That approximately describes the situation of surnames in China, I think.  Alas that printed telephone directories are becoming a thing of the past -- my kids will have to struggle to understand the aphorism, "more Chins than a Chinese phone book".     :^) ---------------------------------------- > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:59:48 +0100 > Subject: Re: [G] DNA conclusions? > From: [email protected] > > It is a good job that surnames were not around 4,000 years ago as, if they > were, then - according to this research - half the population of Europe > would have the same surname.

Oops, sorry for the duplicate reply, Chris -- I meant to post this to the list the first time... __________________ Hi Chris, Good questions!  I haven't read the Telegraph article, so I'm only shooting from the hip here.  I assume that the claim is made in light of the fact/inference that y-chromosome SNP mutations must occur first in a single individual, to be passed on to that individual's descendants.  I would suppose the claim is made in regard to what was formerly called the R1b haplogroup.  As to the point of making the claim on the basis of only 1,200 samples -- well, that's statistics for you.  Far more that 1,200 people have (since?) had their y-chromosome DNA tested, and although strange "new" (aka, "previously undiscovered") haplogroups are occasionally found, and although subgroups of "old" established groups are CONSTANTLY being discovered as commercially available tests become more comprehensive, the main result still stands -- again, that's statistics for you. On the question of what happened to the descendants of all the other men alive at the time, I believe the answer lies in the notion of the "random walk" (also known as the drunkard's walk); Wikipedia has a pretty good article on this.  To put it briefly, all lineages tend to die out over time except the ones that don't (this is only a half-facetious summarization).  This has interesting implications not only in terms of carriers of DNA mutations, but also in terms of surname bearers (and, consequently, our individual one-name studies).  The Plant brothers (of GOONS fame) have written a number of interesting JOONS articles with the idea of the random walk as an implicit subtext. -Mark Bunch (GOONS #6223) ---------------------------------------- > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:19:12 +0100 > Subject: [G] DNA conclusions? > From: [email protected] > > A recent claim in the UK's Daily Telegraph - as pointed to by today's > "Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter" - was that half of today's European > men are descended from a single man who lived some 4,000 years ago. Leaving > aside what happened to all the boys descended from the many thousands of > other men alive at that time - let alone this man's close relations (mass > genocide?) - how can people make such sweeping generalisations based on the > DNA of just 1,200 people? I could better understand if the study was of a > few million people. > > The same goes for this "Eve" person we are all meant to be descended from. > Was she the only female alive at the time? Did she wonder around Africa > killing off all the others? > > Chris > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi David I have the same situation in my Mallett DNA study, and my understanding is that the "I" and the "R" groups are something like 10,000 years apart, so there is no possibility of any connection in genealogical time. For what it's worth, my "I" participants all have origins in France, whereas the English branches are mostly part of the "R" group. There are some "R" group participants from France too. Bob. Message: 5 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 11:14:54 -0700 From: Mark Bunch <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [G] DNA Haplogroup To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello David, Yes, definitely two separate ancestral lines. Bear in mind the possiblity of non-paternity events (NPEs) if you have reason to believe the two lines have a common pedigree on paper. -Mark Bunch (GOONS #6223) ---------------------------------------- > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 05:22:25 +1200 > Subject: [G] DNA Haplogroup > From: [email protected] > > Hi, > I have a question concerning Haplogroups the questions is; > Based on tests done to-date the results show two different Haplogoups as > such, would I be correct in interpreting these results as showing two > different ancestral lines and more than likely two different origins > even though the known origin in both cases is Northern Ireland based on > research done to date? > The Haplogroups are; > I2a2 > > R1b1a1a2 > > Regards, > David J Grimshaw (or is it Grimason?) > Genealogical Researcher of the "Grimason" surname and variations of the "Grimason" surname World Wide. > A One Name study registered with the Guild of One Name Studies (GOONS): 6138 formerly 2962 > The "Sherlock Holmes" of this family according to some. >

