FYI- There is a child's sampler for sale on E Bay. It was made in 1858 by 12 year old Ann Dutton. There is no more information available as to the location of Ann Dutton within Cheshire. Ray Jones, Ontario, Canada

<<snipped>> Roy Stockdill published this list of some UK Dade Registers in 2002: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/YORKSGEN/2002-12/1040220389 <<snipped>> I appreciate that Roy was just passing on info from others. Re Cheshire, to avoid raising hopes, perhaps we could comment on his list of "Dade" registers in Cheshire, which was: Alsager, Macclesfield, Witton My comments would be: - strictly speaking these are registers with extended information, at least the grandparents of baptised children or parents of all burials. Dade and Barrington registers have precise formats and maybe none of the Cheshire registers match that; - Alsager isn't extended format but Barthomley is. Extended baptisms for Barthomley cover 1789 to 1797 - but not much more. Date of birth does carry on to 1812. I don't think burials had an extended format there. Barthomley parish does cover Alsager. - Macclesfield? No idea... - Witton - yes. I can't find evidence but I think there were occasional extended entries in the Davenham and Over registers, but only a few.... But I am relying on memory... I bet that someone will now point me to a reference in GENUKI that says all this!! (grin) Adrian B

Christine, Spotted your surname interest, I have struggled for years to track my KAY ancestors, I obtained the wedding cert for my x2 Gt Grandfather Richard KAY, b. abt 1811, who married Jane KENDAL in 1842, Preston, LAN. his father was also a Richard KAY. Census of 1841,51,61 & 71 reveal some variety of birth date but all show his b. place as Crowton. (Jane's - Huddersfield) 1851 states Acton, which I think is in the same area as Crowton? Initially he worked for a railway company [Preston - Wigan Railway?] in Farrington, Euxton, then moved to Penwortham all in Lancashire, where he died in 1876. This Richard Kay, b. abt 1811 had a sibling, Thomas b. abt 1806, also Crowton, who seems to have remained unmarried, and like his brother was to die in Penwortham, three years earlier. I found in the R.O. Tithe Maps a record that a Richard Kay was residing at Marshflatt Cottage, junction of Marsh Lane & Bent Lane, Crowton. I did have a suggestion (from someone named Judy - who's details were sadly lost when my previous computer 'died') that this Richard's spouse may have been a Mary Kearsley daur of Richard Kearsley & Eliz. I wonder if you can see any link to your KAY's, in the above. Regards Barrie Kay Sharples North Yorkshire

Dick, There's quite a few children baptised at Witton from 1821 onwards to a William & Sarah Haddock - see familysearch. If you think that these are your family then the baptisms fall within the period of the auxiliary registers, so you should be able to discover the names of the grandparents. If you can't get to see the film, purchasing a few credits on FindMyPast would give you the answer, or if you can wait I should be able to look for you next time I visit the Library. regards, Elaine. Subject: Re: [CHS] PICKSTOCK I too have a PICKSTOCK interest, my wife's ancestor, Sarah, of Witton, b. 1800. She became the wife of William HADDOCK, b. 1798, Barnton. There was a Witton baptism in 1800 for a Sally PICKSTOCK, which seems to match. Sally's parents were Richard & Sarah PICKSTOCK. Have any other PICKSTOCK followers any info regarding Richard & Sarah, and indeed anything to consolidate that their daughter Sally & my wife's ancestor Sarah are one & the same? Regards Dick

