Funny that. We are having almost the same argument in a another company of which I am a member. Unfortunately, for us, the quorum is 2 - so not turning up at the AGM is not an option that would bring any change! However, a group of us have been working steadily for 8 or 9 months now to replace the old secretive board with a new open one. This is coming to a head for us at the next AGM - to be held just a week before the SOG AGM. We have been methodically working to contact and bring as many members as we can into the group seeking change. Admittedly, it is not easy; we are many fewer in numbers than the SOG membership - even though some of our members live in different parts of the world. In the past, apathy has been what the established board counted on - not enough people would show up or submit proxies - and no one would have the "nerve" to front a challenge. This year, we are trying hard to make a difference. I must say that after this traumatic AGM, I may not have the energy to attend the SOG AGM a week later! Best of luck to all - better to take a stand on situations that are "wrong" than to just roll over & accept them. Mary in London -----Original Message----- From: Alec Tritton <alec.tritton@tiscali.co.uk> To: sog-uk <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:41 Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Special Resolution at AGM Hi Julian I shall be at the AGM this year after voting with my feet last year. Once again we will have a change to the constitution forced upon us by the Trustees (many of which are hardly ever there apart from meetings of the Trustees) without adequate debate by the membership. We can talk about the change at the AGM as much as we like but in reality there will be more than enough proxy votes to "out vote" the meeting, so it won't matter a stuff what those who have bothered to attend think. This clause will allow the Trustees to go to such organisations as http://www.do-it.org.uk/ and advertise for Volunteer trustees that they want. May be sensible, but surely they should first advertise for set skills amongst the membership first? We should have considerable safeguards built in. After all it is only a small step from there for the Trustees to recommend certain individuals above genuine volunteers for committee. Proxy voting originally prevented our current chairman from being re-elected and only by intervention at the relevant AGM forced the then committee to co-opt him. Actually the only way to object to constitutional changes without discussion would be to NOT attend the AGM so that it would not be quorate At 10:51 11/06/2014, jjgduffus@gmail.com wrote: > âDear all I have now had a chance to > read the special resolution and find that > the proposed new wording doesn't make sense, > as it should be presumed that you'd be a > member of an organisation that you aspire to > direct. The present arrangements where by > you have to be a member for a year prior to > taking responsibility for the society. A > familiarity with the society must rank as a > useful skill when being a trustee. Looking > forward to catching up with folk at the > AGM Julian > Duffus Jjgduffus@gmail.com Member Sog > 1978 to Present Sent from my BlackBerry 10 > smartphone. ------------------------------- To > unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to SOG-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: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3955/7660 - Release Date: 06/11/14 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

We have had notice of the following event hosted by Oxfordshire FHS which may be of interest to Members On 28 June 1914, Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo ... and the world went to war. On Saturday 28 June 2014 the Oxfordshire Family History Society is holding a one day conference as part of the general and growing interest surrounding the centenary of the First World War and supported by the Federation of Family History Societies' 40th Anniversary sponsorship programme. Pip, Squeak and Wilfred - the record legacy of 1914-1918 Saturday 28 June 2014 at the Marlborough School, Woodstock, Oxon. For just £10/person we have five good talks by five good speakers as well as displays to keep you busy through the breaks. Our plan for the day is to highlight some of the less obvious records of the period without ignoring the most obvious - medals and service records. The day is being jointly sponsored by Oxfordshire FHS and the Federation of Family History Societies. We’ll provide you with tea and coffee during the day, but we’ve kept the cost to a minimum by asking you to bring your own lunch. (Please note that there are no options to buy lunch close to the venue.) For more information or to book please visit our web site - http://www.ofhs.org.uk If you have further questions, please email Malcolm Austen at - psw@ofhs.org.uk Please pass this email on to anyone else you think might be interested in attending this day conference. We look forward to meeting you, your friends and your memorabilia on 28 June. Else Churchill Society of Genealogists direct phone 020 7702 5488 visit the Society of Genealogists' Website <http://www.sog.org.uk/> www.sog.org.uk WOULD YOU LIKE ADVICE ON YOUR FAMILY HISTORY? >From beginners onwards: all queries and problems welcomed. Phone our dedicated family history advice line on 020 7490 8911 Thursdays 6pm - 7.45 pm; Saturdays 11 am - 1pm and 2pm - 4 pm The Society also runs regular one-to-one advice half hour advice sessions with experts at the Society’s library on alternate Saturdays from 2pm. Telephone the library direct on 020 7702 5485 to book an advice session or library tour. This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. You must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication unless explicitly permitted to do so. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and then delete this email from your system without further distribution or use. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The Society of Genealogists are neither given nor endorsed by it. Registered Charity No. 233701. Company limited by guarantee. Registered No. 115703. Registered office as above