Penny The transcription of the 1939 Register was handled in the UK and was carried out a single column at a time. The columns were then "stitched" together to make the page up, goes some way to explain some of the errors that we see. If you haven't done already have a look at 1939register.info - put together by Peter Calver of Lost Cousins fame. If his newsletter is the one I always recommend these days. But just because the transcription looks wrong don't make assumptions, check the originals and then please make the corrections. I always do in the hope that someone will have corrected the ones that I am looking for. Also remember that it is easier to read something when you know what you are looking at rather than something strange. Regards John Hanson Researcher, The Halsted Trust Website - www.halstedresearch.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Penny Jones via Sent: 26 April 2016 17:00 To: John P Laws; [email protected] Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations Couldn't agree more. Think FMP have excelled themselves in their lack of vigilance. Makes me wonder just who they employed to transcribe and how much they were paid. Sent from my iPad > On 26 Apr 2016, at 15:06, John P Laws via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi One-Namers Everywhere > > It is my view that Ancestry & FMP or whosoever undertook the > transcription of our national records, paid their transcribers by > quantity not by quality and that any vigilation was kept to a minimum. > > > John P Laws > > Registrar > Laws Family Register > Putting Flesh on the Bones of History > > www.lawsandlawes.blogspot.co.uk > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Robin Border via > Sent: 26 April, 2016 2:31 PM > To: Peter Armstrong; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations > > Submitting dozens - its the only way we will get it right Robin Border >> On 26 Apr 2016, at 13:56, Peter Armstrong via <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I had one similarly transcribed as "???" which I could clearly read >> as "Wholesale Merchant Dealing in Druggists Sundries Medicines >> Smallware etc" - possibly the longest occupation description I have >> seen and written in tiny handwriting! A correction was submitted and >> accepted by FMP. I trust other folks are submitting their corrections >> to the 1939 > Register. >> >> Regards, >> Peter Armstrong >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Adrian Abbott via" <[email protected]> >> To: "Celia Dodd" <[email protected]>; "GOONS" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:32 PM >> Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations >> >> >>> Maybe we should have some sympathy for the transcribers, but one of >>> mine where the original said quite clearly "Sulphate of Ammonia >>> Worker in Bye-Product Works" was transcribed as "???" >>> >>> Adrian >> >> _____________________________________________ >> >> RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: >> http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Couldn't agree more. Think FMP have excelled themselves in their lack of vigilance. Makes me wonder just who they employed to transcribe and how much they were paid. Sent from my iPad > On 26 Apr 2016, at 15:06, John P Laws via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi One-Namers Everywhere > > It is my view that Ancestry & FMP or whosoever undertook the transcription > of our national records, paid their transcribers by quantity not by quality > and that any vigilation was kept to a minimum. > > > John P Laws > > Registrar > Laws Family Register > Putting Flesh on the Bones of History > > www.lawsandlawes.blogspot.co.uk > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Robin Border via > Sent: 26 April, 2016 2:31 PM > To: Peter Armstrong; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations > > Submitting dozens - its the only way we will get it right Robin Border >> On 26 Apr 2016, at 13:56, Peter Armstrong via <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I had one similarly transcribed as "???" which I could clearly read as >> "Wholesale Merchant Dealing in Druggists Sundries Medicines Smallware >> etc" - possibly the longest occupation description I have seen and >> written in tiny handwriting! A correction was submitted and accepted >> by FMP. I trust other folks are submitting their corrections to the 1939 > Register. >> >> Regards, >> Peter Armstrong >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Adrian Abbott via" <[email protected]> >> To: "Celia Dodd" <[email protected]>; "GOONS" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:32 PM >> Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations >> >> >>> Maybe we should have some sympathy for the transcribers, but one of >>> mine where the original said quite clearly "Sulphate of Ammonia >>> Worker in Bye-Product Works" was transcribed as "???" >>> >>> Adrian >> >> _____________________________________________ >> >> RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: >> http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Have to agree to. I have found 114 Pullums using a "normal" search and so far another 31 using some (in fact a lot in some cases) imagination including a first name and place only - one family that was clearly Pullum on the original was transcribed as ???? and another P??? Nikki Brown #6552 Pullum ONS https://pullumons.wordpress.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Penny Jones via" <[email protected]> To: "John P Laws" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 26 April, 2016 5:00:28 PM Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations Couldn't agree more. Think FMP have excelled themselves in their lack of vigilance. Makes me wonder just who they employed to transcribe and how much they were paid. Sent from my iPad > On 26 Apr 2016, at 15:06, John P Laws via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi One-Namers Everywhere > > It is my view that Ancestry & FMP or whosoever undertook the transcription > of our national records, paid their transcribers by quantity not by quality > and that any vigilation was kept to a minimum. > > > John P Laws > > Registrar > Laws Family Register > Putting Flesh on the Bones of History > > www.lawsandlawes.blogspot.co.uk > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Robin Border via > Sent: 26 April, 2016 2:31 PM > To: Peter Armstrong; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations > > Submitting dozens - its the only way we will get it right Robin Border >> On 26 Apr 2016, at 13:56, Peter Armstrong via <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I had one similarly transcribed as "???" which I could clearly read as >> "Wholesale Merchant Dealing in Druggists Sundries Medicines Smallware >> etc" - possibly the longest occupation description I have seen and >> written in tiny handwriting! A correction was submitted and accepted >> by FMP. I trust other folks are submitting their corrections to the 1939 > Register. >> >> Regards, >> Peter Armstrong >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Adrian Abbott via" <[email protected]> >> To: "Celia Dodd" <[email protected]>; "GOONS" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:32 PM >> Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations >> >> >>> Maybe we should have some sympathy for the transcribers, but one of >>> mine where the original said quite clearly "Sulphate of Ammonia >>> Worker in Bye-Product Works" was transcribed as "???" >>> >>> Adrian >> >> _____________________________________________ >> >> RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: >> http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- Nikki Brown #6552 Pullum ONS https://pullumons.wordpress.com

