PS. I just revisited this family, and see that in 1851 Stow Bardolph, they have swapped birthplaces. Robert is definitely Stow, which means Mary is Braintree, Essexd. Does this help? On Saturday, 6 February 2016, 17:41, xpn11 via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: Following up my enquiry about the Essex registers -I subscribed and the entry was as I feared no help at all but the service and quality is brilliant.   So, if anyone spots a marriage of  a Susan(n)a(h) Gentry to Elijah Pigott -Pygott/Pigot/Piggott-(depending upon the ideas of the clergy making the entry) in time to have two children at least after 1807 in Southery,  I would be very pleased. I have looked at Southery, Methwold ,Feltwell, Fordham, Roxham with Ryston, Downham, Hilgay , Foulden and West Dereham so far. Elijah may have been working on the west bank of the Ouse or anywhere in the Norfolk or east Cambridgeshire fens and I can't assume that he was anything other than labouring class because of the subsequent history and location of the families in the Fens. I think my best hope is if someone has been researching the Gentry family, the Pigotts are well covered except for the elusive Elijah. Rosie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Rosie I missed your initial query.I have this couple on my treeUnfortunately I know nothing about Mary, but she was the only female GENTRYon the Norfolk Marriage Index. GENTRY Mary 25 12 15 CHAPMAN Robert Stow Bardolph On Saturday, 6 February 2016, 17:41, xpn11 via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: Following up my enquiry about the Essex registers -I subscribed and the entry was as I feared no help at all but the service and quality is brilliant.   So, if anyone spots a marriage of  a Susan(n)a(h) Gentry to Elijah Pigott -Pygott/Pigot/Piggott-(depending upon the ideas of the clergy making the entry) in time to have two children at least after 1807 in Southery,  I would be very pleased. I have looked at Southery, Methwold ,Feltwell, Fordham, Roxham with Ryston, Downham, Hilgay , Foulden and West Dereham so far. Elijah may have been working on the west bank of the Ouse or anywhere in the Norfolk or east Cambridgeshire fens and I can't assume that he was anything other than labouring class because of the subsequent history and location of the families in the Fens. I think my best hope is if someone has been researching the Gentry family, the Pigotts are well covered except for the elusive Elijah. Rosie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi again I can see at least three children to Elijah & Susan PIGOT Elizabeth dau of Elijah & Susan PIGOT late GENTRY spinster Sarah b1809 was buried 1810 dau of Lijor & Susannah aged 18 months Gentry son of Lijaar & Susannah PIGOT May 31st 1812 (buried 1823) The only marriage I have found is the one you mention in Braintree Essex Was Susan GENTRY from Braintree and married in her home parish? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 06/02/2016 17:39, xpn11 via wrote: > Following up my enquiry about the Essex registers -I subscribed and the > entry was as I feared no help at all but the service and quality is > brilliant. > So, if anyone spots a marriage of a Susan(n)a(h) Gentry to Elijah > Pigott -Pygott/Pigot/Piggott-(depending upon the ideas of the clergy > making the entry) in time to have two children at least after 1807 in > Southery, I would be very pleased. > I have looked at Southery, Methwold ,Feltwell, Fordham, Roxham with > Ryston, Downham, Hilgay , Foulden and West Dereham so far. Elijah may > have been working on the west bank of the Ouse or anywhere in the > Norfolk or east Cambridgeshire fens and I can't assume that he was > anything other than labouring class because of the subsequent history > and location of the families in the Fens. > I think my best hope is if someone has been researching the Gentry > family, the Pigotts are well covered except for the elusive Elijah. > Rosie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi Rosie Why doesn't the Essex entry help? A marriage at that time would not have parents unless one or other was a minor and they married by licence (a licence might mention a parent) I don't foresee there being another marriage in the same time frame for two people of the same names So was wondering why you thought it wasn't this one? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 06/02/2016 17:39, xpn11 via wrote: > Following up my enquiry about the Essex registers -I subscribed and the > entry was as I feared no help at all but the service and quality is > brilliant. > So, if anyone spots a marriage of a Susan(n)a(h) Gentry to Elijah > Pigott -Pygott/Pigot/Piggott-(depending upon the ideas of the clergy > making the entry) in time to have two children at least after 1807 in > Southery, I would be very pleased. > I have looked at Southery, Methwold ,Feltwell, Fordham, Roxham with > Ryston, Downham, Hilgay , Foulden and West Dereham so far. Elijah may > have been working on the west bank of the Ouse or anywhere in the > Norfolk or east Cambridgeshire fens and I can't assume that he was > anything other than labouring class because of the subsequent history > and location of the families in the Fens. > I think my best hope is if someone has been researching the Gentry > family, the Pigotts are well covered except for the elusive Elijah. > Rosie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Following up my enquiry about the Essex registers -I subscribed and the entry was as I feared no help at all but the service and quality is brilliant. So, if anyone spots a marriage of a Susan(n)a(h) Gentry to Elijah Pigott -Pygott/Pigot/Piggott-(depending upon the ideas of the clergy making the entry) in time to have two children at least after 1807 in Southery, I would be very pleased. I have looked at Southery, Methwold ,Feltwell, Fordham, Roxham with Ryston, Downham, Hilgay , Foulden and West Dereham so far. Elijah may have been working on the west bank of the Ouse or anywhere in the Norfolk or east Cambridgeshire fens and I can't assume that he was anything other than labouring class because of the subsequent history and location of the families in the Fens. I think my best hope is if someone has been researching the Gentry family, the Pigotts are well covered except for the elusive Elijah. Rosie

