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 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

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

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 >