On 15/03/2015 11:56, Nivard Ovington via wrote: > The reason it comes under Worldwide databases is its an Irish database > > It comes up under Ireland or Worldwide Ah, right. It wouldn't be a great deal of help to me then. It's English counties I'm after. > Each time you go back in FMP it defaults to worldwide when you have a > worldwide subscription which can be a bit annoying but sometimes finds > databases like this one you weren't expecting to find But not helpful, esp if you don't know what's what until you start searching it. > As far as I know the Origins site only ever had this database for Tithes They did have others I'm sure. The Genealogist is now getting them county by county. > As others have said, start with an individual database and drill down in > that rather than the shot gun approach Scatter shot can work too :) Real life takes up too much time for me to spend drilling down, down, deeper on down, esp when it didn't used to be necessary. > The New New search is lacking a keyword box, it does pick up some > keywords in the blank box but not all Get one bit right, get one that was right wrong :( -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

> They only have one dataset with tithe in the title, anyway: > > The 1831 Tithe defaulters Isn't that the IRISH tithe defaulters?. The Genealogist now had Tithe Maps for England (not yet investigated but souns very useful to more people. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

We all(1) hate it when they do that. > > > > (1) Well, a lot of us. > > I think when someone subscribes to a new site, there's an expectation > of a learning curve, that the search engine is not going to be like a > more familiar one. Well put - and it is rather insulting to imply that any critics must be 'inexperienced'. It's when an old favourite radically changes their > site for no apparent reason, that's when, as you say, many get upset. exactly - the 'no apparent reason' is the ppoint. > > Sometimes I think it's the /firm/ that gets bored with the look of the > site, forgetting the /users/ probably aren't. 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' EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

> > Like many others, I didn't like the new search at FMP (even after > tweaking, I agree it *still* has too much white space), but having > adjusted to it a bit, I now find Ancestry's search that requires > interminable tweaks, checks, ticks and caveats just to get only UK > results a right royal PITA to use. It's simple -just put 'England' or 'Scotland' or even 'United kingdom' in the box marked 'location'. That cuts out all the irrelevant stuff from American sources. Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

The reason it comes under Worldwide databases is its an Irish database It comes up under Ireland or Worldwide Each time you go back in FMP it defaults to worldwide when you have a worldwide subscription which can be a bit annoying but sometimes finds databases like this one you weren't expecting to find As far as I know the Origins site only ever had this database for Tithes I don't think there will be just one worldwide subscription as they like to charge differing amounts for the various countries or worldwide I have been using the worldwide for quite a time so was used to its foibles before the UK version went over to the same As others have said, start with an individual database and drill down in that rather than the shot gun approach The New New search is lacking a keyword box, it does pick up some keywords in the blank box but not all The way they collect certain data together is the worst problem (ie GRO index with baptisms) Also you are never quite sure what is in a database until you get deeper into it, the A to Z of databases doesn't tell you if its a transcription only or with images etc Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > 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 > the UK databases. The default is World which is one of the reasons > why I get the impression there'll be a single sub to World records > only eventually.

On 15 Mar 2015, at 11:38, Charani via wrote: > > Prior to the "improvements" to the site, most of the relevant search > boxes were visible on the screen without the need to scroll down so > much. It was more condensed with less white space. To me, it was neater. > I have found that the only way to remove a lot of the white space is to make the window bigger! I use a 13inch Macbook and Safari browser, as far as I can tell the new "improved" layout on FMP (and probably other FH sites etc) is to do with their making their sites suitable/user friendly for tablet-users. One other example was Argos, which for a while seemed to have a tablet friendly layout totally unsuitable for a "proper" computer. I need to have three programs running simultaneously, browser, wp and fh prog (Reunion in my case), therefore the windows I have within my 13 inch screen are quite small. Using FMP means I have to overlay browser window onto either wp or fh window - irritating. AND by the time I have NOT found what I want on FMP this means that despite having a world sub I use it rarely. Not financially viable for long term sub. Gen > -- > Charani (UK) > OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, > Greinton and Clutton, SOM > http://wsom-opc.org.uk >

