On 30 Jun at 2:39, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 22:27:41 +0100, Richard Smith > <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote: > > > To a large extent, we, the more experienced part of genealogical > > community, have allowed this to happen because we've unintentionally > > created an environment where only a company with a lot of money can > > compete. What do I mean by this? Over the years, enthusiastic > > genealogists have gone to huge efforts to transcribe all sorts of > > records, but particularly parish registers. Why, you might ask, > > hasn't someone taken these and built a decent website for searching > > them? Technically it wouldn't be at all difficult. The problem is a > > legal one. All these transcripts are generally copyright, and are > > often encumbered with highly restrictive licensing restrictions. > > > > Take the various online parish clerks websites. The one I most > > frequently use says "No person or organisation may publish this data > > without express written permission." The copyright is held by the > > original transcribers, some of whom, it's reasonable to suppose, are > > now dead, and therefore I doubt that legally, the OPC maintainers > > could grant permission for someone to reproduce these if they > > wished. (On the odd occasion I've contributed, I've never been > > asked to give them the right to do that.) Or look at the FreeREG > > project, which is maintained by a charity. "Data extracted from > > FreeREG must not be reproduced in any form." At least in that case, > > copyright is (if their website is correct) assigned to the FreeBMD > > trustees. > > I suspect that that copyright restriction was aimed at preventing > companies with a lot of money reproducing the transcriptions and then > charging people to view them. I wonder if all these copyright restrictions are valid? Anyone can copy the data and republish it. But what is also needed is a refilming of many parish registers with higher definition and in colour. And then retranscribing. I shudder to think of the cost of all this. I know FreeREG is making a determined effort to address all this but there is no sign that they will be able to link the data to scans of the original documents; in FreeBMD they have successfully linked to the scans of the GRO index pages. Perhaps all Family History and Genealogy Societies should be campaigning for funds for one Grand National Parish Register database, complete with scans of the originals? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 22:27:41 +0100, Richard Smith <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote: >To a large extent, we, the more experienced part of genealogical >community, have allowed this to happen because we've unintentionally >created an environment where only a company with a lot of money can >compete. What do I mean by this? Over the years, enthusiastic >genealogists have gone to huge efforts to transcribe all sorts of >records, but particularly parish registers. Why, you might ask, hasn't >someone taken these and built a decent website for searching them? >Technically it wouldn't be at all difficult. The problem is a legal >one. All these transcripts are generally copyright, and are often >encumbered with highly restrictive licensing restrictions. > >Take the various online parish clerks websites. The one I most >frequently use says "No person or organisation may publish this data >without express written permission." The copyright is held by the >original transcribers, some of whom, it's reasonable to suppose, are now >dead, and therefore I doubt that legally, the OPC maintainers could >grant permission for someone to reproduce these if they wished. (On the >odd occasion I've contributed, I've never been asked to give them the >right to do that.) Or look at the FreeREG project, which is maintained >by a charity. "Data extracted from FreeREG must not be reproduced in >any form." At least in that case, copyright is (if their website is >correct) assigned to the FreeBMD trustees. I suspect that that copyright restriction was aimed at preventing companies with a lot of money reproducing the transcriptions and then charging people to view them. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

My ggg grandfather is Augustus Frederick James Bowen. I have quite a lot of family information if anybody is interested Janette Morrow-Coffs Harbour N.S.W Australia morrowjanette@gmail.com.au. My mother's maiden was Bowen!

On 29/06/13 22:32, Ian Goddard wrote: > I did find a link to a contact page called contact-teresa and guess > what? It's a 404. It does raise the question of whether the site is > sufficiently competently-run to be worth registering with in the first > place. It's possible that the competency with which the site is run is not indicative of the accuracy (or otherwise) of the transcripts on it. Richard

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <gbzcfgargnh.mp69np0.pminews@news.usenetserver.com>, Tom > Perrett <tomp@st.net.au> writes: > [] >> Our current search experience allows users to view search results as a >> list of ranked records or as a consolidated list of categories. >> Our current search experience allows users to do "Exact Match" >> searches. >> Our current search experience allows users to specify a "Collection >> Priority" to filter results by country. >> >> Crista Cowan has a great educational video which demonstrates this >> functionality in the current search experience: > [] > I fear it's a lost cause: when someone starts talking about an > "experience" in this sort of context, you can be fairly certain that > they're into management, Worse. Far worse. It means they're into marketing. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

