Aside from the issue of completeness of this index, I'm actually wondering how useful it really is if it doesn't give an original image, doesn't indicate a source and is cobbled together from "various sources"(meaning that it may not always be death dates that are shown, but could also be burial dates). I know I'll be using it to give me an idea of the approximate date and place of death, but as far as well-sourced information goes, it really misses the mark completely. Its kind of annoying, as I'm discovering more and more of this type of genealogy index where the information can't easily be checked - which to my mind makes it no better than some of the old IGI. I'm now thinking I concentrate my efforts on only reviewing records where there is an original image to view as well, and where I actually check the original image as a matter of course before I record anything from a transcription. Is it just another example of quantity of genealogical records over quality? Corinne Curtis '#5579

Hi Denys For HEMPSALL , the ANCESTRY England & Wales INDEX 2007-13 is about 50% deficient . It shows 17 deaths, whereas from my last check in Bridgend Library the total was 38. I wonder if they're just going by OBITS? I can't see that they'd have someone laboriously going through the fiches! Steve TANNER #4001 HEM(P)S(H)*L ONS ----Original message---- >From : goons@rootsweb.com Date : 23/01/2015 - 11:45 (UTC) To : goons@rootsweb.com Subject : [G] England and Wales, Death Index, 2007-2013 This new Ancestry database is compiled from "various sources" not the GRO Index I searched the 2007-2013 death records for MORCOM* and found 28 results for this seven year period. I then searched, instead, the seven year period from 2000 to 2006 and rlisted a total of 54 MORCOMs. This suggests that the new database has only recorded about half the MORCOM* deaths between 2007 and 2013. Alternatively, could there have been a plague in the last few years which singled out disproportionately those with MORCOM* genes!? Denys THOMAS _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

David Thank you very much for taking the effort. Although it does not specifically resolve the example I quoted, it does set the background to these very useful databases. Brian On 23/01/2015 11:14, David Burgess via wrote: > Brian > > I have been in touch with the Coordinator of the Lancashire Family > History & Heraldry Society (LFHHS) input into LancsBMD. He has seen > your original message. > > This is his response: > "The difference between the GRO Index and LancashireBMD could be due to > an error by the transcriber. > > That said when we commenced the work there were no central guidelines so > it was down to each Society to produce their own guidance notes. > Manchester & Lancashire FHS commenced work first shortly followed by > LFHHS. Our guidelines used the year of registration for births and > deaths. However, we used year of birth rather than registration year for > re-registrations of births as in some cases there was a difference of > several years. I don't know what other societies did. The Wigan FHS > covered the Wigan and Leigh District so I don't know if they used the > year of birth or registration." > > Hope that helps. Maybe a call to the Wigan FHS may help. > > Regards > > David Burgess > > > On 23/1/15 09:13, Brian Horridge via wrote: >> Firstly, thanks to all who have replied so quickly. >> >> I had assumed that the LancsBMD indexes were based on the original books >> and had not considered they may have re-used local indexes created by >> the registrar for their local use. Also, that they were based on the >> date of registration not the date of birth (a viewpoint biased by my >> much greater experience of marriage registers where, in theory, the date >> of event and date of registration is (or should be!!) the same). >> >> It would satisfy my curiosity to have confirmed the origins of LancsBMD >> indexes but the upshot is the same in that we just need to be aware of >> possible discrepancies between different "official" sources. >> >> Again, many thanks >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> On 22/01/2015 22:56, Paul Prescott wrote: >>> Brian: >>> >>> The GRO indexes are indexes of birth registrations, not of births. So >>> a birth that took place in, say, December but was not registered until >>> January or February will appear in the following year's index. >>> >>> I don't know how the LancsBMD entries are indexed, but if they are >>> indexed by the actual date of birth that would explain the apparent >>> discrepancy. