Hi Paul, Using DNA along with genealogy for Family History isn't new. But it isn't easy and there are only a handful of recognized genetic-genealogists in the world today. I've been working with one of them since 2010 on The Lost Colony of Roanoke Group project. Her name is Roberta Estes and she writes a blog for the layman in an attempt to put this into perspective as we believe it is the path of the future. If you are interested you can subscribe to her blog DNAeXplained at https://dna-explained.com/. I believe she explains the twins anomale in one of her posts. In order to understand a lot of what my colleague was telling me, I also attended an online course at The Pharos Institute of London (https://www.pharosinstitute.com/) in basic DNA. You will find several of our Rootsweb Devon listers presenting courses there, so you will feel right at home. They also ran a fabulous course in Paleography which I attended. It has opened the world of 16th century documents to me. And their courses are something even a senior can afford, unlike an Ancestry subscription. Not all labs test the same when it comes to DNA and it depends what test you order where what results you will get. Roberta reviews all this along with the various testing labs in her Blog. And its free! Cheers, Nancy Frey, Windsor, ON, Canada OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset [email protected] On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 7:13 PM Paul Hockie via DEVON <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just a couple of points. It wasn't the family trees that is my cause for complaint, I gave up on them with the IGI. It is the poor quality of the indexing. I may have some faith in DNA when somebody can explain why identical twins were given different results and why, when a genetics lab in Cambridge sent 5 samples to 5 suppliers, they got 5 different results, none of which were correct. The lab said Ancestry's tests were crude and the technology used, outdated. Their results are not reliable. > > Cheers > > Paul

Nancy, I was very clear about what I asked for,* stories from descendants of families who lived through the event, nothing else*. Some people that decided to respond had lots to say about everything else, from Internet searches to current weather in Europe and North America. Only a few sent me (directly) recollections of their family members which will be helpful. Your comments are indeed harsh and uncalled for. Your assumption that I have not researched the subject is off base, especially since, in additional messages I did comment that I had a lot of information about the storm as well as a copy of the particular book that you found a reference for. Perhaps you should have continued to ignore the request and the subject matter. Wayne On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 3:52 PM Nancy Frey <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Listers, > > I've ignored this question because I cannot believe that those asking > about the Bizzard of 1891 haven't thought to Google the phrase. > > If you do, you will find that there is available online a book > entitled "Blizzard in the West - a Record and Story of the > Disastrous Storm which Raged Throughout Devon and Cornwall, and West > Somerset, On the Night of March 9th, 1891". The reference I quote is > from Project Gutenberg. There are probably others. Before it was > available online, I purchased a CD of this book from some source which > I also found online through a search engine. > > Sorry for being so harsh but as genealogists we are researchers and > asking on a list for information without using a search engine first > is not the way to go. As a well-known Rootsweb Lister used to quote > in every post "Remember, Google is your friend". > > When you ask for help on a List or in a Group, you owe it to your > readers to tell them where you've already looked so that they are not > duplicating your efforts. If you can't you are unlikely to get a > great number of helpful responses. > > Cheers, > > Nancy Frey, > Windsor, ON, Canada > OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset > [email protected] > >

Hi Mike, I totally agree with you. I've flipped through tons of images trying to locate something that has been so horribly mistranscribed that no wild card will ever reveal it. I am more than willing to wait for transcriptions by genealogists who speak English and are familiar with English surnames and place names. I don't think that has always been the case in the past with some of the major sites. And your reminder about the date of baptism records is a welcome one. So often we think that a baby was baptised shortly after birth. Not only is that not the case but there have been some wonderful articles published on how the information got from the event to the Register via slips of paper in a cleric's pocket to miscellaneous notes found years after the occasion. There are hundreds of reasons why a baptism was postponed and I thank with all my heart those clerics who took the time to make notes of things not required by the church such as date of birth, age at baptism if not within the normal time and the full names of both parents with their place of abode. It is PRs like that have solved many a brick wall and in the past this extra information has seldom been transcribed. Even today the instructions given by the LDS to their transcribers (yes I've read them) specifically forbid entering any information in the PR not specifically asked for in the boxes of their form. It is time consuming to look through these images, but remember that in the past genealogists had to read through the actual PRs. These weren't indexed either. Cheers, Nancy Frey, Windsor, ON, Canada OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset [email protected] P.S. Putting on my 'Jim Parsons hat', would you please snip all but the posting you are replying to from your response. Thanks. On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 5:14 PM Mike Gould <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's not often that I will jump to the defence of the subscription websites, but in this case, I don't think they are entirely to blame and I don't think it is necessarily a quality standard issue. We all know how long it takes to transcribe a complete set of records accurately, so when they get a new set of Parish Register images in, they could wait until they have all been transcribed, in which case we have to wait a long time, or they could do what they often do - upload the images so that we can browse them, and follow up with the transcriptions, and index, as and when they become available. I don't think it's a bad thing that we sometimes need to browse Parish Registers - it does help to become acquainted with the Parish that you are researching. Sometimes things turn up that you simply wouldn't find by using an index and viewing the resultant record. For example, you may find years where the baptisms appear to be very sparse, then the name of the vicar changes and all of a sudden, lots of children are being baptised. If your ancestor is one of these, it would be wise not to assume that he or she has been baptised as an infant, but rather that an enthusiastic new vicar is putting pressure on the families to have any unbaptised children baptised! Now I will concede that these websites could do more to alert their customers to the presence of these un-indexed register images, but once you find out about them, why not use them to get to know the records, the parish and the families that you are researching. It can pay dividends in the long run. > > Best wishes > > Mike Gould > Leicestershire

