Hi, Steve Gaunt wrote: > > To my knowledge nobody is actively transcribing quarters after 1900, most input seems to be personal records of transcribers. Has the ONS banned me from putting my granny on the site? > I can understand not wanting to upset them but that's going too far I think. Do they supply us with original material or financial help? You can add the records to your files, we do not stop that in any way. They could make our lives difficult by refusing to allow us to show the scans or have them online in any way. They -are- the copyright holders of the films. At the end of the day we would rather be on good terms than bad terms and they have their reasons and asked us if we would re-impose the restriction. At this stage of the project and pending the review details coming out, we didn't see any pressing reason why we should resist it too strongly. Among the other items discussed was us adding something to the website asking people to use a reference of FREEBMD when ordering certificates where they have the reference from the site. This would enable them to give a better service in terms of understanding our potential error rates and realising that a transcription error might exist. We will continue to review it and discuss it with them. Cheers Graham > Steve Gaunt > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.280 / Virus Database: 147 - Release Date: 11/9/2001

Hi, Dave Mayall wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > If the ONS is so concerned about people's privacy, why do they themselves > > sell film and fiche of the indices of recent births, deaths and marriages, > > and why do they sell certificates for those events? > > Because they are obliged, by law to do so. > > > I can go to a Family History Center and see the records. > > What exactly is the issue with being able to save a trip to the FHC by > > viewing the records online? > > I guess that putting them on the internet in searchable form is making access > to the data just TOO easy. Yes, this was the main concern. At the end of the day we all want easier access to the records and we don't want to rock the boat in any way. The majority of the genealogical interest is in the older records. Cheers Graham > > -- > Dave Mayall > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2

I wonder if , as well as privacy, there is also a concern about potential criminal misuse of the information from "recent" death records. I agree that a similar risk is present (and exploited) from use of obituary columns etc. but as Dave says - perhaps the internet makes it just too easy to exploit records - and offers the potential for "bulk" misuse. Val ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 1:51 PM Subject: Re: Post-1900 Records > Mary Trevan wrote: > > > > Dave > > > > 100 years for births sounds fair on the grounds of privacy, but for deaths > > sounds a bit extreme. Some sites (eg Vital records for British Columbia, > > Canada) have 3 different cut-off dates for each of births, marriages and > > deaths. Can I ask the Project Leadership to consider discussing a similar > > arrangement with the ONS in due course, while the rest of us keep going with > > the other 10's of millions of 19th century transcriptions that need to be > > done? > > You can indeed. > > As I'm sure can be appreciated we haven't yet had a chance to decide upon a > strategy. However, before the 100 year rule was initially relaxed, this was > an approach that we were looking at. > > Even with a 100 year cut off for births, there is a possibility that we have > some living people on the site. Indeed, with the good coverage of 1898, it > is near certain. > > With Marriages, an 80 year cut off should achieve about the same degree of > rarity in finding living people. > > With Deaths, the issue self evidently doesn't arise, but we do need to be > sensitive to the feelings of relatives here. On this one, I would suggest > a cut off of 1983. > > Indeed, I would suggest that we might regard 1983 as a final cut off point. > > The structure of the registers changes radically in 1984, and the indexes > after that time are all on CD anyway. > > Those are my first thoughts! > > -- > Dave Mayall > > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=702&sourceid=1237 > >

[email protected] wrote: > > If the ONS is so concerned about people's privacy, why do they themselves > sell film and fiche of the indices of recent births, deaths and marriages, > and why do they sell certificates for those events? Because they are obliged, by law to do so. > I can go to a Family History Center and see the records. > What exactly is the issue with being able to save a trip to the FHC by > viewing the records online? I guess that putting them on the internet in searchable form is making access to the data just TOO easy. One can go to the library and look at any electoral register you wish, but there was a fuss when they went online > Is there a chance that the ONS could just repudiate their agreement entirely > and all our efforts just have been wasted? Not that I can see. We have written permission, and short of a change in the law, or us breaking the terms of that permission, then we can't be touched. -- Dave Mayall