As I commented a couple of months ago, what is written is not necessarily a transcription. My grandfather's entry showed him as a CPO in the Royal Navy. FMP had him not as CPO but expanded the initials - to 'General Post Office'. Just checked and this has now been corrected (to CPO, not Chief Petty Officer). A quick search told me there were quite a number of POs and CPOs recorded as (General) Post Offices, and I pointed this out in my message but didn't send in a correction on each. Not even the one listed immediately after my grandfather has been corrected. It seems they are happy to look really stupid! Teresa PS My laugh today has been from a baptism on FMP. Christian name 'Paskis' transcribed as 'Pastie'. (In Devon, where they are proud of having the earliest known recipe for pasties). On 26/04/2016 13:56, Peter Armstrong via wrote: > I had one similarly transcribed as "???" which I could clearly read as > "Wholesale Merchant Dealing in Druggists Sundries Medicines Smallware etc" - > possibly the longest occupation description I have seen and written in tiny > handwriting! A correction was submitted and accepted by FMP. I trust other > folks are submitting their corrections to the 1939 Register. > > Regards, > Peter Armstrong > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adrian Abbott via" <[email protected]> > To: "Celia Dodd" <[email protected]>; "GOONS" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations > > >> Maybe we should have some sympathy for the transcribers, but one of >> mine where the original said quite clearly "Sulphate of Ammonia Worker >> in Bye-Product Works" was transcribed as "???" >> >> Adrian > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi One-Namers Everywhere It is my view that Ancestry & FMP or whosoever undertook the transcription of our national records, paid their transcribers by quantity not by quality and that any vigilation was kept to a minimum. John P Laws Registrar Laws Family Register Putting Flesh on the Bones of History www.lawsandlawes.blogspot.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robin Border via Sent: 26 April, 2016 2:31 PM To: Peter Armstrong; [email protected] Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations Submitting dozens - its the only way we will get it right Robin Border > On 26 Apr 2016, at 13:56, Peter Armstrong via <[email protected]> wrote: > > I had one similarly transcribed as "???" which I could clearly read as > "Wholesale Merchant Dealing in Druggists Sundries Medicines Smallware > etc" - possibly the longest occupation description I have seen and > written in tiny handwriting! A correction was submitted and accepted > by FMP. I trust other folks are submitting their corrections to the 1939 Register. > > Regards, > Peter Armstrong > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adrian Abbott via" <[email protected]> > To: "Celia Dodd" <[email protected]>; "GOONS" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations > > >> Maybe we should have some sympathy for the transcribers, but one of >> mine where the original said quite clearly "Sulphate of Ammonia >> Worker in Bye-Product Works" was transcribed as "???" >> >> Adrian > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

