----- Original Message ----- From: Karen Russell To: Bristol And Somerset@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9:12 PM Subject: research The recent LDS pilot has provided some additional information but as previous transcriptions, there can be and are errors. Since the information provided to the files is transcribed from other sources, there are many mis- read or mis-copied registers. I have found a number of discrepancies in my family records. I have proved the errors by obtaining other records; eg original death registration. One must always be wary and use many sources. The mother's name for my gggrandmother in the LDS file was given as McDowell; I found a possible sibling ( same father, same Parish), checked the film in Sault Lake City Family History Library to compare handwriting of the original entries and the brother's mother's name was McDonald. Only when I acquired a death registration from Scotland for my gggrandmother's death in 1902 was I certain her mother was also McDonald. I could have been off and running searching a McDowell ancestry which doesn't exist! Karen in Canada

There is a problem with many of the Bristol Parish records recently added to Family Search. There are just too many entries for as small place like Abbots Leigh!! It looks as if most of the new records have been incorrectly set to Abbots Leigh Holy Trinity). Chris Jefferies Cheltenham Glos

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:20:07 -0000, Mike in Droitwich <mjflists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > the family search pilot > http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#start Thank you, Mike. I've just clicked on this and found a daughter and son of my 3x great-grandparents, Henry Pearce MORRIS and his wife, Sarah (nee DREW), whom I didn't know about before. My MORRIS family was in Hotwells, Clifton at the time of the 1841, 1851, 1871 and 1881 censuses, but Henry Pearce MORRIS and his family spent some time in Ireland and Yorkshire in the 1860s. Presumably he was following his trade as a coach maker at this time. The daughter, I've found, was Emma, was born on 21st. August 1865 in Cork. Her mother's name is recorded correctly as Sarah DREW but Henry's middle name is spelt Pierce rather than Pearce, which is used on other documents. The son, I've found, was Frederick, who was baptized on 3rd. May 1873 at St. George's Church, Brandon Hill, Bristol. Emma doesn't appear in the 1871 Bristol census and Frederick doesn't appear in the 1881 Bristol census. I've just looked on FreeBMD. Emma may have died in Cork as I can't find a suitable death registration for her in England. However, there is a death registration for Frederick Pearce MORRIS, aged 8, in Bristol in the March quarter of 1880. So new information is cropping up all the time for me, when I am directed to different sites. Josephine -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com

-----Original Message----- From: Susan Moziar Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 12:58 AM To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [B&S] LDS Family Search pilot project Edna, I can't complain after finding the record I wanted in Bristol. Now if they would just get the actual images ...... Susan -----Original Message----- From: liverpud Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:23 AM To: Bristol-Somerset List Subject: [B&S] LDS Family Search pilot project The LDS are working on a pilot project. Not too impressed so far.... http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html Edna - Ottawa ------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------- 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 __________ NOD32 5857 (20110208) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com

Hello Susan It looks like several Bristol parishes have been indexed as Abbots Leigh in error so possibly St Nicholas, Bristol is amongst them (as well as St Philip & Jacob). Chris Jefferies is looking into these errors. Bernice.

Bernice, I am glad you mentioned that I was just about to post and say that my 3 gxg grandmother Rosannah LANSDOWN who married Joseph GREENLAND was married: Name: Joseph Greenland Event: Marriage Event Date: 11 Sep 1815 Event Place: Abbots Leigh (Holy Trinity), Somersetshire, England Gender: Male Age: Christening Date: Marriage Date: Marital Status: Single Burial Date: Father: Mother: Spouse: Rosanna Lansdown Spouse's Marital Status: Single Spouse's Father: Spouse's Mother: Film Number: 4223349 Digital Folder Number: 4223349 Image Number: 00047 . Yet I distinctly remember Josephine looking this up and the place was St. Nicholas, Bristol. So what's the explanation? Best Wishes, Susan -----Original Message----- From: Bernpeg@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 9:21 AM To: chris.jefferies@blueyonder.co.uk ; bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com Subject: [B&S] New Bristol Records on FamilySearch Hi Chris I've been checking the new additions for Bristol parishes and just from checking two of the surnames I research, Pegler and Pincott, I note the baptisms, marriages and burials for St Philip & Jacob, Bristol have been incorrectly indexed as being in the parish of Abbots Leigh, Somerset. This is obviously going to throw future researchers in the wrong direction. Possibly the whole batch for St Philip & Jacob has been incorrectly transcribed. I personally checked the St Philip & Jacob registers at Bristol Record Office some years ago so I know I am correct in stating the new transcriptions are showing the wrong parish. 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