Dave 100 years for births sounds fair on the grounds of privacy, but for deaths sounds a bit extreme. Some sites (eg Vital records for British Columbia, Canada) have 3 different cut-off dates for each of births, marriages and deaths. Can I ask the Project Leadership to consider discussing a similar arrangement with the ONS in due course, while the rest of us keep going with the other 10's of millions of 19th century transcriptions that need to be done? Mary Trevan -----Original Message----- From: Dave Mayall <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 06 November, 2001 9:46 AM Subject: Post-1900 Records >As some transcribers may have noticed, all records relating to events >after 1900 have been removed from the web site following the most >recent update. > >This action has been taken as a result of a request from the Office of >National Statistics. > >Whilst the Project Leadership is satisfied that we were granted >permission to include newer records in the database, and the ONS has >*not* formally instructed us that the records must be removed, they >have clearly indicated that they wish us to work within a 100 year >limit. > >The background to this view from the ONS is the recent consultation >which they carried out on greater access to records. Whilst we as >genealogists are obviously keen to gain ever greater access to >genealogical data, their consultation has produced a lot of feedback >to the effect that there is already too MUCH access to more recent >data, and that personal privacy is being invaded. > >Obviously the problem becomes more acute when the data is available in >FreeBMD, and there is a very real possibility that putting very recent >data on the internet could result in restrictive legislation. > >The project leadership has always had a good relationship with the >ONS, and would not wish to put that relationship at risk by attempting >to force the issue at the present time. As part of our ongoing >discussions with the ONS, we will be discussing returning at least >part of the newer data to the site at the earliest possible >opportunity. In the interim, we have adopted what we regard as a >sensible stance by removing all data that is less than 100 years old. > >Newer data will continue to be stored, but not searchable, and data >for 1901 will, in any case return to the website in the new year. > >Discussion of the issues raised by this move is welcome, but MUST >take place ONLY on FreeBMD-Discuss-L > >-- >Dave Mayall > > >============================== >Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 >Source for Family History Online. Go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=702&sourceid=1237 >

Mary Trevan wrote: > > Dave > > 100 years for births sounds fair on the grounds of privacy, but for deaths > sounds a bit extreme. Some sites (eg Vital records for British Columbia, > Canada) have 3 different cut-off dates for each of births, marriages and > deaths. Can I ask the Project Leadership to consider discussing a similar > arrangement with the ONS in due course, while the rest of us keep going with > the other 10's of millions of 19th century transcriptions that need to be > done? You can indeed. As I'm sure can be appreciated we haven't yet had a chance to decide upon a strategy. However, before the 100 year rule was initially relaxed, this was an approach that we were looking at. Even with a 100 year cut off for births, there is a possibility that we have some living people on the site. Indeed, with the good coverage of 1898, it is near certain. With Marriages, an 80 year cut off should achieve about the same degree of rarity in finding living people. With Deaths, the issue self evidently doesn't arise, but we do need to be sensitive to the feelings of relatives here. On this one, I would suggest a cut off of 1983. Indeed, I would suggest that we might regard 1983 as a final cut off point. The structure of the registers changes radically in 1984, and the indexes after that time are all on CD anyway. Those are my first thoughts! -- Dave Mayall

If the ONS is so concerned about people's privacy, why do they themselves sell film and fiche of the indices of recent births, deaths and marriages, and why do they sell certificates for those events? I can go to a Family History Center and see the records. What exactly is the issue with being able to save a trip to the FHC by viewing the records online? Is there a chance that the ONS could just repudiate their agreement entirely and all our efforts just have been wasted? Rick Elliott

As some transcribers may have noticed, all records relating to events after 1900 have been removed from the web site following the most recent update. This action has been taken as a result of a request from the Office of National Statistics. Whilst the Project Leadership is satisfied that we were granted permission to include newer records in the database, and the ONS has *not* formally instructed us that the records must be removed, they have clearly indicated that they wish us to work within a 100 year limit. The background to this view from the ONS is the recent consultation which they carried out on greater access to records. Whilst we as genealogists are obviously keen to gain ever greater access to genealogical data, their consultation has produced a lot of feedback to the effect that there is already too MUCH access to more recent data, and that personal privacy is being invaded. Obviously the problem becomes more acute when the data is available in FreeBMD, and there is a very real possibility that putting very recent data on the internet could result in restrictive legislation. The project leadership has always had a good relationship with the ONS, and would not wish to put that relationship at risk by attempting to force the issue at the present time. As part of our ongoing discussions with the ONS, we will be discussing returning at least part of the newer data to the site at the earliest possible opportunity. In the interim, we have adopted what we regard as a sensible stance by removing all data that is less than 100 years old. Newer data will continue to be stored, but not searchable, and data for 1901 will, in any case return to the website in the new year. Discussion of the issues raised by this move is welcome, but MUST take place ONLY on FreeBMD-Discuss-L -- Dave Mayall

