|
|
Post by cathy on May 3, 2012 14:25:21 GMT -5
Hi all, Having a frustrating time looking at the St Ives registers on Family Search.  For some reason I can look at 3 or 4 pages and then I get an error message and can go no further.  Does anyone else get this problem and any ideas how I can overcome it would be very welcome!! It's not just tonight - been for the last 3 or 4 days and making progress very slow!!  Thanks all! Cathy |
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on May 3, 2012 14:33:22 GMT -5
Hi Cathy - Ih ave had some experience with these problems!  First thing to try is the 'Refresh' option which will often work. Another way is to Sign In if you are registered. If not registered then do so and then sign in. Registration is free and is easy to do.  Next thing is - what Browser are you using? If you are using Internet Explorer then I suggest you try Firefox. I was having lots of problems using IE with a message sometimes after 20 messages saying 'Please Try Again Later'. At that time the only way around it was to be prepared and have another fresh session of FamilySearch ready to go and then just switch across and continue until the next error. With Firefox I have had no such problems. The occasional 'Please Try Later' message but generally hitting 'Refresh' gets over it without a problem. If you don't have Firefox it is free to download and easily installed. CT |
|
|
|
Post by waldrons2000 on Aug 20, 2012 11:35:03 GMT -5
Is anyone still having this problem? I'm using Chrome browser, and getting an error that "connection was reset". I can't reload (tried the same tab as well as a new "instance" of Chrome) and no other website seems to be affected, so it's not actually a connection issue. I've also tried several different pages on the Familysearch.org website with no luck. I've gotten addicted to the original parish registers!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 20, 2012 12:48:18 GMT -5
Susan - I think you will find that this is a problem with FamilySearch itself. I had a couple of instances tonight also.
Just give it a few minutes and try again and you should be okay. If not then just keep trying.
CT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 25, 2013 23:00:19 GMT -5
Once again I have to 'vent my spleen' at the blatant incompetencies displayed by IGI and FamilySearch! Many of you will be used to this by now but I think everyone needs to be reminded that this resource is not to be implicitly trusted!  My latest has resulted in Feedback being sent although I doubt any response will see the light of day ................... as per usual!  In this instance I was trying to find a baptism for Elizabeth Hugo who was birth was registered in the March Qtr of 1868 at Bodmin. Census records also state that she was born at Bodmin and that she was the daughter of Simon and Margaret Hugo. On entering the relevant details into the FamilySearch search form I was presented with the details I wanted :- Elizabeth daughter of Simon and Margaret Hugo christened 15th January 1868 at Bodmin Indexing Project I02492-1 Source Film Number 1596469 Having only just checked my copy of the Bodmin Parish Register for that period I looked again in case I had missed an entry that may have been a little difficult to read. But no - my 'not as good as they once were' eyes had not deceived me - the entry WAS NOT in the Bodmin Parish Register! Plan B was to check the Film Number because FS have a habit of naming the Parish as a baptism place when in fact it might have been the local Non-conformist Chapel or Circuit which might have a totally different name. The film, as above, was 1596469 so I checked the Catalog for that Film Number only to find that this film is:- Order Books and Accounts, 1737-1853Author: Great Britain. Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace (Cornwall) Nothing to do with Bodmin, or even Parish Registers at all!!!  Is anybody wondering yet just why I get so damned cranky about this mob??? My only other step now is to see if some of the other interes under the 'Indexing Project' number might lead to a clue to just exactly where Elizabeth might have been baptised! CT |
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 13, 2013 6:21:14 GMT -5
I am afraid I just cannot help myself! Here is the latest in a long list of totally incompetent errors I have found in FamilySearch. If you search FS for children of Thomas and Ada Hollow you will find the following entry:- Emma Edmonds HollowChristened 12th July 1867 Madron, Penzance, Cornwall Father Thomas Mother Ada Indexing Project (Batch) I04434-6 Film Number 1796106 Film 1796106 contains the following registers for St Mary's Penzance - baptisms, burials, 1789-1812; baptisms 1813-1901 Now this particular item just happens to be available online and I have copies of all the images which leads me to the reason for this latest offering! If you log into FamilySearch and go to the relevant collection (Penzance St Mary Baptisms 1867-1880) and then look at Image 007 you will find the following:- 12th July 1867 Theresa (commonly spelt in the family Treaza) daur of Thomas and Ada Hollow of Market Jew St, Mine PurserNow - I expect there are many of you out there who are more than a little bit cleverer than I so the challenge is ............................... PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU READ THE NAME THERESA AND GET EMMA EDMONDS! Or do I attribute this to the Metric System?! Perhaps under the Metric System you spell Theresa as e-m-m-a e-d-m-o-n-d-s! CT |
|
|
|
Post by tenpoundpom on Mar 13, 2013 8:54:51 GMT -5
Volunteer transcribers with no cross checking by another would be my guess. Fatigue could also be a factor. Several studies in the medical literature at least which show that fatigued medicos can make hasty and poor decisions in that state of mind. I'm sure transcribers would have similar issues.  I've had a peek at the image and I guess the transcriber read "Commonly" as "Edmonds", and "Theresa" was read as "Emma" I had a Bass family which were inexplicably missing from the 1861 census. They were found in the 1851 and the 1871 censuses at different addresses. Not at either address in 1861. One of the children was born in November 1861 and the baptism record gave an address. A search on that address in the 1861 census on Find My Past showed that the father's name, Thomas, had been transcribed as Henry, his wife Emily was transcribed as being 60 years old, rather than 30, and the family name transcribed as Ball, rather than Bass. Ancestry also had the Family name as Ball, but at least got the first name and the age right. So....it's not just "FamilySearch"... I do have an "Edwards" record from the IOS with some conflicting information which I must run past you some time. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 14, 2013 0:40:09 GMT -5
Simon - I have done a fair amount of transcribing and I understand the potential problems with fatigue but I really can't accept that as an excuse in this case! Everything after the name 'Theresa' is in brackets and although the handwriting is small that is not an insurmountable problem. After all ..... I reckon even Leonardo da Vinci had a magnifying glass and I know that Galileo had a telescope!!!  What makes it worse is that, like many other things FS were supposedly going to avoid, the entry is included twice! Run that IOS Edwards query by me anytime and I will try and find the answer for you. (On the appropriate forum of course! ) CT |
|
Does anyone else get this problem and any ideas how I can overcome it would be very welcome!! It's not just tonight - been for the last 3 or 4 days and making progress very slow!! 