An update on my earlier post, following a reply from FreeReg. The 'missing' records that I identified are not missing from the database, the problem is that the search algorithm did not find them. They will investigate this. Ticking the 'Family Members box does not pick up witnesses to a marriage. If there is no forename given in the record then the record is not picked either. David, are you sure you used the same search criteria? Rupert Whitmarsh On 26/04/2016 13:08, D HOLLISTER via wrote: > I printed the results of a search done yesterday. Today I repeated part of the same search and found 3 missing in consecutive order. > > David Hollister > > -------------------------------------------- > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Submitting dozens - its the only way we will get it right Robin Border > On 26 Apr 2016, at 13:56, Peter Armstrong via <[email protected]> wrote: > > I had one similarly transcribed as "???" which I could clearly read as > "Wholesale Merchant Dealing in Druggists Sundries Medicines Smallware etc" - > possibly the longest occupation description I have seen and written in tiny > handwriting! A correction was submitted and accepted by FMP. I trust other > folks are submitting their corrections to the 1939 Register. > > Regards, > Peter Armstrong > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adrian Abbott via" <[email protected]> > To: "Celia Dodd" <[email protected]>; "GOONS" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations > > >> Maybe we should have some sympathy for the transcribers, but one of >> mine where the original said quite clearly "Sulphate of Ammonia Worker >> in Bye-Product Works" was transcribed as "???" >> >> Adrian > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I had one similarly transcribed as "???" which I could clearly read as "Wholesale Merchant Dealing in Druggists Sundries Medicines Smallware etc" - possibly the longest occupation description I have seen and written in tiny handwriting! A correction was submitted and accepted by FMP. I trust other folks are submitting their corrections to the 1939 Register. Regards, Peter Armstrong ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Abbott via" <[email protected]> To: "Celia Dodd" <[email protected]>; "GOONS" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [G] 1939 Register occupations > Maybe we should have some sympathy for the transcribers, but one of > mine where the original said quite clearly "Sulphate of Ammonia Worker > in Bye-Product Works" was transcribed as "???" > > Adrian

Maybe we should have some sympathy for the transcribers, but one of mine where the original said quite clearly "Sulphate of Ammonia Worker in Bye-Product Works" was transcribed as "???" Adrian On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Celia Dodd via <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am finding some of the wrongly transcribed occupations in the 1939 > Register very amusing: a barman instead of batman at RAF Cranwell, a hosiery > minder instead of a hosiery mender and today, a plumber properly repairer. > Presume properly should be property... > > Celia (Dodd) > [email protected] >

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:09:37 +0100, Celia Dodd via <[email protected]> wrote: > I am finding some of the wrongly transcribed occupations in the 1939 > Register very amusing: a barman instead of batman at RAF Cranwell, a > hosiery minder instead of a hosiery mender and today, a plumber properly > repairer. Presume properly should be property... To Celia's offerings, I can add my Grand*father* listed as a "Fruiteress Manager" ... maybe he had to manage the junior ladies in the shop but I think he was actually a "Fruiterer's Manager". Malcolm. -- Malcolm Austen <[email protected]> GENUKI trustee <[email protected]> Pedigree User Group <[email protected]> Oxfordshire FHS <[email protected]> or <[email protected]>

I am finding some of the wrongly transcribed occupations in the 1939 Register very amusing: a barman instead of batman at RAF Cranwell, a hosiery minder instead of a hosiery mender and today, a plumber properly repairer.  Presume properly should be property... Celia (Dodd) [email protected]

I printed the results of a search done yesterday. Today I repeated part of the same search and found 3 missing in consecutive order. David Hollister --------------------------------------------

