Bernice I think I probably had the same reply as you with a link to the Abbots Leigh page and that useless link about how to correct errors which said that they cannot do it at the moment! I sent off my list of registers with errors yesterday as I did not have evidence to add more to the list. Chris From: bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bernpeg@aol.com Sent: 13 February 2011 15:18 To: bristol_and_district@rootsweb.com; bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [B&S] [B&D] Update on new Bristol area parish records wrongly listed as A... Hi Chris Yes, I've had several longer replies this morning to the Family Search  problems I pointed out to them yesterday. They've said thank you for supplying  the details of the errors which they have forwarded along with others for  consideration and correction. They say they welcome feedback on large scale issue within index  collections, referring to the Bristol collection issued on 3 February this  year. They say a correction feature is under development which will enable  corrections to be made in future. They have referred me to a document link on how to correct data errors  which is as follows but I have not checked it out yet. How to correct data errors or make additions to the Historical Records  database They also say the known issue is referred to in FamilySearch wiki _https://wiki.familysearch.org.en/Abbots_Leigh_Somerset_ (https://wiki.familysearch.org.en/Abbots_Leigh_Somerset) Again I have not yet checked this link. Let's hope they sort this problem out as soon as possible. Bernice ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ________________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3441 - Release Date: 02/13/11

http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/Regions/Codes.html Here tis... Cheers, Edna - Ottawa

My transcription: John POWEL (sic) of the Parish of Ampney in the County of Gloucester, Bachelor and Susanna CLEAVELAND of this parish of St Dunstan in the East, in the City of London, Spinster were married in this church by Licence this Thirteenth Day of November in the year One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Seven by me John JORLIN (?), Rector. This marriage was solemnized between us John POWELL (signed) Susanna CLEAVELAND (signed), in the presence of Nathl CLEAVELAND and Sarah SMALL. Don Cameron. -- Chlanna nan con thigibh a so's gheibh sibh feoil.

Bernice I suspected that St James registers had the problem but I only have one marriage in the parish which Family Search has in Abbots Leigh. I did not include it in my list as I don’t know where I got the info from as it is not a parish I have searched over the period 1837-1900. Sunday morning I had a long email form Family Search after the original short unhelpful email. It didn’t add anything new and just said that they are working on the problem. Chris From: bristol_and_district-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bristol_and_district-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bernpeg@aol.com Sent: 12 February 2011 21:06 To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com; BRISTOL_AND_DISTRICT@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [B&D] [B&S] Update on new Bristol area parish records wrongly lasted as Abbots ... Hi again Chris It looks as though St George parish in eastern Bristol has been correctly  listed and not shown as Abbots Leigh like so many other parishes. However, two new parishes I've discovered today that have been  incorrectly attributed to Abbots Leigh (Holy Trinity) Somerset are St James,  Bristol and St Judes, Bristol. I have informed Family Search with examples  accordingly. I strongly suspect that Horfield, Bristol has been listed as Holy Trinity,  Knowle, Bristol. Once I can prove it I will let Family Search Support  know. I don't think Bitton has been included in the new records released by  Family search. I am still plodding through my records though. Bernice ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_DISTRICT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ________________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3441 - Release Date: 02/13/11

Hi Chris and Bernice Thank you for all the hard work and time you’ve put into attempting to bring this problem to the attention of Family Search - I’ve learned a lot by following the thread and have found errors. St Pauls Bedminster Somerset Marriage Listed correctly and then 12 entries later listed as Abbots Leigh SOM – Holy Trinity other that you have already mentioned.......I have sent info off to family search as you suggested. Sandra Auckland, New Zealand

Hi Chris Yes, I've had several longer replies this morning to the Family Search problems I pointed out to them yesterday. They've said thank you for supplying the details of the errors which they have forwarded along with others for consideration and correction. They say they welcome feedback on large scale issue within index collections, referring to the Bristol collection issued on 3 February this year. They say a correction feature is under development which will enable corrections to be made in future. They have referred me to a document link on how to correct data errors which is as follows but I have not checked it out yet. How to correct data errors or make additions to the Historical Records database They also say the known issue is referred to in FamilySearch wiki _https://wiki.familysearch.org.en/Abbots_Leigh_Somerset_ (https://wiki.familysearch.org.en/Abbots_Leigh_Somerset) Again I have not yet checked this link. Let's hope they sort this problem out as soon as possible. Bernice

