As we seem to be discussing message problems, I wonder if anyone can tell me why Family Search prints downloads in a Foreign Language, this has been going on now for 2 months, and although I have been in touch with the site, there appears to be on answer from them. I have even enlisted the help of the Ancestry insider, and although we have tried several different solutions, I seem to be stuck with the problem. Bazza On 16 May 2014 17:27, Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> wrote: > My personal opinion is its a mixture of all sorts of things > > People are a lot more computer savvy these days > (well some are :-) > > Many know how to use google much better than they did and many of the > questions people asked in the past have been answered many times over > and are now easily findable with a search engine > > There are many more sites with help or guidance than there once was > > There are various other means to communicate, facebook, twitter, Skype > etc plus there seems to be a proliferation of other forums on commercial > companies own web sites, personally I do not find any of them any use > and certainly not a patch on Rootsweb lists > > I don't think its much to do with Facebook or twitter as they are not > good methods for research, its hard to keep track of even one enquiry > and once a question moves down the timeline its gone for good, > particularly for those who are not a member of that page, they are not > archived like rootsweb lists so very limited > > Then there is the seemingly never ending release of new records, there > are many Parish Records online now so a researcher can do so much more > now than they used to be able to do > > There are many and various resources for ordering certificates etc than > there used to be > > Put all these and more into the pot and it all adds up and I think are > in the main the posts are not what they once were > > There is also the problem of ISPs blocking legitimate posts at present > which is being a real pain (AOL & Yahoo in particular) > > NB do check your web spam folder as you may find some missing posts in > there, I am currently find 50% or more in the gmail spam folder are list > posts > > Its interesting to see the posting history and how its changed > > Being more than a little concerned over the lack of posts I looked to > see what the history was a short while ago > > 1995 61,995 > 1996 210,162 > 1997 716,101 > 1998 2,152,539 > 1999 3,302,115 > 2000 3,931,985 > 2001 4,052,681 > 2002 4,115,241 > 2003 3,399,842 > 2004 2,857,416 > 2005 2,787,756 > 2006 2,594,323 > 2007 2,284,090 > 2008 1,901,271 > 2009 1,548,959 > 2010 1,211,834 > 2011 973,341 > 2012 868,220 > 2013 658,274 > 2014 184,025 to date 26th April 2014 > (extrapolates to approx 553,000 for year) > > Curiously I found approximately 50 or so on average per year posted in > > every year, 2015 up the first year I found with no posts 2038 ! > > Doctor Who ? > > Interestingly the earliest post was 1901 ! <g> > > I suspect some need to keep an eye on their computer clocks & dates > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 16/05/2014 11:28, Hank & Joan Van Daalen wrote: > > I've noticed the same thing and wondered if people are now getting all > their > > data from the proliferation of websites, and perhaps not using the lists > any > > more. If so, it's a pity as there is nothing like the personal contacts > and > > stories we get from the lists. > > > > Joan > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Bazza Just what are you looking for ? The thing that makes me mad is answering a query for someone and not getting a reply back that they received the answer Bill Stratton Cole Harbour NS Canada It helps past time between Dialysis day's and doing Freereg Lincs.scribing ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Wilson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [LIN] Lincs list seems to be quiet > As we seem to be discussing message problems, I wonder if anyone can tell > me why Family Search prints downloads in a Foreign Language, this has been > going on now for 2 months, and although I have been in touch with the > site, > there appears to be on answer from them. I have even enlisted the help of > the Ancestry insider, and although we have tried several different > solutions, I seem to be stuck with the problem. Bazza > > > On 16 May 2014 17:27, Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My personal opinion is its a mixture of all sorts of things >> >> People are a lot more computer savvy these days >> (well some are :-) >> >> Many know how to use google much better than they did and many of the >> questions people asked in the past have been answered many times over >> and are now easily findable with a search engine >> >> There are many more sites with help or guidance than there once was >> >> There are various other means to communicate, facebook, twitter, Skype >> etc plus there seems to be a proliferation of other forums on commercial >> companies own web sites, personally I do not find any of them any use >> and certainly not a patch on Rootsweb lists >> >> I don't think its much to do with Facebook or twitter as they are not >> good methods for research, its hard to keep track of even one enquiry >> and once a question moves down the timeline its gone for good, >> particularly for those who are not a member of that page, they are not >> archived like rootsweb lists so very limited >> >> Then there is the seemingly never ending release of new records, there >> are many Parish Records online now so a researcher can do so much more >> now than they used to be able to do >> >> There are many and various resources for ordering certificates etc than >> there used to be >> >> Put all these and more into the pot and it all adds up and I think are >> in the main the posts are not what they once were >> >> There is also the problem of ISPs blocking legitimate posts at present >> which is being a real pain (AOL & Yahoo in particular) >> >> NB do check your web spam folder as you may find some missing posts in >> there, I am currently find 50% or more in the gmail spam folder are list >> posts >> >> Its interesting to see the posting history and how its changed >> >> Being more than a little concerned over the lack of posts I looked to >> see what the history was a short while ago >> >> 1995 61,995 >> 1996 210,162 >> 1997 716,101 >> 1998 2,152,539 >> 1999 3,302,115 >> 2000 3,931,985 >> 2001 4,052,681 >> 2002 4,115,241 >> 2003 3,399,842 >> 2004 2,857,416 >> 2005 2,787,756 >> 2006 2,594,323 >> 2007 2,284,090 >> 2008 1,901,271 >> 2009 1,548,959 >> 2010 1,211,834 >> 2011 973,341 >> 2012 868,220 >> 2013 658,274 >> 2014 184,025 to date 26th April 2014 >> (extrapolates to approx 553,000 for year) >> >> Curiously I found approximately 50 or so on average per year posted in >> >> every year, 2015 up the first year I found with no posts 2038 ! >> >> Doctor Who ? >> >> Interestingly the earliest post was 1901 ! <g> >> >> I suspect some need to keep an eye on their computer clocks & dates >> >> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >> >> On 16/05/2014 11:28, Hank & Joan Van Daalen wrote: >> > I've noticed the same thing and wondered if people are now getting all >> their >> > data from the proliferation of websites, and perhaps not using the >> > lists >> any >> > more. If so, it's a pity as there is nothing like the personal >> > contacts >> and >> > stories we get from the lists. >> > >> > Joan >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] 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 > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message