Richard Smith wrote: > Has anyone had any luck registering for the Wiltshire OPC website? I've > been trying intermittently for about three months, and still haven't > managed to do it. Most of the time, the activation email never reaches > me (and, no, it's not in a spam folder); on the rare occasion it does > reach me, I get errors telling me that I can't activate my account > without logging in (and, of course, I can't log in without first > activating my account). Normally, I would contact the site maintainers > to see if they could help, but they don't publish contact information > (at least, not on the part of the site that you can access without > logging in). Can anyone help, or perhaps put me in contact with the > site maintainer? I did find a link to a contact page called contact-teresa and guess what? It's a 404. It does raise the question of whether the site is sufficiently competently-run to be worth registering with in the first place. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 29/06/13 18:24, MB wrote: > Why is it that online sites insist on messing things up against the > wishes of the users. Something similar has happened on Flickr and > Google so it all the time, making their sites progressively worse. Most of the online genealogy websites are run by profit-making companies and their primary interest is in their bottom line. The best way for them to increase their profit is to increase the number of subscribers, and that's most easily done by targeting new, careless genealogists: people who don't really care whether they've found the right person, or perhaps more accurately, who don't understand enough to know they may not have found the right person. And if you're targeting idiots, it helps to have an idiot-proof interface. That may irritate the experienced users, but who cares? They're a small minority, and will probably keep paying anyway because the major sites are pretty much equally bad. To a large extent, we, the more experienced part of genealogical community, have allowed this to happen because we've unintentionally created an environment where only a company with a lot of money can compete. What do I mean by this? Over the years, enthusiastic genealogists have gone to huge efforts to transcribe all sorts of records, but particularly parish registers. Why, you might ask, hasn't someone taken these and built a decent website for searching them? Technically it wouldn't be at all difficult. The problem is a legal one. All these transcripts are generally copyright, and are often encumbered with highly restrictive licensing restrictions. Take the various online parish clerks websites. The one I most frequently use says "No person or organisation may publish this data without express written permission." The copyright is held by the original transcribers, some of whom, it's reasonable to suppose, are now dead, and therefore I doubt that legally, the OPC maintainers could grant permission for someone to reproduce these if they wished. (On the odd occasion I've contributed, I've never been asked to give them the right to do that.) Or look at the FreeREG project, which is maintained by a charity. "Data extracted from FreeREG must not be reproduced in any form." At least in that case, copyright is (if their website is correct) assigned to the FreeBMD trustees. Why should the transcribers care whether people reproduce the data? Surely if someone has gone to the effort to make a transcript and make it available online, they would wish to maximise its usefulness? I can understand wanting to retain the credit for it, but that's possible, as shown by the Creative Commons 'by-sa' licence used on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I can also understand wanting to prohibit commercial use of the transcript, but there are plenty of standard licences that ensure that, e.g. the Creative Commons 'by-nc-sa' licence. If all this data was available under a permissive licence like this, it would be relatively easy for a competent programmer to set up a website that included all this data and provided sophisticated searching facilities of the sort wanted by the more experienced genealogists. And if that website didn't suit, another person could make an alternative. Richard

On 29/06/2013 21:20, Richard Smith wrote: > Has anyone had any luck registering for the Wiltshire OPC website? I've > been trying intermittently for about three months, and still haven't > managed to do it. Most of the time, the activation email never reaches > me (and, no, it's not in a spam folder); on the rare occasion it does > reach me, I get errors telling me that I can't activate my account > without logging in (and, of course, I can't log in without first > activating my account). Normally, I would contact the site maintainers > to see if they could help, but they don't publish contact information > (at least, not on the part of the site that you can access without > logging in). Can anyone help, or perhaps put me in contact with the > site maintainer? > > Richard I absolutely HATE saying this, but have you tried Facebook? Might be able to contact them there - they shout FB. -- Rod

Has anyone had any luck registering for the Wiltshire OPC website? I've been trying intermittently for about three months, and still haven't managed to do it. Most of the time, the activation email never reaches me (and, no, it's not in a spam folder); on the rare occasion it does reach me, I get errors telling me that I can't activate my account without logging in (and, of course, I can't log in without first activating my account). Normally, I would contact the site maintainers to see if they could help, but they don't publish contact information (at least, not on the part of the site that you can access without logging in). Can anyone help, or perhaps put me in contact with the site maintainer? Richard

On 29/06/2013 08:46, John Hill wrote: > But surely is there not a point that the way "to achieve the same types > of results with the current search as in Old Search" requires "a great > educational video" and "a helpful article", whereas in Old Search it was > pretty intuitive? It seems a lot of messing about instead of being able to do it in a much simpler way. I had a discussion with one of their people on the Support Communities. I think I gave an example where I could search on surname and town and get a match but if I did the same in New Search it did not show any matches at all. Why is it that online sites insist on messing things up against the wishes of the users. Something similar has happened on Flickr and Google so it all the time, making their sites progressively worse.

