Hello Everybody, Further to Eve's message, clipped hereunder, a British subscription gives access to World databases indices but to get the full details a World subscription is required. I have just been looking at Ireland, Australia/New Zealand and U.S.A. Regards, Rod. -----Original Message----- From: middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of eve via Sent: 16 March 2015 12:55 To: Brad Rogers via; Brad Rogers; middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MDX] FindMyPast --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

Hi Pauline To my mind I don't think its a problem of ease of access as that still presents many problems, although in some areas of the country its getting better (but we always want more don't we) No, I think its more the ease that people have in sucking up information into their trees that is more of a problem, they find a person who *might* fit their requirements so with a click of the mouse they are in, often followed by a string of others similarly linked because they *look about right* To me its lack of care that is the problem mostly I was once told that a person was added to a tree "just to see what happened" , I was told that "I am sure someone will tell me if its wrong" So its little wonder that some trees are a little shaky at the roots It seems that quantity is the favoured factor, rather than quality I don't blame the big companies (before someone throws that in :-) as they can hardly be expected to tell prospective customers they will be at it for years, never finish and have much grief in the process of compiling their tree <g> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 16/03/2015 14:30, Pauline Taylor wrote: > Hi Nivard, > > Basically I agree with you but I think that this ease of access to some > information on these sites is what the problem is for beginners. We, in > those good old days, soon learnt how, why, when and where to look for > things, and we did not expect instant answers, now, it seems everything is > expected to be available online when we want it to be, but, unfortunately, > it isn't, and it never will be. Thank heaven, say I, for people like you on > the Lists who will always try to help when we get stuck. > > For me it is the pleasure of the hunt which keeps me interested in research, > if it all magically appeared overnight without any work or effort I would be > bitterly disappointed. > > Pauline.

Hi Nivard, Basically I agree with you but I think that this ease of access to some information on these sites is what the problem is for beginners. We, in those good old days, soon learnt how, why, when and where to look for things, and we did not expect instant answers, now, it seems everything is expected to be available online when we want it to be, but, unfortunately, it isn't, and it never will be. Thank heaven, say I, for people like you on the Lists who will always try to help when we get stuck. For me it is the pleasure of the hunt which keeps me interested in research, if it all magically appeared overnight without any work or effort I would be bitterly disappointed. Pauline. -----Original Message----- From: middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via Sent: 16 March 2015 13:41 To: middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MDX] FindMyPast Erm......well........no :-) I do not for one instant miss the 40 mile round trip it once took to find out one GRO index reference, neither do I miss the time and expense it took to get there and back, park and then hope to find the reference, or the cost of sending a cheque and request in and the wait for a certificate, sometimes to find they couldn't find it or it didn't match your criteria so a partial refund and start all over again I can now look the GRO reference up in seconds on various sites in the tine it takes to boil a kettle, then order it online, all without facing the splendid weather we have from time to time <g> Good old days ? Methinks not, for the most part ! Short memories and rose tinted spectacles ? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 16/03/2015 13:28, Sheila Tutton via wrote: > Graham Price is right, a lot of us old timers were much happier with a pad > and pencil at our LDS library and a nice neat filing system at home. It was > very cheap too with 5 to 10 other kind people around you who could help with > bad or faint writing and very free with their knowledge. Our local branch > had a large library of maps & books and would also phone you when the film > you had ordered came in. > > They were the good old days. > > Sheila > NSW > Australia . ************************************** Send your List messages using *PLAIN TEXT* and always *DELETE* all previous messages EXCEPT the one to which you are replying. *MEANINGFUL Subject Lines* ie name or topic, date and place with surnames only in CAPS. List Admin can be contacted at: Middlesex_County_UK-admin@rootsweb.com The List Archive, containing all messages posted, can be found at: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=middlesex_county_uk . ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

At 01:02 PM 16/03/2015, Charani via wrote: >There are a quite a few researchers on this list who started their >research in record offices, handling original document and registers >without gloves(!), all pre internet and personal computers. And through the LDS folk in their libraries with ORIGINAL registers on microfilm and microfiche! Lovely days of harmony with like minded souls on seats beside you, and now and then a shout "Gotcha!" And everyone laughed and clapped. That doesn't happen with one person at home on the internet. > > I have this niggling suspicious that if a site is working well, then the > > programmers feel nervous that they might become redundant - so why not > > create future employment for themselves by complicating the search, so they > > will be called back to put it 'right' > >You could well be right :) Oh, I think those are words of wisdom. It certainly explains the very many changes in websites, which to us long term genies who have done the hard slogs, simply do not seem necessary. Basics are what everyone needs and frills don't really count. LOL Graham Melbourne, Oz

