GRO indexes on gro.gov.uk !

[Andrew Tarr]

For a long time I had assumed that the birth of one of my gt-gt-aunts had not been registered in 1845, tho all her siblings were.  Thanks to the MMNs recorded here, I find that she was registered (and correctly indexed by GRO) but she had been incorrectly entered in the 1845 index as Parr.  This was confirmed by checking the original script on FreeBMD.  No doubt I shall find other revelations.

[ReadyDale]

Well, after having a full weekend at it now, it's great.
Yes, there are currently shortcomings with the searching, but I am quite happy to take a face value that things are in the pipeline. And even in it's current state, it has been extremely useful. So far I have confirmed a good number of those children shown as dead on the 1911, that had died between censuses. Also found a few that I had no idea about who did the same, filling in some of those suspicious-looking long gaps between known children. I have a couple of certs on the way for some of the more interesting ones.
And I've barely scratched the surface yet. This will keep me busy for a while.
Well done GRO!

[lanercost]

@BumbleB There was nothing negative said earlier. The suggestions you and others made on improving the search weren't negative (and should've been obvious thoughts to anyone who has used the search) and it was silly for someone to call it that when clearly everyone posting in this thread recognises how fantastic this is.

[Guy Etchells]

There is to be another trial for uncertified copies from records that haven't yet been digitised (at £8) and an express 3hr service trial which I believe will be £45 (aimed at the legal & heir/hunter type world I expect).

Yes, I was not involved with the beta testing but would be very disappointed if that was the case.
There is no reason why the uncertified copy could not be an automatic instant service such as the census image service for third party providers.
Is there any possibility of the 3 hour service being for the Special Delivery and DHL for priority orders containing up to 5 certificates?

But looking ahead, if the GRO add additional search options (eg searching by county(ies), multiple districts), effectively duplicating FreeBMD functionality, how many of us would switch to using the GRO as our first port of call.

I am assuming this “new” index was commissioned for internal GRO use during the period when MAGPIE (MultiAccess to GRO Public Index of Events) or more probably the later Digitisation and Indexing project was running prior to 2012.

It is possible that after the trial period the index could be expanded to include other facilities.

FreeBMD has loads of plus points - e.g. wildcard searches and larger year ranges, which aren't available at the GRO right now.

And of course it covers a larger range of years.

Personally, I like seeing births, marriages and deaths all on the same page, so it's easy to cross-reference them - so I anticipate I'll still be using FreeBMD as much as ever.

If I am correct and the internal GRO (MAGPIE) index has been brought out to service the uncertified copy service that explains some of your points.
For instance the range of years would be limited to what is available in digital format.

I should also add that later (recent) BMDs i.e. those that were produced digitally from the start will be available on the index but not available to order as an uncertified copy.

Cheers
Guy

[Andrew Tarr]

After a few successes (see above, this page) I now suspect there are gaps in the data.  I cannot retrieve two entries for Spouncer (pretty rare, that one) for 1877 or 1879, which I know are on the printed index, and are correctly transcribed on FreeBMD.  Some Spouncers in the early 1870s are present however.

[rosie99]

After a few successes (see above, this page) I now suspect there are gaps in the data.  I cannot retrieve two entries for Spouncer (pretty rare, that one) for 1877 or 1879, which I know are on the printed index, and are correctly transcribed on FreeBMD.  Some Spouncers in the early 1870s are present however.

Is this William Alfred 1877
SPOONER, WILLIAM  ALFRED     mmn YOUNG     
GRO Reference: 1877  S Quarter in GAINSBOROUGH  Volume 07A  Page 728

[Nick_Ips]

I've come up with similar 'missing' entries Andrew, I suspect that they have been transcribed differently to the original indexes (e.g. as per FreeBMD).

Since 'Surname' is a compulsory search term and the only option available is to use variant spellings, if the transcription is significantly different (like a different first letter) then it seems the GRO search won't show the record at all.

I guess you've tried various (dramatically) different ways of spelling Spouncer and still come up with nothing?

That's why I posted yesterday about how the load on the GRO site might be reduced if they allowed searches using Year, Quarter, Volume, Page - as the number of results returned by that search will be limited, and people like you and me would then be able to see what had happened to our 'missing' records.

[rosie99]

After a few successes (see above, this page) I now suspect there are gaps in the data.  I cannot retrieve two entries for Spouncer (pretty rare, that one) for 1877 or 1879, which I know are on the printed index, and are correctly transcribed on FreeBMD.  Some Spouncers in the early 1870s are present however.

1879
    
SPONNEN, STANLEY  YOUNG     mmn YOUNG     
GRO Reference: 1879  M Quarter in GAINSBOROUGH  Volume 07A  Page 763

For this one I searched
Surname Spounce (no 'r' on end) Phonetically similar
MMN Young
Male
1879
Gainsborough

It still comes up without mmn Young
 

[louisa maud]

When you think these records go back to 1837 when the writing was so poor I am not surprised that the people sorting this lot out must have a real headache, one I have is MMN Cork, Cook or Cock, married before 1837 which doesn't  help, In the main I am happy, well done GRO.


LOUISA MAUD