Ancestry are currently conducting a survey which seems to suggest that they wish to do away with Old Search, and claiming only 2% of subscribers use it. 2% may well be correct as a large number of users do not know Old Search exists as it is not an obvious choice. Personally I loathe New Search and don't use it as the results are far too many and poorly displayed, as compared to Old Search. If you get an invitation to participate in the survey, and don't want to see Old Search done away with, then send Ancestry your thoughts. Keith Wellington, NZ

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:37:30 +1200, Gmail Genmail wrote: >Ancestry are currently conducting a survey which seems to suggest that they >wish to do away with Old Search, and claiming only 2% of subscribers use it. > > > >2% may well be correct as a large number of users do not know Old Search >exists as it is not an obvious choice. > > > >Personally I loathe New Search and don't use it as the results are far too >many and poorly displayed, as compared to Old Search. Perhaps you should follow up this extract from a pressrelease. Tom ======================================================== Many of the recent concerns and comments have cited functionality that actually exists in current search, as well as in old search ? specifically: Our current search experience allows users to view search results as a list of ranked records or as a consolidated list of categories. Our current search experience allows users to do "Exact Match" searches. Our current search experience allows users to specify a "Collection Priority" to filter results by country. Crista Cowan has a great educational video which demonstrates this functionality in the current search experience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c423yU5Ccs0. We also have a helpful article which does a side-by-side explanation of how to achieve the same types of results with the current search as in Old Search: http://ancestry.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5569/kw/old.

In message <gbzcfgargnh.mp69np0.pminews@news.usenetserver.com>, Tom Perrett <tomp@st.net.au> writes: [] > Our current search experience allows users to view search results as a >list of ranked records or as a consolidated list of categories. > Our current search experience allows users to do "Exact Match" >searches. > Our current search experience allows users to specify a "Collection >Priority" to filter results by country. > >Crista Cowan has a great educational video which demonstrates this >functionality in the current search experience: [] I fear it's a lost cause: when someone starts talking about an "experience" in this sort of context, you can be fairly certain that they're into management, and unlikely to actually listen to real users. There'll be mention of a "journey" before too long, I bet. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf We have a huge scare over BSE when it is only killing the same number of people as alarm clocks. Shouldn't we be having an alarm clock scare, too? ("Equinox" on Risk, April 1999, paraphrased by Polly Toynbee in Radio Times.)

In message <kqk3cj$hmn$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> writes: [] >>>> >>>>https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-25941-12055-68?cc=19685 >>>>30&wc=M9MT-2HP:1046484211 [] >>> It's "Seminal Weakness" (an involuntary discharge of semen during >>> sleep). Oo-er! >>> >> >> I must admit that to me it looks very much like "Hiaticus", although >> that doesn't mean anything as far as I can see. >> >> Did you mean that "seminal hiatus" was a term for "seminal weakness", >> Renia, or that you actually see "weakness" in that handwriting? >The first word is "Seminal". The second word is "Weakness". Seminal >Weakness is a recognised medical term. > >The second word does NOT begin with an "H". Look at the "H" in Henry at >the top of the document. They are quite different. I did, and thought it was sufficiently similar to be sure it wasn't M (not to mention others of those nearby). I'm far from as sure as you that it's a W, though. [] >The fourth letter is no a "T", because it is too short. This fancy and >determined writer is consistent in writing a tall "T" with a strong Yes, I'd totally agree with that. >cross. It is similar to the "K" in Brunswick, but without the flourish. I don't think I'd agree there. > >The second letter is a closed "E", a reverse 3-shape like some of the Hmm. >others. The third letter is clearly an "A". Agreed. > >So we have "Weak...s" which can only be "Weakness". What you're saying is an n, I don't agree on. It's right-hand half even looks like another letter - I'd say we might have -er- there. I'd be tempted to say it's "aterics" or "aterus", if it wasn't for the doubt about the t. (And there's no dot for the i, which he seems fairly consistent - though a bit energetic - about applying elsewhere, like the t cross.) Could it be an x - -axerus? (-caxerus or -eaxerus?) (or even -axims?) > >As I said, "Seminal Weakness" means "an involuntary discharge of semen >during sleep", which I can't imagine anyone admitting to! > Indeed (-:! I think the only letters we all agree on are the a, and probably the s (even though even that has a final flourish not evident elsewhere). Am I the only one who finds the user interface of that site infuriating in that any careless click causes a zoom in? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf We have a huge scare over BSE when it is only killing the same number of people as alarm clocks. Shouldn't we be having an alarm clock scare, too? ("Equinox" on Risk, April 1999, paraphrased by Polly Toynbee in Radio Times.)

