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

My penn’orth is that this is a symptom that internet services have become serious systems just like the big old corporate systems we used to work on in the mainframe days. The modern paradigm has brought great flexibility and agility and new services can be brought to market incredibly quickly. However, as the impact of these services widens and the user population grows the old disciplines need to be brought back into play. Without sounding like an old fossil, the younger generation of IT folk have not had to deal with significant business processing such as a banking system on its knees five minutes before the 3pm CHAPS cut-off. Design, planning, testing, piloting, fallback, resiliency, testing, testing testing. In my mainframe days I would have been literally hung up by my ankles if I brought a live system down or into disrepute. Flexibility and agility are not bad things but some of us old geezers know a thing or three and have the scars to prove it ! Every modern digital agency or development organisation should have a few old wizened consultants lurking around to remind people that if things go wrong there can be dire consequences. On 3 May 2014, at 09:56, John Brown <john@johndhb.me.uk> wrote: >> 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 >

>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

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

<<snipped>> Whether or not the parish appears in the search results depends on the record set. For example, if you search 'Kent baptisms' the parish isn't shown in the search results, but if you search 'Canterbury baptisms' then it is. I would guess it's to do with how the data is formatted (the transcriptions for these two record sets use completely different templates). <<snipped>> I agree, Peter. "Diocese of Chester parish registers of baptisms c1538-1910" shows "Cheshire, England" for the person I'm looking at. The "Diocese of Chester Bishop's Transcripts of Baptisms c1600-1910" shows "Davenham, Cheshire, England" for a similar event (but in the different data source). The "transcriptions" (indexes for goodness sake!) show different fields have been populated. Now, these Cheshire records were indexed by LDS and I have said on several occasions, that the LDS indexing was nothing like consistent across the Cheshire collection. I suspect that when FMP loaded the original Cheshire Collection, it did data quality checking and mapped the loading data to its (old) database in such a way that it always got the parish name in the right spot. (At least I *think* it did!). Loading all their old databases into the new databases, I think the quality checking has been skimped - perhaps on the basis that it loaded once, so surely it was OK? Or perhaps it was simply the volume of data to be loaded that made it impractical to check to the same level? Whatever the reason, we appear to have a series of data quality issues that have impacts varying from minor irritations to major fiascos (e.g. the issues with searching a census by birthplace). When I can summon up the enthusiasm I will try to compare like with like to see what causes the loss.... Adrian B

Good luck Rosemary! Let's hope they get it sorted soon. On 2 May 2014 23:26, Rosemary Morgan <rosemarymorgan@btopenworld.com> wrote: > Thank you, Rae, it is very satisfying to have my efforts acknowledged. > > The reason I chose to do so, however, was partially out of self-interest. > I run a professional genealogy business and was finding I couldn't even > re-create some of the searches my clients were sending me as background > data. I then found I couldn't re-create some searches I'd provided them > with a month or so earlier. I was literally tearing my hair out. > > Hopefully they now have the message - and I shall be keeping tabs on them. > > Rosemary > > On 02/05/2014 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 >

Thank you, Rae, it is very satisfying to have my efforts acknowledged. The reason I chose to do so, however, was partially out of self-interest. I run a professional genealogy business and was finding I couldn't even re-create some of the searches my clients were sending me as background data. I then found I couldn't re-create some searches I'd provided them with a month or so earlier. I was literally tearing my hair out. Hopefully they now have the message - and I shall be keeping tabs on them. Rosemary On 02/05/2014 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

> 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! Whether or not the parish appears in the search results depends on the record set. For example, if you search 'Kent baptisms' the parish isn't shown in the search results, but if you search 'Canterbury baptisms' then it is. I would guess it's to do with how the data is formatted (the transcriptions for these two record sets use completely different templates). I don't know what would have been displayed at the old site; I do agree that overall the searching of parish records has improved. 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. 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

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 >

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

I think the apology is a bit half-hearted and their blog was less than convincing. I for one am now actively looking at Ancestry as an alternative source. This evening I tried to see if I could get a census report based on the old family listing print-out. Nothing was evident so I gave up! Chris Stupples

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

<<snipped>> I do hope they didn't also do this in Wales, except for the obvious, such as St Davids -> Davids. <<snipped>> Is that "David's" or "Davids"? (grin - sorry - couldn't resist that!) Adrian