I never had the long round trip, nor parking problem, as I lived in London and used public transport - but OH those hefty index books - never want to lift another of those again in my life! Ems On 16 Mar 2015, at 13:40, Nivard Ovington via wrote: > Erm......well........no :-) > > I do not for one instant miss the 40 mile round trip it once took to > find out one GRO index reference,

On 15/03/2015 11:34, Brad Rogers via wrote: > Ireland (Eire) isn't part of the UK. I know it isn't but I wanted somewhere that IS part of the UK but not Middx, so off topic for this list. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

Erm......well........no :-) I do not for one instant miss the 40 mile round trip it once took to find out one GRO index reference, neither do I miss the time and expense it took to get there and back, park and then hope to find the reference, or the cost of sending a cheque and request in and the wait for a certificate, sometimes to find they couldn't find it or it didn't match your criteria so a partial refund and start all over again I can now look the GRO reference up in seconds on various sites in the tine it takes to boil a kettle, then order it online, all without facing the splendid weather we have from time to time <g> Good old days ? Methinks not, for the most part ! Short memories and rose tinted spectacles ? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 16/03/2015 13:28, Sheila Tutton via wrote: > Graham Price is right, a lot of us old timers were much happier with a pad > and pencil at our LDS library and a nice neat filing system at home. It was > very cheap too with 5 to 10 other kind people around you who could help with > bad or faint writing and very free with their knowledge. Our local branch > had a large library of maps & books and would also phone you when the film > you had ordered came in. > > They were the good old days. > > Sheila > NSW > Australia

> >No wonder Brad and I got different results. Being in the UK and > >looking for a UK record, it makes sense (to me at least) to look in > > Ireland (Eire) isn't part of the UK. > > But yes, that certainly explains the difference in result. I was > looking under World, FMP have sneakily separated out Irish records (even those belonging to the period before 1921) from 'British ' records, with the idea of getting extra money in subscriptions for their 'World' option. So even a knowledge of history does not help. In fact, there are a lot of good reasons for avoiding supping with the devil, however long your spoon. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

I do agree with you on the need to learn some historical background about the places and times you're researching. It makes your research more relevant and you might pick up on some items that you would have missed if you hadn't known the historical (and geographical ) context. Jeanette -----Original Message----- From: Emscote via Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:25 AM To: Brad Rogers ; middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MDX] FindMyPast Your points are valid and correct, BUT surely anyone doing historical research must learn the history of the region in which they have an interest? Otherwise how come some of the Aussies know they need to look at UK or Ireland records for their families? Indeed many Aussies have roots in different parts of Europe with no connection at all to UK or Ireland.

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:24:02 +1100 Graham Price via <middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: Hello Graham, >Oh, I think those are words of wisdom. It certainly explains the very >many changes in websites, which to us long term genies who have done There are other factors involved, I'm sure. Yes, there's the self-interest of the programmers, companies wanting a new "identity", the ability to use new technologies, etc. but sometimes there's legislation: Web sites in the UK are supposed to be 'accessible', meaning that being partially sighted or having limited dexterity should not be a bar to access. Of course, the way some sites go about implementing such legislation can leave something to be desired for the rest of us. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" I'll be the rubbish you'll be the bin Love Song - The Damned

Graham your reply made me smile. I am sat in a good ole LDS family history library right now. And we still have the - "Lovely days of harmony with like minded souls on seats beside you, and now and then a shout "Gotcha!" And everyone laughed and clapped." happen from time to time. Although most people are on computers. Regards Caroline -----Original Message----- From: Graham Price via <middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com> To: middlesex_county_uk <middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:31 Subject: Re: [MDX] FindMyPast At 01:02 PM 16/03/2015, Charani via wrote: >There are a quite a few researchers on this list who started their >research in record offices, handling original document and registers >without gloves(!), all pre internet and personal computers. And through the LDS folk in their libraries with ORIGINAL registers on microfilm and microfiche! Lovely days of harmony with like minded souls on seats beside you, and now and then a shout "Gotcha!" And everyone laughed and clapped. That doesn't happen with one person at home on the internet. > > I have this niggling suspicious that if a site is working well, then the > > programmers feel nervous that they might become redundant - so why not > > create future employment for themselves by complicating the search, so they > > will be called back to put it 'right' > >You could well be right :) Oh, I think those are words of wisdom. It certainly explains the very many changes in websites, which to us long term genies who have done the hard slogs, simply do not seem necessary. Basics are what everyone needs and frills don't really count. LOL Graham Melbourne, Oz . ************************************** Send your List messages using *PLAIN TEXT* and always *DELETE* all previous messages EXCEPT the one to which you are replying. *MEANINGFUL Subject Lines* ie name or topic, date and place with surnames only in CAPS. List Admin can be contacted at: Middlesex_County_UK-admin@rootsweb.com The List Archive, containing all messages posted, can be found at: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=middlesex_county_uk . ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 15/03/2015 12:12, eve via wrote: > Well put - and it is rather insulting to imply that any critics must be > 'inexperienced'. Thank you :) There are a quite a few researchers on this list who started their research in record offices, handling original document and registers without gloves(!), all pre internet and personal computers. > I have this niggling suspicious that if a site is working well, then the > programmers feel nervous that they might become redundant - so why not > create future employment for themselves by complicating the search, so they > will be called back to put it 'right' You could well be right :) -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