Dear Listers, I've ignored this question because I cannot believe that those asking about the Bizzard of 1891 haven't thought to Google the phrase. If you do, you will find that there is available online a book entitled "Blizzard in the West - a Record and Story of the Disastrous Storm which Raged Throughout Devon and Cornwall, and West Somerset, On the Night of March 9th, 1891". The reference I quote is from Project Gutenberg. There are probably others. Before it was available online, I purchased a CD of this book from some source which I also found online through a search engine. Sorry for being so harsh but as genealogists we are researchers and asking on a list for information without using a search engine first is not the way to go. As a well-known Rootsweb Lister used to quote in every post "Remember, Google is your friend". When you ask for help on a List or in a Group, you owe it to your readers to tell them where you've already looked so that they are not duplicating your efforts. If you can't you are unlikely to get a great number of helpful responses. Cheers, Nancy Frey, Windsor, ON, Canada OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset [email protected] On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 2:57 PM Jacqueline Davidson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is someone writing a book, or has one been written about this blizzard? I > would like to know the title and author. I can suggest a book called The > Children's Blizzard, about one in the USA. > Thank you, > Jackie in Mississippi

NOTE:-Plymouth &  West Devon Record Office is CLOSED pending the move to its' new home at "The Box" expected to open in the Spring of next year (Northern Hemisphere Spring) On 30/10/2019 21:14, Jan Murphy wrote: > I looked at the catalog entry for the parishes mentioned by Paul, and at > first glance, the situation is very odd. How can one have indexes of > parish registers without any images to index? > > The publication date of the collection is from 2009, and the collection > consists of digital images, which suggests to me this is a recent 'filming' > project which was never on microfilm. You can see that all the entries > don't have a film number --- they only have a DGS number. > > At first I thought, perhaps this parish was caught in the transition > between FamilySearch's policy of not putting up registers until they had > been indexed first, and their current policy of getting images ready for us > to browse first, rather than making us wait for the index. If there had > been an earlier filming for this parish, I would expect the films to be in > the catalog under a film number. > > However, looking at the Film Notes, the magnifying-glass-only films are: > > Baptisms, v. 695/6, 1886-1919 (DGS 4635201) > Baptisms, v. 768/1, 1919-1950 (DGS 4635218) > > I suspect the reason these images are not online yet are because of privacy > issues. We are just now coming to the point where the most recent items on > DGS 4635201 are 100 years old. This is not like the 1939 Register where > all the images are public, but the most recent people who might be living > are redacted. FamilySearch can't publish the register images until all of > the entries on the roll (or virtual roll, in this case) have cleared the > access restrictions, which are negotiated for each collection. The parish > must have dictated which registers were allowed to be put online and which > ones could be index-only. > > As part of the transition from microfilm to digital images, FamilySearch is > re-negotiating all of the permissions before the images are put online. Of > these two 'films', I would expect DGS 4635201 might show up eventually, but > I wouldn't expect DGS 4635218 to be put online during my lifetime, since > that sequence ends in 1950. > > Note too that other Devon records like some of the Bishop's Transcripts can > be viewed online, but can't be downloaded -- if you want a copy, the user > is directed to order one from the Devon County Council. > > If you need images from these items, try contacting the Plymouth and West > Devon Record Office, giving the reference listed. > > Jan Murphy > [email protected] > Moderator Pro Tempore > genealogy.stackexchange.com > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:45 AM Paul Hockie via DEVON <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> To answer the original question on the status of these films. To find the >> status of a film go to "search catalogue" and enter the parish of film >> number. This will result in a list of films a available for the parish. The >> final column of the list is "Format" and displays an icon. >> Magnifying Glass - film has been indexed >> Old cinema film can or dartboard - microfilmed and not yet imaged >> Camera - imaged and available freely online >> Camera with key - imaged but access restricted to either an associate >> FamilySearch library or full library. This depends on the agreement between >> FamilySearch and the Archive. For some record this may switch to an outside >> source, for example US Federal sites. >> >> FamilySearch have stopped copying and distributing microfilm and started >> disposing of their film collection leaving only a master copy stored in a >> mountain in Utah (Nuclear bomb proof. You might not survive but the >> microfilms will). Microfilm readers are being withdrawn and exiting films >> are being sent to a good home even if the film has not been imaged. The UK >> collection from the main library in South Kensington have been given to the >> Society of Genealogists. Films can be requested for priority imaging but I >> don't know how effective this is. >> >> What is interesting is that the two films required, part of the England, >> Devon, Plympton-Earls, Plympton St. Maurice, parish registers, 1616-1958 >> collection, only show a Magnifying Glass, i.e. indexed. I can only guess >> that FamilySearch has started denying that films are available even if they >> are available at the SoG and other places. Most of the films are restricted >> access but open browsing access includes Apprenticeship indentures, >> Bastardy papers, Churchwardens accounts, Settlement certificates and >> removal orders. Records you don't find on the subscription sites. BDMs are >> restricted to "partner sites" - FMP. >> >> Cheers >> >> Paul >> >> > _______________________________________________ > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community > -- Chairman - Devon Family History Society Registered Charity No. 282490 Mayflower International Genealogical Conference 2020 <http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/mayflower_conference.pdf> Web site: http://www.devonfhs.org.uk <http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/> Email address: [email protected] Join from just £12 a year