I too have a PICKSTOCK interest, my wife's ancestor, Sarah, of Witton, b. 1800. She became the wife of William HADDOCK, b. 1798, Barnton. There was a Witton baptism in 1800 for a Sally PICKSTOCK, which seems to match. Sally's parents were Richard & Sarah PICKSTOCK. Have any other PICKSTOCK followers any info regarding Richard & Sarah, and indeed anything to consolidate that their daughter Sally & my wife's ancestor Sarah are one & the same? Regards Dick -----Original Message----- From: Eric Millward Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 9:15 AM To: abruce@madasafish.com ; Cheshire List Subject: [CHS] PICKSTOCK Adrian, I note your interest in PICKSTOCK of Witton cum Twambrooks. I have a possible connection with the name there too. I have John MOORE(S), a flatman, married to a Mary who may well be PICKSTOCK. If so they married at Witton on 4 May 1785. John's daughter was Mary MOORES who was my wife's 3x g grandmother and married George LEA at Sandbach in 1815. Any of this familiar? Regards Eric Millward ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7009 - Release Date: 01/16/14 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello All, Now I am wondering if this will help me in my search for my KAY ancestors. I have found my ancestor Mary KAY's baptism in 1832 at Great Budworth although the name has been transcribed incorrectly as RAY. I have also found a possible baptism for her sister Ann which I have copied below from the family search site which gives the event place as Witton-cum-Twambrooks. Does this mean that there is additional information for the following record that may help me. I have not been able to find a marriage for John KAY and there are two possible baptisms for a John KAY at Knutsford. Would the baptism record for Ann KAY provide clues in the form of the names of the Grandparent's. Name: Ann Kaye Event Type: Christening Event Date: 10 Jan 1830 Event Place: , Witton-cum-Twambrooks, Cheshire, England Gender: Female Age (Formatted): Birth Date: 13 Dec 1829 Marital Status: Father's Name: John Kaye Mother's Name: Ann Spouse's Name: Spouse's Marital Status: Spouse's Father's Name: Spouse's Mother's Name: GS Film number: 2094417 Digital Folder Number: 004018913 Image Number: 00274 Regards, Christine -----Original Message----- From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: Saturday, 18 January 2014 4:25 a.m. To: 'Tony Spendel' Cc: cheshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CHS] Auxiliary Register of Baptisms They are the name given to the format of baptism and burial registers used by St. Helen at Witton (near Northwich) from 1813 to about 1862, in addition to the "legal" formats. In January 1779 (dates are taken from my scribbled notes) Witton went to using an extended format register for baptisms and burials - the format of marriage register was laid down by Hardwicke's Marriage Act. This was roughly the time when various attempts were being made to keep more data in registers, e.g. Dade, etc. In Witton's case the newly extended baptismal register included not just mother's name (not always seen everywhere yet!), with father's occupation and abode, but also the names of the grandparents (and their abodes) and the birth date. The burials included the trade and abode of the deceased, plus the names and abode of their parents, date and cause of death and even roughly where in the churchyard they were buried. You can imagine this sort of stuff is gold dust. When Rose's Act of 1813 came in and imposed specific legal requirements on the format of (Anglican?) baptismal and burial, parishes had to convert to using the new format and so any still keeping extra data were now keeping less. St. Helen, Witton, was an exception. They wrote up the new legal format registers, but carried on maintaining the extended format ones *as* *well*. Thus from 1813 on, there were two sets of registers there - the ordinary ones and the extended format Auxiliary ones. I don't know if Auxiliary is actually written down anywhere as the name or it just got used by archivists. Unfortunately, in 1862, someone clearly asked - why are we duplicating our work? And stopped keeping the Auxiliaries. Adrian ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Christine, As I was at Northwich Library this morning I transcribed the baptism for you from the film of the auxiliary baptism registers of St Helen's, Witton. Ann dtr of John Kaye of Wincham, Rockgetter (son of James & Sarah Kaye of Liverpool) and Ann (dtr of Will'm & Hannah Forster of Weverham) born 23 DEC 1829 baptised 10 JAN 1830. The only thing this will not tell you is if Ann (nee Forster) had been married previously and widowed, if so her marriage to John Kaye may be under the name of a first husband. hope this helps, Elaine. Subject: Re: [CHS] Auxiliary Register of Baptisms - KAY Hello All, Now I am wondering if this will help me in my search for my KAY ancestors. I have found my ancestor Mary KAY's baptism in 1832 at Great Budworth although the name has been transcribed incorrectly as RAY. I have also found a possible baptism for her sister Ann which I have copied below from the family search site which gives the event place as Witton-cum-Twambrooks. Does this mean that there is additional information for the following record that may help me. I have not been able to find a marriage for John KAY and there are two possible baptisms for a John KAY at Knutsford. Would the baptism record for Ann KAY provide clues in the form of the names of the Grandparent's. Regards, Christine

