I am quite used to having to enter a "Birthdate" when what I am actually searching for is a Baptism (yes, Ancestry, I'm looking at you) and now I find the "Date of Death" of many of my relatives is recorded amongst FMP's Hampshire Burials records. I *presume* the dates shown are actually of Burials but there is nothing in these transcriptions to indicate of what, exactly, these are transcriptions. Again, I can only *presume* they are of PRs or BTs (but which?) but maybe they are from something else. Which ties in with another of my gripes about FMP - they are constantly shouting about the millions of new "records" they are releasing each week, but in so many cases these are actual transcriptions. Call me pedantic, but I consider an image of a PR (for example) to be a RECORD, whereas someone's transcription of that PR entry is just that, a TRANSCRIPTION. FMP don't seem to be aware or just don't care - that anyone serious about their research wants to see RECORDS, not transcriptions. Granted, transcriptions are better than nothing, but little better if they aren't labelled correctly and don't include sources. -- Jenny M Benson

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 20:06:39 +0000, Jenny M Benson <[email protected]> wrote: >I am quite used to having to enter a "Birthdate" when what I am actually >searching for is a Baptism (yes, Ancestry, I'm looking at you) and now I >find the "Date of Death" of many of my relatives is recorded amongst >FMP's Hampshire Burials records. I *presume* the dates shown are >actually of Burials but there is nothing in these transcriptions to >indicate of what, exactly, these are transcriptions. > The more recent they are, the less safe is that presumption as registers started to record both death and burial dates. If it is earlier than say mid-19th century then they probably are burial dates but you would need e.g. MI or probate records to compare with more recent records in the absence of a specific statement of which they are. >Again, I can only >*presume* they are of PRs or BTs (but which?) but maybe they are from >something else. > >Which ties in with another of my gripes about FMP - they are constantly >shouting about the millions of new "records" they are releasing each >week, but in so many cases these are actual transcriptions. Call me >pedantic, but I consider an image of a PR (for example) to be a RECORD, >whereas someone's transcription of that PR entry is just that, a >TRANSCRIPTION. > >FMP don't seem to be aware or just don't care - that anyone serious >about their research wants to see RECORDS, not transcriptions. Granted, >transcriptions are better than nothing, but little better if they aren't >labelled correctly and don't include sources.

Sorry but your post explains why so may family trees are inaccurate, just look at what you have written! On 09/12/2014 20:06, Jenny M Benson via wrote: > I am quite used to having to enter a "Birthdate" when what I am actually > searching for is a Baptism If the records you are searching show births (as many parish registers do) why record them as baptisms and vice versa? > (yes, Ancestry, I'm looking at you) and now I > find the "Date of Death" of many of my relatives is recorded amongst > FMP's Hampshire Burials records. I *presume* the dates shown are > actually of Burials but there is nothing in these transcriptions to > indicate of what, exactly, these are transcriptions. Again, I can only > *presume* they are of PRs or BTs (but which?) but maybe they are from > something else. Again you "presume", don't presume do some research and find out what the record you are looking at records. > > Which ties in with another of my gripes about FMP - they are constantly > shouting about the millions of new "records" they are releasing each > week, but in so many cases these are actual transcriptions. Call me > pedantic, but I consider an image of a PR (for example) to be a RECORD, > whereas someone's transcription of that PR entry is just that, a > TRANSCRIPTION. > > FMP don't seem to be aware or just don't care - that anyone serious > about their research wants to see RECORDS, not transcriptions. Granted, > transcriptions are better than nothing, but little better if they aren't > labelled correctly and don't include sources. Yes I agree but, in reality transcriptions are transcribed records which means the contraction of records is equally as valid as the contraction transcripts. However the real point is many of today's researchers fail to understand what they are viewing when looking at records. They fail to discover what is being recorded and just as importantly why it was recorded. Such information significantly changes ones understanding of the record itself. When one understands why and how the record was created one can understand that certain information contained on it will be as accurate as possible or may be a stab in the dark and needs to be questioned. It is only when the researcher realises that virtually all parish entries of baptisms and burials are transcripts, for example, that he or she can understand that errors can and do appear in the registers. It is not just the big companies that are to blame we the individuals taking one research must shoulder the blame as well. Cheers Guy

"Jenny M Benson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] >I am quite used to having to enter a "Birthdate" when what I am actually >searching for is a Baptism (yes, Ancestry, I'm looking at you) and now I >find the "Date of Death" of many of my relatives is recorded amongst FMP's >Hampshire Burials records. I *presume* the dates shown are actually of >Burials but there is nothing in these transcriptions to indicate of what, >exactly, these are transcriptions. Again, I can only *presume* they are of >PRs or BTs (but which?) but maybe they are from something else. > > Which ties in with another of my gripes about FMP - they are constantly > shouting about the millions of new "records" they are releasing each week, > but in so many cases these are actual transcriptions. Call me pedantic, > but I consider an image of a PR (for example) to be a RECORD, whereas > someone's transcription of that PR entry is just that, a TRANSCRIPTION. > > FMP don't seem to be aware or just don't care - that anyone serious about > their research wants to see RECORDS, not transcriptions. Granted, > transcriptions are better than nothing, but little better if they aren't > labelled correctly and don't include sources. > -- > Jenny M Benson Re: "records", I think this is a case of differences in terminology Jenny. FMP are talking about records in their database, which is a standard piece of software terminology. A genealogist or historian would consider "records" to be some representation of the original source -- or the original itself -- from which those transcriptions were made. It gets more confusing when the recommendations for citations distinguish "[database] entry" from "image", thus suggesting that images are not part of the database. From a software perspective, most modern databases do have an image data-type, but even if the site doesn't use it, and the images are held externally to the database itself, they would still be indexed by the same database (ignoring the browse-only datasets). Tony Proctor