Hi Paul, I couldn't have said it better! I am appalled at the results I get searching Ancestry these days. And in case you haven't noticed hundreds of their items are shown with the source as being an LDS film with no way to tell whether it was an extracted record (ie transcribed from the PRs) or a patron submission. I now make a note of the film # when I cite such records. And FamilySearch isn't much better. Asking for something specific usually results in 0 items. A more general search brings up not only the item you were looking for but hundreds of totally irrelevant items that you have to wade through. Have they all changed searched engines? Is this another economy cut to aid the bottom line? It is getting to the point where the only source I trust is the actual image of the parish register, sometimes found at FS or Ancestry. And even then, I click back on the images until I come to the one with the description of what follows as the title at the top of the image at Ancestry is sometimes entirely different or the wrong parish. FS (the LDS) has admitted on many occasions that a number of their transcriptions have been shown with the wrong parish name. I don't remember them saying they were doing anything to correct that. Thank goodness when I first started we had the IGI and at that time, I typed out all the records for my surname of interest in a particular place and noted whether is was an actual PR entry or Patron Submission. The information may not have gone into my master tree for years, but I still have these documents. That is how I know that the new FS entries and of course those at Ancestry based on LDS films do not differentiate between extracted or submitted. How on earth are people new to genealogy going to have accurate family trees if this is the type of resources we have to rely on today? And we now have to pay big $$ for it? That's why I have always been involved in transcribing records for the FreeBMD/REG/CEN groups, as well as today, DFHS. These are the only transcriptions (other than those done years ago by dedicated genealogists and still available online) that I put any faith in. I urge all experienced genealogists to try to do a little transcribing for some group that provides the records for free in an area you are familiar with where the place names and the surnames are familiar to you. We may be slow, but we're usually accurate and interested in getting it right -- not just how many records we can produce in a day. Off my soap box. ???? Cheers, Nancy Frey, Windsor, ON, Canada OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset [email protected] On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 2:22 PM Paul Hockie via DEVON <[email protected]> wrote: > I have fond that over the last few years FMP, Ancestry and , sadly, > FamilySearch seem to have dropped all quality standards in the rush to add > records while switch their revenue stream to dubious DNA tests. Some of the > problems include > - up to six entries for the same event with one having an image attached > - pdfs indexed by name only but with no name date or place listed in the > results, requiring each to be opened > - results with just blanks. I opened one of these and found it was a blank > page. I have also found LDS film headers. > - results with names and no other information, again requiring each one > to be opened. > > I have also found that "variants", with the possible exception of > FamilySearch Soundex, are getting more "flexible" with ticking the box to > allow name variants adds thousands of improbable names to what was a > manageable list. Same goes for "hints". > > I suspect that the pay sites are finding that many of the Family > Historians who were inspired by Who Do You Think You Are have either given > up or have slowly worked their way through what is already available and > only need a subscription for new additions. These poor search results mean > we are slowed down and need to continue our subscriptions longer than > necessary. > > Cheers > > Paul >