Are we still talking at cross purposes or am I totally befuddled? On my version 3 the first +PAGE line in WinBMD is labelled Row 1 but on SpeedBMD it is shown as Row 5? Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Parker" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 5:38 AM Subject: Re:SpeedBMD v WinBMD > Thanks Ian for the very full response. The entering of page numbers going > down the column as in a spread sheet is a perfectly good method and I will > be going back to using Win with that. I've used it in transcribing parish > registers for entering the date and it works well. Going from Speed to Win > the brain does not immediately take in that Win behaves like a spread sheet > with additional rules (well mine didn't). > > On number 2 we seem to be at cross purposes. My WinBMD v3 starts at line 0. > SpeedBMD starts at 1. > > Don't be too hard on us comparing Speed and Win. I think it is unavoidable > as the decision has to be made as to which one to use, or, more difficult, > whether to drop an old friend. > > Thanks again for your expertise and time. > > ------------------------------------------ > > Also to Lawrence, > > As I understand it, BMDVerify is for use with scan files. As I transcribe > from fiche there is no original file to compare with. If I am wrong I'll use > it with greatest of pleasure. > > Regards > > George > > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > Need to get a fast answer to your transcribing problems? Go to the > Transcribers Knowledge Base at http://FreeBMD.RootsWeb.com/vol_faq.html > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 > >

It seems that the (small) amount of data more recent that Dec 1900 has not been included in the latest rebuild. Is that intentional? If so I shall stop transcribing my 20th century one-name data. Mary Trevan

John Olstan is a registered volunteer of about 4 days standing. I can only assume that he was responding to an unfortunate incident earlier this week whereby one individual spammed the FreeBMD list and somehow Olstan in a personal response and in error replied to your email address. Allan Raymond [email protected] http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Pain" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 02 November 2001 18:56 Subject: Fw: Pain Hi Does anybody know who this is? Suggest he changes the 'White' to '[email protected] Regards John Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's Conde Salop. Anytime PS - Please leave a little of the old message to give me a clue as to what it's all about. ----- Original Message ----- From: Olstan Whitehead To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:32 AM Subject: Pain You are the biggest pain ever. Your inconsiderate attitude is unforgveable. Glad you are banned from rootsweb. Suggest perhaps you should be banished to an asylum ============================== Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

Hi, no idea who it is .. its possible he was trying to respond to the guy who spammed everyone the other dayand did a reply all and caught your id ... that was Joseph Hannan .. could have had your id in his adddress book and caught you instead ... This guy, Olstan Whitehead, is a transcriber in Derek Hopkins' syndicate ... I don't know if you did anything to annoy him, of course ! :) cheers Graham John Pain wrote: > > Hi > > Does anybody know who this is? > > Suggest he changes the 'White' to '[email protected] > > Regards > > John > > Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) > Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's > Conde Salop. Anytime > > PS - Please leave a little of the old message to give me a clue as to what it's all about. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Olstan Whitehead > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:32 AM > Subject: Pain > > You are the biggest pain ever. Your inconsiderate attitude is unforgveable. Glad you are banned from rootsweb. Suggest perhaps you should be banished to an asylum > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

Hi Does anybody know who this is? Suggest he changes the 'White' to '[email protected] Regards John Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's Conde Salop. Anytime PS - Please leave a little of the old message to give me a clue as to what it's all about. ----- Original Message ----- From: Olstan Whitehead To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:32 AM Subject: Pain You are the biggest pain ever. Your inconsiderate attitude is unforgveable. Glad you are banned from rootsweb. Suggest perhaps you should be banished to an asylum