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 22 January 2015 at 19:22, Brian Horridge via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>>> I wonder if anyone can help with an oddity I've noticed several times >>>> with the LancsBMD indexes. >>>> >>>> One of the many tasks I'm undertaking is building family trees using >>>> both the GRO indexes and the LancsBMD indexes and therefore >>>> cross-referencing these 2 indexes. In majority of cases, I can match >>>> LancsBMD entries with the GRO index but I have noticed quite a few where >>>> the LancsBMD entry is a year earlier than the equivalent GRO index. I'm >>>> fairly confident they are about the same person due to an non-common >>>> forename and Registration District. >>>> >>>> I understand the LancsBMD entries are taken from the Registrar's >>>> original registers and the GRO indexes are based on the Registrar's >>>> quarterly returns so I would have expected them to be the same. >>>> >>>> One specific example is a Martha Horridge born 1875 (Lancs BMD - >>>> registers at Wigan & Leigh) or Q1 1876 Wigan RD(FBMD/GRO). >>>> >>>> If it was just one or two entries, I could accept they were late >>>> submissions / transcription errors but there have been so many that they >>>> made me notice them. >>>> >>>> I am in no way criticising the excellent effort made by the volunteers >>>> who have done all the effort - I am just trying to understand why there >>>> may be a discrepancy. >>>> >>>> Many thanks >>>> >>>> Brian Horridge >>>> >>>> _____________________________________________ >>>> >>>> RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com 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 GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>

I have gone through my "deaths" taken from the post-2006 GRO indexes and of the 72 entries on the fiche, only 32 of them are in the Ancestry dataset. Saying that, it is useful to have the exact date of death. However, perhaps we should tell the BBC that they are now back in the Home Counties as one entry for 2010 says "Salford, Bedfordshire". Brian On 23/01/2015 11:45, Denys Thomas via wrote: > This new Ancestry database is compiled from "various sources" not the GRO Index > > I searched the 2007-2013 death records for MORCOM* and found 28 > results for this seven year period. I then searched, instead, the > seven year period from 2000 to 2006 and rlisted a total of 54 MORCOMs. > This suggests that the new database has only recorded about half the > MORCOM* deaths between 2007 and 2013. Alternatively, could there have > been a plague in the last few years which singled out > disproportionately those with MORCOM* genes!? > > Denys THOMAS > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

This new Ancestry database is compiled from "various sources" not the GRO Index I searched the 2007-2013 death records for MORCOM* and found 28 results for this seven year period. I then searched, instead, the seven year period from 2000 to 2006 and rlisted a total of 54 MORCOMs. This suggests that the new database has only recorded about half the MORCOM* deaths between 2007 and 2013. Alternatively, could there have been a plague in the last few years which singled out disproportionately those with MORCOM* genes!? Denys THOMAS

Brian I have been in touch with the Coordinator of the Lancashire Family History & Heraldry Society (LFHHS) input into LancsBMD. He has seen your original message. This is his response: "The difference between the GRO Index and LancashireBMD could be due to an error by the transcriber. That said when we commenced the work there were no central guidelines so it was down to each Society to produce their own guidance notes. Manchester & Lancashire FHS commenced work first shortly followed by LFHHS. Our guidelines used the year of registration for births and deaths. However, we used year of birth rather than registration year for re-registrations of births as in some cases there was a difference of several years. I don't know what other societies did. The Wigan FHS covered the Wigan and Leigh District so I don't know if they used the year of birth or registration." Hope that helps. Maybe a call to the Wigan FHS may help. Regards David Burgess On 23/1/15 09:13, Brian Horridge via wrote: > Firstly, thanks to all who have replied so quickly. > > I had assumed that the LancsBMD indexes were based on the original books > and had not considered they may have re-used local indexes created by > the registrar for their local use. Also, that they were based on the > date of registration not the date of birth (a viewpoint biased by my > much greater experience of marriage registers where, in theory, the date > of event and date of registration is (or should be!!) the same). > > It would satisfy my curiosity to have confirmed the origins of LancsBMD > indexes but the upshot is the same in that we just need to be aware of > possible discrepancies between different "official" sources. > > Again, many thanks > > Brian > > > > On 22/01/2015 22:56, Paul Prescott wrote: >> Brian: >> >> The GRO indexes are indexes of birth registrations, not of births. So >> a birth that took place in, say, December but was not registered until >> January or February will appear in the following year's index. >> >> I don't know how the LancsBMD entries are indexed, but if they are >> indexed by the actual date of birth that would explain the apparent >> discrepancy. >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 January 2015 at 19:22, Brian Horridge via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> I wonder if anyone can help with an oddity I've noticed several times >>> with the LancsBMD indexes. >>> >>> One of the many tasks I'm undertaking is building family trees using >>> both the GRO indexes and the LancsBMD indexes and therefore >>> cross-referencing these 2 indexes. In majority of cases, I can match >>> LancsBMD entries with the GRO index but I have noticed quite a few where >>> the LancsBMD entry is a year earlier than the equivalent GRO index. I'm >>> fairly confident they are about the same person due to an non-common >>> forename and Registration District. >>> >>> I understand the LancsBMD entries are taken from the Registrar's >>> original registers and the GRO indexes are based on the Registrar's >>> quarterly returns so I would have expected them to be the same. >>> >>> One specific example is a Martha Horridge born 1875 (Lancs BMD - >>> registers at Wigan & Leigh) or Q1 1876 Wigan RD(FBMD/GRO). >>> >>> If it was just one or two entries, I could accept they were late >>> submissions / transcription errors but there have been so many that they >>> made me notice them. >>> >>> I am in no way criticising the excellent effort made by the volunteers >>> who have done all the effort - I am just trying to understand why there >>> may be a discrepancy. >>> >>> Many thanks >>> >>> Brian Horridge >>> >>> _____________________________________________ >>> >>> RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com 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 GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- David Burgess

Firstly, thanks to all who have replied so quickly. I had assumed that the LancsBMD indexes were based on the original books and had not considered they may have re-used local indexes created by the registrar for their local use. Also, that they were based on the date of registration not the date of birth (a viewpoint biased by my much greater experience of marriage registers where, in theory, the date of event and date of registration is (or should be!!) the same). It would satisfy my curiosity to have confirmed the origins of LancsBMD indexes but the upshot is the same in that we just need to be aware of possible discrepancies between different "official" sources. Again, many thanks Brian On 22/01/2015 22:56, Paul Prescott wrote: > Brian: > > The GRO indexes are indexes of birth registrations, not of births. So > a birth that took place in, say, December but was not registered until > January or February will appear in the following year's index. > > I don't know how the LancsBMD entries are indexed, but if they are > indexed by the actual date of birth that would explain the apparent > discrepancy. > > Paul > > > > > > On 22 January 2015 at 19:22, Brian Horridge via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> I wonder if anyone can help with an oddity I've noticed several times >> with the LancsBMD indexes. >> >> One of the many tasks I'm undertaking is building family trees using >> both the GRO indexes and the LancsBMD indexes and therefore >> cross-referencing these 2 indexes. In majority of cases, I can match >> LancsBMD entries with the GRO index but I have noticed quite a few where >> the LancsBMD entry is a year earlier than the equivalent GRO index. I'm >> fairly confident they are about the same person due to an non-common >> forename and Registration District. >> >> I understand the LancsBMD entries are taken from the Registrar's >> original registers and the GRO indexes are based on the Registrar's >> quarterly returns so I would have expected them to be the same. >> >> One specific example is a Martha Horridge born 1875 (Lancs BMD - >> registers at Wigan & Leigh) or Q1 1876 Wigan RD(FBMD/GRO). >> >> If it was just one or two entries, I could accept they were late >> submissions / transcription errors but there have been so many that they >> made me notice them. >> >> I am in no way criticising the excellent effort made by the volunteers >> who have done all the effort - I am just trying to understand why there >> may be a discrepancy. >> >> Many thanks >> >> Brian Horridge >> >> _____________________________________________ >> >> RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Is it not something as simple as the fact that the LancashireBMD uses actual date of event, and GRO uses quarter of registration? In your example, if Martha Horridge was born late December 1875, it may well have been registered first quarter of 1876. Corinne Curtis #5579 On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Brian Horridge via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I wonder if anyone can help with an oddity I've noticed several times > with the LancsBMD indexes. > > One of the