On 15/03/2015 14:28, Clensham via wrote: > So how do all these ignorant people come to terms with having to go > to Scotland's People? Scottish records generally unavailable on > either Ancestry or FMP. Scotland's People is owned by BrightSolid* who also own FMP, so those records are unlikely to be on Ancestry for a long time. I would imagine they aren't on FMP for economic reasons. They make more money by having two sites, esp as Scotland's People doesn't offer a sub the way FMP does. I'd like to see both sites sharing the data they have but that's as likely to happen as there being harmony and no fighting anywhere on the planet for a decade - and that is NOT a topic for discussion folks :) At least not here :) -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

James Thomas PLATTS & Elizabeth KENNEDY married.1834 at St James Westminster which is where he was baptised Can someone please look at the image and see who the witnesses were, trying to see if it might be my man Sue

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:28:24 +0000 Clensham <clensham@btinternet.com> wrote: Hello Clensham, >So how do all these ignorant people come to terms with having to go to >Scotland's People? Scottish records generally unavailable on either >Ancestry or FMP. In the same way that they get used to going to FMP for some records and Ancestry (or the Genealogist, etc, etc.) for certain others. Geography is irrelevant when it comes to web sites. In fact, one cold argue that having the data so easily available via the internet makes it much easier for people to retain their ignorance of geography, history and political borders. Admittedly, with companies fudging the data they have to appear as though it refers to places that it doesn't apply to, fuelling that ignorance. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Kill joy, bad guy, big talking, small fry Death On Two Legs - Queen

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:25:40 +0000 Emscote <emscote82@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Emscote, >Your points are valid and correct, BUT surely anyone doing historical >research must learn the history of the region in which they have an You'd hope. And many do, I'm sure. >become experienced fairly quickly. The onus here is for companies to >provide easy and simple access to all their records regardless of the >expertise of their users. Which is why they go for the simplest option; Cater for the new customer. Make it too hard and they'll go away. Never to pay FMP (or whoever) any money again. Those of us that pay year after year are of no concern to these companies. They want NEW subscribers. New money. Why do you think they all offer incentives to newcomers? Rhetorical question. Not just family history companies either, it applies everywhere. >understand the records they have - Derbyshire Registrars Index provided >by Derbyshire FHS is NOT parish records but the local GRO 1837+ >records - putting them in with parish records just because the index Bugs me too, but they're not alone in doing that. The latest one I know of was Ancestry claiming GRO death index sets that they haven't got; It was stuff gleaned from various data-mining companies. >As for your story about the taxi driver - maybe he wasn't interested in >researching family history? Andy Murray had a similar problem with a Probably not, but so what? The point is that people, in general, don't know or care enough about such things. I should have been clear on that - I was making generalisations. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Well well well, you just can't tell My Michelle - Guns 'N' Roses

So how do all these ignorant people come to terms with having to go to Scotland's People? Scottish records generally unavailable on either Ancestry or FMP. Jay On 15 Mar 2015, at 13:24, Brad Rogers via wrote: > On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:57:55 +0000 > Emscote <emscote82@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Emscote, > >> But Ireland WAS part of the same governmental organisation (like Wales >> and Scotland) until 1920s, therefore if one is looking for records > > You and I, plus many others here, know that, but do you expect the world > at large to know? I certainly don't. > > I acknowledge what you go on to say (regarding separate sites & cost > plans) but I don't think that's the only reason for separating Irish > records in this way. > > As an example of what the rest of the world may think; > > A British group of musicians (Gang of Four, for those that wish to know) > are currently on tour in the USA. One of their number is a Scot. Three > nights ago, they had cause to get a cab. The driver asked the Scot > where he's from. > "Scotland" came the answer. > "You speak pretty good English", said the driver. > The driver's comment /could/ have been a dig at the Scottish accent, but > it's more likely that he had no idea that the mother tongue of Scotland > is English. After all, to many foreigners, the distinction between > England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and The United Kingdom > is non-existent. It's all "England" to them. > > The point being, foreigners are unlikely to know, understand or even > care about the UK's history enough to distinguish what records should be > where based on political, rather than geographic, divisions in the past > and present. > > -- > Regards _