In message <[email protected]>, Dave Mayall <[email protected]> writes >Philip Powell wrote: >> >> In message <[email protected]>, >> Dave Mayall <[email protected]> writes > >> >#THEORY is just a comment line to remind us that there is something in >> >the file that wants looking at. >> > >> >Position of the record isn't too important. >> >> Could you clarify this please, Dave? >> >> What I've done is add a #THEORY line immediately under the affected >> entry - eg: >> >> HAVERS,Jabez,Mutford,4b,285 >> #THEORY Line 89 Vol/Page No. indicate this should be Mitford not Mutford >> >> /Sometimes/ I've omitted the Line number. >> >> Is this ok or should it be something like: >> HAVERS,Jabez,Mutford,4b,285 >> #THEORY Line 89 - Vol 4b Page 285 indicate this should be Mitford not >> Mutford > >In general, a comment line that offers a theory is best immediately after >the record it comments on, and no additional remark is needed to tie it to >its record. > >Where more than one record is affected, put it after the first such record >and include a comment that more than one record is affected. > >"next" and "prev" are easier than line numbers where reference is needed. Thanks - that clarifies things completely AFAICS. -- Philip Powell

Hi Not having seen the originals is not the entering of District etc on the next line purely a method to ensure that the Volume and Page No cols are in line with the rest on the page. Regards John Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's Conde Salop. Anytime PS - Please leave a little of the old message to give me a clue as to what it's all about. ----- Original Message ----- From: Allan Raymond <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 8:52 PM Subject: Re: Can You Help Please > The other entries are different. > > My example, > > WARREN Walter Frederick > WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 > Pancras 1b 128 > > isn't the same as the example below, which presumable is what you are referring to > when a name overflows into the District field. > > WARREN Walter Frederick > Kensington 1a 159 > WARREN Walter James Pancras 1b 128 > > For the entries you are referring to the District overflows to the next line and > you would type as one line. > > Referring back to my example, as I mentioned in my earlier response, logic would > say move the name down one. But how can we be sure that WARREN Walter James > doesn't belong to Kensington 1a 159, after all it is on the same line? > > Your suggestion about comments lines may possible be the answer. My understanding > is that we would use #THEORY perhaps the experts in these matters Dave or Graham > may wish to offer their views? > > After the +PAGE and full stop discussions, I shudder to think about introducing > #THEORY. I don't think this is covered in our "Data Format" Web Page. > > Regards > > Allan Raymond > [email protected] > http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm > FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet > http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: 30 October 2001 19:51 > Subject: Re: Can You Help Please > > > I just had a look at the page in question and there are several places where the > names and districts are on separate lines. Are all of these going to be treated > in the way you suggest? > It seems to me that *if* the district has been moved down one line because of a > longish forename then to treat them as separate lines will be incorporating > incorrect info into the database. Specifically, Walter James Warren's descendant > will be thinking their ancestor was born in Kensington when he was *probably* born > in Pancras. Would the use of "comment" lines be another option? > > Steve > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > ----------------------------------------------- > > *ORIGINAL MESSAGE* > > Hi Teri > > I see what you mean. > > Logically, you should move the 2 names down one line so that they line up with the > rest of the information. > > However, you would be second guessing. > > My advice is to consider the 3 lines as three separate entries and to insert a "?" > where the information is blank. > > In case anyone is confused by my response, the entries on the Index are thus. > > WARREN Walter Frederick > WARREN Walter James Kensington 1a 159 > Pancras 1b 128 > > i.e District,Vol and Page are missing on first line and > Surname and Forename are missing on the third line > > Allan Raymond > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gypsy" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: 29 October 2001 10:49 > Subject: Can you help please > > > Hi > > 1862B1-1344.tif has I believe 2 names out of place. Now usually > we'd just enter them as is but I'm wondering if this is one of > those anomalies. > > The names are WARREN Walter Frederick & WARREN Walter James. > > I'd appreciate your advice. > > > > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp >

Just as a matter of interest..... has anyone come across Rubicizsicilla as a forename? At fourteen characters I don't think there's anything longer or stranger I've seen, but I dare say there are some doozies hiding in the indexes. Steve

Hi Apologies to all those patient and very impatient souls awaiting a reply from me. I will get round to them as soon as possible after my 5 days break from FreeBMD in hospital. Regards John Researching - Hykin (Anywhere) Pai(y)n(e) from Kent 1800's Conde Salop. Anytime PS - Please leave a little of the old message to give me a clue as to what it's all about.