Another 300,000 Bristol Parish records transcribed as part of Family Search Indexing project were added to Family Search on 3rd Feb taking to total added this year to 581,000. More info about what is included can be found on this page but no parish detail . https://www.familysearch.org/s/collection/list#page=1 <https://www.familysearch.org/s/collection/list#page=1&region=EUROPE> &region=EUROPE I don't know what is include yet but the previous set was mainly city parishes plus adjacent parishes. Chris Jefferies Cheltenham Glos

Hugh Wallis's site was very useful as it gave people in insight into what was actually included in the IGI. I was once in contact with someone who claimed to have traced his Bristol family tree back the 1600s in only 6 weeks using only the IGI!!! Using Hugh's site you can see which parish data is included in the IGI and for the Bristol area the answer is VERY LITTLE. I think BRO were one of the last councils to allow LDS to film their registers in the late 1980s as I remember registers were "Unavailable" while they were filmed. I don't think that the actual IGI has been updated since around 1990 as new records were added to the VRI and certainly the Bristol parish records were never added. I don't think Hugh updated his site for quite a few years before his death. As I recently said many central Bristol parish registers 1837-1900 were added to Family Search a month ago as part of the Family Search Indexing Project. At the moment when you select a record of interest there is a square in the top left of the screen which says "No Image Available" but when the project is complete you will be able to view the original register entry. Chris Jefferies Cheltenham Glos From: bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mike in Droitwich Sent: 09 February 2011 09:20 To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [B&S] LDS Family Search pilot project I have three tabs for the LDS on my browser's tool bar the original IGI http://www.familysearch.org/ENG/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_I GI.asp <http://www.familysearch.org/ENG/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_ IGI.asp&clear_form=true> &clear_form=true the family search pilot http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#start & the new family search site https://www.familysearch.org/ I find using the advanced search on the new family search site can give me much more controlled results than the original IGI site with it's idiosyncratic way of refusing to do the precise search I wanted. I now find Hugh Wallis's site is not now reflecting a true record of the only parishes. If on the new search you copy the "indexing project" number and paste it into batch number on the "old" IGI site you can with a region selected get a surname search. Mike in Droitwich my family tree http://mjfisher.tribalpages.com ------------------------------- 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: 1435/3431 - Release Date: 02/08/11

Hi, I guess I should be more patient until the new site is really going at full speed. Patience is a virtue so said Mum Thanks folks, Edna - Ottawa

Hi Edna I note at the bottom of site mentioned that it was last updated in 2006 Does it still apply to the "indexing project" references in the new Family Search site ? Mike in Droitwich my family tree http://mjfisher.tribalpages.com liverpud wrote: > Handy Tables.... > > http://www.ancestrysolutions.com/Batch%20Number%20Table.html#start > > Edna - Ottawa > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Old site -- http://www.familysearch.org/eng/search/frameset_search.asp New site -- http://www.familysearch.org/ (;-)) Edna - Ottawa

Thanks Chris I was hoping someone would be able to know how to put it right. Thanks for your help. Bernice PS There were also some entries for Holy Nativity, Knowle, Bristol that I was surprised at as I knew the family lived on the other side of Bristol at Horfield so maybe there are more mistakes with the parishes.

I'm the one complaining as I find it difficult to use. Of course, they are in the process of revamping the site. I use the old site in the meantime. There is no charge for entering this site. The LDS only charge if you order their films to view, which is quite inexpensive. (;-)) Edna - Ottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Perrett" <tomp@st.net.au> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 5:35 AM Subject: Re: [B&S] LDS Family Search pilot project If there is no charge, why then all the complaints???? Tom On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:47:15 +1000, Lyn wrote: >Hi Tom > >I don't believe the LDS charge anything to view their site - I have never >paid at their centres either except to order a film or for a >photocopy/print. > >Regards > >Lyn >In Oz. >