Roy Stockdill published this list of some UK Dade Registers in 2002: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/YORKSGEN/2002-12/1040220389 In 2011 FamilySearch Wiki announced this project: https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/FamilySearch_Wiki:WikiProject_Dade_Parish_Registers but haven't been able to find anything more about it. It may not have progressed. https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Dade_parish_registers Ruth

<<snipped>> I have John MOORE(S), a flatman, married to a Mary who may well be PICKSTOCK. If so they married at Witton on 4 May 1785. John's daughter was Mary MOORES who was my wife's 3x g grandmother and married George LEA at Sandbach in 1815. <<snipped>> Eric - thanks for that. Yes, as you realise, John Moors (I have him as John Moors Junior) married Mary Pickstock on 4 May 1784 (not 1785 - FamilySearch has both years, and the parish register is clearly 1784). They went on to have at least 7 children baptised, including Mary, born 25 August 1792, baptised 9 Sept. So if you can show that Mary Moors of Sandbach is the same person as Mary Moors of Witton in 1792, (who will be born abt 1763) then yes, that's the next generation. Where it becomes interesting is the generation before that. John Moors' parents were John and Mary Moors, who from 1784 to 1794 were recorded as last living in Northwich. OK, no problem. Mary Pickstock's parents are recorded on the extended format baptisms of the Moors children as either John & Jane Pickstock or Jane Pickstock ONLY. And when Mary Moors nee Pickstock is buried in 1813, her parentage is Jenny Pickstock ONLY. So I have no real opinion yet on whether Mary Pickstock (later Moors) is: 1. The illegitimate daughter of Jane / Jenny Pickstock (in which case, she is PROBABLY born in Tarporley workhouse and baptised 17 June 1763 at Tarporley to Jane Pickstock, then of Tarvin parish). Or... 2. The legitimate daughter of John and Jane Pickstock, which sounds unlikely given the use of Jane only in some of those entries. The only candidate for such a marriage is in 1743, 20y before Mary's birth - but that couple did go on to live in Tarvin and Tarporley, so Jane / Jenny could be an undocumented daughter of theirs... It could be that this is a Friday night problem - or it could be that this really is a pig to work out.... **Does anyone know if there might be any bastardy records for Tarporley circa 1763 that might help with working out what's going on?** Like I said - Pickstock has its share of interesting problems. Adrian B

<<snipped>> I have a bit of information re Pickstocks. George P. X Alice Ann Plumb at Witton 1866. He was b. 1845 to Samuel P. X Mary Boden. <<snipped>> Thanks for that. George's father, Samuel Pickstock, was the cause of some years of grief for one of our fellow listers, as his 1845 marriage to Mary Boden records that his father was John Pickstock. This left the lister looking in vain for Samuel's baptism. Turns out that the marriage register is wrong - the father of the 1845 groom is actually George Pickstock, not John, which was demonstrated when someone found a report of the death of Samuel's mother, Ann Pickstock nee Kettle. She came to a sticky end in Northwich and the newspaper report describes her as the widow of George Pickstock, not John. Pickstock is a nice name to follow but it has its share of "interesting" cases... Adrian B

Subject: Re: [CHS] Auxiliary Register of Baptisms "snip" - I don't know if Auxiliary is actually written down anywhere as the name or it just got used by archivists. Adrian Adrian and Tony, The beginning of the Auxiliary Burial Registers c.1813 of St Helen's, Witton begin thus:- (transcribed from the film of the registers by myself some years ago) "The 1st Auxiliary Burial Register belonging to the parochial Chapel of Witton. Kept in addition to the Burial Register ordered by Act of Parliament anno domini 1812". The first burial being that of Nancy wife of Will'm Gorst of Northwich, Flatman (of Thomas & Nancy Fallows of Northwich) died 29 DEC 1812 bur 1 JAN 1813 in the churchyard, south side, died from "weakness" at 60y. I for one have never ceased to be grateful for these "auxiliary" registers of baptism and burial. Elaine.