I looked at the catalog entry for the parishes mentioned by Paul, and at first glance, the situation is very odd. How can one have indexes of parish registers without any images to index? The publication date of the collection is from 2009, and the collection consists of digital images, which suggests to me this is a recent 'filming' project which was never on microfilm. You can see that all the entries don't have a film number --- they only have a DGS number. At first I thought, perhaps this parish was caught in the transition between FamilySearch's policy of not putting up registers until they had been indexed first, and their current policy of getting images ready for us to browse first, rather than making us wait for the index. If there had been an earlier filming for this parish, I would expect the films to be in the catalog under a film number. However, looking at the Film Notes, the magnifying-glass-only films are: Baptisms, v. 695/6, 1886-1919 (DGS 4635201) Baptisms, v. 768/1, 1919-1950 (DGS 4635218) I suspect the reason these images are not online yet are because of privacy issues. We are just now coming to the point where the most recent items on DGS 4635201 are 100 years old. This is not like the 1939 Register where all the images are public, but the most recent people who might be living are redacted. FamilySearch can't publish the register images until all of the entries on the roll (or virtual roll, in this case) have cleared the access restrictions, which are negotiated for each collection. The parish must have dictated which registers were allowed to be put online and which ones could be index-only. As part of the transition from microfilm to digital images, FamilySearch is re-negotiating all of the permissions before the images are put online. Of these two 'films', I would expect DGS 4635201 might show up eventually, but I wouldn't expect DGS 4635218 to be put online during my lifetime, since that sequence ends in 1950. Note too that other Devon records like some of the Bishop's Transcripts can be viewed online, but can't be downloaded -- if you want a copy, the user is directed to order one from the Devon County Council. If you need images from these items, try contacting the Plymouth and West Devon Record Office, giving the reference listed. Jan Murphy [email protected] Moderator Pro Tempore genealogy.stackexchange.com On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:45 AM Paul Hockie via DEVON <[email protected]> wrote: > To answer the original question on the status of these films. To find the > status of a film go to "search catalogue" and enter the parish of film > number. This will result in a list of films a available for the parish. The > final column of the list is "Format" and displays an icon. > Magnifying Glass - film has been indexed > Old cinema film can or dartboard - microfilmed and not yet imaged > Camera - imaged and available freely online > Camera with key - imaged but access restricted to either an associate > FamilySearch library or full library. This depends on the agreement between > FamilySearch and the Archive. For some record this may switch to an outside > source, for example US Federal sites. > > FamilySearch have stopped copying and distributing microfilm and started > disposing of their film collection leaving only a master copy stored in a > mountain in Utah (Nuclear bomb proof. You might not survive but the > microfilms will). Microfilm readers are being withdrawn and exiting films > are being sent to a good home even if the film has not been imaged. The UK > collection from the main library in South Kensington have been given to the > Society of Genealogists. Films can be requested for priority imaging but I > don't know how effective this is. > > What is interesting is that the two films required, part of the England, > Devon, Plympton-Earls, Plympton St. Maurice, parish registers, 1616-1958 > collection, only show a Magnifying Glass, i.e. indexed. I can only guess > that FamilySearch has started denying that films are available even if they > are available at the SoG and other places. Most of the films are restricted > access but open browsing access includes Apprenticeship indentures, > Bastardy papers, Churchwardens accounts, Settlement certificates and > removal orders. Records you don't find on the subscription sites. BDMs are > restricted to "partner sites" - FMP. > > Cheers > > Paul > >

Hi Nancy, It's under "E" - East Woolfardisworthy. Maureen (DFHS 4019) -----Original Message----- From: Nancy Frey <[email protected]> Sent: 30 October 2019 20:49 To: Terry Leaman <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: [DEV] Re: Name search on FMP Hi Brian, You are usually 100% correct on everything you post, so my eyebrows went up when I saw Woolfardisworthy listed as 'available'. I'm only an 'internet member' of DFHS as I live in Canada but just yesterday I went there looking for PRs for Woolfardisworthy and found none. I checked again today and found only Washford Pyne, Withycombe Ralegh and Woodleigh under "W". Am I too losing it? Are there transcriptions available to full members that aren't available to me? If I haven't said it before, many thanks for all you do for genealogy. You've been one of my 'go to' resources since I was a newby. Cheers, Nancy Frey, Windsor, ON, Canada OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset [email protected] On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:46 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > A good time to remind you that not all Devon registers are on FMP, > register images for no fewer than 50 parishes are exclusively on the > Devon Family History Society's members' only area of the website- > www.devonfhs.org.uk. There is an ongoing Society project to index > these registers. > > Parish Register images available to Members, from the earliest > registers available to 1915: > Abbotskerswell, Arlington, Aveton Gifford, Axminster, Bigbury, Bow, > Bratton Fleming, Challacombe, Chardstock, Clannaborough, Clayhidon, > Coffinswell, Coleridge, Combpyne, Cullompton, Culmstock, Exeter St. > Matthew, Exeter St. Sidwell, Hawkchurch, Hemyock, Holsworthy, > Ilsington, Kennerleigh, Kentisbury, Kingskerswell, Kingston, Lapford, > Loddiswell, Loxhore, Malborough, Mary Tavy, Milton Damarel, Modbury, > Morchard Bishop, Nymet Rowland, Peter Tavy, Plymtree, Ringmore, > Salcombe, Shirwell, South Huish, Stockleigh English, Stockleigh > Pomeroy, Stoke Rivers, Torquay Torwood Holy Trinity, Torquay St. Marks, Torquay St. > Matthias, Washford Pyne, Withycombe Raleigh, Woodleigh, > Woolfardisworthy East, Zeal Monachorum. > > Terry > > _______________________________________________ ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi Brian, You are usually 100% correct on everything you post, so my eyebrows went up when I saw Woolfardisworthy listed as 'available'. I'm only an 'internet member' of DFHS as I live in Canada but just yesterday I went there looking for PRs for Woolfardisworthy and found none. I checked again today and found only Washford Pyne, Withycombe Ralegh and Woodleigh under "W". Am I too losing it? Are there transcriptions available to full members that aren't available to me? If I haven't said it before, many thanks for all you do for genealogy. You've been one of my 'go to' resources since I was a newby. Cheers, Nancy Frey, Windsor, ON, Canada OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset [email protected] On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:46 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > A good time to remind you that not all Devon registers are on FMP, > register images for no fewer than 50 parishes are exclusively on the > Devon Family History Society's members' only area of the website- > www.devonfhs.org.uk. There is an ongoing Society project to index these > registers. > > Parish Register images available to Members, from the earliest registers > available to 1915: > Abbotskerswell, Arlington, Aveton Gifford, Axminster, Bigbury, Bow, > Bratton Fleming, Challacombe, Chardstock, Clannaborough, Clayhidon, > Coffinswell, Coleridge, Combpyne, Cullompton, Culmstock, Exeter St. > Matthew, Exeter St. Sidwell, Hawkchurch, Hemyock, Holsworthy, Ilsington, > Kennerleigh, Kentisbury, Kingskerswell, Kingston, Lapford, Loddiswell, > Loxhore, Malborough, Mary Tavy, Milton Damarel, Modbury, Morchard > Bishop, Nymet Rowland, Peter Tavy, Plymtree, Ringmore, Salcombe, > Shirwell, South Huish, Stockleigh English, Stockleigh Pomeroy, Stoke > Rivers, Torquay Torwood Holy Trinity, Torquay St. Marks, Torquay St. > Matthias, Washford Pyne, Withycombe Raleigh, Woodleigh, Woolfardisworthy > East, Zeal Monachorum. > > Terry > >