On 14/03/2015 16:42, Jean Williams via wrote: > I am not sure what you mean exactly by increasing the size as I never use > FMP apart from the recent free trial. However, are you aware that, if you > hold the ctrl key on your keyboard and roll the wheel on the mouse (or > laptop equivalent) you can increase or decrease the size of the font on any > web page? > > Sorry for interfering if this isn't what you meant. You weren't interfering. It's a valid suggestion that some people may not be aware of. Prior to the "improvements" to the site, most of the relevant search boxes were visible on the screen without the need to scroll down so much. It was more condensed with less white space. To me, it was neater. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

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. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Keep your drink just give em the money U & Ur Hand - P!nk

On 14/03/2015 21:39, Alison Wilson via wrote: > I think I found the Tithe dataset Charani was looking for. > > I found it under A-Z databases "world" and typed in either 1831 or tithe > - and there it is ! > > If you look under A-Z databases UK and type in either 1831 or tithe - > it doesn't appear. Thank you! :) 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 the UK databases. The default is World which is one of the reasons why I get the impression there'll be a single sub to World records only eventually. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

On 14/03/2015 21:47, Jeanette deMontalk via wrote: > Oh, what is the 1939 register? It's the 1939 National Registration and it's available now. It's not as good as a census but it's the next best thing, esp as there was no 1941 census and the 1921 won't be available until 4 Jan 2022. If you really wanted information from it before FMP releases it, you can apply to the NHS (since it was used as the basis of the National Health Insurance cards) for the info but there's a hefty fee charged. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

I find that I need to use both Ancestry and FMP - but as I've already done the bulk of my family tree for London, I can usually find what I want through the versions held at my local library, or on the odd free weekend. I'm now looking at French and Dutch records, and FMP doesn't have any, while Ancestry does have a few. I need both Westminster and LMA records!! I find both search engines very clunky after using university-library type ones in my job, but you can play round until you are getting the results you want. Search broadly, including selecting a "name variants" search, and then narrow your results by selecting filters such as date, locality, and type of record. Admittedly this works best for names that aren't too common. Don't forget that you can sometimes find the same records on familysearch, or on FreeBMD. If they are mistranscribed on one site, they might be correct on another!! And FMP does have a link to the old search. Oh, what is the 1939 register? Jeanette A choice between Ancestry and FMP is not an option for Internet-based research on most London ancestors. Although both providers have all the relevant censuses and transcriptions of the GRO indices, most of the rest of the data they carry is not duplicated. Most of the parish registers (as well as other important local resources) we need are in either the LMA or the Westminster Archives. The former did a deal with Ancestry, the latter with FMP. The Westminster parishes are obviously fewer in number but they served a very large population. Although a subscription to both at the same time is not feasible for many, it is no good pretending that it is simply a matter of choosing one's favourite, like deciding between IE and Chrome. Both companies have, over the last two years, made "improvements" to their websites. The main purpose of these changes has been to promote what I call the "sausage machine model" of family history - i.e. you enter some names, dates and places into boxes and, hey presto, a family tree is generated at the other end. It is true that such a crude tool can actually work in some cases but families, and history, are most of the time more complicated. The most effective way to use these sites has always been to regard them as an online library. To get the best out of this (and any other) library you need (a) knowledge of the historical context and the various records that exist; (b) some effective finding aids to speed up the process; and (c) the engagement and utilisation of the impressive processing power of the human brain. In most cases, looking at one dataset ("book", in the library analogy) at a time is more effective than flipping through a pile of them. Using Ancestry like a library is still marginally easier than FMP because (a) the "card catalogue" is easier to use to find individual datasets; (b) you can quickly and easily compile a list of the ones you use most often, via the Quick Links facility; and (c) they have chosen to credit their subscribers with a little respect by assuming they can read grown up sized type, and can therefore present a lot more information on one page. As I said, it's not quite as simple as "you pays your money and you takes your choice". Most London researchers will want/need both at some point. FMP has got its hands on the 1939 Register (release date not announced yet but probably end of this year or beginning of next) which should keep it solvent for a long time, despite its inadequacies! Caroline . ************************************** 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

