This is supposed to be a forum about using Family Historian so can we please now finish all the quacking about *correct* English usage? And as for those complaining about having to pay to view the 1939 Register; get over it. Whether it's cars or soap powder, if you want it, you'll pay, if you don't you won't. The end.

Hear hear Sue On Nov 16, 2015 7:13 AM, "F97Russell . via" < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > This is supposed to be a forum about using Family Historian so can we > please now finish all the quacking about *correct* English usage? > > And as for those complaining about having to pay to view the 1939 Register; > get over it. > Whether it's cars or soap powder, if you want it, you'll pay, if you don't > you won't. > The end. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Nothing to do with being smug, simply emphasising the point that this is a FH forum, not a place for making petty remarks (and getting it wrong in the process) about an expression used by a fellow member, who was offering a valuable contribution. In my view, it’s the message that’s important and, provided the meaning is clear, the language used is immaterial. From: Dennis Hawkins Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:21 PM To: ericpfrith ; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Now who's being "smug"? -----Original Message----- From: ericpfrith via Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:06 PM To: family-historian-users ; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Thank you, John, for saying what I was thinking. Personally, in this context, I would have said that the word “free” is neither a noun nor an adjective, it’s an adverb, but that would have been pedantic. From: family-historian-users via Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 9:46 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Dennis, David, "I think you mean it's free. Congratulations, David. "Free" is an adjective, not a noun as everyone else seems to think. ...something free (notice I use perfect English and don't say 'for free')." Please stop the smug, pointless point-scoring over how superior your English usage may or may not be. This is not a forum for the QES. John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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 FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11006 - Release Date: 11/15/15

Yes, it's as bad as the use of 'park up' instead of just 'park' ! Sent from my iPhone 6 > On 15 Nov 2015, at 21:17, Dennis Hawkins via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I think you mean it's free. > Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jackie Cotterill > Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 9:40 AM > To: Dennis Hawkins ; D C Banks ; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register > > The 1939 register is available for free at National Archives. > > Jackie > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis Hawkins via > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 8:01 PM > To: D C Banks ; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register > > Congratulations, David. "Free" is an adjective, not a noun as everyone else > seems to think. > Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: D C Banks via > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 2:22 AM > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register > > This rather reminds me of the 1901 census, there was a similar 'hidden' link > which enabled you to find a whole family. Many people exploited it until the > 1901 company (can't remember who it was now) found out about it and spoilt > our fun. They deliberately hid the links because people were getting > something free (notice I use perfect English and don't say 'for free'). > Spoil-sports. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl and > Mike Tate via > Sent: 13 November 2015 23:46 > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register > > With IE, as with Firefox, the ref number is shown in the status bar at the > bottom left. > You may just have to treat each %2f as a delimiter between the numbers. > The same numbers are shown in the address bar after clicking the Preview > link. > Regards, Mike Tate > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register > > Doesn't work with Internet Explorer or Chrome. The tooltip just says "See a > free preview of this record". > Ian > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register > > Yes, but as mentioned on the FHUG Forums, if you hover over the Preview link > the ref number fields are shown in the status or tooltip depending on your > browser. > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register > > Is it just me or have FMP removed the reference number from the record > preview result? I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago because I was > using it as a filter on some records as suggested by Jan Murphy. > > Brian > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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 > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/10999 - Release Date: 11/14/15 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11006 - Release Date: 11/15/15 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Now who's being "smug"? -----Original Message----- From: ericpfrith via Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:06 PM To: family-historian-users ; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Thank you, John, for saying what I was thinking. Personally, in this context, I would have said that the word “free” is neither a noun nor an adjective, it’s an adverb, but that would have been pedantic. From: family-historian-users via Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 9:46 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Dennis, David, "I think you mean it's free. Congratulations, David. "Free" is an adjective, not a noun as everyone else seems to think. ...something free (notice I use perfect English and don't say 'for free')." Please stop the smug, pointless point-scoring over how superior your English usage may or may not be. This is not a forum for the QES. John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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 FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11006 - Release Date: 11/15/15

