Correction to GRO index not accepted

[Galium]

Does anyone know how this happens?

FreeBMD shows an entry for December Q 1838 - Ann McGlaughlin  Newport S. district  18  120

This is shown quite clearly on the original index page.


I was unable to find it using the GRO search, and submitted a correction for a missing entry.

The result which appears on the record of the report is:

Current Status:    Investigated – No amendment required         
GRO Comments:   Indexed data not available.

[Nick_Ips]

I've had a few of those, in most of the cases I have other information which supports the entry on the previous GRO index (as per FreeBMD), so it seems unlikely the previous version was made up.

Of those there's two cases where all people with the same full GRO reference are missing from the new index (5 and 10 people) which I think might indicate something systemic, rather than just one transcriber making a simple error.

On the other hand, I have had one case where the missing entry in the new GRO index was added, which suggests it isn't a policy to respond with "Indexed data not available" in all cases.

If there's an official reason why, then I'd be interested.

[AntonyMMM]

It looks like none of the entries from that page are available in the on-line index, which I suspect means the page was missed during digitisation.

[Galium]

Thank you AntonyMMM.  Do you know if there are plans to include missed pages at some later date, or
whether the GRO are keeping a tally of reported missing entries?

[AntonyMMM]

Thank you AntonyMMM.  Do you know if there are plans to include missed pages at some later date, or
whether the GRO are keeping a tally of reported missing entries?

No idea ( but I would hope so).

Most "missing entries", between 80-90% I believe when I last spoke to someone at GRO, are not missing at all but are indexed differently - many are due to the changes in the indexing rules used between the old and new indexes, and some due to interpretation (i.e. spelling) variations.

[Nick_Ips]

Thank you AntonyMMM.  Do you know if there are plans to include missed pages at some later date, or
whether the GRO are keeping a tally of reported missing entries?

No idea ( but I would hope so).

Most "missing entries", between 80-90% I believe when I last spoke to someone at GRO, are not missing at all but are indexed differently - many are due to the changes in the indexing rules used between the old and new indexes, and some due to interpretation (i.e. spelling) variations.

So if we could search without surname (but for example providing mandatory year + quarter + district + sex) then perhaps the number of "missing entries" being reported would possibly be much reduced and the folks at GRO would have more time to deal with the tricky ones?

Out of curiosity I just checked an issue I'd had in the past.  FreeBMD gives a total of 134 records for Births+Sep+1847+ District=Plomesgate.  Using a sample of the surnames from those results I've searched the new index and not been able to find one of them (yet).  Which means multiple pages must have been skipped when the digitising was done?

[AntonyMMM]

The limitations of the search system has been raised with GRO many times, so far with no success.

[Dundee]

Dragging this up again...

This is my favourite one where the answer was...."Investigated No amendment required" and "Indexed data not available."

My submission in 2021 was.... All of the December quarter birth registrations in 1902 for the district of Neath are missing from the index (about 400 births)

Debra 

Debra