<<snipped>> 'Auxiliary Register of Baptisms'. I've never heard of this type of document, I wonder if Adrian might explain what is contained within. <<snipped>> They are the name given to the format of baptism and burial registers used by St. Helen at Witton (near Northwich) from 1813 to about 1862, in addition to the "legal" formats. In January 1779 (dates are taken from my scribbled notes) Witton went to using an extended format register for baptisms and burials - the format of marriage register was laid down by Hardwicke's Marriage Act. This was roughly the time when various attempts were being made to keep more data in registers, e.g. Dade, etc. In Witton's case the newly extended baptismal register included not just mother's name (not always seen everywhere yet!), with father's occupation and abode, but also the names of the grandparents (and their abodes) and the birth date. The burials included the trade and abode of the deceased, plus the names and abode of their parents, date and cause of death and even roughly where in the churchyard they were buried. You can imagine this sort of stuff is gold dust. When Rose's Act of 1813 came in and imposed specific legal requirements on the format of (Anglican?) baptismal and burial, parishes had to convert to using the new format and so any still keeping extra data were now keeping less. St. Helen, Witton, was an exception. They wrote up the new legal format registers, but carried on maintaining the extended format ones *as* *well*. Thus from 1813 on, there were two sets of registers there - the ordinary ones and the extended format Auxiliary ones. I don't know if Auxiliary is actually written down anywhere as the name or it just got used by archivists. Unfortunately, in 1862, someone clearly asked - why are we duplicating our work? And stopped keeping the Auxiliaries. Adrian

Adrian mentioned a gap in an 'Auxiliary Register of Baptisms'. I've never heard of this type of document, I wonder if Adrian might explain what is contained within. Also are these countrywide? Cheshire only? Specific denominations etc? Tony

Hi, I have a bit of information re Pickstocks. George P. X Alice Ann Plumb at Witton 1866. He was b. 1845 to Samuel P. X Mary Boden. George and Alice had a large family and I have some details for their children. June On 1/16/14, Adrian Bruce <abruce@madasafish.com> wrote: > > Now this one isn't FMP's fault and it's not even the fault of the > digitisation process. > > If you're looking in the St. Helen's, Witton, Auxiliary Baptisms Register > (CRO ref. P53/3/1) for baptisms between 28 July 1822 and 15 September 1822 > - > you may be out of luck. I thought I'd found a hole in the sequence on the > film at Chester and now I've just double checked on FMP, it's the only > explanation. > > What appears to have happened is that the guy filming for the LDS has > turned > over two pages and the film at Chester RO goes from 28 July 1822 at the > foot > of one page (frames 144 & 145 on FMP) to 15 September 1822 at the top of > the > next page (frames 146 & 147 on FMP). The consecutive frame numbers, which > are on the microfilm, confirm this isn't a loss during digitisation, but at > filming. > > FMP does have the ordinary baptismal register and the Bishop's Transcript > for the entries in question - or at least, for the one I wanted. Of course, > these omit the grandparents, etc. But the main reason for me mentioning > this > is that there appears to be a way out if you need the grandparents, etc, > for > those months. > > I actually have the auxiliary details for one baptism in that period (Job > Pickstock bap 28 July 1822 to Samuel and Ann Pickstock) and the only > explanation I have for it, is that I found those details at Manchester > Central Library, implying that their film was a separate filming that > didn't > lose those pages. So - if you want those details, it looks like Manchester > CL will be the place to go when it returns. (Assuming the other film isn't > also at Chester...) > > Adrian > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Adrian, I note your interest in PICKSTOCK of Witton cum Twambrooks. I have a possible connection with the name there too. I have John MOORE(S), a flatman, married to a Mary who may well be PICKSTOCK. If so they married at Witton on 4 May 1785. John's daughter was Mary MOORES who was my wife's 3x g grandmother and married George LEA at Sandbach in 1815. Any of this familiar? Regards Eric Millward ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7009 - Release Date: 01/16/14