I have had many people thank me for my help over the years, in finding people or directing researchers to the right source for information. It is gratifying. One I remember well was from a lady named Linda, who said, "“It was only about one month ago that I discovered my ancestor in Cornwood, and Poof! There you were!” Wayne On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:25 PM Jonathan Frayne <[email protected]> wrote: > I never expected a thank you having learned a long time ago that gratitude > is a fictitious emotion! Good manners on the other hand . . . > > Jon > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: B. Edmonds > Sent: 30 October 2019 20:02 > To: Ros Haywood; [email protected] > Subject: [DEV] Re: The Demise of the OPC? > > Not to mention all the look-ups with not so much as a thanks, that's what > got to me. One would get some of the nicest folk with their thanks. > Other's > did not even have the manners to thank me for the look-up, even when there > was a " no result ". > I know e-mails can go missing, but not that many, which is why I gave it > up > several years ago now. > > BTW My eye's would never cope with it now anyway. > > Regards > Bev > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Ros Haywood" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:06 AM > To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Subject: [DEV] Re: The Demise of the OPC? > > > I have to echo Jonathan's sentiments. I am an OPC, but I keep thinking > I > > will write to Deborah O'Brien and resign. Not because I am infuriated > at > > anything, but because nothing is happening. In fact, I forget I even am > > an OPC for months on end - it's only when I get the once-a-year query > that > > I remember. And then I think of Deborah - and then I sigh and forget to > > do even that. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and Devon FHS ( > http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community > > > _______________________________________________ > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and Devon FHS ( > http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

I never expected a thank you having learned a long time ago that gratitude is a fictitious emotion! Good manners on the other hand . . . Jon Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: B. Edmonds Sent: 30 October 2019 20:02 To: Ros Haywood; [email protected] Subject: [DEV] Re: The Demise of the OPC? Not to mention all the look-ups with not so much as a thanks, that's what got to me. One would get some of the nicest folk with their thanks. Other's did not even have the manners to thank me for the look-up, even when there was a " no result ". I know e-mails can go missing, but not that many, which is why I gave it up several years ago now. BTW My eye's would never cope with it now anyway. Regards Bev -------------------------------------------------- From: "Ros Haywood" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:06 AM To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Subject: [DEV] Re: The Demise of the OPC? > I have to echo Jonathan's sentiments. I am an OPC, but I keep thinking I > will write to Deborah O'Brien and resign. Not because I am infuriated at > anything, but because nothing is happening. In fact, I forget I even am > an OPC for months on end - it's only when I get the once-a-year query that > I remember. And then I think of Deborah - and then I sigh and forget to > do even that. > _______________________________________________ ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