Malcolm The TNA now use both WANTING and MISSING in the catalogue. WANTING is used where the whole piece has gone astray and MISSING where only part is missing. I understand that they have updated the old street indexes that we used to use at the old Family Records Centre and they have now including those that show part of a street to be missing in the catalogue. The street indexes are also available on the TNA website. You can find the street indexes at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120608115718/http://yourarchives .nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Your_Archives:Historical_Streets_Pr oject#Browsing tinyURL http://tinyurl.com/m28vh99 Regards John Hanson Researcher, The Halsted Trust Website - www.halstedresearch.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Malcolm Austen Sent: 11 May 2014 12:56 To: kandn.atkinson@gmail.com; sog-uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Missing Census pages 1861 On Sun, 11 May 2014 11:54:34 +0100, Keith Atkinson <kandn.atkinson@gmail.com> wrote: > Has anyone come across this before & are there duplicate Census > originals anywhere I can consult? See <URL:http://www.findmypast.co.uk/articles/world-records/full-list-of-united- kingdom-records/census-land-and-surveys/1861-england-wales-and-scotland-cens us> which lists the pieces missing from 1861. As there was only one original copy, no, there are no duplicates to be consulted! NB Although commonly listed as 'missing' they are technically (in TNA-speak) 'wanting'. The former means TNA believes they have them but have mis-filed them somehow whereas the latter means TNA never received them. = Malcolm. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have one area in the 1861 census (Bexwell in Norfolk) where I believe the enumerator never walked a substantial portion of the parish. All the pages are in sequence, and the numbers at the end of the parish all add up. However comprison with the 1851 census and the 1871 lists people and therefore households who are there in both years and not in the 1861. Further, in 1851 and in 1871 the rectory is specifically identified, both as place and occupation of the head of household, but does not appear at all in 1861. So there are other options apart from miscataloguing, and human nature being what it is, examples exist of all of them. It is also possible that odd pages got missed when the microfilm copy was made, and possible that further pages were missed when those microfilm copies were put up on Ancestry and other sites. The known missing pages at TNA can be identified by searching discovery using "RG9" and "missing", as indicated in the relevant TNA guide. This does not include Teddington, It would be worth checking how the streets are missing. Do page numbers of the schedule that should contain them run out of sequence, and the final number of inhabitants not add up? If all looks correct from this perspective (and likewise in the adjacent enumeration districts), it may be the streets were never enumerated. Note that in general, the schedules are copies made at the time by the enumerator from the original householder schedules. These household schedules were collected in and destroyed at some point. For some of the earlier censuses a small portion of such material has survived. I am not aware of anything for the 1861 census - but others may know different. regards Keith Drage On 11/05/2014 12:56, Malcolm Austen wrote: > On Sun, 11 May 2014 11:54:34 +0100, Keith Atkinson > <kandn.atkinson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Has anyone come across this before & are there duplicate Census >> originals anywhere I can consult? > See > <URL:http://www.findmypast.co.uk/articles/world-records/full-list-of-united-kingdom-records/census-land-and-surveys/1861-england-wales-and-scotland-census> > which lists the pieces missing from 1861. > > As there was only one original copy, no, there are no duplicates to be > consulted! > > NB Although commonly listed as 'missing' they are technically (in > TNA-speak) 'wanting'. The former means TNA believes they have them but > have mis-filed them somehow whereas the latter means TNA never received > them. > > = Malcolm. >

