I think with regards to the display of data that I would agree with Dave in that 80 years for marriages and 100 years for births is fine, however I am not so sure about the deaths - perhaps 50 years would eliminate that very slim possibility of fraudulent use. Although I still feel that it is essential to get the earliest years completed first before we concern ourselves too much with the last 100 years. (I do understand that the majority of those records are from peoples personal research rather than concerted transcription) On the subject of mentioning FreeBMD when purchasing certificates, I think this might also serve the purpose in letting us see how successful the project is becoming - something along the lines of this month (or half year or even this year) we achieved x number of successful hits. I know this would be only a percentage - I buy my birth certs from the local offices if possible - but I would definitely be interested to see the figures . Whoops did I just suggest another job for Dave :-)) Sheelagh ----- 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 > >