I tried this as Terry suggests. DFHS looks for transcribers all the time. I was given a 19th century record on CD-ROM, well copied and very legible. I made a host of errors through carelessness, mostly. It is so easy to make a mistake. I echo Terry’s comment: try it for yourself. I am amazed at the quality we get, not the errors we find. Remember what we should all have been taught initially that transcripts are secondary sources (at best ) and we should use them as finding aids and then check them against the primary sources. As most transcripts are now moving to providing a copy of the original that is becoming increasingly easy but remember if the transcript is wrong then so is the index and what ain’t in the index correctly you are going to miss and then it is back to my sort of genealogy-going through original documents with or without the white gloves! Jon Frayne Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: [email protected] Sent: 30 October 2019 19:58 To: [email protected] Subject: [DEV] Transcriptions & indexers With the best will in the world, of course, databases & indexes contain "errors" LOOK at original records- IF you know the name you are looking for it is easier BUT a straight transcription is EXCEEDINGLY difficult with the quality of the script and the ink used- If you don't believe me take a look at Highweek parish both the Devon FHS transcriptions and FMPs are full of question marks, blank spaces etc. Don't you think that all our volunteer transcribers and indexers deserve praise not criticism. They do their best and have done so for some 40 plus years, but obviously  from some of the messages I've read on here today their efforts have been in vain. IF you think you can do better, try it.   If you're a member of Devon FHS just look at the parish register images in the members' area and if you want to give it a try contact [email protected] Terry -- Chairman - Devon Family History Society Registered Charity No. 282490 Mayflower International Genealogical Conference 2020 <http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/mayflower_conference.pdf> Web site: http://www.devonfhs.org.uk <http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/> Email address: [email protected] Join from just £12 a year _______________________________________________ ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Not to mention all the look-ups with not so much as a thanks, that's what got to me. One would get some of the nicest folk with their thanks. Other's did not even have the manners to thank me for the look-up, even when there was a " no result ". I know e-mails can go missing, but not that many, which is why I gave it up several years ago now. BTW My eye's would never cope with it now anyway. Regards Bev -------------------------------------------------- From: "Ros Haywood" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:06 AM To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Subject: [DEV] Re: The Demise of the OPC? > I have to echo Jonathan's sentiments. I am an OPC, but I keep thinking I > will write to Deborah O'Brien and resign. Not because I am infuriated at > anything, but because nothing is happening. In fact, I forget I even am > an OPC for months on end - it's only when I get the once-a-year query that > I remember. And then I think of Deborah - and then I sigh and forget to > do even that. >

Hi Wayne (and others) I was a little concerned to hear I am still the OPC for Barnstaple, apparently. I looked and yes I am! What must be very frustrating for people is that it has my name but an old email address! I think Brian was asked to remove that from GENUKI, but if not could I ask him here and now to do so. It was some time ago and I think somebody asked to be able to keep the information on the website available and I said yes. Not sure where that went to. To respond to the rest of your message: It made me feel good (and wanted) to respond to people’s requests for a while. Then I realised that being helpful could be over-used and then I thought that maybe the big websites may have rules about copying ‘their’ information to third parties-and they do! The puzzling messages noted elsewhere were a relief from the mundane, even if I had to say go and get a researcher. Maybe I was too gentle to be able to tell people to go and look something up for themselves. I recall when this discussion site was filled with just such look up requests! I have never received information through being an OPC that was of use to me. What has been very useful is the much maligned Ancestry from which I receive a continuing stream of very useful emails from other members . . . I have transcribed many documents but after doing some for the DFHS I found that I was not very accurate. I am glad you are, but I don’t comment on accuracy nowadays . . . BTW The PC transcript for Barnstaple St Peters has been on-line for years. It was first published by the DCRS (I think) as a very large leather bound volume which had been prepared by Chanter and/or Wainwright and covered 1537-1812. It is on-line in most of the large websites as a result and there is an original copy in Barnstaple Record Office. I doubt anyone has ever checked it for accuracy as it is enormous, beyond noting any discrepancies they may have noted. I used to be on good terms with the archivist/librarians in the record office ( I would still be but I don’t have the reasons to visit nowadays). They have not notified me of any discrepancies they have. Jon Frayne Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Wayne Shepheard Sent: 30 October 2019 17:23 To: [email protected] Subject: [DEV] Re: The Demise of the OPC? Good for you for helping out over the years, Jonathan. I am sure you helped many people, including newbies. Perhaps for some you did too much rather than encouraging or showing them where they could do their own research. I have come across these people as well. I suspect that in your own work you have also benefited from the advice and information provided by others. Maybe it was a tradeoff. As for transcribing, my experience has been that most major databases contain significant and serious errors and having my own index has been extremely useful to my and others' research. And, as I said, not all parish information is online. Some OPCs do know where to go to find it though so don't dismiss our relevance too soon. By the way, you are still shown as the OPC for Barnstaple on the GENUKI site. You might expect to continue to get queries. Wayne On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:10 AM Jonathan Frayne <[email protected]> wrote: > > To play devil’s advocate; I used to be an OPC and now I am not. I copied all the records I could; I spent a considerable amount of money on books; I set up a website that had most of the “other” stuff I had collected over the years. What happened was that I got a stream of requests from people asking me to do the most basic of look-ups that they could have done for themselves on FMP/Ancestry etc. I think everyone should afford at least one subscription to a major website and the DFHS plus have knowledge of GENUKI. Then most of the basic stuff can be researched for themselves. The odd request from someone ‘out of county’ for an ancestor who happened to come here, is fine by me. It was the people who I ended up thinking were asking me to do their basic research that got a bit wearisome. Nowadays an OPC does not need to transcribe most PRs (as I did), nor the GRO indexes (as I did) nor do they need to transcribe the Censuses (as I did). Even the cemetery records are on-line (well, for ‘my’ parish they are-I did some of them!). I am not sure about what an OPC can offer nowadays. I used to go and photo local places but even they are on-line nowadays. > > What I wonder may be more useful in this day and age is to possibly offer a mentoring scheme for “newbies” - not a nice word, if word it is. That seems to be what others seem to be hinting at. I have run several starter courses in the past in which I focused on the basics, of course, but people seemed, in some cases, still to be a little nervous and a little judicious ‘hand-holding’ – without trying to sound condescending – maybe nearer what is needed. > > Jon Frayne-ex OPC Barnstaple > _______________________________________________ ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Some years ago I led a chorus of 'Well done Deborah' and I'll happily do it again Lots of thanks to Brian and Genuki as well of course My experience is similar to lots of others I look after five East Devon parishes and over the period 2001-2010 it could be pretty hectic I had contributions from researchers too, complete research notes, pedigrees, family histories, photos, the lot I am still getting enquiries obviously via the Genuki link My main concern ten years later (as I get older like us all) is to preserve it So I have supplied a copy of my Whimple database to the local heritage centre who say it's well used and could I update it I plan to do the same with the others on a regular basis but there isn't always a suitable recipient Should I provide the material to Devon Heritage Centre or DFHS and/or Free BMD or someone else ? I have almost finished transcribing Sidbury's PRs but doubt I will ever do the others as wel Ancestry & FMP have done much of this but those of who know the material know they make lots of errors Then I add that I also cover four parishes in North East Essex (where I live) I helped set up an OPC structure there but the site collapsed and there are commercial organisations moving in I get referrals from other historians and History Groups instead I don't see any sign of demise I would support promoting the OPC resource in whatever way helps the people we help Chris Graves OPC Sidbury & Salcombe Regis OPC Clyst Honiton, Clyst Hydon and Whimple -----Original Message----- From: Deborah O'Brien via DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 6:16 PM To: [email protected] Cc: 'Jane Lucas'; 'Ros Haywood'; Deborah O'Brien Subject: [DEV] Re: The Demise of the OPC? Well what an interesting thread with arguments for and against the concept of OPCs. I handle 5 parishes and also offer some look-ups for Crediton and other parishes where other OPCs have retired/resigned. If I get 10 enquiries a year it's been a busy season. When we started the project for Devon back in 2000 I would get 10 requests a month for the 3 parishes I looked after at that time. DFHS and FMP have made major strides forward in organising transcribing and indexing the results that it is easier to find information online as opposed to the days when we used to sit in record offices hand copying difficult to read registers. Over the years I bought many PR microfiche and still have my trusty 'fiche reader which occasionally I fire up for old time's sake. The suggestion of a revised guide for Newbies is good although the late Roy Stockdill's guide still is pertinent even though it hasn't been updated since 2003 https://www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie GenUKI/Devon is one of the best overall resources for any county in the UK - but as the saying goes - "you can lead the horse to water but ......" Kind Regards, Deborah O’Brien Devon OPC Co-ordinator DFHS Member 11261 http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/OPCproject Online Parish Clerk for Meavy, Newton Ferrers, Roborough by Torrington, Sheepstor, Walkhampton http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dob7/index.html Researching SQUANCE, LILLICRAP, SURTEES, DANKESTER & YATES -----Original Message----- From: Jane Lucas via DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30 October 2019 17:58 To: [email protected] Cc: Jane Lucas Subject: [DEV] Re: The Demise of the OPC? I suspect that you’re all preaching to the converted. The people that need to hear this probably don’t belong to these lists. But as there is obviously an issue, what about adding some ‘tips’ to GENUKI with suggestions of simple searches new researchers could undertake/strategies they could employ to help them get started. After all, it is completely baffling at the start. I know there is lots of help out there, but it’s not like school or university where you can follow a structured hierarchical programme, often with an expert or two to hold your hand. Most of us are self taught family history researchers. I remember thinking that I was muddling through in a fog when I first started. And I still feel like that sometimes after several years! Jane > On 30 Oct 2019, at 17:42, joy.langdon--- via DEVON <[email protected]> wrote: > >  > I think the Devon OPC database is disadvantaged because there isn't one central site people can find when googling and can see what is available immediately. _______________________________________________ ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