On Sun, 11 May 2014 11:54:34 +0100, Keith Atkinson <kandn.atkinson@gmail.com> wrote: > Has anyone come across this before & are there duplicate Census > originals anywhere I can consult? See <URL:http://www.findmypast.co.uk/articles/world-records/full-list-of-united-kingdom-records/census-land-and-surveys/1861-england-wales-and-scotland-census> which lists the pieces missing from 1861. As there was only one original copy, no, there are no duplicates to be consulted! NB Although commonly listed as 'missing' they are technically (in TNA-speak) 'wanting'. The former means TNA believes they have them but have mis-filed them somehow whereas the latter means TNA never received them. = Malcolm. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk>

Audrey Collins of The National Archives wrote a blog post that shows how to check what is known to be missing: http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/new-improved-census-cataloguing/#comments Sue Adams Family Folk Blog: http://familyfolklore.wordpress.com/ On 11/05/2014 11:54, Keith Atkinson wrote: > There are roads missing from the 1861 Census pages for my area of > Teddington. They are listed in both 1851 & 1871.I have been told that > this is not an error by Ancestry or Find My Past but that they are > actually missing from TNA's own records in Kew. > > Has anyone come across this before & are there duplicate Census > originals anywhere I can consult? > > > Keith Atkinson > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

There are roads missing from the 1861 Census pages for my area of Teddington. They are listed in both 1851 & 1871.I have been told that this is not an error by Ancestry or Find My Past but that they are actually missing from TNA's own records in Kew. Has anyone come across this before & are there duplicate Census originals anywhere I can consult? Keith Atkinson

I have just solved a puzzle, but it raises a further question. I found index entries for the births of two of my step-cousins twice removed registered in Wales in 1995, but one in October and one in December. I have now ascertained that the birth of one was registered about two years earlier with his mother's surname, before their parents married. Does anyone know of a clue that I should have noticed indicating that an entry in the G.R.O. dataset refers to a re-registration? I expect that most of us know how they were shown in the paper indexes on which we practised weight-lifting.

Of course it's 'Horses for Courses' and I'm sure that we all use as many sites that are available. I've found some really useful information on some quite obscure sites! Lin -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter at LostCousins Sent: 05 May 2014 15:28 To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology > Personally I find I have a greater success with Ancestry and records > that I find there do not show on FMP, either the old system or the > new! I don't have a subscription to FMP, I only buy credits as and > when I think I've found something. My subscription to Ancestry has > certainly proved worthwhile. The fact that site B doesn't have all the records that you found at site A doesn't make site A better - indeed, it tells you little or nothing about which site is best. Ancestry and findmypast have largely different record sets, and so it's inevitable that many records found at one site won't be found at the other. It's not a question of which site is better, but which site has the record sets most relevant to your research - and inevitably most of us end up needing to use both sites. There are overlaps, of course - the most obvious being the censuses and the GRO indexes. Searching the census by address currently doesn't work as well at the new findmypast site as it did at the old one - but then Ancestry doesn't even offer searching by address. On the other hand I like being able to search using the parents' forenames, a feature that Ancestry offers and findmypast doesn't (but then nor did they at the old site). Ancestry's GRO index search is inconvenient because of the split at 1915, the poor way in which it handles middle names which may or may not be shown in full, sloppy transcriptions in the early 20th century, and ridiculous allocation of registration districts to counties. Except for a death search with a precise birth date I'd use FreeBMD or findmypast ahead of Ancestry. But the simple fact is: researchers tend to prefer the site they're most familiar with, whether or not it's actually 'better' than the alternatives. That's why so many of us got annoyed when Ancestry, FamilySearch, and then findmypast revamped their sites! Peter ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Out-of-date ??? Doesn’t that mean they are of historical interest ?? I would have them but I don’t have space unfortunately. The National Museum of Computing http://www.tnmoc.org might have a passing interest if they are building up a library ? G On 5 May 2014, at 18:41, Hugh Ainsley <hugh@ainsley.stargate.co.uk> wrote: > Merryl Wells said: >> I would think that they are now so out-of-date I would not need to >> refer to them > > which was my impression certainly, though I have noticed one or two > articles that have relevance and aren't time limited. > > Hopefully the SoG Library has a complete set anyway - indeed, they > might even have been scanned - who knows! ;-) > > hugh > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Merryl Wells said: > I would think that they are now so out-of-date I would not need to >refer to them which was my impression certainly, though I have noticed one or two articles that have relevance and aren't time limited. Hopefully the SoG Library has a complete set anyway - indeed, they might even have been scanned - who knows! ;-) hugh