Now this one isn't FMP's fault and it's not even the fault of the digitisation process. If you're looking in the St. Helen's, Witton, Auxiliary Baptisms Register (CRO ref. P53/3/1) for baptisms between 28 July 1822 and 15 September 1822 - you may be out of luck. I thought I'd found a hole in the sequence on the film at Chester and now I've just double checked on FMP, it's the only explanation. What appears to have happened is that the guy filming for the LDS has turned over two pages and the film at Chester RO goes from 28 July 1822 at the foot of one page (frames 144 & 145 on FMP) to 15 September 1822 at the top of the next page (frames 146 & 147 on FMP). The consecutive frame numbers, which are on the microfilm, confirm this isn't a loss during digitisation, but at filming. FMP does have the ordinary baptismal register and the Bishop's Transcript for the entries in question - or at least, for the one I wanted. Of course, these omit the grandparents, etc. But the main reason for me mentioning this is that there appears to be a way out if you need the grandparents, etc, for those months. I actually have the auxiliary details for one baptism in that period (Job Pickstock bap 28 July 1822 to Samuel and Ann Pickstock) and the only explanation I have for it, is that I found those details at Manchester Central Library, implying that their film was a separate filming that didn't lose those pages. So - if you want those details, it looks like Manchester CL will be the place to go when it returns. (Assuming the other film isn't also at Chester...) Adrian

If anyone is interested (and is within reach!) the details can be found at <http://www.one-name.org/seminar_2014feb_nextgen.html>http://www.one-name.org/seminar_2014feb_nextgen.html I will be attending. Regards, Lyn

Hi Nuala, there is no problem with FMP's reply. The problem lies with my lack of patience. I'm so keen to get a definitive answer to my questions raised several times during the past two years that my memory has distorted the facts. I was blithely thinking that I had written a month ago when it was only 10 days in fact. So, my apologies for moaning when all I should have done was thank Martin for adding his recent experience. Lesley, I too am a mostly satisfied subscriber to FMP and I'm sorry that you see this particular complaint as a 'grumble'. I'm afraid I won't stop complaining about it. I'll simply make two further remarks here. FMP is a commercially run organisation for whose service we pay. When faults arise with every other commercial service, eg when the boiler fails or trains are delayed, we complain. As Adrian carefully outlined in his email of 29 Dec to the Staffordshire List (attached below), FMP is the organisation at fault here. Cheshire RO's catalogue, which largely correlates with Earwaker, has recorded them correctly as has Family Search. How the fault has arisen with FMP appears to lie entirely in their own hands. So we should, and *must*, draw attention to it. There are some 170,000 probate records (121,000 names) in the Cheshire Collection and we are complaining about a considerable number - whole runs of them, not just an odd one or two. Sadly, our complaint is compounded by a lack of transparency in that we don't know how FMP's complaints system works. I say 'must' in the interests of academic rigour (my old beef). Whether family historians regard themselves as academic researchers or not is entirely up to the individual - we have 101 reasons for engaging in researching family connections - but nevertheless we have to be academic about it. We have to use academic methodology and techniques or we will never get at the truth. You just have to ask the question, 'How much have I learned along the way since starting?' and you will be amazed. If you've never done it before you learn new recording skills, your maths and writing skills improve, your knowledge of history and human relationships expands, you begin to understand the 'why' of politics, etc etc ad infinitum. Researching is all about learning and scholarship - well, it has been for me. What I don't want is dodgy evidence because it misleads. It lies. Finally, I want to say something about the things I miss. It is indeed easier to find information from websites such as FMP et al, rather than trek across the country - or indeed the world - to open a register or a document which may or may not contain a piece of gold information needed. But it's not half the fun. I miss the collaborations between Listers - 'I'll search for you here if you could search for me there .' 'I'll meet you at X and we'll do it together.' Now, in the interests of commerce, we are actively discouraged from sharing our findings and I find that really sad. My complaint has nothing to do with gratitude or the lack of it, and I sincerely hope that this will not be read as a 'rant' or a 'grumble' but merely as an explanation of my views and resulting actions. Ruth >From Adrian Bruce: Oh what fun.... 1. "An Index to the Wills and Inventories now preserved in the Court of Probate, at CHESTER, FROM A.D. 1545 TO 1620", compiled by Earwaker in 1879 has "Werden, Richard, of Chester 1618" (but no Elizabeth Watts) 2. I had totally forgotten the Chester RO Index to Wills on their site. But that has this: First Name: RICHARD Surname: WERDEN Place: CHESTER Occupation: Date: 1618 (and it also has the Elizabeth Watts entry) 3. FamilySearch's "England, Cheshire Probate Records, 1492-1940" has both Richard Werden of 1618 and Elizabeth Watts of 1618. 4. FindMyPast only has the Elizabeth Watts entry in the index but the images are a composite of those for both EW and RW. So at some point in the proceedings an error has crept in but while it's tempting to suggest FMP lost the index for Richard Werden, I'd suggest that it's just as likely to have been the preparation of the digitised images by FamilySearch that was in error, leading to the Richard Werden index entry losing its images and therefore being deleted from the index. So - two points, I suggest: - FMP's correction-by-replacement mechanism is inadequate when compared to Ancestry's ability to add additional index entries; - it pays to check other indexes as 3 of the above 4 have Richard W. Finding the image on FMP is another matter, though. As I suggested previously, finding another entry with the same initial letter of surname and same year, then browsing, *may* help. Adrian