many tasks I'm undertaking is building family trees using > both the GRO indexes and the LancsBMD indexes and therefore > cross-referencing these 2 indexes. In majority of cases, I can match > LancsBMD entries with the GRO index but I have noticed quite a few where > the LancsBMD entry is a year earlier than the equivalent GRO index. I'm > fairly confident they are about the same person due to an non-common > forename and Registration District. > > I understand the LancsBMD entries are taken from the Registrar's > original registers and the GRO indexes are based on the Registrar's > quarterly returns so I would have expected them to be the same. > > One specific example is a Martha Horridge born 1875 (Lancs BMD - > registers at Wigan & Leigh) or Q1 1876 Wigan RD(FBMD/GRO). > > If it was just one or two entries, I could accept they were late > submissions / transcription errors but there have been so many that they > made me notice them. > > I am in no way criticising the excellent effort made by the volunteers > who have done all the effort - I am just trying to understand why there > may be a discrepancy. > > Many thanks > > Brian Horridge > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Brian From my own experience of much the same thing, I suspect that the LancsBMD entries are based on year of birth, but the GRO indices are based on year of registration of the birth. In the example you give, this would fit with Martha being born at some point, probably late, in December 1875, but the birth being registered in January 1876, perhaps only a few days after she was born. Ken Mycock MYCOCK / MICOCK ONS http://www.one-name.org/profiles/mycock/ On 22/01/2015 19:22, Brian Horridge via wrote: > I wonder if anyone can help with an oddity I've noticed several times > with the LancsBMD indexes. > > One of the many tasks I'm undertaking is building family trees using > both the GRO indexes and the LancsBMD indexes and therefore > cross-referencing these 2 indexes. In majority of cases, I can match > LancsBMD entries with the GRO index but I have noticed quite a few where > the LancsBMD entry is a year earlier than the equivalent GRO index. I'm > fairly confident they are about the same person due to an non-common > forename and Registration District. > > I understand the LancsBMD entries are taken from the Registrar's > original registers and the GRO indexes are based on the Registrar's > quarterly returns so I would have expected them to be the same. > > One specific example is a Martha Horridge born 1875 (Lancs BMD - > registers at Wigan & Leigh) or Q1 1876 Wigan RD(FBMD/GRO). > > If it was just one or two entries, I could accept they were late > submissions / transcription errors but there have been so many that they > made me notice them. > > I am in no way criticising the excellent effort made by the volunteers > who have done all the effort - I am just trying to understand why there > may be a discrepancy. > > Many thanks > > Brian Horridge > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Brian: The GRO indexes are indexes of birth registrations, not of births. So a birth that took place in, say, December but was not registered until January or February will appear in the following year's index. I don't know how the LancsBMD entries are indexed, but if they are indexed by the actual date of birth that would explain the apparent discrepancy. Paul On 22 January 2015 at 19:22, Brian Horridge via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I wonder if anyone can help with an oddity I've noticed several times > with the LancsBMD indexes. > > One of the many tasks I'm undertaking is building family trees using > both the GRO indexes and the LancsBMD indexes and therefore > cross-referencing these 2 indexes. In majority of cases, I can match > LancsBMD entries with the GRO index but I have noticed quite a few where > the LancsBMD entry is a year earlier than the equivalent GRO index. I'm > fairly confident they are about the same person due to an non-common > forename and Registration District. > > I understand the LancsBMD entries are taken from the Registrar's > original registers and the GRO indexes are based on the Registrar's > quarterly returns so I would have expected them to be the same. > > One specific example is a Martha Horridge born 1875 (Lancs BMD - > registers at Wigan & Leigh) or Q1 1876 Wigan RD(FBMD/GRO). > > If it was just one or two entries, I could accept they were late > submissions / transcription errors but there have been so many that they > made me notice them. > > I am in no way criticising the excellent effort made by the volunteers > who have done all the effort - I am just trying to understand why there > may be a discrepancy. > > Many thanks > > Brian Horridge > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Brian >From the example you give could they be December 1875 births registered within 42 days in January /Feb 1876 Regards Richard -----Original Message----- From: goons-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:goons-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brian Horridge via Sent: 22 January 2015 19:22 To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: [G] Lancs BMD / GRO indexes oddity I wonder if anyone can help with an oddity I've noticed several times with the LancsBMD indexes. One of the many tasks I'm undertaking is building family trees using both the GRO indexes and the LancsBMD indexes and therefore cross-referencing these 2 indexes. In majority of cases, I can match LancsBMD entries with the GRO index but I have noticed quite a few where the LancsBMD entry is a year earlier than the equivalent GRO index. I'm fairly confident they are about the same person due to an non-common forename and Registration District. I understand the LancsBMD entries are taken from the Registrar's original registers and the GRO indexes are based on the Registrar's quarterly returns so I would have expected them to be the same. One specific example is a Martha Horridge born 1875 (Lancs BMD - registers at Wigan & Leigh) or Q1 1876 Wigan RD(FBMD/GRO). If it was just one or two entries, I could accept they were late submissions / transcription errors but there have been so many that they made me notice them. I am in no way criticising the excellent effort made by the volunteers who have done all the effort - I am just trying to understand why there may be a discrepancy. Many thanks Brian Horridge _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I wonder if anyone can help with an oddity I've noticed several times with the LancsBMD indexes. One of the many tasks I'm undertaking is building family trees using both the GRO indexes and the LancsBMD indexes and therefore cross-referencing these 2 indexes. In majority of cases, I can match LancsBMD entries with the GRO index but I have noticed quite a few where the LancsBMD entry is a year earlier than the equivalent GRO index. I'm fairly confident they are about the same person due to an non-common forename and Registration District. I understand the LancsBMD entries are taken from the Registrar's original registers and the GRO indexes are based on the Registrar's quarterly returns so I would have expected them to be the same. One specific example is a Martha Horridge born 1875 (Lancs BMD - registers at Wigan & Leigh) or Q1 1876 Wigan RD(FBMD/GRO). If it was just one or two entries, I could accept they were late submissions / transcription errors but there have been so many that they made me notice them. I am in no way criticising the excellent effort made by the volunteers who have done all the effort - I am just trying to understand why there may be a discrepancy. Many thanks Brian Horridge

I have seen this too. My assumption is that an event occurring late in the year might not have reached the GRO until after the beginning of the next year. Whereas the local indexes are being created many years after the fact and so are based on the date of registration, without regard to when the returns were sent to the GRO.

I would suggest human error in misreading the date at the top of the page. A badly written 5 can look like 6 and vice versa. Try to check several entries that came before or after the discrepencies to see if they suffer from the same fate. if so, You may need to check the parish registers for baptisms ( if Martha is baptised in 1875 - then the 1876 date is wrong and so on) I came across a census entry once where the transcriber had recorded the census as the wrong year 1910 instead of 1920. I reported it and that entire batch of transcriptions were corrected . Since you say this is occurring for several entries, it could be that the indexer or transcriber just wrote the wrong year on the page and hence the next page and so on Marie (GOONS 5318) Bringing the world together one surname at a time. 'A Pepler Name' http://pepler.tribalpages.com 'Hedgerow - the Ancestors' http://cranberry.tribalpages.com Pepler DNA Study http://www.familytreedna.com/public/pepler-ow/ 'Scroops, Scropes and Scroopes' http://dentonlk.tribalpages.com ________________________________ From: Brian Horridge via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: "goons@rootsweb.com" <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:22 PM Subject: [G] Lancs BMD / GRO indexes oddity I wonder if anyone can help with an oddity I've noticed several times with the LancsBMD indexes. One of the many tasks I'm undertaking is building family trees using both the GRO indexes and the LancsBMD indexes and therefore cross-referencing these 2 indexes. In majority of cases, I can match LancsBMD entries with the GRO index but I have noticed quite a few where the LancsBMD entry is a year earlier than the equivalent GRO index. I'm fairly confident they are about the same person due to an non-common forename and Registration District. I understand the LancsBMD entries are taken from the