Having seen all the recent references to Abbot's Leigh, I'm wondering if anyone on the list actually has any relatives associated with this Somerset parish. I have just one, but he is not a direct ancestor. After the death of my 5x great-grandfather, Thomas PRESS, my 5x great-grandmother, Joanna PRESS (nee BUTCHER), married widower George BLANNEN / BLANNING of Abbot's Leigh. The marriage of Joanna and George took place at St. George's Church, Easton-in-Gordano on 5th. December 1767. George's burial may be that of Geo. BLANNING who was buried on 11th. August 1783 at Easton-in-Gordano. The only link so far is that he was from Abbot's Leigh at the time of his 1767 marriage. -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 14:56:29 -0000, Susan Moziar <smoziar@rogers.com> wrote: > Possibly St. Nicholas, Bristol is one other listed as Abbots Leigh. My > 3xgreat grandmother Rosannah LANSDOWN married her second cousin Joseph > GREENLAND 11 Sep 1815 @ St. Nicholas. I defer to Josephine because she > looked this up for me and I'm sure has a better idea about such things > as I do not live in or near Bristol. Hi Susan, I've just checked on another St. Nicholas marriage, that of Benjamin CANNON and Hannah YOUNG, which according to the B & A FHS Marriage Index 1813-1837, took place on 31st. January 1813 at St. Nicholas, Bristol. The new familysearch site has the marriage of Benjamin CANNON and Hannah YOUNG on the same date at Abbots Leigh. Josephine -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com

Hi again I can confirm that events for Horfield, Bristol have been incorrectly shown as Knowle, Holy Nativity, Bristol. I have informed _Support@FamilySearch.org_ (mailto:Support@FamilySearch.org) Bernice

Hi again Chris It looks as though St George parish in eastern Bristol has been correctly listed and not shown as Abbots Leigh like so many other parishes. However, two new parishes I've discovered today that have been incorrectly attributed to Abbots Leigh (Holy Trinity) Somerset are St James, Bristol and St Judes, Bristol. I have informed Family Search with examples accordingly. I strongly suspect that Horfield, Bristol has been listed as Holy Trinity, Knowle, Bristol. Once I can prove it I will let Family Search Support know. I don't think Bitton has been included in the new records released by Family search. I am still plodding through my records though. Bernice

Bernice My list would have been a bit thin had I not got the B&A FHS South Glos Marriage Index CD to compare with Family search. For most people on my tree who are not direct descendents I only have their civil registration details from FreeBMD. Many of these events took place in the Keynsham district but when you see the same event on Family Search listed in Abbots Leigh I know its wrong but cannot give Family Search a correction as I don't know which parish the event took place in. As you know my area of interest is also to the east of the city including St George but that parish as far as I can tell seems to have been correctly listed. Chris From: bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bernpeg@aol.com Sent: 12 February 2011 15:01 To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com; bristol_and_district@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [B&S] Update on new Bristol area parish records wrongly lasted as Abbots ... Hi again Chris Thanks for listing some of the parishes wrongly accredited to Holy Trinity, Abbots Leigh, Somerset some of which are also in my tree so the parishes you've listed will save me notifying Family Search. I can also add these parishes to your list and I will be notifying Family Search about them. St Philip & Jacob, Bristol baptisms and marriages listed as Abbots Leigh St Paul, Portland Square, Bristol marriages listed as Abbots Leigh Holy Trinity, Kingswood, baptisms listed as Abbots Leigh I will check on my other records over the weekend and inform Family Search of any further errors I find. If any other listers are also informing Family Search of the errors they find could they also notify the parish to this list to avoid other listers duplicating work. Thankfully the list provided by Chris will save me a lot of time as most of my ancestors are from the same eastern Bristol parishes (now under South Gloucestershire). Bernice in Bristol ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3438 - Release Date: 02/11/11