In confirmation of the conclusions of other posters to this list, I compared my List of Norfolk Parish Registers NOT available at the Family History Library (familysearch.org) with the list that Keith made available and found no entries described on the list from thegenealogist.co.uk that were not available at familysearch.org., except the 4 parishes whose marriages come directly from the Phillimore Marriage Registers which are widely available. If a deal has been made with the Record Office I suspect that the fruits of that collaboration are not yet available on-line. Brian Porter Vancouver, Canada

The majority of the Norfolk images that exist on Family Search do so because a number of years back LDS offered to microfilm for free parish registers providing they could keep their own copy of the microfilm. I assume there also has had to be some additional discussion as to whether that source material could be made available online, but LDS already had the images. I believe Essex has always done its own microfilming, and therefore LDS has never had this as a source. You can check what LDS microfilms exist by clicking the Catalog tab at www.familysearch.org, anything listed should still be orderable for viewing at local LDS Family History centres, even if it is not directly available online (or of course you can go to Salt Lake City and see it there immediately!). It does seem to have the Essex BTs, which may be where your reference came from. For Essex records from the record office service, £10 is the daily rate - it gets significantly cheaper if you subscribe for a longer period (although that doesn't help if you only want a few entries). The FAQ does say you can request single images without subscribing, but I could not find a price for that. It used to be possible to buy copies of their fiche (at a reasonable price), but they currently do not advertise that service. Another option (not specific to Essex) usually available is to join the local FHS and use any search or lookup service they may provide, frequently free for members. Finally if you can get to London, the the SoG library has a number of the fiche and also some transcripts for Braintree. The catalogue can be searched online without being a member. regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 31/01/2016 08:21, xpn11@aol.com wrote: > Thanks Keith and for the link . > Another puzzle. > Family Search threw up a marriage result for one of my Fen edge ag > labs ( with not especially common names ) in an unlikely Braintree. It > is one I have been trawling images of several parishes to find. > Would I be correct in assuming that because Essex have an online > record image viewing service organised themselves ( at a fairly steep > £10 a day), they have not allowed FS to put the images on line or am I > missing trick in how to browse the Essex images on FS? > Rosie > > On 31/01/2016 03:46, Keith Drage via wrote: >> Looks to me like nobody has answered the original posters question, >> possibly because >> - to be accurate one has to go down to the parish level. >> - the commercial organisations are very sparse on identifying the >> original source of their information, and on whether a new index has >> been created or they have just imported an existing index from elsewhere. >> >> I did find the following blog page that attempted to do some of this: >> >> http://elizabethwalne.co.uk/blog/2015/8/2/norfolk-parish-registers-online >

Thanks Nivard for that. I will have rummage and then post if I fail clear it up. Rosie On 31/01/2016 11:11, Nivard Ovington via wrote: > Hi Rosie > > As you suggest, Essex have their own website and charge for access to > their PRs and other records, rather than let a commercial company come > in and scan and they get a kick back for viewed pages as many other > counties do > > Familysearch do not have the images online for the transcriptions they > have online, probably as they can't get a licence from Essex CC as that > would lessen their income > > A lot of the Parish register information the LDS have on film/fiche is > of the BTs, not the actual parish register > > There is a decent write up on the Essex PRs they have > <https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/England,_Essex_Parish_Registers_%28FamilySearch_Historical_Records%29> > > And a linked page with known or reported issues > > <https://familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=England-Essex-Parish-Registers-1503-1997-known-issues&lang=en> > > Why not post the marriage entry you have and perhaps we can help find it > or at least suggest why we can't > > One possible reason for a marriage recorded in two or more places, is > the calling of