Registrar's original registers and the GRO indexes are based on the Registrar's quarterly returns so I would have expected them to be the same. One specific example is a Martha Horridge born 1875 (Lancs BMD - registers at Wigan & Leigh) or Q1 1876 Wigan RD(FBMD/GRO). If it was just one or two entries, I could accept they were late submissions / transcription errors but there have been so many that they made me notice them. I am in no way criticising the excellent effort made by the volunteers who have done all the effort - I am just trying to understand why there may be a discrepancy. Many thanks Brian Horridge _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Wendy This is not a GRO death index and strictly I suppose these days it should be IPS Reading the details on the search screen it says "Ancestry.com. England and Wales, Death Index, 2007-2013 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014. Original data: British Death Indexes. Various sources." Regards John Hanson Researcher, The Halsted Trust Website - www.halstedresearch.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: goons-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:goons-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wendy Archer via Sent: 22 January 2015 12:32 To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: [G] GRO death indexes, 2007-2013 The GRO death indexes, 2007-2013, are now online at Ancestry. http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=60630 Wendy _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Obviously not complete as my parents are not there. Robert Yare d 19/3/2008. East Sussex Maude Yare nee Morris d 5/10/2009. East Sussex Brian Yare #5831, studying Yare and variants -----Original Message----- From: goons-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:goons-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wendy Archer via Sent: 22 January 2015 12:32 To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: [G] GRO death indexes, 2007-2013 The GRO death indexes, 2007-2013, are now online at Ancestry. http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=60630 Wendy _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

36th Guild Conference - 27th to 29th March 2015 Forest Pines Hotel & Golf Resort, Near Brigg, Lincolnshire   If you planning to come to our 36th Conference why not book NOW!  Then you can benefit by the Early Bird Discount which runs until Saturday 31sr January.   The programme will consist of: two keynote speakers - Laurence Harris (from My Heritage) and Mark Bayley (from S&N Genealogy); a panel session; a choice of a series of “Tools & Technique” presentations (T&T) or “Interactive Sessions” (IS). The T&T presentations will provide helpful and useful advice on a number of aspects including - Webinairs, Facebook, Wordpress, Publishing options, Cloud software - TNG and Blogs. The IS sessions will provide a 15 minute presentation followed by an interactive session, topics will include - Globalization of your Study, DNA getting started, Forums and Succession proofing your study.   More details about the Conference and a booking form can be found at:   www.one-name.org/conf2015.html   You can register and pay either on line or by printing and submitting a booking form by post.    Do not forget if you book by the 31st January you will get an "Early Bird" discount.   The Conference Organisers can be contacted at:   conference@one-name.org     Peter Hagger & Cliff Kemball Conference Organisers

May I give a gentle reminder that nominations for the Committee must be with me by 12:00 midnight English time please on Wednesday 28 January 2015 Very best wishes, Jan Cooper Secretary - Guild of One-Name Studies www.greathead.org Always searching for Gre(a)(e)t(e)(h)e(a)(e)d's worldwide

I have a collection of topography books for the area where my one-name originated. I have decided to digitise the contents list and selected pages in the form of searchable pdf files and have experimented with different ways to do this. The easiest method so far has been to photograph ("snap" would be a better description) the page using my mobile phone (Galaxy 3) with flash on and without any other lighting. The jpg file was then sent from the camera via my laptop to the free onlineocr.net internet site. The resulting pdf file was sent back almost immediately and it appears to be 100% accurate which I thought very impressive. I picked a page at random for the tests and on reading it I thought the 150 year old words apply equally well today for our ONS if you replace topography with genealogy. The message could be "publish as soon as you have a reasonable amount of material.." The OCR pdf (unchanged from that received from the website) has been converted to plain text for this email. The page was from Moorhouse writing about the Holme valley in Yorkshire: Although it must be admitted that by this plan, many documents of no real importance have been