One thing that is driving me over the hill about the new site is: even when I put in places that I know they were, I keep getting dozens of other places--like New England, California, Canada, various places in Europe, which I know very well that they WEREN'T. When we put in the places we know about, why can't that serve as a limiter of the information instead of giving me all that extraneous stuff to wade through. And I still want them to change Raymond Booker to Benjamin Booker in their index. It doesn't look anything like Raymond, and I happen to know that his name was Benjamin (Franklin) Booker, married to Sarah (Ann Sharp). (Stuff in parenthesis not in the census, of course.) When I emailed them they said it couldn't be changed. Well since it's wrong, and since somebody put it up, somebody can certainly figure out how to change it. That stuff is not cast in granite. I thought we were supposed to be making a record fit for the eternities...and they put that kind of stuff out. Almost like the old saying: "close enough for government work." Karen On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Steve Kelsey <[email protected]> wrote: > The church has many records available at the FHL which are not available > online. Does anyone have any idea when > for instance > 1) Great Britain Principal Probate Registry Indexes > 2) Registered wills of Herefordshire Consistory Court > 3) English parish registers(not indexed stuff but the > actual records themselves) > any of these will be online. I am not so interested in indexing but > interested in online access to the records. > > I am also very disappointed with the current revised familysearch site > which for census records clearly bases things on an individual basis rather > than families and yet the family data is there and available. For instance, > searching the 1880 census on the new site and you might get the people in > the residence listed but you do not get the data for each family member > without clicking on each individual in the family to get their birthplace > and relationships. The old site was FAR SUPERIOR to the new one in this > regard. > > Steve Kelsey > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- Finding ancestors is like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one!

did you check combined records to see if it's mismerged record? David Samuelsen On 2/9/2012 6:05 PM, Karen Tippets wrote: > And I still want them to change Raymond Booker to Benjamin Booker in their > index. It doesn't look anything like Raymond, and I happen to know that > his name was Benjamin (Franklin) Booker, married to Sarah (Ann Sharp).

I think you can put your correction in as well, and it will show your input , if the other record doesn't match yours just separate it out from your record.  I have done that several times and it gets rid of the unwanted information.  I may not understand your problem completely, but as I have made changes and it shows everything in order of changes with names of submitters listed at the side. Good Luck, BettyJo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karen Tippets" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:05:42 PM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] record access One thing that is driving me over the hill about the new site is: even when I put in places that I know they were, I keep getting dozens of other places--like New England, California, Canada, various places in Europe, which I know very well that they WEREN'T.  When we put in the places we know about, why can't that serve as a limiter of the information instead of giving me all that extraneous stuff to wade through. And I still want them to change Raymond Booker to Benjamin Booker in their index.  It doesn't look anything like Raymond, and I happen to know that his name was Benjamin (Franklin) Booker, married to Sarah (Ann Sharp). (Stuff in parenthesis not in the census, of course.)  When I emailed them they said it couldn't be changed.  Well since it's wrong, and since somebody put it up, somebody can certainly figure out how to change it.  That stuff is not cast in granite.  I thought we were supposed to be making a record fit for the eternities...and they put that kind of stuff out.  Almost like the old saying: "close enough for government work." Karen On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Steve Kelsey <[email protected]> wrote: > The church has many records available at the FHL which are not available > online.  Does anyone have any idea when > for instance > 1) Great Britain Principal Probate Registry Indexes > 2) Registered wills of Herefordshire Consistory Court > 3) English parish registers(not indexed stuff but the > actual records themselves) > any of these will be online.  I am not so interested in indexing but > interested in online access to the records. > > I am also very disappointed with the current revised familysearch site > which for census records clearly bases things on an individual basis rather > than families and yet the family data is there and available.  For instance, > searching the 1880 census on the new site and you might get the people in > the residence  listed but you do not get the data for each family member > without clicking on each individual in the family to get their birthplace > and relationships.  The old site was FAR SUPERIOR to the new one in this > regard. > > Steve Kelsey > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- Finding ancestors is like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one! Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- 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