1939 - At last! TNA explain why references removed

[Parmesan]

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?

Interesting comment!

[coombs]

May not be 1939 related as such but I hear the "become a transcriber then" response to people who want bigger access to genealogical records, well that is difficult if you live hundreds of miles from your ancestral counties where records are stored, or a long way from national registers such as 1939 register, WW2 record archives.

I am not happy but not surprised the 1939 TNA ref numbers have been pulled. FindMyPast wants to make money, a lot of it will go back into putting more records online.

[Guy Etchells]

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?

Why on earth should you think it has anything to do with the release of the 1939 National Register?
I resent you implication that I have received some kind of financial incentive, the only benefit I get from these campaigns is access to otherwise withheld records.

The only connection between the 1939 National Register and the Historic registers is that after I had won the decision on the 1939 back in November 2009 I was able to put more of my own time and money into campaigning for the Historic registers being “released”

If you look at my record of campaigning for the release of records you will see that some of my campaigns are ones which I can push through myself by taking legal action against the archive that is withholding the records such as the 1911 census and the 1939 National Register, other campaigns such as the 1921 census and the Historic Registers are campaigns that need the support of others.

The 1921 census I dropped as there were only about 6000 genealogists willing to support the petition to parliament and the only way to get that changed is by weight of numbers of constituents.
The campaign to enable the release of non certified copies of Births, Marriages and Deaths is something that has been running since at least 1993.
Family Tree Magazine featured it (Easier & Cheaper Access to Registers, FTM vol 14 No 6,  April 1998 page for a number of months back in 1998 but it died down for a while and I have been pushing it hard since around 2009 trying to get people to contact their MPs and Members of the House of Lords.
There was a bit of movement in February of this year with Lady Scott’s amendment to the Deregulation Bill which became law in at the end of that Parliament.

Cheers
Guy

[StevieSteve]

Why on earth should you think it has anything to do with the release of the 1939 National Register?

It was speculation because

I don't understand why you're taking this so personally

which you haven't answered

I resent you implication that I have received some kind of financial incentive

If it's there, it wasn't intended

[Guy Etchells]

I am not taking it personall but I do understand that there are very few companies like Findmypast and Familytree magazine who actively support genealogy.

Other companies such as Ancestry are just in it for the return they look at the bottom line all the time rather than what they can do to promote research.
But companies like FindMyPast do help by digitising records and supporting family history in general.

If we as family historians alienate such companies we are the losers in the long run.

Cheers
Guy

[StevieSteve]

Thanks, Guy

[Parmesan]

I am not taking it personall but I do understand that there are very few companies like Findmypast and Familytree magazine who actively support genealogy.

Other companies such as Ancestry are just in it for the return they look at the bottom line all the time rather than what they can do to promote research.
But companies like FindMyPast do help by digitising records and supporting family history in general.

If we as family historians alienate such companies we are the losers in the long run.

Cheers
Guy

Oh come on, they're not that altruistic, they are a company, in it to make £££££££££££s, same as any other company. 

There is no question, imho, that their records are second to none, it's why I subscribe. However, since Spring 2014, in all other aspects, FindMyPast has gone from hero to zero. The staff turnover has been huge, and I would hazard a guess that a lot of them know nothing of genealogy and what is required from a search. Searches are inconsistent, transcription errors are rife etc, etc.  In fact, a lot of errors that were corrected pre the changeover somehow managed to revert back to the error after the new platform was launched.  I don't think they know what proof reading or quality control is! Their customer service is questionable, lots of C&P responses.

While we are talking transcription errors, I have no idea why the old system of emailing an acknowledgement of the error report and the subsequent heads up of the correction being made in a timely fashion, now takes NINETY DAYS otherwise known as 'how long is a piece of string?' Why would you change from an efficient and customer focused response to one of, what appears to be, complete disinterest?

Saying all that, yes I still subscribe because of the quantity of records in one place and if I want to view them then they have me! I don't always have the confidence I used to have that my searches return the full and correct data though. 

[bugbear]

I am not taking it personall but I do understand that there are very few companies like Findmypast and Familytree magazine who actively support genealogy.

Other companies such as Ancestry are just in it for the return they look at the bottom line all the time rather than what they can do to promote research.
But companies like FindMyPast do help by digitising records and supporting family history in general.

If we as family historians alienate such companies we are the losers in the long run.

Cheers
Guy

Oh come on, they're not that altruistic, they are a company, in it to make £££££££££££s, same as any other company. 

There is no question, imho, that their records are second to none, it's why I subscribe. However, since Spring 2014, in all other aspects, FindMyPast have gone from hero to zero. The staff turnover has been huge, and I would hazard a guess that a lot of them know nothing of genealogy and what is required from a search. Searches are inconsistent, transcription errors are rife etc, etc.  In fact, a lot of errors that were corrected pre the changeover somehow managed to revert back to the error after the new platform was launched.  I don't think they know what proof reading or quality control is! Their customer service is questionable, lots of C&P responses.

While we are talking transcription errors, I have no idea why the old system of emailing an acknowledgement of the error report and the subsequent heads up of the correction being made in a timely fashion, now takes NINETY DAYS otherwise known as 'how long is a piece of string?' Why would you change from an efficient and customer focused response to one of, what appears to be, complete disinterest?

Saying all that, yes I still subscribe because of the quantity of records in one place and if I want to view them then they have me! I don't always have the confidence I used to have that my searches return the full and correct data though.

Agreed - FindMyPast is a very good on-line repository of scanned records.

That are nigh unsearchable. 

Compared to 1950's genealogy (go to the Rectory and read the Parish Register in person),
it saves a lot of road miles, but compared to a decently indexed/searchable
database, it's far, far from ideal.

The true joy (under some heavy assumptions) of a fully indexed and searchable
database is that you don't need to know the structure (or even the existence)
of a dataset to find information about your ancestors inside it.

Would I have gone to manually search the Master Mariner records on the off chance
an ancestor might have been a sailor (with no prior evidence to that effect)?

Would I hell.

Did a normal Ancestry search simply pop up the record?

Why, yes it did.

 BugBear

[Sloe Gin]

One reason why Ancestry searches can give better results than F M P is because Ancestry accept ALL corrections from contributors, and add them to the index.  F M P, on the the other hand, stick slavishly to the "transcribe exactly what you see" mantra, which means that mistakes in the original just get copied and perpetuated.  They won't accept corrections based on personal knowledge, whereas Ancestry add everything without removing the original transcription.  It's not just family knowledge either - I've sometimes noticed mistranscriptions of an obscure village name in poor handwriting and been able to add the correct spelling on Ancestry, because I am familiar with the place, whereas the transcriber was not and made a best guess.

An index is simply a finding aid, so it doesn't matter how many variations it contains as long as it helps you find the entry you seek.  Once you have found it, you can view the original and make your own judgement.  But you have to be able to find it first!  Ancestry's system ensures that the transcriptions are preserved, but are accompanied by informed alternative interpretations as well.