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