banns being wrongly recorded as a marriage > > Banns should have been called in both home parishes of the parties > marrying (unless they resided in the parish of marriage for three weeks > as many did to save a banns fee) > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 31/01/2016 08:21, xpn11 via wrote: >> Thanks Keith and for the link . >> Another puzzle. >> Family Search threw up a marriage result for one of my Fen edge ag labs >> ( with not especially common names ) in an unlikely Braintree. It is one >> I have been trawling images of several parishes to find. >> Would I be correct in assuming that because Essex have an online record >> image viewing service organised themselves ( at a fairly steep £10 a >> day), they have not allowed FS to put the images on line or am I >> missing trick in how to browse the Essex images on FS? >> Rosie > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I did refer to this occurring, although confusingly I said "Master Genealogist" rather than "The Genealogist". The list of parishes The Genealogist currently advertises as part of its Diamond Service is here. http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/coverage/parish-records/norfolk/?level=diamond#includes But this does not tell you if they have the images for all the entries. There are contents in this list that are clearly the Phillimore marriage publications, rather than original records. I have not been able to find anything from the Norfolk Archives side that states anything about this tie up, or the support they are giving, and as far as I can see it is not generating a revenue stream they are reporting. The press release from The Genealogist is vague and unspecific. So it is unclear to me how much they are offering that is not available from other sources already identified. I did check a couple of parishes and found they aligned with what was already available as images on Family Search. I do know that there are parishes where Norfolk Record Office holds a microfilm which are not listed by The Genealogist. That may mean it is work in progress, or that some limitation exists (either as to source or arrangement). I await some detailed analysis from someone who decides to pay for a subscription. regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 31/01/2016 10:04, John Francis via wrote: > On 31/01/2016 3:46 AM, Keith Drage via wrote: >> (Text cut) >> >> As far as I am aware, Norfolk Record Office (which holds the majority of >> the Norfolk parish registers which are not still held by the parishes >> themselves) has not made direct deals with any of the commercial >> companies, so what is available has come from other sources. >> >> > (Text cut) > > Not quite true. NRO has made a deal with The Genealogist, The following > referring to Parish Registers, has been copied from The Genealogist > website ( > http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/featuredarticles/2016/fully-searchable-norfolk-parish-records-now-online-312/ > ) : > > .......... > > "The Norfolk Record Office is pleased to be working with TheGenealogist, > a commercial company helping to make these important records available > to a worldwide audience." > > Gary Tuson, County Archivist at The Norfolk Record Office > ........... > > > Hope this helps. > > John Francis > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I am amazed at the work some of you put in to help others like myself who do not have the time or understanding of the record series and origins. We are constantly told that we should go to the original source for confirmation of the indexes etc., and when there is no information about where the particular site gleaned the records that rule becomes a bit of a joke. Having said that, we must be thankful that the records are available online - or some anyway ! My grateful thanks to you all. Diane On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Keith Drage via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Looks to me like nobody has answered the original posters question, > possibly because > - to be accurate one has to go down to the parish level. > - the commercial organisations are very sparse on identifying the > original source of their information, and on whether a new index has > been created or they have just imported an existing index from elsewhere. > > I did find the following blog page that attempted to do some of this: > > http://elizabethwalne.co.uk/blog/2015/8/2/norfolk-parish-registers-online > > You will note that it is virtually impossible to tabulate the new > Freereg2 in the same manner as the other sources without accessing a > significant number of pages for each parish. > > The answers will also be different, dependent on whether you want access > to the original register pages, or whether you are only interested in > index coverage (and will worry about getting the register pages later). > > What follows are some general statements, which could be wrong, and > certainly not complete, and will most certainly be wrong in future as > the situation is changing all the time. > > As far as I am aware, Norfolk Record Office (which holds the majority of > the Norfolk parish registers which are not still held by the parishes > themselves) has not made direct deals with any of the commercial > companies, so what is available has come from other sources. > > There appears to have been exchange of the family search material (both > unindexed original scans and indexes they have compiled) with both find > my past and ancestry. > > Indexes created by the Mid-Norfolk Family History Society do seem to be > on find my past, as do various country wide indexes created by the > Society of Genealogists. > > Norfolk Family history society has not released any of their data to the > commercial organisations. > > What was on the Master Genealogist seemed to be largely an indexed > version of the Phillimore marriage publications, although they have > recently advertised that they are adding other Norfolk parish records > (the source of which is unclear and may well be the Family Search > material yet again). > > I am not aware of any Freereg indexes being exchanged with any of the > commercial services (although the original indexers may have submitted > material that has appeared on the commercial sites via other routes). > > In the blog site identified above is accurate, Find my Past have another > unknown source of input that in some cases goes later than the NRO > holdings. > > Many sites do carry indexes of the non-conformist registers that were > collected by the Registrar General in 1837 and for which the originals > are held at The National Archives. > > regards > > Keith Drage > Swindon UK > > On 30/01/2016 19:15, Nivard Ovington via wrote: > > Hi David > > > > On the surviving PRs subject > > > > I think the worst I heard was a local butcher using pages from the > > parish register to wrap his meat in, paper was hard to come by and > > expensive > > > > As you say its a wonder anything survived > > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > On 30/01/2016 19:12, DavidTennant wrote: > >> Nivard > >> Thanks for your comments . I totally agree re the cost aspect. In fact I > >> , being extremely mean, rarely if ever pay for information except as a > >> last resort. > >> The online availability, both free and otherwise, has increased > >> enormously over the last few years. In the early to mid nineties when I > >> started my research the LDS was one of the few online sources available > >> and I used this almost exclusively to get started supplemented by trips > >> to the local LDS offices to read microfiches . Thankfully they were only > >> a 20 minute drive away. Thankfully also, in Canada dialup was not > >> subject to telephone charges. > >> If I was starting today however, I think I would subscribe to one of > >> the commercial outlets and amass as much info in as short a time as > >> possible. > >> Re quality of PRs. Some I have seen are incredibly difficult to > >> decipher. Having been composed with quill pens, likely by candlelight > >> and then kept in damp surroundings it's a wonder that any of the early > >> ones survived at all. Seen plenty where the mice have had a field day! > >> David > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Rosie As you suggest, Essex have their own website and charge for access to their PRs and other records, rather than let a commercial company come in and scan and they get a kick back for viewed pages as many other counties do Familysearch do not have the images online for the transcriptions they have online, probably as they can't get a licence from Essex CC as that would lessen their income A lot of the Parish register information the LDS have on film/fiche is of the BTs, not the actual parish register There is a decent write up on the Essex PRs they have <https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/England,_Essex_Parish_Registers_%28FamilySearch_Historical_Records%29> And a linked page with known or reported issues <https://familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=England-Essex-Parish-Registers-1503-1997-known-issues&lang=en> Why not post the marriage entry you have and perhaps we can help find it or at least suggest why we can't One possible reason for a marriage recorded in two or more places, is the calling of banns being wrongly recorded as a marriage Banns should have been called in both home parishes of the parties marrying (unless they resided in the parish of marriage for three weeks as many did to save a banns fee) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 31/01/2016 08:21, xpn11 via wrote: > Thanks Keith and for the link . > Another puzzle. > Family Search threw up a marriage result for one of my Fen edge ag labs > ( with not especially common names ) in an unlikely Braintree. It is one > I have been trawling images of several parishes to find. > Would I be correct in assuming that because Essex have an online record > image viewing service organised themselves ( at a fairly steep £10 a > day), they have not allowed FS to put the images on line or am I > missing trick in how to browse the Essex images on FS? > Rosie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 31/01/2016 3:46 AM, Keith Drage via wrote: > (Text cut) > > As far as I am aware, Norfolk Record Office (which holds the majority of > the Norfolk parish registers which are not still held by the parishes > themselves) has not made direct deals with any of the commercial > companies, so what is available has come from other sources. > > (Text cut) Not quite true. NRO has made a deal with The Genealogist, The following referring to Parish Registers, has been copied from The Genealogist website ( http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/featuredarticles/2016/fully-searchable-norfolk-parish-records-now-online-312/ ) : .......... "The Norfolk Record Office is pleased to be working with TheGenealogist, a commercial company helping to make these important records available to a worldwide audience." Gary Tuson, County Archivist at The Norfolk Record Office ........... Hope this helps. John Francis

