo

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 8
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 - At last! TNA explain why references removed
« Reply #18 on: Tuesday 24 November 15 15:53 GMT (UK) »
Quote


No, he isn't

In that case all these apps do is automate what anyone can do manually.  How can anyone have a problem with that? That is what computers are for.

Offline Sloe Gin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,443
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 - At last! TNA explain why references removed
« Reply #19 on: Tuesday 24 November 15 15:58 GMT (UK) »
"the manipulation of the embedded file references which allows people to access large amounts of information without paying"

I can't really see what these "large amounts of information" are.  You're only getting to the preview information, which is what the free search allows you to do anyway.  People are just seeking to confirm that the people they're interested in are actually in the same household, and not random people with the same names.
UK census content is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk  Transcriptions are my own.

Offline Parmesan

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,893
  • Dad 1921-2015
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 - At last! TNA explain why references removed
« Reply #20 on: Tuesday 24 November 15 16:03 GMT (UK) »
Absolutely agree with DmTomo and Sloe Gin. I can't see the problem myself.
Paternal: Staffordshire, Shropshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, Durham, Wales, Arrondissements Oudenaarde and Gent, Belgium, -  - Maternal: Cheshire, Lancashire, Ireland

Offline Guy Etchells

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,632
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 - At last! TNA explain why references removed
« Reply #21 on: Tuesday 24 November 15 16:25 GMT (UK) »

Do they HAVE to buy an image?  Most people would want the image but it would have to be the right image and worth the cost.  In the same way we think BMDs from the GRO are an excessive price, we need to be sure we are requesting the right certificate before we can make a decision as to whether we think the purchase is worth the cost.  I have no concern about an organisation's profit margin!

No of course they don't have to buy an image but if they want to have an accurate tree and follow the correct lines rather than spurious lines then yes they do have to buy the images and certificates etc.
Look at how many inaccurate trees there are online many of which have been constructed from using online indexes instead of paying out and buying certificates etc.

This morning I was searching on Manchester City Council's Burial record search. I got a few possibilities but the initial search only gives you the name, burial date, cemetery name and plot number - all great information - if it's the right person! So I used the GRO index to search the death and found the person I thought could be right is too old, so I didn't continue and buy the image.  Am I duping MCC? Do I feel ashamed?  Certainly not!  I am quite willing to buy a right image but I think I have too many brain cells to buy record after record that prove to be wrong. I am more concerned about my bank balance than anyone elses!



No but you could be duping yourself.
You are relying on an index to convince yourself that a burial record is the wrong one. It could be but it could also be the correct one and without either buying the certificate or checking the burial plot you will never know for certain.
That's how mistakes are made.
That's how trees show marriages before the first husband is dead or children being born after their father has died, etc.
People don't  bother working through their tree looking for supporting records to add weight to their assumptions.
Too many are happy to take a birth certificate or a marriage certificate at face value rather than looking for supporting evidence to "prove" the connection.

Other's myself included are always looking for addition records to confirm our assumptions, even if the new record does not contain new information it provides useful confirmation, or it could throw up a doubt that needs checking.
That is why some of us prefer to get certificates from the Superintendent Registrar whenever we can rather than the GRO as there is less chance of an error.

Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.


Offline DmTomo

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 8
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 - At last! TNA explain why references removed
« Reply #22 on: Tuesday 24 November 15 16:59 GMT (UK) »
Guy, could you answer my question in #16 and perhaps comment on FindMyPast's attitude as in my example there please?

Offline Parmesan

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,893
  • Dad 1921-2015
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 - At last! TNA explain why references removed
« Reply #23 on: Tuesday 24 November 15 17:02 GMT (UK) »
I agree, but my point is I am trying to narrow down the possibilities before outlaying restricted funds on wrong images/certificates!  By using all the resources available to me I can do that and I have a 98.5% success rate so far  ;) ;D  (actually better than that!)

With the TNA references you had a better chance of accessing the right image, particularly with common names. I don't think it's too much to ask.

As an aside, inaccurate trees are irritating but I try not to get muddied up in all that. I have tried pointing out errors to people and they ignore, I can't change that. It ain't a perfect world in any shape or form and there will always be name collectors etc.
Paternal: Staffordshire, Shropshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, Durham, Wales, Arrondissements Oudenaarde and Gent, Belgium, -  - Maternal: Cheshire, Lancashire, Ireland

Offline Guy Etchells

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,632
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 - At last! TNA explain why references removed
« Reply #24 on: Tuesday 24 November 15 17:42 GMT (UK) »
I agree, but my point is I am trying to narrow down the possibilities before outlaying restricted funds on wrong images/certificates!  By using all the resources available to me I can do that and I have a 98.5% success rate so far  ;) ;D  (actually better than that!)

With the TNA references you had a better chance of accessing the right image, particularly with common names. I don't think it's too much to ask.

As an aside, inaccurate trees are irritating but I try not to get muddied up in all that. I have tried pointing out errors to people and they ignore, I can't change that. It ain't a perfect world in any shape or form and there will always be name collectors etc.

That is why I am so annoyed about this.
FindMyPast provided the resource with the reference on the prview screen so that people could confirm they were buying the right image, but instead of doing that people were bragging about how they could use the reference to get the details of all the people in a house without having to buy an image.
No company is going to put up with that.
Even free sites such as Freebmd put had restrictions because of "abusive use" of their sites because people were using spiders and ripping programs to download chunks of their free site.

In the end the people who really suffer are the genuine researchers.

Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline Sloe Gin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,443
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 - At last! TNA explain why references removed
« Reply #25 on: Tuesday 24 November 15 19:21 GMT (UK) »
That is why I am so annoyed about this.
FindMyPast provided the resource with the reference on the prview screen so that people could confirm they were buying the right image, but instead of doing that people were bragging about how they could use the reference to get the details of all the people in a house without having to buy an image.
No company is going to put up with that.

I haven't seen any "bragging".  All people were doing was using TNA references as a short cut.  It didn't show us anything beyond the previews.  The same results would have been obtained by searching for names separately, but it takes longer.  Now we have no sure way of checking if we have the right people.  I think F M P have been a bit spiteful and childish over this.

For my own part, I have ascertained that the details of most of the people that interest me have been withheld anyway, so there is no point in my paying to see the households at this stage.  I would have got the same result by laboriously searching for them one by one, so it makes no difference.
UK census content is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk  Transcriptions are my own.

Offline StevieSteve

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,679
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 - At last! TNA explain why references removed
« Reply #26 on: Tuesday 24 November 15 20:37 GMT (UK) »

That is why I am so annoyed about this.


While I agree with some of what you've been saying, Guy, I don't understand why you're taking this so personally

From what I've seen while I've been a member of this site, you're rigorous in your research, don't accept wishy-washy excuses from those who aren't as rigorous, and campaign for greater access to records.

As I understand it, your next/current big project is for GRO certificates to be more easily available / cheaper. Is the success of that in some way linked to the successful commercial release of the '39 register?

Or what?
Middlesex: KING,  MUMFORD, COOK, ROUSE, GOODALL, BROWN
Oxford: MATTHEWS, MOSS
Kent: SPOONER, THOMAS, KILLICK, COLLINS
Cambs: PRIGG, LEACH
Hants: FOSTER
Montgomery: BREES
Surrey: REEVE