Thank you, John, for saying what I was thinking. Personally, in this context, I would have said that the word “free” is neither a noun nor an adjective, it’s an adverb, but that would have been pedantic. From: family-historian-users via Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 9:46 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Dennis, David, "I think you mean it's free. Congratulations, David. "Free" is an adjective, not a noun as everyone else seems to think. ...something free (notice I use perfect English and don't say 'for free')." Please stop the smug, pointless point-scoring over how superior your English usage may or may not be. This is not a forum for the QES. John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dennis, David, "I think you mean it's free. Congratulations, David. "Free" is an adjective, not a noun as everyone else seems to think. ...something free (notice I use perfect English and don't say 'for free')." Please stop the smug, pointless point-scoring over how superior your English usage may or may not be. This is not a forum for the QES. John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I think you mean it's free. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Jackie Cotterill Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 9:40 AM To: Dennis Hawkins ; D C Banks ; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register The 1939 register is available for free at National Archives. Jackie -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Hawkins via Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 8:01 PM To: D C Banks ; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Congratulations, David. "Free" is an adjective, not a noun as everyone else seems to think. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: D C Banks via Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 2:22 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register This rather reminds me of the 1901 census, there was a similar 'hidden' link which enabled you to find a whole family. Many people exploited it until the 1901 company (can't remember who it was now) found out about it and spoilt our fun. They deliberately hid the links because people were getting something free (notice I use perfect English and don't say 'for free'). Spoil-sports. David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl and Mike Tate via Sent: 13 November 2015 23:46 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register With IE, as with Firefox, the ref number is shown in the status bar at the bottom left. You may just have to treat each %2f as a delimiter between the numbers. The same numbers are shown in the address bar after clicking the Preview link. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Doesn't work with Internet Explorer or Chrome. The tooltip just says "See a free preview of this record". Ian -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Yes, but as mentioned on the FHUG Forums, if you hover over the Preview link the ref number fields are shown in the status or tooltip depending on your browser. -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Is it just me or have FMP removed the reference number from the record preview result? I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago because I was using it as a filter on some records as suggested by Jan Murphy. Brian --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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 FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/10999 - Release Date: 11/14/15 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11006 - Release Date: 11/15/15

Congratulations, David. "Free" is an adjective, not a noun as everyone else seems to think. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: D C Banks via Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 2:22 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register This rather reminds me of the 1901 census, there was a similar 'hidden' link which enabled you to find a whole family. Many people exploited it until the 1901 company (can't remember who it was now) found out about it and spoilt our fun. They deliberately hid the links because people were getting something free (notice I use perfect English and don't say 'for free'). Spoil-sports. David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl and Mike Tate via Sent: 13 November 2015 23:46 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register With IE, as with Firefox, the ref number is shown in the status bar at the bottom left. You may just have to treat each %2f as a delimiter between the numbers. The same numbers are shown in the address bar after clicking the Preview link. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Doesn't work with Internet Explorer or Chrome. The tooltip just says "See a free preview of this record". Ian -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Yes, but as mentioned on the FHUG Forums, if you hover over the Preview link the ref number fields are shown in the status or tooltip depending on your browser. -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Is it just me or have FMP removed the reference number from the record preview result? I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago because I was using it as a filter on some records as suggested by Jan Murphy. Brian --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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 FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/10999 - Release Date: 11/14/15