Dear Roy, Thankyou for your list message, it had me smiling from ear to ear! and even made me laugh! I so totally agree with you. I have corresponded with the LDS before over mistakes I have located, and more recently with Ancestry regarding one person's donated family tree CD they have published (without checking the integrity of the data supplied), which I and one other researcher, know wholeheartedly to be completely fictitious. With both websites I have always received responses which make you wonder if they've even read the original question! Doggedly I replied the last time out of pure frustration, and finally got a slightly better explanation, but it then prompted a whole lot more questions! So I gave up. I would be interested to hear of others experiences with Ancestry memberships. Originally, I had a subscription to Ancestry.com because in those days it was the only site they had! I have since received lots of special offers from them and recently one for a huge discount off membership. The email arrived on the same day the offer expired so I complained! They said it was an offer for those on Ancestry.com and that I should be on Ancestry.com.au! So they have now changed me to that sub list. So it seems different lists are receiving different offers, and what's more, the special deals they offer us on the "com.au" web mail list seem to assume we are all Australians looking for our convict roots! They completely miss the fact that it's a worldwide multicultural marketplace and that many of us living 'down under' might actually be looking for American roots!!!!! My Mum is still on Ancestry .com so it will be interestign tomonitor what she gets in her mail compared to me just down the road! Amanda Christchurch New Zealand ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [B&S] Response from Family Search about errors in new Bristoldata. > On 11 Feb 2011 at 10:58, Chris Jefferies wrote: > >> As you will be aware there is a problem with many of the new records >> added last week to the Family Search "England, Bristol Parish >> Registers, 1538-1900" database as part of the Indexing project to >> which I was a contributor. A high proportion, probably many tens of >> thousands of the new records have been incorrectly attributed to >> Abbotts Leigh (Holy Trinity). I reported the problem to Family Search >> telling them the scale of the problem and had a reply below which >> shows they don't seem to understand and says they are not going to do >> anything about it at the moment!:- > > > At risk of being stoned to death, figuratively speaking, for an > observation that will > probably offend some people, could I suggest that FamilySearch has a long > history of > either not understanding problems or being unwilling to do anything about > them, > particularly when it concerns records from the UK? I have never yet in the > past been > able to get a sensible answer out of them, so I gave up trying. > > It seems to me there are two problems..... > > 1) The LDS Church does NOT undertake genealogical research and > transcribing of > data for the same reasons that we non-members - which means the vast > majority of > family historians - do. They do it principally to support their own > religious beliefs, which > I certainly don't intend to take issue with here. > > Furthermore, I tend to doubt that many of the programmers in Utah are > actually > genealogists and family historians at all. They are probably clean-cut, > wide-eyed eager > young Mormons who are told they are doing an important job for their > church and the > interests of the wider world of family history simply pass them by or are > ignored. I > suspect they don't understand why it is so important to us to get the > parish right, even > less do they care. > > 2) They are based in a deeply insular and parochial part of America and > probably > know less about the geography of the UK than does even the average > American !!! > And, before the bricks start coming my way, let me say that I happen to > know > someone who is the head of an LDS Family History Centre in England and she > agrees > with me. She told me once that hardly anybody in a senior position in Utah > even owns > a passport! > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: > www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Good one a result (maybe) A friend of mine went to a talk given by a senior elder in the LDS on the data, it was some years ago. When asked how mistakes could be rectified his reply was on the lines of they do not do corrections. I asume this still true. He said that the information is just an index and you should check the original information for yourself. The data is double keyed, but only the names and dates...not the church/parish. Member submitted info...no checking. Ancestry have always corrected transcription errors that I have pointed out. However they also have records listed in the wrong parishes, and no way of pointing this out to them. Trees on their site are another matter, they are not responsible for other peoples data...I have had what could be described as an internet row over one such tree...the woman concerned has her self descended from one of my mother's maiden aunts. I have found her grandmother on the 1901 census, regretfully an orphan nurse child, no matching birth registration, but she will not have it. My mother's family was extremely close so if this woman had been a member of the family I would have met her, I certainly remember my mother's aunt. I know how the error occured...but... Findmypast also correct transcription errors...but I do not like the wording their emails when they acknowledge their mistakes, even though they do say thankyou. freebmd again correct errors, nicer email to say thank you. Dorri > From: chris.jefferies@blueyonder.co.uk > To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com; bristol_and_district@rootsweb.com > Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:19:49 +0000 > Subject: [B&S] Update on new Bristol area parish records wrongly lasted as Abbots Leigh > > Last night I had an email from someone who had a reply from Family Search > about 6 hours after my reply with a case ID about 3000 after mine. The reply > below is much more sympathetic and is asking for details of the problem.:- > > "Thank you for contacting FamilySearch concerning incorrect data place > entries n the index of Bristol parish registers. We have been examining the > known issues for entries for Abbot's Leigh. > We would be grateful if you could supply the record details of entries for > each of the parishes you refer to which are incorrect. > This will enable us to examine the data in detail. > Please copy and paste the record details for incorrect entries in order that > we can examine the original images for relevant parishes and the film > numbers as there is clearly an error." > > Below are the errors I have been able to identify from comparing info I have > with the Family Search data:- > > Kingswood Marriages 1837- 1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > Mangotsfield Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > Mangotsfield Baptisms listed as Abbots Leigh > Pucklechurch baptisms listed as Abbots Leigh > Pucklechurch Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > Westerleigh Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > Warmley Marriages 1851-1900 listed as Abbots Leigh > Hanham Abbots St George Marriages 1847-1888 listed as Abbots Leigh > Hanham Christchurch marriages 1889-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > Oldland St Anne Marriages 1861-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > Syston Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > Wick Marriages 1881- 1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > Iron Acton St James marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > Stoke Gifford Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > Frenchay St John marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > Frampton Cotterell Marriages 1837 - 1901 listed as Abbots Leigh > > I suspect that for the parishes listed above the Baptism, Marriage and > Burial registers have all been added to Family Search under Abbots Leigh. > > I will email the info above to Family search together with the examples of > faulty entries they requested. If anyone has examples of parish register > entries wrongly listed as Abbots Leigh please email the details to > support@familysearch.org with CaseID:1996686 in the title. > > > The parishes below don't seem to be in Family Search at the moment > Bitton > Winterbourne > Winterbourne Down > Abson > Filton St Peter > Downend Christchurch > > Chris Jefferies > Cheltenham > Glos > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Last night I had an email from someone who had a reply from Family Search about 6 hours after my reply with a case ID about 3000 after mine. The reply below is much more sympathetic and is asking for details of the problem.:- "Thank you for contacting FamilySearch concerning incorrect data place entries n the index of Bristol parish registers. We have been examining the known issues for entries for Abbot's Leigh. We would be grateful if you could supply the record details of entries for each of the parishes you refer to which are incorrect. This will enable us to examine the data in detail. Please copy and paste the record details for incorrect entries in order that we can examine the original images for relevant parishes and the film numbers as there is clearly an error." Below are the errors I have been able to identify from comparing info I have with the Family Search data:- Kingswood Marriages 1837- 1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Mangotsfield Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Mangotsfield Baptisms listed as Abbots Leigh Pucklechurch baptisms listed as Abbots Leigh Pucklechurch Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Westerleigh Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Warmley Marriages 1851-1900 listed as Abbots Leigh Hanham Abbots St George Marriages 1847-1888 listed as Abbots Leigh Hanham Christchurch marriages 1889-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Oldland St Anne Marriages 1861-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Syston Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Wick Marriages 1881- 1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Iron Acton St James marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Stoke Gifford Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Frenchay St John marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Frampton Cotterell Marriages 1837 - 1901 listed as Abbots Leigh I suspect that for the parishes listed above the Baptism, Marriage and Burial registers have all been added to Family Search under Abbots Leigh. I will email the info above to Family search together with the examples of faulty entries they requested. If anyone has examples of parish register entries wrongly listed as Abbots Leigh please email the details to support@familysearch.org with CaseID:1996686 in the title. The parishes below don't seem to be in Family Search at the moment Bitton Winterbourne Winterbourne Down Abson Filton St Peter Downend Christchurch Chris Jefferies Cheltenham Glos

