I've also had problems in trying to make my feedback to Familysearch understood by the LDS. A couple of months ago I noticed that the "new" Bristol data which had previously been available on the British Isles Vital Records was not complete. Several females in my family had been christened as adults and their married names were given as additional information in the BIVR. None of this appears in the new format. I thought it was a pity that the additional information had been omitted because it is by that means that some individuals can be identified. My replies from them twice informed me that the BIVR was no longer available on CD (of which I was aware!) and failed to address the question I had raised. In the end I gave up. Do they really want feedback? I now see that new Bristol data from Bitton (which was not on the BIVR) does not include the age at christening which I know is on the original entry. My 3 x great grandfather, Samuel LONG, was married at Bitton, 21 Feb 1803, the day after he was christened there 20 Feb 1803 and I know the register gives the information that he was 25 when he was christened. Is it worth the hassle to raise this? It is hardly of the magnitude of the Abbots Leigh fiasco!. I'm still waiting for a reply on that one. On another tack, I'm impressed with the speed with which Findmypast acknowledges faults and corrects their data. Perhaps finance has something to do with it! Pat > ----- 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.