I believe that apart from the unique "look" of pages on free BMD, a very minor matter, that site offers the most useful and consistent search of the gro indexes, at least where the coverage is complete, so not for recent records after the fifties. One reason is the multiple keying of entries (allowing mistakes to be picked up), and a strict adherence to what is actually in the index, whether it is full middle names or not. No information has been added or taken away. Even the page numbers are validated, in the sense that if a page has been transcribed honestly as "353" when the range of pages for that reg district is (say) 841-866, this is highlighted. In that example a possible correct reference is 853 or 858. It is just a pity that some of the source images were poor - making such errors possible - although there is no guarantee that fmp or ancestry wont have similar but different mistakes. Results can be manipulated in ways that fmp or ancestry ones just cannot be, AND: IT IS FREE TO USE. btw i am sure that transcription of records not so far done is still under way, so in the same way as my late wife did, consider volunteering to transcribe a page or several. Details are on the web site http://www.freebmd.org.uk/Signup.html Dave Beakhust On 5 May 2014 15:35:54 "Peter at LostCousins" <peter@lostcousins.com> wrote: > > Personally I find I have a greater success with Ancestry and records > > that I find there do not show on FMP, either the old system or the > > new! I don't have a subscription to FMP, I only buy credits as and > > when I think I've found something. My subscription to Ancestry has > > certainly proved worthwhile. > > The fact that site B doesn't have all the records that you found at site A doesn't make site A > better - indeed, it tells you little or nothing about which site is best. Ancestry and findmypast > have largely different record sets, and so it's inevitable that many records found at one site won't > be found at the other. > > It's not a question of which site is better, but which site has the record sets most relevant to your > research - and inevitably most of us end up needing to use both sites. > > There are overlaps, of course - the most obvious being the censuses and the GRO indexes. > > Searching the census by address currently doesn't work as well at the new findmypast site as it > did at the old one - but then Ancestry doesn't even offer searching by address. On the other > hand I like being able to search using the parents' forenames, a feature that Ancestry offers and > findmypast doesn't (but then nor did they at the old site). > > Ancestry's GRO index search is inconvenient because of the split at 1915, the poor way in which > it handles middle names which may or may not be shown in full, sloppy transcriptions in the early > 20th century, and ridiculous allocation of registration districts to counties. Except for a death > search with a precise birth date I'd use FreeBMD or findmypast ahead of Ancestry. > > But the simple fact is: researchers tend to prefer the site they're most familiar with, whether or > not it's actually 'better' than the alternatives. That's why so many of us got annoyed when > Ancestry, FamilySearch, and then findmypast revamped their sites! > > Peter > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