The problem identified is probably much larger than you think. Last year when the new Family Search came on line, by chance I discovered that my parish of interest in southern Somerset had been transcribed/indexed. I'm told these were done some 20 years ago, and been on a British Vital Records CD, but they were not something that was available at my FH library. Thankfully. My research would have a very strange shape. For your interest, I had also transcribed this smallish parish, and for baptisms I identified 1060 entries. Searching for baptisms using Beta Search I found 1052 entries. (So far so good.) Duplicate entries from the PR, duplicate entries from the BT, and various duplicates of duplicates added up to 114 entries. So the number of unique entries using Beta Search reduced to 938 entries. The next bit gets a bit murky, and I may have miscounted. But I have 168 entries in my transcript that I couldn't find in Family Search. And furthermore there were 49 entries in the Family Search version that I couldn't match with any of the 168. Part of my analysis compared the names I expected to see - both family names and given names, with the names that appeared in the Family Search index. There are far too many to cite here, but finding a Solomon indexed as Elmer, Elizabeth as Mable, or even Kaylene Barrigo for Mary Anne Bonning (from the marriages) left me stunned. I always use the Browse by location, selecting Europe, and then selecting the specific England database. In the search form I enter only "parish name", Somerset, and this brings up an incredible number of entries. At the head of the results list is a hint " Try adding a name to your search (first or last). Even a guess might be helpful." Could any of you guess any of the alternates I've named above? I've offered my transcription, but I'm still waiting to hear about that. Bev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Hase" <pat@pathase.demon.co.uk> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [B&S] Response from Family Search about errors innewBristoldata. > I've also had problems in trying to make my feedback to Familysearch > understood by the LDS.