List, I think I found the Tithe dataset Charani was looking for. I found it under A-Z databases "world" and typed in either 1831 or tithe - and there it is ! If you look under A-Z databases UK and type in either 1831 or tithe - it doesn't appear. Alison:-) Sydney Australia -------------------------------------- On 15-March-2015 1:32 AM, Brad Rogers via wrote: > On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 14:25:18 +0000 > Charani via <middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hello Charani, > >> On 14/03/2015 12:36, Brad Rogers via wrote: >>> Possibly you're looking for 'tithe' in the wrong place. If you want >> I went to the A-Z of databases put "Tithe" in the search box and got > Okay; I wasn't sure where you were looking. > >> zilch. > No idea what happened there, then. :-( > >

As I started this discussion I thought I would say the point I was trying to make is If you put a search in even if you narrow it down to a one year census search FMP still wasn't coming up with people like Ancestry was & as I was searching for details of which I had so knew they were there so comparing the two I find that FMP don't come up with results like Ancestry & had I not known they were there & only looked on FMP I would may have given up the way they have their results are very poor compared to ancestry they may very well have the records but trying to find them is another story What I have had to do is look on Ancestry to narrow down then ones I wish to look at as I don't have subscription for Ancestry I then have to try to get the same ones come up on FMP this is something I don't think I should be doing just to find information that already on their site but their results don't come up with it unless I have nearly got every thing Regards Janice

To add my sixpence worth: One minor advantage FMP has over A*Y is the ability to SORT the results into some sort of order of use to the user, rather than relevant to the programmer. I do hate the clunkiness of looking for newspapers on FMP - after every filter added it goes and does a search; and if you want a second search there doesn't seem to be an easy way to remove the filters and begin again. Why can't it be like the BNA site or the other site for British Papers through the Gale Group where you can put in all the filters and then let it search - much more efficient. I hate the way FMP automatcially saves everything you've ever looked at - I think I have 280 pages! of meaningless stuff accumulating like carpet fluff. But both sites do have some useful datasets - especially if it's not feasible to travel to the record office which holds the originals. I do prefer the way FMP sets out its census transcripts, much easier to copy and paste from that format than from A*Y - but the layout of transcripts of other datasets takes up way too much space and at times doesn't seem to be in a logical order. And while not liking the look and workings of the "new and improved" FMP site, another gripe is that their A-Z record sets don't give enough information as to dates the dataset covers or even what county some datasets are - non UK residents aren't always au fait with what town/village is in which county. Nor are FMP even in the race when it comes to giving source citations - both A*Y and familysearch run rings around them, both of these giving really good source citations. Also both FMP and A*Y every couple of months make the assumption that because I live in Australia I must automatically want Australian records and try to re-direct me to that part of the site, even though I have a purely UK subscription. Never seems to occur to them many Australians (and New Zealanders/Canadians/Americans etc) have ancestors in UK and elsewhere - except when they try to encourage us to take out a worldwide subscription. Overall though whoever does their transcriptions seems more accurate than whoever does them for A*Y; and FMP seems faster, generally, in applying amendments. Also have just found FMP has re-ticked the "auto renew" option in my account - which I have had unticked for quite a long time. Not happy with that. Off soapbox. Alison :-) Sydney Australia --------------------------

Can someone please lookup Theophilus GOODWIN in the 1871 Census Born 1808 Middlesex, England Wife Mary Ann living ? London or Middlesex Helen

