Dear Graham et al, I, too, have noticed that Ancestry are including FreeBMD on their site of searchable databsses. However, they seem to have introduced errors. I was alerted to this by one of my contributors who wrote: "I checked some of my submissions (specifically for Hubling) and found that the district had been changed from Camberwell (FreeBMD) to Cambridge" so I checked some of my own data and one of the first was obviously wrong. Kings Norton district was represented as Kington, though the volume and page number were correct. Similarly Chelsea has been misrepresented as Cheltenham,Walsall as Walsingham. As you can see there seems to be confusion based on the first four characters of the dictrict name. Is Ancestry aware, yet? Peter Hendy-Ibbs -- Researching: IBBS from Hunts/Beds and HENDY from Pembrokeshire Transcribing and reformatting for FreeBMD (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com)

Hi, Yes, they are aware .. we raised it with them when Dave found a similar problem this morning. We will push them to use the correct districts as much as we can ... Cheers Graham Peter Hendy-Ibbs wrote: > > Dear Graham et al, > > I, too, have noticed that Ancestry are including FreeBMD on their site > of searchable databsses. However, they seem to have introduced errors. I > was alerted to this by one of my contributors who wrote: > > "I checked some of my submissions (specifically for Hubling) and found > that the > district had been changed from Camberwell (FreeBMD) to Cambridge" > > so I checked some of my own data and one of the first was obviously > wrong. Kings Norton district was represented as Kington, though the > volume and page number were correct. Similarly Chelsea has been > misrepresented as Cheltenham,Walsall as Walsingham. As you can see there > seems to be confusion based on the first four characters of the dictrict > name. > > Is Ancestry aware, yet? > > Peter Hendy-Ibbs > > -- > Researching: IBBS from Hunts/Beds and HENDY from Pembrokeshire > > Transcribing and reformatting for FreeBMD (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com) > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:38:08 +0100, you wrote: >so I checked some of my own data and one of the first was obviously >wrong. Kings Norton district was represented as Kington, though the >volume and page number were correct. Similarly Chelsea has been >misrepresented as Cheltenham,Walsall as Walsingham. As you can see there >seems to be confusion based on the first four characters of the dictrict >name. > >Is Ancestry aware, yet? Yes. I spotted that they seemed to have mangled the districts on some records as soon as I discovered that they had gone live on this. We are awaiting a response from them on this issue. -- Dave Mayall