ScotlandsPeople (New website now live).

[Gadget]

I think it's a Javascript coding error ( the programmer must have got it wrong, I think)

Added -

http://kb.odin.com/en/122113

(I'll see if I can put in my info to override the auto function*)

* no it's their end or WordPay prob 

[MonicaL]

It does show spouse surname for marriages after the date when spouse's surname was added to the original indexing, but you still have to click on the extra button to get the full spouse name.

What year would this be, Forfarian? The search I was doing was late 1800s to early 1900s.

If this is the way searches are going to go....I now understand why search results are free now We will all lose half a life trying to do quite basic searches.

Monica

[Finley 1]

The old 'adage'  if it aint broke.... etc...
its driving me crazier than I already was


luckily I am going to be far too busy moving house - unless that all goes pear shaped.....

oh dear


xin         

[Annette7]

'In saved images you can sort by year, record header, description and date viewed (again by clicking on the column headers). The filter works on the description field, so, once you've added descriptions to your images the filter should work.'

I list above the exact part of their e-mail in response to my query of the 'filter' not working in saved images.   Crazy - I agree.   I personally have over 191 pages of saved images (going back to 2004) and certainly don't have the time, let alone the mind-set, to go through each item (some 1905 of them).

Also wondering why some posters are extolling the fact that you don't have to pay 1 credit to view results anymore???   We are not any better off at all as they've added a credit to viewing an image - now 6 credits instead of 5.   So, say your previous search brought up 6 results at a cost of 1 credit to view them all.   If you had to end up looking at all 6 individually - and we often do with a common surname - (5 credits a time) total cost would have been 31 credits.   Now, this same exercise will cost you 36 credits!!!

Unfortunately, we are stuck between a rock and a hardplace with ScotlandsPeople being our only major source for Scottish records.   

I truly hoped for a new and improved site after the change, especially with regard to their search screen which was so limiting with regard to criteria which could have been added to narrow down search results.  No improvement there at all, in some cases worse!

One disappointed lady, I'm afraid.

Annette   

 

[rosie17]

It does show spouse surname for marriages after the date when spouse's surname was added to the original indexing, but you still have to click on the extra button to get the full spouse name.
[/quote

Yes just discovered this ..today think I preferred the old way 
Rosie

[Forfarian]

What year would this be, Forfarian? The search I was doing was late 1800s to early 1900

From 1929 onwards. This is also when they started putting mothers' maiden surnames in the births index, though as that's after the 100-year cut-off they don't come up on the online index.

[anne_p]

Has anyone contacted SP re the pre 1929 marriage/spouse issue?

I posted my gripe about it on one of the other threads but, I wonder if it's an SP error or a deliberate omission ?

It seems odd that the field for a spouse surname exists but is redundant on pre 1929 marriages.
I was searching for an 1879 marriage that I found on a child's birth cert.

By entering the male details with the spouse surname for the year and county, it resulted in no matches. The reverse input also resuted in no matches.

Yet, when I removed the spouse name from the field, I too had to click on each of the 7 results in turn to find the right one.
In fact there TWO separate, unconnected marriages for my male name who married women with the same female surname.

[Forfarian]

Has anyone contacted SP re the pre 1929 marriage/spouse issue?

Yes. I don't see any point in posting comments here without feeding them back to SP.

I posted my gripe about it on one of the other threads but, I wonder if it's an SP error or a deliberate omission ?

I have asked them whether the reduction in capability of the search is an intended consequence of the new system.

It seems odd that the field for a spouse surname exists but is redundant on pre 1929 marriages.

It is historical. The original indexes, in the handwritten and then printed books, did not include the spouse's surname until 1929, so the old computerised version of the indexes (DIGROS) did not include this either, and the in-house search does not.

I was searching for an 1879 marriage that I found on a child's birth cert.
By entering the male details with the spouse surname for the year and county, it resulted in no matches. The reverse input also resulted in no matches.
Yet, when I removed the spouse name from the field, I too had to click on each of the 7 results in turn to find the right one.

Yes, that was also my experience.

I think, though I can't be sure, that under the old online system, putting in the surnames of both spouses would have returned the correct information, but the new search does not. I have pointed out that the new search gives a definitely wrong answer, i.e. that there is no record of the marriage being searched for, when there is in fact a record, and that this wrong information is potentially misleading to less experienced users of the web site than myself.

I am certain that the results from the old online search included the full names of spouses right from 1855 onwards, because I have several sheaves of print-outs with this information on them.

[anne_p]

Thank you Forfarian.

The "Old Marriage Search" post 1855 definitely included both spouses .

It was only just over a week ago !