On 14/03/2015 14:32, Brad Rogers via wrote: > Ultimately, no matter which company one uses, be it Ancestry, FMP, > Genealogist, etc. I suspect that, when it comes to using the search > forms on other sites, they're quite likely to feel cumbersome. Due, of > course, to lack of familiarity. Obviously, the same applies when > companies update their own forms. We all(1) hate it when they do that. > > (1) Well, a lot of us. I think when someone subscribes to a new site, there's an expectation of a learning curve, that the search engine is not going to be like a more familiar one. It's when an old favourite radically changes their site for no apparent reason, that's when, as you say, many get upset. Sometimes I think it's the /firm/ that gets bored with the look of the site, forgetting the /users/ probably aren't. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:46:58 +0000 Charani via <middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: Hello Charani, >Sometimes I think it's the /firm/ that gets bored with the look of the >site, forgetting the /users/ probably aren't. Undoubtedly, that's part of it, too. After all, web technology, like anything else, changes over time. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" You couldn't find your feet, if you were looking for them I Don't Like You - Stiff Little Fingers

Hi Charani I am not sure what you mean exactly by increasing the size as I never use FMP apart from the recent free trial. However, are you aware that, if you hold the ctrl key on your keyboard and roll the wheel on the mouse (or laptop equivalent) you can increase or decrease the size of the font on any web page? Sorry for interfering if this isn't what you meant. Jean -----Original Message----- From: middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charani via Sent: 14 March 2015 14:25 To: middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MDX] FindMyPast They need to have the search pages with all the boxes on one page and an option at the top to increase the size if required. I've seen plenty of sites that offer that option. Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4306/9298 - Release Date: 03/14/15

On 14/03/2015 15:38, Caroline Bradford via wrote: > I hope I can earn the indulgence of the List Admin by prefacing my > two pennorth with a Middlesex-related point. 8>< > As I said, it's not quite as simple as "you pays your money and you > takes your choice". Most London researchers will want/need both at > some point. FMP has got its hands on the 1939 Register (release > date not announced yet but probably end of this year or beginning > of next) which should keep it solvent for a long time, despite its > inadequacies! Elegantly put, Caroline :) As far as the 1939 Register is concerned, I don't think we'll see it much before the latter half of next year - unless FMP have changed the habit of proclaiming one date but not producing until some time rather later. <<<< exit to Cynics & Sceptics Anonymous meeting ;) -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

I hope I can earn the indulgence of the List Admin by prefacing my two pennorth with a Middlesex-related point. A choice between Ancestry and FMP is not an option for Internet-based research on most London ancestors. Although both providers have all the relevant censuses and transcriptions of the GRO indices, most of the rest of the data they carry is not duplicated. Most of the parish registers (as well as other important local resources) we need are in either the LMA or the Westminster Archives. The former did a deal with Ancestry, the latter with FMP. The Westminster parishes are obviously fewer in number but they served a very large population. Although a subscription to both at the same time is not feasible for many, it is no good pretending that it is simply a matter of choosing one's favourite, like deciding between IE and Chrome. Both companies have, over the last two years, made "improvements" to their websites. The main purpose of these changes has been to promote what I call the "sausage machine model" of family history - i.e. you enter some names, dates and places into boxes and, hey presto, a family tree is generated at the other end. It is true that such a crude tool can actually work in some cases but families, and history, are most of the time more complicated. The most effective way to use these sites has always been to regard them as an online library. To get the best out of this (and any other) library you need (a) knowledge of the historical context and the various records that exist; (b) some effective finding aids to speed up the process; and (c) the engagement and utilisation of the impressive processing power of the human brain. In most cases, looking at one dataset ("book", in the library analogy) at a time is more effective than flipping through a pile of them. Using Ancestry like a library is still marginally easier than FMP because (a) the "card catalogue" is easier to use to find individual datasets; (b) you can quickly and easily compile a list of the ones you use most often, via the Quick Links facility; and (c) they have chosen to credit their subscribers with a little respect by assuming they can read grown up sized type, and can therefore present a lot more information on one page. As I said, it's not quite as simple as "you pays your money and you takes your choice". Most London researchers will want/need both at some point. FMP has got its hands on the 1939 Register (release date not announced yet but probably end of this year or beginning of next) which should keep it solvent for a long time, despite its inadequacies! Caroline