With the best will in the world, of course, databases & indexes contain "errors" LOOK at original records- IF you know the name you are looking for it is easier BUT a straight transcription is EXCEEDINGLY difficult with the quality of the script and the ink used- If you don't believe me take a look at Highweek parish both the Devon FHS transcriptions and FMPs are full of question marks, blank spaces etc. Don't you think that all our volunteer transcribers and indexers deserve praise not criticism. They do their best and have done so for some 40 plus years, but obviously  from some of the messages I've read on here today their efforts have been in vain. IF you think you can do better, try it.   If you're a member of Devon FHS just look at the parish register images in the members' area and if you want to give it a try contact [email protected] Terry -- Chairman - Devon Family History Society Registered Charity No. 282490 Mayflower International Genealogical Conference 2020 <http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/mayflower_conference.pdf> Web site: http://www.devonfhs.org.uk <http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/> Email address: [email protected] Join from just £12 a year

Hi Jane Even though one would think it would be easy to search this name it does come up with some odd spellings. I have also seen Searell so SEALE would not be totally unreasonable. I would look at it anyway. As you have already done this and discounted the name, then you know to discount it in this case. Bev -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jane Lucas via DEVON" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 9:54 AM To: <[email protected]> Cc: "Jane Lucas" <[email protected]> Subject: [DEV] Re: Name search on FMP [SEARLE] > Hi Bev > > Did you mean Seale? There’s the odd Searle in Dartmouth I think but that’s > all. I know when I first saw Seale some years ago I got quite excited > thinking it was bound to be a misprinted/mistranscribed Searle. But it is > definitely Seale > > The Searle name is mainly confined to Staverton and some surrounding > parishes where they are so intermarried it feels like one very big family. >

