|
Post by myghaelangof on Sept 10, 2011 13:47:03 GMT -5
Here is the message I received from Ancestry regarding the changing results that CT and I have been experiencing. It doesnt explain why they have changed things, only what to do now lol! Dear Mike, We appreciate your message. We have two searches available on the site. If you find that the one you are currently using isn't giving you the results that you like then you can try the other one. They use slightly different algorithms and may come up with different results. The other option is using the advanced search and looking for exact matches on some of the search fields you put. We apologise if it isn't pulling up the records that you are wanting it to. I have attached a link to an article that will walk you through how to switch between the old and new searches. Answer Title: Switching between the Old Search and the New Search Answer Link: ancestryuk.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/ancestryuk.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=5092If there is anything else with which we might assist you, please let us know.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 13, 2011 7:03:10 GMT -5
I keep finding examples of just how screwed up FamilySearch is! I have been searching for the marriage of a John GILLIS to someone named Mary sometime around 1833 and tonight 'found it' on FamilySearch! John GILLIS married Mary JEFFERY 14th October 1832 at Ludgvan I had already checked the CFHS Marriage Index and this event does not appear so I went for the Big Gun - the Ludgvan Parish Register! THERE IS NO MARRIAGE AT ALL AT LUDGVAN ON OCTOBER 14TH 1832! I decided to go about this 'scientifically' so tried a search on FamilySearch for all marriages at Ludgvan between 1830 and 1834. The idea was to try and match each marriage with the register and then see if I could find an answer to the puzzle. As you may all be aware the results are not necessarily presented in chronological order and it was so in this case. However, the first marriage presented in the results ............... Richard HAWKE married Mary RAWLING ............. guess when! - 14TH OCTOBER 1832 The difference with this one is that it does actually appear in the CFHS Index as well as the Parish Register ................... on DECEMBER 1ST 1832 One marriage actually matched with the PR but then there is James CATTRAN and Elizabeth HICKS. In FamilySearch this marriage occurred on December 30th 1832 when in fact the PR shows that it occurred 9TH FEBRUARY 1833! These are all quoting LDS Film Number 1595869 with a Batch Number of I04303-9. The Film is actually for Ludgvan but I don't know what this Batch Number is .................. apart from being a source of misinformation! The only thing I can think of now is that these all refer to BANNS! But if that is the case then FamilySearch is in gross error and should be specifying that it is Banns and NOT actualy marriage dates that it is portraying! In case anyone is wondering .................. I am @#%%$@# again! Now I have to try and search for possible Banns for this marriage and then try to track down where the marriage actually occurred! CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 13, 2011 7:06:39 GMT -5
Well - there it is! Banns of Marriage between John GILLES of Ludgvan and Mary JEFFERY of Madron published at Ludgvan 14TH OCTOBER 1832, 21st October 1832 and 28th October 1832. Unfortunately there is no record in this document of just where the marriage took place. AHA!!!! I have finally found it! John JELLIS married Mary JEFFERY 17th November 1832 at Madron
|
|
|
Post by donne on Sept 15, 2011 14:38:34 GMT -5
Just noticed that the Hugh Wallis batch number site has caught up with the broken links to the IGI with the announcement: "Due to changes on the LDS site this facility is currently unavailable". It also goes on to say "I am investigating a solution but have no estimate for when it will be available". Let us hope we have not seen the last of this very useful facility.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 16, 2011 4:02:47 GMT -5
Roger - I don't think we will have seen the last of it. Perhaps the previous links that allowed direct access to the Search Page might be a problem for some. But at least the lists of Batch Numbers themselves are there and accessible and I think that is really the main thing. As I mentioned previously, I downloaded a copy of the page for all the Cornwall Batch Numbers so that I have it here to refer to if needs be. It is then simply a matter of manually entering the batch number into the serach page. CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 13, 2011 7:06:49 GMT -5
An interesting error from FamilySearch/IGI I have a copy of the relevant Film as I transcribed much of it for the OPC project and I admit that much of the film can be quite a challenge to read. However, I have just looked at the relevant image again and I am struggling a little to work out how FamilySearch got this:- Martha daughter of William and Agnes TRENWITH bp. 5th February 1788 St Ives From this:- Humphry son of William and Agnes TREMBATH from Morva baptised 5th February 1788 St Ives Film 1595570 Image 505 CT
|
|
|
Post by londoner on Oct 20, 2011 5:58:11 GMT -5
Despite all our niggles sometimes things do get better - today sees an update to the browsable images of Cornish PRs - not a lot so far , but marriages from 1837 for several parishes. Keep checking for the ones you want!