As a frequent user of Essex RO material I can confirm that ERO did their own digitisation. The funds paid for viewing of those images is an obvious revenue source for them. It would be very unlikely for them to give that source away. It is a free view when you are in the ERO reading room. Mike > On 31 Jan 2016, at 08:21, xpn11 via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Thanks Keith and for the link . > Another puzzle. > Family Search threw up a marriage result for one of my Fen edge ag labs > ( with not especially common names ) in an unlikely Braintree. It is one > I have been trawling images of several parishes to find. > Would I be correct in assuming that because Essex have an online record > image viewing service organised themselves ( at a fairly steep £10 a > day), they have not allowed FS to put the images on line or am I > missing trick in how to browse the Essex images on FS? > Rosie > > On 31/01/2016 03:46, Keith Drage via wrote: >> Looks to me like nobody has answered the original posters question, >> possibly because >> - to be accurate one has to go down to the parish level. >> - the commercial organisations are very sparse on identifying the >> original source of their information, and on whether a new index has >> been created or they have just imported an existing index from elsewhere. >> >> I did find the following blog page that attempted to do some of this: >> >> http://elizabethwalne.co.uk/blog/2015/8/2/norfolk-parish-registers-online > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Keith and for the link . Another puzzle. Family Search threw up a marriage result for one of my Fen edge ag labs ( with not especially common names ) in an unlikely Braintree. It is one I have been trawling images of several parishes to find. Would I be correct in assuming that because Essex have an online record image viewing service organised themselves ( at a fairly steep £10 a day), they have not allowed FS to put the images on line or am I missing trick in how to browse the Essex images on FS? Rosie On 31/01/2016 03:46, Keith Drage via wrote: > Looks to me like nobody has answered the original posters question, > possibly because > - to be accurate one has to go down to the parish level. > - the commercial organisations are very sparse on identifying the > original source of their information, and on whether a new index has > been created or they have just imported an existing index from elsewhere. > > I did find the following blog page that attempted to do some of this: > > http://elizabethwalne.co.uk/blog/2015/8/2/norfolk-parish-registers-online

Looks to me like nobody has answered the original posters question, possibly because - to be accurate one has to go down to the parish level. - the commercial organisations are very sparse on identifying the original source of their information, and on whether a new index has been created or they have just imported an existing index from elsewhere. I did find the following blog page that attempted to do some of this: http://elizabethwalne.co.uk/blog/2015/8/2/norfolk-parish-registers-online You will note that it is virtually impossible to tabulate the new Freereg2 in the same manner as the other sources without accessing a significant number of pages for each parish. The answers will also be different, dependent on whether you want access to the original register pages, or whether you are only interested in index coverage (and will worry about getting the register pages later). What follows are some general statements, which could be wrong, and certainly not complete, and will most certainly be wrong in future as the situation is changing all the time. As far as I am aware, Norfolk Record Office (which holds the majority of the Norfolk parish registers which are not still held by the parishes themselves) has not made direct deals with any of the commercial companies, so what is available has come from other sources. There appears to have been exchange of the family search material (both unindexed original scans and indexes they have compiled) with both find my past and ancestry. Indexes created by the Mid-Norfolk Family History Society do seem to be on find my past, as do various country wide indexes created by the Society of Genealogists. Norfolk Family history society has not released any of their data to the commercial organisations. What was on the Master Genealogist seemed to be largely an indexed version of the Phillimore marriage publications, although they have recently advertised that they are adding other Norfolk parish records (the source of which is unclear and may well be the Family Search material yet again). I am not aware of any Freereg indexes being exchanged with any of the commercial services (although the original indexers may have submitted material that has appeared on the commercial sites via other routes). In the blog site identified above is accurate, Find my Past have another unknown source of input that in some cases goes later than the NRO holdings. Many sites do carry indexes of the non-conformist registers that were collected by the Registrar General in 1837 and for which the originals are held at The National Archives. regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 30/01/2016 19:15, Nivard Ovington via wrote: > Hi David > > On the surviving PRs subject > > I think the worst I heard was a