Jon I agree with your more measured response to Kate. Whenever there is a human being involved, there is always the possibility of error. Even original records are often wrongly spelt or written! Thank goodness the LDS Church (to which I belong) makes its vast collection of records available to family history researchers and gives FREE film/fiche copies to those organisations whose records it collects and archives! Efforts are being made to clean up the errors in the IGI. But even referring to original records may not always reveal the truth hence I have one Pretty family whose various siblings have the surnames Pritty, Prettey, Pretey. You tell me which is correct! Regards Adrian Martin (or is that Merton, Martyn, Martine, Martyne, Marton, Meriton.......) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Baker" <jon@vectisjon.com> To: <eng-hampshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] PACK - Christchurch > Nigel > Sweeping statement, thankfully inaccurate, otherwise all of the research > using this site would be worthless. Anyone using the LDS IGI site needs to > have a clear understanding of what they are looking at when they view the > records. There are indeed some appalling records in the database, wholly > inaccurate and misleading. However, by careful inspection of the record > one > can generally ascertain the relative accuracy. > > Any record with the note "Extracted marriage record for locality listed in > the record. The source records are usually arranged chronologically by the > marriage [or baptism] date" and an Mnnnnnn Batch number (for marriages, B > for baptisms) are generally considered to be of very good quality and > usually as accurate as any transcription, often better than many. Of > course > reference to the original PR should always be made for any transcription. > > Any other record in the LDS IGI database should be considered suspect, > though in many cases they do prove to be accurate. You can tell this if > the > record says "Record submitted by a member of the LDS Church". Many are > transcribed from parish registers or Bishops Transcripts but not with as > much care as the original extractions, and many others are pure fantasy. > > Golden rule as always is check the original, but as transcripts go the > extracted records on the IGI are about as good as they get. > > Jon Baker > > Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] PACK - Christchurch > > I wouldn't trust these records, I have checked some of mine that I have > taken direct from Parish Records and theirs are wrong > > > > ............................................. > Want to contact the local community? > Please visit Hampshire Parish Jottings > http://hants.parishjottings.org.uk > ............................................. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-HAMPSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1758 - Release Date: 31/10/2008 08:22

Hi Adrian Could you check back. It was Nigel who made the unfavourable comments about the LDS site. I'm a BIG fan of the site, have used it for years and made the same points as Jon, if not quite so eloquently. I'd hate anyone to think that the comments made by Nigel came from me! Kate -----Original Message----- From: eng-hampshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-hampshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Martin Sent: 31 October 2008 18:33 To: eng-hampshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] PACK - Christchurch Jon I agree with your more measured response to Kate. Whenever there is a human being involved, there is always the possibility of error. Even original records are often wrongly spelt or written! Thank goodness the LDS Church (to which I belong) makes its vast collection of records available to family history researchers and gives FREE film/fiche copies to those organisations whose records it collects and archives! Efforts are being made to clean up the errors in the IGI. But even referring to original records may not always reveal the truth hence I have one Pretty family whose various siblings have the surnames Pritty, Prettey, Pretey. You tell me which is correct! Regards Adrian Martin (or is that Merton, Martyn, Martine, Martyne, Marton, Meriton.......) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Baker" <jon@vectisjon.com> To: <eng-hampshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] PACK - Christchurch > Nigel > Sweeping statement, thankfully inaccurate, otherwise all of the research > using this site would be worthless. Anyone using the LDS IGI site needs to > have a clear understanding of what they are looking at when they view the > records. There are indeed some appalling records in the database, wholly > inaccurate and misleading. However, by careful inspection of the record > one > can generally ascertain the relative accuracy. > > Any record with the note "Extracted marriage record for locality listed in > the record. The source records are usually arranged chronologically by the > marriage [or baptism] date" and an Mnnnnnn Batch number (for marriages, B > for baptisms) are generally considered to be of very good quality and > usually as accurate as any transcription, often better than many. Of > course > reference to the original PR should always be made for any transcription. > > Any other record in the LDS IGI database should be considered suspect, > though in many cases they do prove to be accurate. You can tell this if > the > record says "Record submitted by a member of the LDS Church". Many are > transcribed from parish registers or Bishops Transcripts but not with as > much care as the original extractions, and many others are pure fantasy. > > Golden rule as always is check the original, but as transcripts go the > extracted records on the IGI are about as good as they get. > > Jon Baker > > Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] PACK - Christchurch > > I wouldn't trust these records, I have checked some of mine that I have > taken direct from Parish Records and theirs are wrong > > > > ............................................. > Want to contact the local community? > Please visit Hampshire Parish Jottings > http://hants.parishjottings.org.uk > ............................................. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-HAMPSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1758 - Release Date: 31/10/2008 08:22 ............................................. Want to contact the local community? Please visit Hampshire Parish Jottings http://hants.parishjottings.org.uk ............................................. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-HAMPSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message