And some burials,indexes and transcripts..eg Falmouth
|
|
|
Post by donne on Oct 20, 2011 6:43:09 GMT -5
I just can't understand the logic of what is going on with these images. I thought the original publication was pulled because people objected that the later records showed information about living persons which was too intrusive. Yet they seem to have restored first not the very earliest ones but the later 19th century registers. The headline coverage for the latest publication of images even goes as far as 2010! - not that I've discovered anything past the early 20th century yet. But as londoner says, it is a further step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Apr 27, 2012 8:53:13 GMT -5
And yet another example of FamilySearch not getting it right! Last year I found two Burials in FamilySearch for a William and Mary Trewella. The records for both show that they were buried at Tresmeer. At the time I was not particularly familiar with Tresmeer and had nothing else to cross-reference the information so I entered it into my database. Tonight I came across those same records again and realised that I could now access the Tresmeer Parish Registers online so I went ahead and downloaded the Tresmeer Burials 1813-1904. I suspected there must be some problem because by now I realised that Tresmeer is quite a long way from Redruth where William and Mary lived. Tresmeer is in fact right over near Egloskerry and not far from Launceston which is almost on the Tamar! Not only that but the Deaths of William and Mary were registered in Redruth. So, having downloaded the Tresmeer register I had a search and, no longer surprised, found that the burials were indeed not there! I then checked the entry on FamilySearch to get Source information which led me to Film 1596277. Now, there are a number of Parishes on this particular film and amongst those Parishes is TRELEIGH which is a modern Parish carved out of part of REDRUTH. From there I went to my Treleigh Burial Register and guess what? I found William and Mary both buried at TRELEIGH! So the LDS transcribers have struck again only this time, unlike the OPC site, I can see no easy way to get a message through that there is an error ............. make that two errors! Not only that but I have no reason to think the blighters will take any notice and make the corrections anyway! FamilySearch is supposed to be a superior replacement for IGI when in fact it is the same old bag of bones in a new overcoat! A horrid thought just occurred to me - how many other entries are in FamilySearch that show events occurring at Tresmeer which actually took place at Treleigh! CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 11, 2012 1:57:03 GMT -5
FANCIFUL THINKING I think! Was today looking for a marriage for Robert Grubb in Cornwall sometime before 1818. His son, Richard, was 'of Penryn' when he married in 1840 so I think it reasonable that the required marriage might be somewhere not too far away. After initially looking under the wrong Christian Name I found what I was looking for on the OPC site so then decided to see what FamilySearch had to offer. OPC:- Robert Grubb 'of Perranzabuloe' married Jane Stiles 4th March 1817 at St Gluvias FamilySearch:- Robert Grubb married Jane Stiles 4th March 1817 AT PERRANZABULOEThe St Gluvias Parish Register clearly shows that the OPC records are correct and that Robert Grubb was 'of Perranzabuloe' but married at St Gluvias. I must say that I am more than tired of finding such rubbish in what is supposed to have been a new, improved and 'without the rubbish' version of IGI. But there is more ........................ A couple of days ago I was looking for another record and what I found in FamilySearch did not seem to make sense. The information was not in the OPC site and not in the PR specified. Being a rather cunning and sideways thinker I decided to check the FILM NUMBER provided in the record and then check the relevant Parish Records. THAT FILM NUMBER DOES NOT EXIST IN THE FAMILYSEARCH CATALOGUE!!!!! NOPECT PS - I have sent some Feedback about this (after I found where the Feedback Link was hidden!) but I don't really expect any response.
|
|