local butcher using pages from the > parish register to wrap his meat in, paper was hard to come by and > expensive > > As you say its a wonder anything survived > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 30/01/2016 19:12, DavidTennant wrote: >> Nivard >> Thanks for your comments . I totally agree re the cost aspect. In fact I >> , being extremely mean, rarely if ever pay for information except as a >> last resort. >> The online availability, both free and otherwise, has increased >> enormously over the last few years. In the early to mid nineties when I >> started my research the LDS was one of the few online sources available >> and I used this almost exclusively to get started supplemented by trips >> to the local LDS offices to read microfiches . Thankfully they were only >> a 20 minute drive away. Thankfully also, in Canada dialup was not >> subject to telephone charges. >> If I was starting today however, I think I would subscribe to one of >> the commercial outlets and amass as much info in as short a time as >> possible. >> Re quality of PRs. Some I have seen are incredibly difficult to >> decipher. Having been composed with quill pens, likely by candlelight >> and then kept in damp surroundings it's a wonder that any of the early >> ones survived at all. Seen plenty where the mice have had a field day! >> David > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi David On the surviving PRs subject I think the worst I heard was a local butcher using pages from the parish register to wrap his meat in, paper was hard to come by and expensive As you say its a wonder anything survived Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 30/01/2016 19:12, DavidTennant wrote: > Nivard > Thanks for your comments . I totally agree re the cost aspect. In fact I > , being extremely mean, rarely if ever pay for information except as a > last resort. > The online availability, both free and otherwise, has increased > enormously over the last few years. In the early to mid nineties when I > started my research the LDS was one of the few online sources available > and I used this almost exclusively to get started supplemented by trips > to the local LDS offices to read microfiches . Thankfully they were only > a 20 minute drive away. Thankfully also, in Canada dialup was not > subject to telephone charges. > If I was starting today however, I think I would subscribe to one of > the commercial outlets and amass as much info in as short a time as > possible. > Re quality of PRs. Some I have seen are incredibly difficult to > decipher. Having been composed with quill pens, likely by candlelight > and then kept in damp surroundings it's a wonder that any of the early > ones survived at all. Seen plenty where the mice have had a field day! > David --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Thank you for informed reply Nivard. My driving skills must be the reason for the niggles I had been having. Thanks especially for the tips about the old collections. I had a very old note which I have been fruitlessly chasing around about how a surname may have become a first name in my family way back in the Crowland area. I am hopeful those old collections may give me a lead. Thanks again Rosie On 30/01/2016 17:18, Nivard Ovington via wrote: > Hi Rosie > > Re familysearch > > The old IGI was made up of two main elements > > A. The patron submissions, some of which were based on sound research, > unfortunately some were a work of fiction and guesstimates, and > therefore patron submissions were unreliable > > B. Extractions from Parish and other records, which in the main were/are > reliable > > ============ > > New familysearch does *not* contain the patron submissions, it is wholly > based on extractions > > Therefore is much more reliable (albeit harder to drive ;-) > > ============ > > For those of a mind, the old IGI is still there in the "Browse all > published collections" > > (go to familysearch, select Search and then select Browse all published > collections, then enter IGI in the search box) > > Select International Genealogical Index (IGI) > > You then get a search page with both "Community Contributed IGI" (patron > submissions) and "Community Indexed IGI" (extractions) included > > You can search them together or separately > > NB the majority of extracted records are included in the latest > familysearch search but the patron submitted are not > > Transcription errors apart which are a problem in *any* database for > several reasons, most records in the latest familysearch are reliable > (but require confirming by checking the source) > > The main problem I see these days is finding the record of interest as > new familysearch is not the easiest to manoeuvre around > > PS some records on familysearch do not have an image or have an image > that is restricted as the LDS do not have the necessary permissions to > allow it > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 30/01/2016 07:46, xpn11 via wrote: >> A question related to the OP- Family Search-are records collected by LDS >> members and held on film before they launched their current project of >> filmed and indexed records included in their indexing ? I note some >> entries have no image and in one or two cases I have not been able to >> track the record when browsing the images. Probably my error but I just >> wondered. >> If I recall correctly some of the member gathered information the old >> LDS website carried was unreliable. >> I find the value of the LDS