> Personally I find I have a greater success with Ancestry and records > that I find there do not show on FMP, either the old system or the > new! I don't have a subscription to FMP, I only buy credits as and > when I think I've found something. My subscription to Ancestry has > certainly proved worthwhile. The fact that site B doesn't have all the records that you found at site A doesn't make site A better - indeed, it tells you little or nothing about which site is best. Ancestry and findmypast have largely different record sets, and so it's inevitable that many records found at one site won't be found at the other. It's not a question of which site is better, but which site has the record sets most relevant to your research - and inevitably most of us end up needing to use both sites. There are overlaps, of course - the most obvious being the censuses and the GRO indexes. Searching the census by address currently doesn't work as well at the new findmypast site as it did at the old one - but then Ancestry doesn't even offer searching by address. On the other hand I like being able to search using the parents' forenames, a feature that Ancestry offers and findmypast doesn't (but then nor did they at the old site). Ancestry's GRO index search is inconvenient because of the split at 1915, the poor way in which it handles middle names which may or may not be shown in full, sloppy transcriptions in the early 20th century, and ridiculous allocation of registration districts to counties. Except for a death search with a precise birth date I'd use FreeBMD or findmypast ahead of Ancestry. But the simple fact is: researchers tend to prefer the site they're most familiar with, whether or not it's actually 'better' than the alternatives. That's why so many of us got annoyed when Ancestry, FamilySearch, and then findmypast revamped their sites! Peter

That's good to know, Lin. I am about to change to Ancestry myself and let FMP lapse when my sub come to an end. I also intend to use the World version of FTM instead of my cumbersome Legacy programs. Chris Stupples

The current major turnout of stuff in my house has revealed some historical srtifacts - a run of "Computers in Genealogy" from September 1997 (V6-3) to September 2004 (V8-7). if by some chance someone wants these, please let me know - otherwise they are destined to be recycled. Hugh

I read these emails with great interest, but this is the first time I've replied to any. As a former applications developer I heartily agree with David as regards testing new systems!!!! Personally I find I have a greater success with Ancestry and records that I find there do not show on FMP, either the old system or the new! I don't have a subscription to FMP, I only buy credits as and when I think I've found something. My subscription to Ancestry has certainly proved worthwhile. Lin Taylor -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Wharton Sent: 03 May 2014 08:35 To: Sog-Uk@Rootsweb.Com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology I spent a working lifetime involved with designing, testing, implementing and training for major international insurance computer systems. We were expected to be 99+% right on Day 1. Early training for staff involved was an essential aspect. I think that it is realistic to have expected FMP - to have designed the system, to have tested it thoroughly, to have included all previous functionality, to have beta tested it [using both experienced and inexperienced users], to have provided comprehensive training documents and videos. The new system has great potential, but finding the best way of searching for a particular result is confusing. 3 or 4 different paths, with different search boxes and different result columns is challenging. Peter Calver, Rosemary Morgan and others have helped here. But I suggest that training materials is the area where FMP need a major improvement. David Wharton -----Original Message----- From: Gerald Newnham (Gmail) Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:20 PM To: Sog-Uk@Rootsweb.Com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology As I said, any change will take time and big changes take longer! It is not possible to test all the options in-house and at some stage FMP had to expose the new search to the public. I agree it is not perfect but I am prepared to allow FMP to take the