Your points are valid and correct, BUT surely anyone doing historical research must learn the history of the region in which they have an interest? Otherwise how come some of the Aussies know they need to look at UK or Ireland records for their families? Indeed many Aussies have roots in different parts of Europe with no connection at all to UK or Ireland. The information providers (Ancestry/FMP/S&N etc) should not assume that all their users are beginners. Some of us have been doing this research for decades - long before they came into the picture - and even relative newcomers, encouraged by the existence of those providers, become experienced fairly quickly. The onus here is for companies to provide easy and simple access to all their records regardless of the expertise of their users. One of my several black marks against FMP is their inability to understand the records they have - Derbyshire Registrars Index provided by Derbyshire FHS is NOT parish records but the local GRO 1837+ records - putting them in with parish records just because the index was produced by an FHS is foolish and ignorant. I keep hoping FMP will learn ... As for your story about the taxi driver - maybe he wasn't interested in researching family history? Andy Murray had a similar problem with a reporter some time ago - again not a family history interview. Just because some folks are ignorant is no excuse for ignorance when one is researching in a particular geographical area - the onus there is on the researcher to learn about that area. Gen On 15 Mar 2015, at 13:24, Brad Rogers via wrote: > On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:57:55 +0000 > Emscote <emscote82@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Emscote, > >> But Ireland WAS part of the same governmental organisation (like Wales >> and Scotland) until 1920s, therefore if one is looking for records > > You and I, plus many others here, know that, but do you expect the world > at large to know? I certainly don't. > > I acknowledge what you go on to say (regarding separate sites & cost > plans) but I don't think that's the only reason for separating Irish > records in this way. > > As an example of what the rest of the world may think; > > A British group of musicians (Gang of Four, for those that wish to know) > are currently on tour in the USA. One of their number is a Scot. Three > nights ago, they had cause to get a cab. The driver asked the Scot > where he's from. > "Scotland" came the answer. > "You speak pretty good English", said the driver. > The driver's comment /could/ have been a dig at the Scottish accent, but > it's more likely that he had no idea that the mother tongue of Scotland > is English. After all, to many foreigners, the distinction between > England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and The United Kingdom > is non-existent. It's all "England" to them. > > The point being, foreigners are unlikely to know, understand or even > care about the UK's history enough to distinguish what records should be > where based on political, rather than geographic, divisions in the past > and present. > > -- > Regards _ > / ) "The blindingly obvious is > / _)rad never immediately apparent" > When I say ugly, I don't mean rough looking, I mean hideous > Ugly - The Stranglers > . > ************************************** > Send your List messages using *PLAIN TEXT* and always *DELETE* all previous messages EXCEPT the one to which you are replying. > > *MEANINGFUL Subject Lines* ie name or topic, date and place with surnames only in CAPS. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Middlesex_County_UK-admin@rootsweb.com > > The List Archive, containing all messages posted, can be found at: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=middlesex_county_uk > > . > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:57:55 +0000 Emscote <emscote82@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Emscote, >But Ireland WAS part of the same governmental organisation (like Wales >and Scotland) until 1920s, therefore if one is looking for records You and I, plus many others here, know that, but do you expect the world at large to know? I certainly don't. I acknowledge what you go on to say (regarding separate sites & cost plans) but I don't think that's the only reason for separating Irish records in this way. As an example of what the rest of the world may think; A British group of musicians (Gang of Four, for those that wish to know) are currently on tour in the USA. One of their number is a Scot. Three nights ago, they had cause to get a cab. The driver asked the Scot where he's from. "Scotland" came the answer. "You speak pretty good English", said the driver. The driver's comment /could/ have been a dig at the Scottish accent, but it's more likely that he had no idea that the mother tongue of Scotland is English. After all, to many foreigners, the distinction between England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and The United Kingdom is non-existent. It's all "England" to them. The point being, foreigners are unlikely to know, understand or even care about the UK's history enough to distinguish what records should be where based on political, rather than geographic, divisions in the past and present. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" When I say ugly, I don't mean rough looking, I mean hideous Ugly - The Stranglers

But Ireland WAS part of the same governmental organisation (like Wales and Scotland) until 1920s, therefore if one is looking for records before that date then one might expect to find them in the UK site. Trouble is FMP apparently agreed to separate Ireland from UK in order to have another website (and originally I believe a different subscription plan), and I Ireland governmental organisation today look on family history (and related records) as part of the tourist and heritage push. Gen On 15 Mar 2015, at 11:34, Brad Rogers via wrote: > On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 11:31:25 +0000 > Charani via <middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hello Charani, > >> No wonder Brad and I got different results. Being in the UK and >> looking for a UK record, it makes sense (to me at least) to look in > > Ireland (Eire) isn't part of the UK. > > But yes, that certainly explains the difference in result. I was > looking under World, but it works equally well by selecting Ireland.