Philip Powell wrote: > > In message <[email protected]>, > Dave Mayall <[email protected]> writes > >#THEORY is just a comment line to remind us that there is something in > >the file that wants looking at. > > > >Position of the record isn't too important. > > Could you clarify this please, Dave? > > What I've done is add a #THEORY line immediately under the affected > entry - eg: > > HAVERS,Jabez,Mutford,4b,285 > #THEORY Line 89 Vol/Page No. indicate this should be Mitford not Mutford > > /Sometimes/ I've omitted the Line number. > > Is this ok or should it be something like: > HAVERS,Jabez,Mutford,4b,285 > #THEORY Line 89 - Vol 4b Page 285 indicate this should be Mitford not > Mutford In general, a comment line that offers a theory is best immediately after the record it comments on, and no additional remark is needed to tie it to its record. Where more than one record is affected, put it after the first such record and include a comment that more than one record is affected. "next" and "prev" are easier than line numbers where reference is needed. -- Dave Mayall

I have come in late on this but with reference to someone sending off to various districts for certificates with page numbers supplied by us, then It's quite likely he will be disappointed. In my experience the districts don't use this number at all. Maybe it could be made clear that our page numbers refer to the central archive and not the individual district. So we can't be blamed for Mr Angry's lack of knowledge, if he had applied to GRO he would probably have been more succesful. Sorry if this has already been answered, Steve Gaunt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Hingston" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 12:23 AM Subject: Re: GRO Numbers > At 08:59 01/11/01 +0000, Graham Hart wrote on the Admin list: > > >I answered him privately once and then again after yesterday's post to > >correct misunderstandings. I believe he went to his local registrar > >with the numbers. > > > >He also believes we are a professional organisation etcetcetc .. I have > >tried to correct this .. not sure there is much that can be done. > > I don't think we need be too defensive about the nature of the FreeBMD > exercise. If this were a professional (by which I suspect is implied > commercial) operation, leaders and syndicate coordinators would have more > power over the more incompetent or troublesome of us, and I can imagine how > you might long for that. But years ago I was involved in the > computerisation of a modest (750,000) population index, and a certain level > of error had to be accepted as part of the contract. When we consider the > amount of time that transcribers are often spending poring over faint or > damaged copies, or struggling with difficult manuscript, it is evident that > this could not be justified if it had to be paid for. > > >I > >don't sub to the Yorksgen list but I think enough do to explain things > >to him .. but, if someone doesn't want to listen then there's not a lot > >that can be done in the end. > > Genealogy attracts a very varied collection of individuals and we shouldn't > take criticism too personally. But there is the risk that if the project > gets too much flak transcribers will be demoralised and the whole project > will suffer. I repeat my view that many people genuinely don't understand > the imperfections in the original register, why creating a new one from > scratch isn't an obvious solution, or that transcription can't be perfect. > We have come to take computerised indexes for granted, but people who > really ought to know better still regard the IGI as a reliable source, or > believe that the 1881 British census transcription is wholly accurate, for > example. We can't win because the more we emphasise the inevitable > imperfections in the BMB index transcription, the less people will value > it, and if we don't try and point them out the more justified they will > feel in complaining if they have 'wasted' their money seeking a certificate > that is not as described. > > One thing to do in the longer run is to work on the FreeBMD website to try > and make sure that these various misunderstandings are explained at the > appropriate points. Then that those who take the trouble to read get the > message, and those who don't can be quickly pointed to it. > > > >Jean Spence wrote: > > > > > > Recently on a Genealogy list I am on a member was very angry because he had > > > sent for 5 certificates to various registration offices and they were all > > > incorrect. Someone suggested the references numbers are only for the GRO > > > and you only need name and quarter but no number for the registration > > > offices. Are the numbers we transcribe only for the GRO. > > > > > > We had quite a bit of discussion on the list, it seems unlikely that anyone > > > transcribed 5 numbers incorrectly so can anyone explain what probably > > > happened. The writer still seems critical of our efforts to transcribe > > > correctly. and our policy of transcribing exactly what we see. > > > jean in S. australia. > > Andrew Hingston > > <http://www.amhinja.demon.co.uk> > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.280 / Virus Database: 147 - Release Date: 11/9/2001

Hello, It looks as though the latest database update completed in near-record time and the estimated time for the NEXT update has been posted. Thanks so much Dave! Dave, a reminder-- I had volunteered to maintain the list of alternate Registration Districts if you could get me a file in Excel format. Rick Elliott San Jose, CA