site is in the filmed images.The FreeReg is >> very helpful and I think records are very carefully transcribed, it is >> an admirable project and I thank all those who contribute. Used together >> they have changed the game. >> Using the Family Search index to search Norfolk PRs shows up some weak >> transcribing. Not as bad as Ancestry though. >> Rosie > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi David I hope my previous post in reply to Rosie helps re patron submitted data (which is not in the latest familysearch) You are of course quite correct that commercial firms cannot afford the time, or rather we can't, as commercial firms would have to charge far more than they do for access But regardless of who does the transcription you cannot possibly eradicate all errors, its simply not possible, partly as the record being transcribed is often a transcript itself (ie compiled from a vicars notes and written up later) You ask if commercial firms use OCR? yes they do for typed or print such as a book, directory or newspapers but not for handwriting such as found in a parish register, the OCR software that can do a decent job of that is not available for everyday use It is available that can read handwriting but has to be taught the style of an individual before it can convert it to something usable, not really a viable option for parish registers and the like in a multitude of handwriting styles The PRs are transcribed with variable results, mostly due to the variable quality of the original writing and condition of the medium its recorded on But as far as I am concerned, I would rather have a transcript mow, than wait for an impossible to produce perfect transcript, with most search engines you can use wildcards and various search methods to extract the majority of data from even the worst transcripts Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 30/01/2016 14:33, DavidTennant via wrote: > I think Rosie has it correctly. > As I recall the "transcribed by members" records of the LDS showed too > many instances where, for example, a birth date was 21 years before > marriage. > My experience of transcribing for FreeREG recalls many instances where > difficult records were discussed, often over several days, amongst a > multitude of fellow transcribers. A luxury a "commercial" site likely > could not afford. > Do commercial sites use Optical Character Recognition ,OCR? (I think > that's what OCR means) > My, admittedly amateur efforts at using this, have produced mixed and > often amusing results. Doubt if it works with Latin entries! It probably > why on one or two instance the "k" in my Skitmore surname has appeared > as an "h"! > David --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi Rosie Re familysearch The old IGI was made up of two main elements A. The patron submissions, some of which were based on sound research, unfortunately some were a work of fiction and guesstimates, and therefore patron submissions were unreliable B. Extractions from Parish and other records, which in the main were/are reliable ============ New familysearch does *not* contain the patron submissions, it is wholly based on extractions Therefore is much more reliable (albeit harder to drive ;-) ============ For those of a mind, the old IGI is still there in the "Browse all published collections" (go to familysearch, select Search and then select Browse all published collections, then enter IGI in the search box) Select International Genealogical Index (IGI) You then get a search page with both "Community Contributed IGI" (patron submissions) and "Community Indexed IGI" (extractions) included You can search them together or separately NB the majority of extracted records are included in the latest familysearch search but the patron submitted are not Transcription errors apart which are a problem in *any* database for several reasons, most records in the latest familysearch are reliable (but require confirming by checking the source) The main problem I see these days is finding the record of interest as new familysearch is not the easiest to manoeuvre around PS some records on familysearch do not have an image or have an image that is restricted as the LDS do not have the necessary permissions to allow it Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 30/01/2016 07:46, xpn11 via wrote: > A question related to the OP- Family Search-are records collected by LDS > members and held on film before they launched their current project of > filmed and indexed records included in their indexing ? I note some > entries have no image and in one or two cases I have not been able to > track the record when browsing the images. Probably my error but I just > wondered. > If I recall correctly some of the member gathered information the old > LDS website carried was unreliable. > I find the value of the LDS site is in the filmed images.The FreeReg is > very helpful and I think records are very carefully transcribed, it is > an admirable project and I thank all those who contribute. Used together > they have changed the game. > Using the Family Search index to search Norfolk PRs shows up some weak > transcribing. Not as bad as Ancestry though. > Rosie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I notice nobody has mentioned the above ,over 4million records available to search as a member on our Norfolk Records Search database all transcribed by a dedicated team of members . Jean Stangroom (chairman and membership Secretary NFHS) Sent from my iPad