time to get it right. Expecting it to be right on Day 1 is not realistic. By all means let them have comments but the outpouring of vitriol from some posters is bordering on the intemperate. Gerry gerrynuk@gmail.com On 2 May 2014, at 21:33, Rae Knight <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not against change! Now when I search the Kent registers the > 'Where Location' field says Kent England - no parish name so not very helpful. > Change has to be for the better! > > Rae Knight > > > On 2 May 2014 21:18, Gerald Newnham (Gmail) <gerrynuk@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just to show that there are two sides to the coin, I have been hoping >> for a long time that FMP would improve their search facilities. For >> me the old search was very poor in certain areas - particularly when >> searching parish registers. I am delighted that FMP have listened to >> those of us pressing for improvements but I accept that change will >> always be painful for everyone. I am happy to give them time to get >> things right and accept that it may take some time. To be honest, I >> think the new search has great potential and it was inevitable that >> the old search would have to change, if only to cope with the vastly >> increased number of data sets. >> >> Gerry >> gerrynuk@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> On 2 May 2014, at 20:57, Rae Knight <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would like to thank Rosemary Morgan and anyone else who has been >>> brave enough to raise their head above the parapet and report on the >>> actual >> state >>> of the 'new' FMP website. We have had an apology (of sorts) and a >>> recognition that mistakes were made. Several people have now had >>> refunds >> on >>> their subscription perhaps due to the threat of legal action. >>> >>> I am sad it has taken so long for FMP to acknowledge the problems - >>> maybe if a few more big names in genealogy had made more of a fuss >>> FMP would >> have >>> got their act together sooner. Hopefully they will now listen to >>> their paying subscribers although they won't have quite so many going forward. >>> >>> Rae Knight >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SOG-UK-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 >> SOG-UK-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 > SOG-UK-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 SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> By all means let them have comments but the outpouring of vitriol from some posters is bordering on the intemperate. <<snipped>> I agree. Letting off steam is a relief but it doesn't get the job done. Rule 1 - don't upset the techy who you are relying on to fix the job! <<snipped>> If HMRC released a new site that was as badly designed, there'd be hell to pay, and their site is free to access. <<snipped>> Err - I think that might have more to do with the impact of people inputting the wrong tax figures. The impact of family historians not getting expected answers really doesn't compare. (Besides which - HMRC IS riddled with oddities - I spent ages on my first self-assessment typing in a zero to show I had no State Pension and having it rejected - turns out I had to leave it blank. That's what happens when you give a mathematician a form to fill in.) <<snipped>> Remember the launch of the 1901 Census? That was bungled - and it took nearly 9 months to get it working. <<snipped>> Indeed - but the 1911 one was a Brightsolid operation, like FMP, and went fine, which is why I think the FMP debacle is not just appalling but rather a surprise. <<snipped>> Competitors are now going all out to recruit disillusioned FMP users. <<snipped>> The problem is that beyond the basics of censuses and civil registrations, there is little duplication of stuff. The only competition for the Cheshire Parish Registers, e.g., is a train to Chester and a day in the Record Office. <<snipped>> I think that it is realistic to have expected FMP ... to have beta tested it [using both experienced and inexperienced users], to have provided comprehensive training documents and videos. <<snipped>> I agree with you up to the training bit. This is the 21st century - if we need a video to use a menu system, then something is wrong. Besides, no-one reads manuals, do they, else there'd be no need for the acronym RTFM! Adrian B