Hi Chris I've been checking the new additions for Bristol parishes and just from checking two of the surnames I research, Pegler and Pincott, I note the baptisms, marriages and burials for St Philip & Jacob, Bristol have been incorrectly indexed as being in the parish of Abbots Leigh, Somerset. This is obviously going to throw future researchers in the wrong direction. Possibly the whole batch for St Philip & Jacob has been incorrectly transcribed. I personally checked the St Philip & Jacob registers at Bristol Record Office some years ago so I know I am correct in stating the new transcriptions are showing the wrong parish. Bernice

I have three tabs for the LDS on my browser's tool bar the original IGI http://www.familysearch.org/ENG/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp&clear_form=true the family search pilot http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#start & the new family search site https://www.familysearch.org/ I find using the advanced search on the new family search site can give me much more controlled results than the original IGI site with it's idiosyncratic way of refusing to do the precise search I wanted. I now find Hugh Wallis's site is not now reflecting a true record of the only parishes. If on the new search you copy the "indexing project" number and paste it into batch number on the "old" IGI site you can with a region selected get a surname search. Mike in Droitwich my family tree http://mjfisher.tribalpages.com

I love this site - it is the old site - the link to the new one is the one you are supposed to use now and has a lot more records and supposedly improved capabilities. However, I find the new site search a lot less user friendly and the results rather poor compared to the pilot site - its search facility is great once you work it out and that is relatively simple or was for me. Lyn In oz. > -----Original Message----- > From: bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf > Of liverpud > Sent: Wednesday, 9 February 2011 2:24 AM > To: Bristol-Somerset List > Subject: [B&S] LDS Family Search pilot project > > > The LDS are working on a pilot project. > Not too impressed so far.... > > http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html > > Edna - Ottawa > > > ------------------------------- > 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