I have finally got round to looking at these registers on FMP I did a search for the road where I was born. I thought my parents had moved there before 1939. How wrong that turned out to be. I did know where they lived before so checked that address and they were there. The preview gave both my parents names and said there were 4 other occupants listed as all locked (meaning you wont be able to find their names). I wouldn't know who these are but at a guess would say 3 of them have died. Anyway I looked at the address and each house number under the preview tab. Each house gave the name of the head of household plus the birth year. In addition it gave the number of occupants whether some of them are locked or not. Using FreeBMD you may be able to determine who the other occupants are. So Adrian if you can look at the site and find the name you are looking for. Provided that name is the head of household you will get the birth year without having to pay anything. Like you I have not paid anything. Victor On 14/11/2015 5:57 PM, Adrian Bruce via wrote: > On the other hand, FMP put the thing there in the first place. Why didn't > they think it through if it is so capable of being "misused"? > > I'm wondering whether FMP have looked at the take-up (which I have no idea > of), panicked and are looking for loopholes. > > No, I haven't bought a single household - why should I if the cost is worth > way more than the value? There's one household I could really, really do > with finding and identifying the head's birth-date - but his name is > Taylor, he could be anywhere in Crewe and I have no idea if he married. How > much is that going to cost? I'll wait until I go to Kew, I think.... > Commercial reality works for us as well as FMP. > > Adrian > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Well said, Adrian! Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Bruce via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> To: "Family Historian UG Mailing List" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 5:57 PM Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register > On the other hand, FMP put the thing there in the first place. Why didn't > they think it through if it is so capable of being "misused"? > > I'm wondering whether FMP have looked at the take-up (which I have no idea > of), panicked and are looking for loopholes. > > No, I haven't bought a single household - why should I if the cost is > worth > way more than the value? There's one household I could really, really do > with finding and identifying the head's birth-date - but his name is > Taylor, he could be anywhere in Crewe and I have no idea if he married. > How > much is that going to cost? I'll wait until I go to Kew, I think.... > Commercial reality works for us as well as FMP. > > Adrian > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On the other hand, FMP put the thing there in the first place. Why didn't they think it through if it is so capable of being "misused"? I'm wondering whether FMP have looked at the take-up (which I have no idea of), panicked and are looking for loopholes. No, I haven't bought a single household - why should I if the cost is worth way more than the value? There's one household I could really, really do with finding and identifying the head's birth-date - but his name is Taylor, he could be anywhere in Crewe and I have no idea if he married. How much is that going to cost? I'll wait until I go to Kew, I think.... Commercial reality works for us as well as FMP. Adrian

Guy I agree with you. It is a shame that a few are spoiling it for the majority of us users. Regards Richard On 14 November 2015 at 13:50, Guy Etchells via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On 13/11/2015 21:19, Jan Murphy via wrote: >> Here's an update from Chris Paton's blog: >> >> http://britishgenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/1939-national-identity-register-terms.html >> >> Apparently there are concerns about data mining. >> >> Here is what I don't understand. In the US, we are often encouraged when >> using a census to make note of not just our own family, but also the >> households on either side. Some beginner books say six households on >> either side -- some recommend six pages on either side. The principle is >> the same either way -- often there are relatives living nearby, and even if >> they are not related, the information is useful for those of us doing >> 'cluster' or "FAN club" research (FAN = Friends, Associates, Neighbors). >> Look on a detail page for a person's census entry on Ancestry and you'll >> see a line marked "Neighbors" followed by a link to display all the entries >> on that census page. >> >> How are we supposed to do a reasonably exhaustive search if we are >> discouraged from looking at the people who are close by? >> >> Find My Past is putting people in the same predicament as we are in when >> looking at GRO indexes. Maybe the couple in a particular index entry are >> the people we seek -- and maybe not. No one wants to spend money to get >> certificates and find out that they have the wrong people. How many people >> solve this problem by never ordering the certificates? >> >> While I was doing some searches, and logging which names I had found so >> far, I discovered that I had multiple families of interest on one register >> page. That gives me far more incentive to unlock one of the households and >> get the image for that page than just having the information for a single >> household revealed to me. If getting access to a digital image for a page >> costs 6.95 GBP and I discover that there might be seven people on that page >> that I want to look at, that makes the price look much more affordable -- >> especially compared with the cost of 42 GBP that one had to pay before. >> >> >> >> >> >> Jan Murphy >> packrat74@gmail.com >> >> > Yes that is why the link was put there in the first place and eventually > when the 1939 is part of the subscription service that will be how it > will be used again. > Unfortunately there were a lot of freeloaders who were quite content > with simply using it to see who was in a household and take the details > from the transcripts with no intention of buying the image to check the > facts. > Those freeloaders were spoiling it for everyone and not only putting the > costs up for everyone but delaying the day it becomes part of the > subscription service. > > Why do I write that because they were adding load to the servers, and > using bandwidth thereby slowing down the service. In addition because > they were adding to the cost of providing the service they were also > delaying the day that the service had covered enough of its start-up > costs to enable it to be part of the subscription site. > > It was the same as the freeloaders who go into newsagents to read the > papers and magazines but never buy them. > > Cheers > > Guy > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 13/11/2015 21:19, Jan Murphy via wrote: > Here's an update from Chris Paton's blog: > > http://britishgenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/1939-national-identity-register-terms.html > > Apparently there are concerns about data mining. > > Here is what I don't understand. In the US, we are often encouraged when > using a census to make note of not just our own family, but also the > households on either side. Some beginner books say six households on > either side -- some recommend six pages on either side. The principle is > the same either way -- often there are relatives living nearby, and even if > they are not related, the information is useful for those of us doing > 'cluster' or "FAN club" research (FAN = Friends, Associates, Neighbors). > Look on a detail page for a person's census entry on Ancestry and you'll > see a line marked "Neighbors" followed by a link to display all the entries > on that census page. > > How are we supposed to do a reasonably exhaustive search if we are > discouraged from looking at the people who are close by? > > Find My Past is putting people in the same predicament as we are in when > looking at GRO indexes. Maybe the couple in a particular index entry are > the people we seek -- and maybe not. No one wants to spend money to get > certificates and find out that they have the wrong people. How many people > solve this problem by never ordering the certificates? > > While I was doing some searches, and logging which names I had found so > far, I discovered that I had multiple families of interest on one register > page. That gives me far more incentive to unlock one of the households and > get the image for that page than just having the information for a single > household revealed to me. If getting access to a digital image for a page > costs 6.95 GBP and I discover that there might be seven people on that page > that I want to look at, that makes the price look much more affordable -- > especially compared with the cost of 42 GBP that one had to pay before. > > > > > > Jan Murphy > packrat74@gmail.com > > Yes that is why the link was put there in the first place and eventually when the 1939 is part of the subscription service that will be how it will be used again. Unfortunately there were a lot of freeloaders who were quite content with simply using it to see who was in a household and take the details from the transcripts with no intention of buying the image to check the facts. Those freeloaders were spoiling it for everyone and not only putting the costs up for everyone but delaying the day it becomes part of the subscription service. Why do I write that because they were adding load to the servers, and using bandwidth thereby slowing down the service. In addition because they were adding to the cost of providing the service they were also delaying the day that the service had covered enough of its start-up costs to enable it to be part of the subscription site. It was the same as the freeloaders who go into newsagents to read the papers and magazines but never buy them. Cheers Guy

My experience so far -- if I have a good guess about where someone is from the electoral registers, or if they have not moved since the 1911 census, it's easy to narrow down the candidates and pick out the households I am interested in unlocking. If I don't know where they might be, am I really supposed to unlock 32 households to look for someone? I haven't unlocked any households yet because I can only afford to buy five households. I am searching for people and ranking them by priority so I can choose which five households are the most important to me. I wouldn't be surprised if other genealogists are doing the same. My main 'working' tree for the UK is relatively small -- around 400 people so far. Many of those people are deceased before 1939, and others are in the USA at that time -- but it still takes time to work through the candidates. Jan Murphy packrat74@gmail.com On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Tony Proctor via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Well said, Adrian! > > Tony Proctor > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adrian Bruce via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> > To: "Family Historian UG Mailing List" < > family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 5:57 PM > Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register > > > > On the other hand, FMP put the thing there in the first place. Why didn't > > they think it through if it is so capable of being "misused"? > > > > I'm wondering whether FMP have looked at the take-up (which I have no > idea > > of), panicked and are looking for loopholes. > > > > No, I haven't bought a single household - why should I if the cost is > > worth > > way more than the value? There's one household I could really, really do > > with finding and identifying the head's birth-date - but his name is > > Taylor, he could be anywhere in Crewe and I have no idea if he married. > > How > > much is that going to cost? I'll wait until I go to Kew, I think.... > > Commercial reality works for us as well as FMP. > > > > Adrian > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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 > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Chrome users can right click and choose "copy link address" then paste into a document - it will look something like this http://search.findmypast.com.au/record/locked?id=tna%2fr39%2f1459%2f1459b%2f 024%2f05. Ignoring the "%2f", the last three numbers are the reference so: %2f1459b%2f024%2f05 = Piece: 1459B, Folio: 024, Line: 05. Gillian -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Thirlwell via Sent: Saturday, 14 November 2015 9:12 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Doesn't work with Internet Explorer or Chrome. The tooltip just says "See a free preview of this record". Ian -----Original Message----- From: Beryl and Mike Tate via Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 8:54 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Yes, but as mentioned on the FHUG Forums, if you hover over the Review link the ref number fields are shown in the status or tooltip depending on your browser. -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Is it just me or have FMP removed the reference number from the record preview result? I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago because I was using it as a filter on some records as suggested by Jan Murphy. Brian ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