I have just noticed one change since Monday. The census household is now listed in the order on the schedule rather than in name order Regards John Hanson Researcher, The Halsted Trust Website - www.halstedresearch.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of chrisat53@tiscali.co.uk Sent: 03 May 2014 10:44 To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology Well said! I too am of the 'old' variety and hope that at least some consistency in reports etc. and search input could have been maintained. Chris Stupples ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hear, hear! I don't have a lifetime in IT but was extremely disappointed and frustrated by the FMP saga. It is comforting to know that my "layman" views are supported by those with the relevant experience. Competitors are now going all out to recruit disillusioned FMP users. I too will wait to see the extent of improvements before deciding whether to continue my subscription in October. I hope the loss of revenue will not result in a substantial increase in their rates. Lin -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Wharton Sent: 03 May 2014 08:35 To: Sog-Uk@Rootsweb.Com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology I spent a working lifetime involved with designing, testing, implementing and training for major international insurance computer systems. We were expected to be 99+% right on Day 1. Early training for staff involved was an essential aspect. I think that it is realistic to have expected FMP - to have designed the system, to have tested it thoroughly, to have included all previous functionality, to have beta tested it [using both experienced and inexperienced users], to have provided comprehensive training documents and videos. The new system has great potential, but finding the best way of searching for a particular result is confusing. 3 or 4 different paths, with different search boxes and different result columns is challenging. Peter Calver, Rosemary Morgan and others have helped here. But I suggest that training materials is the area where FMP need a major improvement. David Wharton -----Original Message----- From: Gerald Newnham (Gmail) Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:20 PM To: Sog-Uk@Rootsweb.Com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology As I said, any change will take time and big changes take longer! It is not possible to test all the options in-house and at some stage FMP had to expose the new search to the public. I agree it is not perfect but I am prepared to allow FMP to take the time to get it right. Expecting it to be right on Day 1 is not realistic. By all means let them have comments but the outpouring of vitriol from some posters is bordering on the intemperate. Gerry gerrynuk@gmail.com On 2 May 2014, at 21:33, Rae Knight <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not against change! Now when I search the Kent registers the > 'Where Location' field says Kent England - no parish name so not very helpful. > Change has to be for the better! > > Rae Knight > > > On 2 May 2014 21:18, Gerald Newnham (Gmail) <gerrynuk@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just to show that there are two sides to the coin, I have been hoping >> for a long time that FMP would improve their search facilities. For >> me the old search was very poor in certain areas - particularly when >> searching parish registers. I am delighted that FMP have listened to >> those of us pressing for improvements but I accept that change will >> always be painful for everyone. I am happy to give them time to get >> things right and accept that it may take some time. To be honest, I >> think the new search has great potential and it was inevitable that >> the old search would have to change, if only to cope with the vastly >> increased number of data sets. >> >> Gerry >> gerrynuk@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> On 2 May 2014, at 20:57, Rae Knight <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would like to thank Rosemary Morgan and anyone else who has been >>> brave enough to raise their head above the parapet and report on the >>> actual >> state >>> of the 'new' FMP website. We have had an apology (of sorts) and a >>> recognition that mistakes were made. Several people have now had >>> refunds >> on >>> their subscription perhaps due to the threat of legal action. >>> >>> I am sad it has taken so long for FMP to acknowledge the problems - >>> maybe if a few more big names in genealogy had made more of a fuss >>> FMP would >> have >>> got their act together sooner. Hopefully they will now listen to >>> their paying subscribers although they won't have quite so many going forward. >>> >>> Rae Knight >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SOG-UK-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 >> SOG-UK-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 > SOG-UK-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 SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I can understand John's frustration, but the fact is that Government projects frequently go wrong (and not just here in the UK - when 'Obamacare' was launched in the US the website didn't work). Remember the launch of the 1901 Census? That was bungled - and it took nearly 9 months to get it working. Or the GRO's digitisation programme? That was abandoned halfway through. Even the 2011 Census was poorly handled - the fact that only 16% of people filled in the form online is surely a reflection of the clunky interface (it's not a question of age - less than 30% in any age bracket chose the online option). Findmypast were over-optimistic about the response to the new site because it was based on similar technology and a similar interface to their international sites. What they didn't appreciate is that anyone who had tried both far preferred the UK site when it came to searching UK records. Nevertheless, most of the problems that users have been experiencing haven't been because the new site isn't capable of carrying out the searches, but because it isn't immediately obvious that the same record sets can be interrogated with different search forms. It's true that there are still some searches that the old site would have handled better but my impression is that, once you know your way around the new site, it's significantly more powerful than the old site ever was, especially when it comes to searching parish records. However the underlying logic behind the design of the site needs to be a little more obvious! Peter > >As I said, any change will take time and big changes take longer! It > >is not > > >possible to test all the options in-house and at some stage FMP had > > >to expose the new search to the public. I agree it is not perfect > > >but I am prepared to allow FMP to take the time to get it right. > > >Expecting it to be > >right >on Day 1 is not realistic. By all means let them have comments > >but the >outpouring of vitriol from some posters is bordering on the > >intemperate. > > I can't agree with this. Big changes have to be properly planned and > managed; FMP did not do this. They could and should have carried out > extensive in-house testing and extensive beta-testing prior to going > live with the new site; they clearly did not do this either. > > If HMRC released a new site that was as badly designed, there'd be > hell to pay, and their site is free to access. FMP are a commercial > organisation and expecting them to release a site that their paying > customers can use from day 1 is nothing but reasonable. After all, > it's the customers who are now being inconvenienced and even finding > the site unusable, and it's the customers' money that's having to be > being used to put things right. > > Yes, change can be confusing and take time to 'bed-in' but that's not > the issue here. The problem is that the site is simply not fit for > purpose. I will certainly not renew my subscription in October unless > there've been some serious improvements by then. > > John B > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message