> From: sandra.s@ntlworld.com > To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com > Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 20:01:25 +0000 > Subject: Re: [B&S] batch/film numbers > Check every entry > against the original document. And dont forget the deaths and burials (which > rarely appear on the IGI). > Sandra This is because the intention of the Church of the Latter Day Saints is to collect international data of as many people as possible to baptise them retrospectively for entry into Heaven. Information of death is therefore not very important, as those from a long time ago are clearly already dead and from the LDS' point of view, not essential to their purpose. I suspect many people do not know this. The by product of this is of course a very useful genealogical resource. Jean > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Haycock > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5:33 AM > To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com > Subject: [B&S] batch/film numbers > > Could some one please explain ... I am confused as to why there are > different Batch/file #s for the same entry > I think it has to be the same parents , I have been looking for this > marriage for years. > Thanks Bryan in Perth w.a. > > > spouse:Mary Page > marriage:19 Feb 1793 ­ Canterbury, Kent, England. > > record title:England Marriages, 1538–1973 > groom's name:William Acock (should be HAYCOCK ?) > bride's name:Mary Page > marriage date:19 Feb 1793 > marriage place:Canterbury, Kent, England > indexing project (batch) number:I00356-3 *** > system origin:England-EASy > source film number:1850994 *** > --------------------------------------------- > <https://www.familysearch.org/s/recordDetails/show?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fpilot.familysearch.org%2Frecords%2Ftrk%3A%2Ffsrs%2Frr_883470339%2Fp1&hash=HloWXpZgU9zB10k5M56iYku8TUc%253D>Jesse > Haycock > residence:Canterbury, Kent, England > parents:Willm. Haycock, Mary > > record title:England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 > name:Jesse Haycock > gender:Male > baptism/christening date:02 Mar 1794 > baptism/christening place:Canterbury, Kent, England > father's name:Willm. Haycock > mother's name:Mary > indexing project (batch) number:I00356-3 **** > system origin:England-EASy > source film number:1850994 **** > ** I think these are the same batch & file numbers as for Marriage of > Wlm/Mary - Acock, > definately misspelt and should be HAYCOCK. > > > Jesse Haycock.. > residence:Canterbury, Kent, England > parents:William Haycock, Mary Haycock > > record title:England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 > name:Jesse Haycock > gender:Male > baptism/christening date:02 Mar 1794 > baptism/christening place:St. Paul's, Canterbury, Kent, England > father's name:William Haycock > mother's name:Mary Haycock > indexing project (batch) number:C04411-5 > system origin:England-EASy > source film number:1736628 > <https://www.familysearch.org/s/recordDetails/show?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fpilot.familysearch.org%2Frecords%2Ftrk%3A%2Ffsrs%2Frr_883470339%2Fp1&hash=HloWXpZgU9zB10k5M56iYku8TUc%253D>Jesse > Haycock > > England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 > residence:Canterbury, Kent, England > parents:William Haycock, Mary > > record title:England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 > name:Jesse Haycock > gender:Male > baptism/christening date:02 Mar 1794 > baptism/christening place:St. Paul, Canterbury, Kent, England > father's name:William Haycock > mother's name:Mary > indexing project (batch) number:I06656-8 > system origin:England-EASy > source film number:1751627 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Hi Bryan, As others have explained, the reason for the different batch numbers for what is apparently the same event is because the event has been submitted from different sources. The ones to treat with considerable caution are those submitted by "patrons", which are sometimes based on pure supposition. The others might be entries extracted from parish registers (usually prefixed with a C or M), or from printed sources like Philimore's or from other transcripts. Although these tend to be more reliable, these too are prone to error of transcription or even worse errors of complete omission. I was involved in Genealogy when much of the index was created and there was an absolute outcry after an English genealogist visited Salt Lake and reported that the transcriptions were being conducted by non-English speaking Hispanics. At one time it was reported that the error rate was close to 30%, although it is supposedly better than that these days. I have checked the entries in the IGI against the parish registers of my village church in Hampshire. The registers are beautifully written and very clear. With only one or two marriage per year one would not think there were any errors, but unfortunately they had missed entries. In another instance the marriage of a direct ancestor was recorded in a parish which I had already searched. I thought perhaps I had missed it, so went to the record office and checked again . It was definitely not there. I eventually found it some two years later whilst doing some research in a parish 12 miles away. By all means use the IGI (and any other index for that matter) but use it only as a tool to advance your own personal research. Check every entry against the original document. And dont forget the deaths and burials (which rarely appear on the IGI). I know of someone who relied on the IGI for his information and spent 4 happy years tracing his ancestry only to discover that the person he thought was his great grandfather had actually died as a two year old infant. Good luck with your research. Kind regards Sandra -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Haycock Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5:33 AM To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com Subject: [B&S] batch/film numbers Could some one please explain ... I am confused as to why there are different Batch/file #s for the same entry I think it has to be the same parents , I have been looking for this marriage for years. Thanks Bryan in Perth w.a. spouse:Mary Page marriage:19 Feb 1793 ­ Canterbury, Kent, England. record title:England Marriages, 1538–1973 groom's name:William Acock (should be HAYCOCK ?) bride's name:Mary Page marriage date:19 Feb 1793 marriage place:Canterbury, Kent, England indexing project (batch) number:I00356-3 *** system origin:England-EASy source film number:1850994 *** --------------------------------------------- <https://www.familysearch.org/s/recordDetails/show?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fpilot.familysearch.org%2Frecords%2Ftrk%3A%2Ffsrs%2Frr_883470339%2Fp1&hash=HloWXpZgU9zB10k5M56iYku8TUc%253D>Jesse Haycock residence:Canterbury, Kent, England parents:Willm. Haycock, Mary record title:England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 name:Jesse Haycock gender:Male baptism/christening date:02 Mar 1794 baptism/christening place:Canterbury, Kent, England father's name:Willm. Haycock mother's name:Mary indexing project (batch) number:I00356-3 **** system origin:England-EASy source film number:1850994 **** ** I think these are the same batch & file numbers as for Marriage of Wlm/Mary - Acock, definately misspelt and should be HAYCOCK. Jesse Haycock.. residence:Canterbury, Kent, England parents:William Haycock, Mary Haycock record title:England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 name:Jesse Haycock gender:Male baptism/christening date:02 Mar 1794 baptism/christening place:St. Paul's, Canterbury, Kent, England father's name:William Haycock mother's name:Mary Haycock indexing project (batch) number:C04411-5 system origin:England-EASy source film number:1736628 <https://www.familysearch.org/s/recordDetails/show?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fpilot.familysearch.org%2Frecords%2Ftrk%3A%2Ffsrs%2Frr_883470339%2Fp1&hash=HloWXpZgU9zB10k5M56iYku8TUc%253D>Jesse Haycock England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 residence:Canterbury, Kent, England parents:William Haycock, Mary record title:England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 name:Jesse Haycock gender:Male baptism/christening date:02 Mar 1794 baptism/christening place:St. Paul, Canterbury, Kent, England father's name:William Haycock mother's name:Mary indexing project (batch) number:I06656-8 system origin:England-EASy source film number:1751627 ------------------------------- 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