I can rant about poor quality control with the best of them, but on this topic, I have to agree with Mike Gould. Yes, we're all short of time and being able to search by name is handy, but we get a much better understanding of the records if we browse them instead of simply picking out the pages we need. With FamilySearch especially, I am glad that they decided to put the images up online for us to browse, instead of holding them back until the indexing projects were complete. When I am using Ancestry and Findmypast, and I find a record which has been shared from FamilySearch, I go back to FamilySearch to read the catalog entry and look at the Film Notes, which give me more information about how the records are arranged. One trick that a lot of people miss is that the record books can have their own index pages inside, and you can use those to find people in the same way you would do if you were using the physical book. This is how I first discovered that the browse-only versions on FMP can be more extensive than the records that had been indexed. A special caution for FamilySearch. If you navigate to records via the map (e.g. using the Devon topic page) list of Browse-only collections will show ONLY the collections that have NO indexing at all. Once indexing is underway on a collection, it drops out of that list. So if you want to make sure you've seen everything there is for an area, go in through the Catalog and do a place search, and check all jurisdictions for your place. If you need help using the catalog or browsing, try the video classes at FamilySearch. The search in FamilySearch's help center lessons can be erratic, so there's a page in the Wiki which lists the videos. https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Classes_in_the_Learning_Center Jan Murphy [email protected] Moderator Pro Tempore genealogy.stackexchange.com On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 2:14 PM Mike Gould <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not often that I will jump to the defence of the subscription > websites, but in this case, I don't think they are entirely to blame and I > don't think it is necessarily a quality standard issue. We all know how > long it takes to transcribe a complete set of records accurately, so when > they get a new set of Parish Register images in, they could wait until they > have all been transcribed, in which case we have to wait a long time, or > they could do what they often do - upload the images so that we can browse > them, and follow up with the transcriptions, and index, as and when they > become available. I don't think it's a bad thing that we sometimes need to > browse Parish Registers - it does help to become acquainted with the Parish > that you are researching. Sometimes things turn up that you simply > wouldn't find by using an index and viewing the resultant record. For > example, you may find years where the baptisms appear to be very sparse, > then the name of the vicar changes and all of a sudden, lots of children > are being baptised. If your ancestor is one of these, it would be wise not > to assume that he or she has been baptised as an infant, but rather that an > enthusiastic new vicar is putting pressure on the families to have any > unbaptised children baptised! Now I will concede that these websites could > do more to alert their customers to the presence of these un-indexed > register images, but once you find out about them, why not use them to get > to know the records, the parish and the families that you are researching. > It can pay dividends in the long run. > > Best wishes > > Mike Gould > Leicestershire > > >

Wayne, perhaps update the article (if needed) and send to [email protected] ? She is always pleased to receive articles which assist researchers. Of course it would also be a useful addition to Genuki Devon if Brian agrees. Maureen (Devon FHS 4019) -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Shepheard <[email protected]> Sent: 30 October 2019 17:24 To: [email protected] Subject: [DEV] Re: The Demise of the OPC? Adrian and others, You may not remember an article I wrote for the Devon Family Historian back in 2013 in which I described what OPCs do and may have in the way of data. I recommend you look at it again - May 2013 issue, No. 146. Other references to the program were also given in that piece. Maybe we should republish parts of it. Wayne -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I spent three days last week at Rootstech as an "expert" (their words) on the Society of Genealogist stand. The most common question can be paraphrased as "Is there life (or BMDs) after Ancestry. My standard response was go to the FamilySearch stand and look at their catalogue, join a Family History Society and come back next year for lesson 2. How many are aware of resources like Rootsweb and OPCs, particularly since Ancestry effectively closed it down for a year. However, what to do about it is a problem. I also answer the twice a week SoG helpline once a month. We get 2-3 calls a month. Publicity for the line is limited but we are aware that, if we advertise more widely, we could be swamped and need a full size call centre with internet chat and the rest. Personally I believe the family history societies have to unite and operate as a co-operative and pool their resources including indexes and local facilities, before they go the way of Huntingdon FHS and run out of members. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: Jane Lucas via DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30 October 2019 17:45 To: [email protected] Cc: Jane Lucas Subject: [DEV] Re: The Demise of the OPC? I’m surprised that OPCs are feeling underused. I have had invaluable help over the years. I thought everyone would enquire if an OPC if they were stuck with their research. Even though as you all say, there are a lot of records online, that doesn’t replace local knowledge and years of working with the records. And not everything is online anyway. I try hard not to bother an OPC unless I really can’t work out the answer for myself, because I don’t want take be a nuisance or take advantage. And plus, as someone pointed out, you never learn if you don’t try to solve a problem yourself. I very much hope there will not be an OPC demise. We need people to pass on their expertise. Jane