And can you blame them. They are a commercial enterprise that has to make money. It takes a lot to digitise and index these records and they have to charge to make it work. As an example if you were to approach TNA and ask the cost of licencing (not buying) the images for the 1911 census and you will be quoted in excess of £3million and then you have to pay to index the 8.5 million pages. Regards John Hanson Researcher, The Halsted Trust Website - www.halstedresearch.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of D C Banks via Sent: 14 November 2015 02:22 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register This rather reminds me of the 1901 census, there was a similar 'hidden' link which enabled you to find a whole family. Many people exploited it until the 1901 company (can't remember who it was now) found out about it and spoilt our fun. They deliberately hid the links because people were getting something free (notice I use perfect English and don't say 'for free'). Spoil-sports. David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl and Mike Tate via Sent: 13 November 2015 23:46 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register With IE, as with Firefox, the ref number is shown in the status bar at the bottom left. You may just have to treat each %2f as a delimiter between the numbers. The same numbers are shown in the address bar after clicking the Preview link. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Doesn't work with Internet Explorer or Chrome. The tooltip just says "See a free preview of this record". Ian -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Yes, but as mentioned on the FHUG Forums, if you hover over the Preview link the ref number fields are shown in the status or tooltip depending on your browser. -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Is it just me or have FMP removed the reference number from the record preview result? I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago because I was using it as a filter on some records as suggested by Jan Murphy. Brian --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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 FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I wondered about that but was looking for RG101 at the beginning, and this is omitted. Ian -----Original Message----- From: Beryl and Mike Tate via Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 11:45 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register With IE, as with Firefox, the ref number is shown in the status bar at the bottom left. You may just have to treat each %2f as a delimiter between the numbers. The same numbers are shown in the address bar after clicking the Preview link. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Doesn't work with Internet Explorer or Chrome. The tooltip just says "See a free preview of this record". Ian -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Yes, but as mentioned on the FHUG Forums, if you hover over the Preview link the ref number fields are shown in the status or tooltip depending on your browser. -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Is it just me or have FMP removed the reference number from the record preview result? I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago because I was using it as a filter on some records as suggested by Jan Murphy. Brian --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This rather reminds me of the 1901 census, there was a similar 'hidden' link which enabled you to find a whole family. Many people exploited it until the 1901 company (can't remember who it was now) found out about it and spoilt our fun. They deliberately hid the links because people were getting something free (notice I use perfect English and don't say 'for free'). Spoil-sports. David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl and Mike Tate via Sent: 13 November 2015 23:46 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register With IE, as with Firefox, the ref number is shown in the status bar at the bottom left. You may just have to treat each %2f as a delimiter between the numbers. The same numbers are shown in the address bar after clicking the Preview link. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Doesn't work with Internet Explorer or Chrome. The tooltip just says "See a free preview of this record". Ian -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Yes, but as mentioned on the FHUG Forums, if you hover over the Preview link the ref number fields are shown in the status or tooltip depending on your browser. -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Is it just me or have FMP removed the reference number from the record preview result? I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago because I was using it as a filter on some records as suggested by Jan Murphy. Brian --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Mike, just picked that up myself. Bit naughty of FMP to suggest it wasn't been used properly, after all it didn't allow unauthorised unlocking. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Beryl and Mike Tate via Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 11:45 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register With IE, as with Firefox, the ref number is shown in the status bar at the bottom left. You may just have to treat each %2f as a delimiter between the numbers. The same numbers are shown in the address bar after clicking the Preview link. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Doesn't work with Internet Explorer or Chrome. The tooltip just says "See a free preview of this record". Ian -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Yes, but as mentioned on the FHUG Forums, if you hover over the Preview link the ref number fields are shown in the status or tooltip depending on your browser. -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 Register Is it just me or have FMP removed the reference number from the record preview result? I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago because I was using it as a filter on some records as suggested by Jan Murphy. Brian --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-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: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4460/10994 - Release Date: 11/13/15