noted, still, on the whole, he believes much interesting matter has been preserved which otherwise might have perished. What was, therefore, first begun to satisfy his own curiosity, at length so far rewarded his researches, and enlisted his sympathies, that at the desire of some of his friends, for whose judgment he felt great deference, he was led, in 1844, to issue a prospectus, with the intention of laying before the public the result of his labours. The public did not then evince much interest in the undertaking, and it was therefore postponed, if not abandoned. It was not till the autumn of 1858 that some of his friends again urged upon him the importance of supplying such a desideratum, and kindly undertook to interest themselves to obtain subscribers among their acquaintance. The question of the intrinsic value of the materials here laid before the public, the Author leaves to the decision of his readers, feeling more solicitous himself respecting a judicious selection and appreciation of them for topographical purposes. While thus engaged, he has experienced much inconvenience and serious disadvantage in being so remote from a good topographical library, to which he could, consequently, only have an occasional access, and for very brief periods. This circumstance must necessarily have rendered his work deficient in literary research and taste, although he believes it has had the effect of stimulating his enquiries, and leading him to rely more upon the result of his own collections of local evidences, which perhaps may be accepted by those of his readers in the district, as compensating to some extent for the deficiency in artistic merit. Humble as his efforts have been, the Author is free to confess that as his enquiries and researches advanced, the subject itself rose in interest and importance ; he trusts that something of this feeling may be excited in his readers; and if the work should in any degree contribute to increase the taste for such enquiries in districts where little has hitherto been done, the Author will feel satisfied. Another remark the Author takes leave to make respecting himself in relation to his topographical labours. He first began to arrange his materials and to give them an historical character, during a period of protracted ill health, when..... John Coldwell 2172

Hi Corinne and Forum members, At 20:34 20/01/2015, Corinne Curtis wrote: >... I am quite happy about the idea of using the structured BMD archive >format for British records, and it looks like the "user defined" >structure can be used for non-british BMD as well as other record >sets. What I am most interested in is whether anyone has set up an >online database of individuals that somehow identifies whether you >have placed them in a reconstructed tree, and if so, who their parents >and/or their earliest known ancestor is? I'm guessing I could do this >in a user-defined database that started a bit like an international >birth record (year of birth, place, parents names) with an added >column for earliest known ancestor, and maybe for place of origin of >earliest known ancestor, and possibly even for my database ref number >(the RIN from legacy)... I did set up a number of online databases in the Guild Online Archive but found the procedure for updating them quite involved and time-consuming. So I reverted to making the spreadsheets in which I was already storing the data available as downloads from my own Cree One-Name Study website at http://www.cree.name. Go to the Lists Section of the site and you will find 23 spreadsheets covering BMDs, immigration and shipping records and newspaper death notices for various countries around the world. I use OpenOffice as my spreadsheet software as it's free and open-source, but save and upload these files as .xls files as that's what most people can use. Each spreadsheet has a green column that does what you have asked about. If the person that line refers to has been entered into the Genelaogy Database then they have a CreeID number and that appears in the green column. (The Cree ID number is the ID number allocated in The Master Genealogist which is my offline genealogy database.) You can do the same in the Guild Online Archive using user-defined databases if you wish but you'll still need to keep spreadsheets on your own computer as backup and to store the data pending updating the GOA. The green column gives a useful and immediate indication of how your family reconstruction is going. I'm particularly pleased with the high rate of reconstruction of Australian dn NZ Cree families - and almost all have been linked with lines in the UK or Ireland. The website has several "Quicksearch" boxes where a CreeID from a spreadsheet can be entered, thence leading to the relevant person details in the Cree Online Genealogy Database. See my article in the current Joiurnal for more details. Best Wishes, Mike Spathaky Cree One-Name Study http://cree.one-name.net