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 On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Beryl and Mike Tate via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > 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 > > > --- > 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 >

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