PS: I noticed that Bedminster takes in Abbots Leigh 1837-99... http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/ (;-)) Edna - Ottawa

PS: I noticed that Bedminster tooks in Abbots Leigh 1837-99... http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/ (;-)) Edna - Ottawa

Wonder if this site would be helpful to you -- http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/ (;-)) Edna - Ottawa

Hi again Chris I'm slowly working through samples of my ancestors who were baptised, married or buried in various Bristol and South Glos parishes and I am lucky that I know in which parishes these various events took place as I waded through loads of parish registers at Bristol Record Office years ago. I am gradually informing Family Search of each of the errors I find in each parish. The latest parish I've discovered that is also wrong is St Jude in Bristol which yet again they've listed as Abbots Leigh, Holy Trinity, Somerset. In fact they have just sent me their automated reply regarding that one and given me a CaseID number. I can see this process is going to take me some time by the time I find samples from differing parishes in and around Bristol and then cutting and pasting them to Family Search. I have so many families on my maternal and paternal side from all over Bristol and South Gloucestershire. Oh well, that's what keeps our hobby so interesting! I will check out St George, Bristol as soon as I can but had noticed they have some attributed to St George at Brandon Hill, Bristol for a NEWMAN which I know for that particular one is correct so maybe they have managed to get St George parish in eastern Bristol correct. I'll keep you and the list informed. Bernice

Hi again Chris Thanks for listing some of the parishes wrongly accredited to Holy Trinity, Abbots Leigh, Somerset some of which are also in my tree so the parishes you've listed will save me notifying Family Search. I can also add these parishes to your list and I will be notifying Family Search about them. St Philip & Jacob, Bristol baptisms and marriages listed as Abbots Leigh St Paul, Portland Square, Bristol marriages listed as Abbots Leigh Holy Trinity, Kingswood, baptisms listed as Abbots Leigh I will check on my other records over the weekend and inform Family Search of any further errors I find. If any other listers are also informing Family Search of the errors they find could they also notify the parish to this list to avoid other listers duplicating work. Thankfully the list provided by Chris will save me a lot of time as most of my ancestors are from the same eastern Bristol parishes (now under South Gloucestershire). Bernice in Bristol