Hello David, Yes, definitely two separate ancestral lines. Bear in mind the possiblity of non-paternity events (NPEs) if you have reason to believe the two lines have a common pedigree on paper. -Mark Bunch (GOONS #6223) ---------------------------------------- > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 05:22:25 +1200 > Subject: [G] DNA Haplogroup > From: [email protected] > > Hi, > I have a question concerning Haplogroups the questions is; > Based on tests done to-date the results show two different Haplogoups as > such, would I be correct in interpreting these results as showing two > different ancestral lines and more than likely two different origins > even though the known origin in both cases is Northern Ireland based on > research done to date? > The Haplogroups are; > I2a2 > > R1b1a1a2 > > Regards, > David J Grimshaw (or is it Grimason?) > Genealogical Researcher of the "Grimason" surname and variations of the "Grimason" surname World Wide. > A One Name study registered with the Guild of One Name Studies (GOONS): 6138 formerly 2962 > The "Sherlock Holmes" of this family according to some. > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, I have vaguely noticed a difference between the old and new version of FreeREG but not stopped to work out what it is, just that the total results of a search can be less on the new one than the old. If I'd actually thought about it at the time it would just be that they haven't transferred all the entries yet, that you have to use both. From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: [email protected] GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rupert Whitmarsh via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 3:58 PM Subject: [G] FreeReg - Missing Records >I recently had cause to review some data I had downloaded from FreeReg > some years ago, in answer to a query from a correspondent whose > ancestors came from Shepton Mallet, Somerset. I noticed that they had > updated the website and seemingly added more data. all well and good. > > However, when I compared my newly downloaded information with my old > data I noticed that some records where 'missing'. These were for burials > of people described as 'child of' etc. without a defined forename. The > old website FreeReg1 is still accessible and so I repeated my search on > that site (not updated since 20 July 2015) and on the new site FreeReg2. > I found that the 'missing' records were still on FreeReg1 but not > discovered by the search algorithm on FreeReg2. > > For completeness, the baptisms from both sites were the same, three > marriages from FreeReg1 did not appear from FreeReg2 (search surname > only found as Witness on FreeReg1, not main participant) and 5 burials > (for 'child of' etc.) were missing from FreeReg2. > > I have contacted FreeReg and am trying to get them to understand the > problem. I wondered whether anyone else has come across this issue of > records missing from a search on the new site. If you have please let me > know and I will pass the information on to FreeReg. > > Rupert Whitmarsh > GoONS #4550 > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

I recently had cause to review some data I had downloaded from FreeReg some years ago, in answer to a query from a correspondent whose ancestors came from Shepton Mallet, Somerset. I noticed that they had updated the website and seemingly added more data. all well and good. However, when I compared my newly downloaded information with my old data I noticed that some records where 'missing'. These were for burials of people described as 'child of' etc. without a defined forename. The old website FreeReg1 is still accessible and so I repeated my search on that site (not updated since 20 July 2015) and on the new site FreeReg2. I found that the 'missing' records were still on FreeReg1 but not discovered by the search algorithm on FreeReg2. For completeness, the baptisms from both sites were the same, three marriages from FreeReg1 did not appear from FreeReg2 (search surname only found as Witness on FreeReg1, not main participant) and 5 burials (for 'child of' etc.) were missing from FreeReg2. I have contacted FreeReg and am trying to get them to understand the problem. I wondered whether anyone else has come across this issue of records missing from a search on the new site. If you have please let me know and I will pass the information on to FreeReg. Rupert Whitmarsh GoONS #4550

Hi Those of you with trees on Ancestry might have spotted something weird going on with their idenifying numbers. Every individual has a tree no. and a personal no. ie .....15677117/person/28652620230 Recently the personal numbers had a large hike ie .....15677117/person/68000104513 At which point I complained - but received little support. Today a new addee had the number .....15677117/person/330000021642 Thus the number has nearly tripled then increased again fivefold. Is it just me that thinks this is non viable rate of increase within one month? Robert Fowler 5464

Thanks to all those who contributed tho this thread. which I started a few days ago. By all means keep "talking". Thanks again Garry Auckland, NZ