Thank you Bev, Anne and Adrian. Unfortunately we're not privy to the agreements made between FMP, Family Search - who photographed the records - and Cheshire Archives who hold the records. So, when pointing a finger, it's difficult to say in which direction it should be pointed. It's all too late. The job is completed. I had assumed that the Archives referenced the bundles rather than individual records, and that the deal made with Family Search was a 'sold as seen' contract. I could be wrong. The original records as shown on FMP have the loose identifying tags (Cheshire Archives?) lying to the left hand side of each document. So it's clear to see that there are definitely two documents each concerning a different person. ELIZABETH WATTS WC 1618 (an inventory) RICHARD WERDEN WS 1618 (a will) Both tags are captured on the first image on the website. When photographing the documents Family Search must have realised that there were records pertaining to more than one person in some of the bundles - but the technician behind the camera would not have been an archivist with the skills and authority required to deal with that. I know from my own experience cataloguing in Archives how tricky it gets when documents have to be re-referenced. Every digit and letter has a purpose. I haven't explored how the referencing works at each of the three stages so I'm out of my depth here. FMP gives no reference at all on their index page. However, I can express my disappointment to FMP because they do have a correction facility on their website and, when something is so obviously in existence as the will I described is, the omission could easily be corrected and the correction referred back to Family Search and Cheshire Archives as a matter of course. It bugs me that my complaints about similar occurrences have been ignored. I know! I'm back to my old beef about insufficient rigour being applied especially when organisations are taking money from us for sloppy workmanship. I was simply interested to know what experiences others had had in similar circumstances. I've written again to FMP in this instance and I await a reply from them. I will also contact Cheshire Archives. Watch this space. Ruth

I reported another to them yesterday. The will of Isaac VARDEN of Morley, 1674, yeoman is only accessible by searching for John UPTON, 1674 (Dean Row if I remember correctly). Isaac's will appears on images 5 and 6 after John Upton's will and inventory. If you search for Isaac Varden all you get is his inventory. I haven't yet had an acknowledgement which is worrying as the last error I reported (Thpmas instead of Thomas) was corrected within a day over Christmas! Several of the wills that I have searched for, going by the CDRO indexes, have not been found. Perhaps these are hidden too. Perhaps we should keep a list of all the anomalies that we come across and send them to the list when we have a few? Anne Anne Cole, President, Lincolnshire Family History Society Duncalf(e)/Duncuff/Duncuft One-name Study GOONS member 513 http://www.one-name.org/profiles/duncalf.html http://duncalfonenamestudy.tribalpages.com/ -----Original Message----- From: eng-manchester-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-manchester-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ruth J Sent: 30 December 2013 11:27 To: Cheshire; staffordshire@rootsweb.com; eng-manchester@rootsweb.com Subject: [ENG-MAN] 'Hidden Wills' on FMP Thank you Bev, Anne and Adrian. Unfortunately we're not privy to the agreements made between FMP, Family Search - who photographed the records - and Cheshire Archives who hold the records. So, when pointing a finger, it's difficult to say in which direction it should be pointed. It's all too late. The job is completed. I had assumed that the Archives referenced the bundles rather than individual records, and that the deal made with Family Search was a 'sold as seen' contract. I could be wrong. The original records as shown on FMP have the loose identifying tags (Cheshire Archives?) lying to the left hand side of each document. So it's clear to see that there are definitely two documents each concerning a different person. ELIZABETH WATTS WC 1618 (an inventory) RICHARD WERDEN WS 1618 (a will) Both tags are captured on the first image on the website. When photographing the documents Family Search must have realised that there were records pertaining to more than one person in some of the bundles - but the technician behind the camera would not have been an archivist with the skills and authority required to deal with that. I know from my own experience cataloguing in Archives how tricky it gets when documents have to be re-referenced. Every digit and letter has a purpose. I haven't explored how the referencing works at each of the three stages so I'm out of my depth here. FMP gives no reference at all on their index page. However, I can express my disappointment to FMP because they do have a correction facility on their website and, when something is so obviously in existence as the will I described is, the omission could easily be corrected and the correction referred back to Family Search and Cheshire Archives as a matter of course. It bugs me that my complaints about similar occurrences have been ignored. I know! I'm back to my old beef about insufficient rigour being applied especially when organisations are taking money from us for sloppy workmanship. I was simply interested to know what experiences others had had in similar circumstances. I've written again to FMP in this instance and I await a reply from them. I will also contact Cheshire Archives. Watch this space. Ruth :-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~: Except for personal messages, please post replies to the list. Other people can learn from them! Be sure list mail is in PLAIN TEXT. Please SNIP when replying. Buy or sell family research items on the GEN-MAT-UKI mailing list. No fees! :-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~: ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-MANCHESTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message