Marilyn, If Bob's suggestion is the one you mean then she is in the 1851 census living at Aldford with her Father Richard Stockton 32, a Labourer, bn Codington Mother Margaret, 35, bn Aldford and siblings Henry,11, Elizabeth,8, Richard, 6 she is Emma ,3, and baby Mary 9 months, all born Aldford except Elizabeth who was bn at Stanny (sic). Their suname is spelt Molyneaux. Yours, Lyn PS What were you hoping to find?. At 16:32 12/01/2014, you wrote: >Hello, > >I am trying to learn more about Emma Molyneux Stockton 1847-1916, >and her father, whom I believe to be Richard Molyneux, born 1819. >Any guidance would be appreciated. > >Thank you, > >Marilyn > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >CHESHIRE-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: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6996 - Release Date: 01/12/14

Hi Marie and Carole, I have never added amendments from the "View Record" page, always from the image page which is what I think Lyn was describing. So now I know another way which might be useful. I suggest, Marie, that you explore both methods and then do whatever is easiest at the time. Christine -----Original Message----- From: carole williams Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:50 PM To: Mrs L. McCulloch ; Marie Shaw ; cheshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CHS] Familysearch should emulate Ancestry.com Hi Marie It's really easy. You need to be on a 'View Record' page, then tap on 'Add Alternative Information' (on the left hand menu). Then a box pops up and you choose either name etc from the drop down menu under 'Provide alternate for'. This generates another list of 'Reasons' for you to choose from. Next you edit the details shown and tap 'Submit Alternative'. You can submit an explanation too if you like. Hope this helps, Carole > Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:53:00 +0000 > To: m_shaw@telusplanet.net; cheshire@rootsweb.com > From: lyn.mcculloch@btinternet.com > Subject: Re: [CHS] Familysearch should emulate Ancestry.com > > Dear Marie, > It's usually census entries that I have to correct. > You click on index and then whenb it comes up on the word that is wrong. > A pencil appears and you click on it a second time. > You change the appropriate word and it will ask for a reason > such as mis-transcription or wrong in original. > The you click on Save and your correction appears. > It even asks you if you want the name applied to all members > of the household, if it's a surname you are correcting. > You need to check it's only members of the family and > not servants that get changed, of course. > If there is something I can't find a way to correct I leave a comment. > Regards, > Lyn > > > > At 19:59 11/01/2014, you wrote: > > >I've found some errors on Ancestry, but have not yet determined how > >to submit a correction. > > > >Marie > >in Alberta, Canada > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Mrs L. McCulloch" > ><lyn.mcculloch@btinternet.com> > >To: <cheshire@rootsweb.com> > >Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:13 AM > >Subject: [CHS] Familysearch should emulate Ancestry.com > > > > > >>Listers, I. too find it frustrating when there seems to be no easy > >>way to correct entries on Familysearch. > >>Ancestry.com may suffer from mis-transcriptions but is very open to > >>suggested corrections. > >>They even come back later to say thank you and show your correction > >>in context. This is clearly the way to go > >>with the wealth of knowledge that exists in the Family History > >>Fraternity. How to achieve this is another > >>thing altogether! > >>Regards, > >>Lyn > >>PS Another area I have found problematical is the Army Service > >>Records at the NA. The number of pages > >> in each will is variable and sometimes other wills are not indexed > >>but appear with the one before. It's always > >> worth a good hunt round to check if this is the case. > >> > >> > >>------------------------------- > >>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >>CHESHIRE-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: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6994 - Release Date: 01/11/14 > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CHESHIRE-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 CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message