Roy... amazingly, I am going to 'do a Josephine' on you. I say amazingly because I'm not usually that organised and I have a rubbish memory but, in the case of our communication in October 2006 (!) I kept a copy of the results of my 'Googling' for the STOCKDILLs, RIDOUTs, TOOGOODs saga which I did in response to a similar query from you. I 'said' more or less what I have pasted below. As far as I can see, these RIDOUTs are not, unfortunately, connected with my Sherborne family... RIDOUTs George RIDOUT, Sarah’s father, was born ~1831 in Sherborne and was a bookseller in 1871, living in Gillingham with wife Mary (TOOGOOD) and children James (14) and Sarah S (7). Mary’s sister Martha was visiting (or living with them) and the family had one servant. In 1881 George (51) was married to Jane (44) and was living at 'Newbury', Gillingham with son James, a printer, and daughter Jane E, aged 6. George was secretary of the Lecture Hall in Gillingham in 1895 and was also listed in a directory… 'Ridout Geo., stationer, newsagent/fancy repository, High St. Also James, his son… Ridout James & Co., printers/publishers "Weekly Record", High St'. The only George RIDOUT that I could find who had been born in Sherborne at the appropriate time was christened on 2nd March 1831 to George RIDOUT and Mary (? MATTHEWS, married Sherborne 1825). George, the father, was an agricultural labourer – he had been born in Milborne Port, probably the son of Edward Ridout and Sarah (? GERRARD, married Shaftesbury St Peter 1799) – this couple were living in a cottage in Newland Street (Sherborne) in 1841. Edward was a labourer and had been born in Sherborne, according to the 1851 census. Anyway, in 1841 George and Mary and their seven children were living in a cottage (also in Newland Street) in Sherborne…. Newland Street - district 1 – also in 1834 Sherborne terrier at # 256 George RIDOUT - 37 M Ag Lab (Y) Mary RIDOUT - 36 F (Y) Elizabeth RIDOUT - 15 F (Y) Sarah RIDOUT - 13 F (Y) George RIDOUT - 10 M (Y) Emma RIDOUT - 8 F (Y) John RIDOUT - 5 M (Y) Mary RIDOUT - 3 F (Y) Jane RIDOUT - 1 F (Y) So, either George RIDOUT started off as an agricultural labourer and became a bookseller or these are two different men. TOOGOODs Mary and Martha TOOGOOD were daughters of William TOOGOOD and Rachel (FORWARD, married Gillingham 9th February 1829). In the 1851 census the family (but not Mary) are living in Gillingham. William was a 40 year old domestic servant. In 1841, he had been listed as a butcher – Mary was living with her parents at that time. Mary was christened in 1832 (with her sister Hannah). Also John (1830), William (1834) and Elizabeth (1837) and probably more. William, the father, had been described on these christenings as a 'yeoman' until 1834 when he became a butcher. William was listed in the 1861 census as having been born in London. He and Rachel (who was born in Bourton, Dorset) were living in Station Road, Gillingham with daughters Martha (13) and Emma (19). He was now 56 and Rachel was 59. In 1881 William was an 80 year old boarder with the STONE family at Churchyard in Gillingham – he is listed as former butcher, widowed and born ‘London’. I can only surmise that the connection between the TOOGOODs and the STOCKDILLs would arise when William TOOGOOD's family were in London. William TOOGOOD was born in 1801 but married in Dorset in 1829. George STOCKDILL was born in 1803 in Yorkshire but moved to London at some point – perhaps the two families knew one another in London and William named his daughter after George’s wife (Sarah). Perhaps George and Mary TOOGOOD were Sarah Stockdill RIDOUT’s godparents. Nothing more to add :-) Cheers, Karen Visit the new Ridout family history website and blog at: www.the-ridouts.com

Roy... amazingly, I am going to 'do a Josephine' on you. I say amazingly because I'm usually not that organised but in the case of our communication in October 2006 I kept a copy of the results of my 'Googling' for the STOCKDILLs, RIDOUTs etc saga. In case it has been lost in the ether... Visit the new Ridout family history website and blog at: www.the-ridouts.com