wrote on 29 jun 2013 in soc.genealogy.britain: > I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I am so sorry. > We are discussing Charlie Henry's conscription in 1917. In a usenet discussion-group you cannot confine the discussion to what you think it should be, especially if you make an error of thinking. Capturing the "we" as opposed to "you" only makes this worse. You are not the owner of a discussion, even if you are the OP. > Whether British law in 1917 called Charlie Henry a British citizen or > subject is a semantic irrelevancy Perhaps in your eyes, even if your error is only semantic, the premisse you submitted still is wrong. > - the point is that he wasn't an American citizen. Indeed, you still seem to think that being a citizen of another country defines one not being an us-citizen, quod non. Multiple nationalities and people without any nationality do exist. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Tom Perrett <tomp@st.net.au> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:37:30 +1200, Gmail Genmail wrote: > > >Ancestry are currently conducting a survey which seems to suggest that they > >wish to do away with Old Search, and claiming only 2% of subscribers use it. > > > > > > > >2% may well be correct as a large number of users do not know Old Search > >exists as it is not an obvious choice. > > > > > > > >Personally I loathe New Search and don't use it as the results are far too > >many and poorly displayed, as compared to Old Search. > > Perhaps you should follow up this extract from a > pressrelease. > > Tom > > ======================================================== > Many of the recent concerns and comments have cited functionality that > actually exists in current search, as well as in old search ? specifically: > > Our current search experience allows users to view search results as a > list of ranked records or as a consolidated list of categories. > Our current search experience allows users to do "Exact Match" > searches. > Our current search experience allows users to specify a "Collection > Priority" to filter results by country. > > Crista Cowan has a great educational video which demonstrates this > functionality in the current search experience: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c423yU5Ccs0. > > We also have a helpful article which does a side-by-side explanation of how > to achieve the same types of results with the current search as in Old > Search: http://ancestry.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5569/kw/old. But surely is there not a point that the way "to achieve the same types of results with the current search as in Old Search" requires "a great educational video" and "a helpful article", whereas in Old Search it was pretty intuitive? John. -- Please reply to john at yclept dot wanadoo dot co dot uk.

On 6/29/2013 1:45 AM, Tom Perrett wrote: > On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:37:30 +1200, Gmail Genmail wrote: > >> Ancestry are currently conducting a survey which seems to suggest that they >> wish to do away with Old Search, and claiming only 2% of subscribers use it. >> >> >> >> 2% may well be correct as a large number of users do not know Old Search >> exists as it is not an obvious choice. >> >> >> >> Personally I loathe New Search and don't use it as the results are far too >> many and poorly displayed, as compared to Old Search. > > Perhaps you should follow up this extract from a > pressrelease. > > Tom > > ======================================================== > Many of the recent concerns and comments have cited functionality that > actually exists in current search, as well as in old search ? specifically: > > Our current search experience allows users to view search results as a > list of ranked records or as a consolidated list of categories. > Our current search experience allows users to do "Exact Match" > searches. > Our current search experience allows users to specify a "Collection > Priority" to filter results by country. > > Crista Cowan has a great educational video which demonstrates this > functionality in the current search experience: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c423yU5Ccs0. > > We also have a helpful article which does a side-by-side explanation of how > to achieve the same types of results with the current search as in Old > Search: http://ancestry.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5569/kw/old. > > Yes you can get some thing resembling the old search in the new search but who wants to go through and set all of those filters with each new search. I there a way to set ALL of the parameters so they do not have to be set with each search and visit to Ancestry?

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 23:25:46 +0200, "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote: > wrote on 28 jun 2013 in soc.genealogy.britain: > >> I think you must not have read my last post. > >Why do you think that? Does it matter here? > >> In 1917, when Charlie >> Henry was drafted, the law in force in America was the Selective >> Service Act of 1917. This permitted non-US citizens to be conscripted >> only if they had started the process of applying for US citizenship - >> it specifically exempted non-US citizens from conscription if they had >> not begun the process (ie if they were 'non-declarants'). According >> to his draft card Charlie Henry was a non-declarant British citizen >> who in 1917 was living just a short way across the border from his >> Canadian birthplace, yet was conscripted into the American army. > >Dear Mat, this only proves my point that, having or not having a foreign >nationality has nothing to do with US-conscription for us-residents, >but only that having or not having US-citizanship somtimes had, and at >other times not. I stated having seen examples from WWII, you do here from >WWI. > >Why would the distance from the US-Canadian border matter? > >Prior to 1983 the concept of British citizenship did not exist, btw. > Yes it did, see :- http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishsubjects/ which refers to e.g. "a British subject without citizenship" before 1983. The Immigration Act 1971 refers to "citizenship" which would self-evidently be British (or UK-ish) in appropriate cases. As citizenship is a matter long dealt with in international law then the concept will consequently have existed long before those statutes. What started in 1983 was a more limited availability of citizenship, cutting out various people who previously qualified under UK laws but weren't necessarily entitled to it under international law. >British nationality was defined by being a British subject. > ITYF it wasn't that simple, in particular under the old rules when a foreigner married a British subject. >> It would be interesting to know more about the circumstances of his >> conscription. > >Meaning him to be an exception?

On Friday, June 28, 2013 10:25:46 PM UTC+1, Evertjan. wrote: > > > I think you must not have read my last post. > > Why do you think that? Does it matter here? > > > In 1917, when Charlie > > Henry was drafted, the law in force in America was the Selective > > Service Act of 1917. This permitted non-US citizens to be conscripted > > only if they had started the process of applying for US citizenship - > > it specifically exempted non-US citizens from conscription if they had > > not begun the process (ie if they were 'non-declarants'). According > > to his draft card Charlie Henry was a non-declarant British citizen > > who in 1917 was living just a short way across the border from his > > Canadian birthplace, yet was conscripted into the American army. > > Dear Mat, this only proves my point that, having or not having a foreign > nationality has nothing to do with US-conscription for us-residents, > but only that having or not having US-citizanship somtimes had, and at > other times not. I stated having seen examples from WWII, you do here from > WWI. > > Why would the distance from the US-Canadian border matter? > > Prior to 1983 the concept of British citizenship did not exist, btw. > British nationality was defined by being a British subject. > > > It would be interesting to know more about the circumstances of his > > conscription. > > Meaning him to be an exception? > > Evertjan. I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are trying to make. We are discussing Charlie Henry's conscription in 1917. The law in force in America at that time was quite clear - only American citizens or residents who had filed their papers to start the process of becoming American citizens could be conscripted. It is quite irrelevant what the law may have been at other times and I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. Whether British law in 1917 called Charlie Henry a British citizen or subject is a semantic irrelevancy - the point is that he wasn't an American citizen. The significance of Charlie Henry living just across the border from his Canadian birthplace is as follows. In the 20th century most developed nations applied conscription only to their own citizens (alright, citizens and/or subjects - but from now on to avoid tedious repetition of the phrase I will use citizen to mean both). However in 1917 America faced a slightly unusual difficulty - the massive immigration of the previous decades had meant that a large proportion of its population were not American citizens. It might be argued that this was just a technicality - that most of these migrants had no intention of ever returning to their home countries and had made an irrevocable emotional commitment to America, even if not a legal one - and some of the more extreme nationalists did campaign for all residents to be conscripted, whether or not they were foreign citizens. These arguments had much less force along the Canadian border. The teeming millions of European immigrants further south might have had no intention of returning to their home country, but like all land borders, especially between countries with a common language, the US-Canadian border saw a great deal of temporary movement back and forth. The moral basis for conscripting a Canadian living just south of the border would have been much weaker than for conscripting, say, a Norwegian farmer in Nebraska or a Lithuanian factory worker in Pittsburgh. For that reason it would be interesting to know more about Charlie Henry. Had he moved south from New Brunswick many years previously, or had he only been in Portland a short time before his conscription? Did he voluntarily accept his conscription, or was he coerced to it? Did he stay in America after his discharge, or return to Canada? Matt Tompkins

wrote on 28 jun 2013 in soc.genealogy.britain: > I think you must not have read my last post. Why do you think that? Does it matter here? > In 1917, when Charlie > Henry was drafted, the law in force in America was the Selective > Service Act of 1917. This permitted non-US citizens to be conscripted > only if they had started the process of applying for US citizenship - > it specifically exempted non-US citizens from conscription if they had > not begun the process (ie if they were 'non-declarants'). According > to his draft card Charlie Henry was a non-declarant British citizen > who in 1917 was living just a short way across the border from his > Canadian birthplace, yet was conscripted into the American army. Dear Mat, this only proves my point that, having or not having a foreign nationality has nothing to do with US-conscription for us-residents, but only that having or not having US-citizanship somtimes had, and at other times not. I stated having seen examples from WWII, you do here from WWI. Why would the distance from the US-Canadian border matter? Prior to 1983 the concept of British citizenship did not exist, btw. British nationality was defined by being a British subject. > It would be interesting to know more about the circumstances of his > conscription. Meaning him to be an exception? -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)