Good point. I do hope they didn't also do this in Wales, except for the obvious, such as St Davids -> Davids. Dave Beakhust On 1 May 2014 19:27:17 Chris Pitt Lewis <chris@cjpl.demon.co.uk> wrote: > As Quakers in past centuries eschewed the use of the title "Saint" in > parish names, plain "Albans" is always the best way to search for it in > their records! > > Chris Pitt Lewis > > On 01/05/2014 17:36, Adrian Bruce wrote: > > > > Just spotted a query on the FMP Feedback forum that leads into an > > interesting discovery. Well, it was interesting to me... > > > > The context was searching BMD for people with events in St. Albans. It turns > > out that one dataset is indexed as "St. Albans" and another is indexed as > > "St Albans" *without" the period. If you enter just "Albans", the way the > > BMD are searched, you'll get both versions. > > > > This, of course, could apply to any compound place-name that includes a > > contraction. > > > > Of course, those of you with interests in such areas may already do the > > equivalent of searching on "Albans" already and I'm way behind the times! > > > > Adrian 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 > > > > --- > 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

As Quakers in past centuries eschewed the use of the title "Saint" in parish names, plain "Albans" is always the best way to search for it in their records! Chris Pitt Lewis On 01/05/2014 17:36, Adrian Bruce wrote: > > Just spotted a query on the FMP Feedback forum that leads into an > interesting discovery. Well, it was interesting to me... > > The context was searching BMD for people with events in St. Albans. It turns > out that one dataset is indexed as "St. Albans" and another is indexed as > "St Albans" *without" the period. If you enter just "Albans", the way the > BMD are searched, you'll get both versions. > > This, of course, could apply to any compound place-name that includes a > contraction. > > Of course, those of you with interests in such areas may already do the > equivalent of searching on "Albans" already and I'm way behind the times! > > Adrian 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 > --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

Aha! Finally tracked it down to http://www.visionofbritain.org/unit/10139612 using advanced search. To be fair, my fault, i had missed the advanced search, and what is restricted is the underlying data, only accessible to educational establishments. Possibly more for performance than rights reasons! But anyone wanting to create a tool that manipulates the data would I suppose need data access. This source also indicates explicitly the possibility that a RegD county can differ from the administrative county, which sorts a reason why only warwickshire should match. Thanks also for the tip that you can as i suspected cajole fmp to search for a registration district using a keyword, but not within the gro index datasets alone- only if others are included, so that the keyword field is available on the search screen. It follows that the query exists on the underlying database, just that you cannot specify it - bringing us right back to the "navigation problem". ***Come on FMP, give us an advanced search!*** There are of course cases where the place itself may be matched but not the REGD, and vice versa. But that is not FMP's fault, even though it affects the effectiveness of workarounds. Example, Salisbury between 1837 and 1850 includes just 3 parishes but not the cathedral. After 1851 Salisbury RegD disappears altogether for a few years, becoming merged with Alderbury. Then Salisbury reappears, including more or less what is in Alderbury, but now including the Cathedral. Searching with a keyword Salisbury just after 1851 should return no hits in the GRO index as the district did not exist. As i say, not FMPs fault (for a change). Genuki reveals all the gruesome detail in a way i find most clear. So by asking to search for registration district, i realise that i do need to be very careful what i wish for! Dave Beakhust On 1 May 2014 16:14:09 "MILLARD A.R." <a.r.millard@durham.ac.uk> wrote: > > From: David Beakhust > > Sent: 01 May 2014 15:44 > > > > Most of the visionofbritain stuff is closed to me, as joe public, and > > the > > rest seemed to be suffering from broken links today, but i see that > > some of > > the data only goes back to 1906. > > I don't understand why you say this. I've never found any part of the site inaccessible from home, and the principle has always been that it is freely accessible because of its partial funding by HLF. For example, the details about Shipston on Stour RD can be found here: > http://www.visionofbritain.org/unit/10139612#tab02 > along with maps of its boundaries overlaid on modern and historical maps: > http://www.visionofbritain.org/unit/10139612/boundary > If there is data that only goes back to 1906, that will be because it was only collected from that date. The site covers administrative units from 1801 onwards and they are extending back to earlier periods. > > > Best wishes > > Andrew > -- > Andrew Millard - A.R.Millard@durham.ac.uk > Chair, Trustees of Genuki: www.genuki.org.uk > Maintainer, Genuki Middx + London: homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/ > Academic Co-ordinator, Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org > Bodimeade one-name study: community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/ > My genealogy: community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/ > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Just spotted a query on the FMP Feedback forum that leads into an interesting discovery. Well, it was interesting to me... The context was searching BMD for people with events in St. Albans. It turns out that one dataset is indexed as "St. Albans" and another is indexed as "St Albans" *without" the period. If you enter just "Albans", the way the BMD are searched, you'll get both versions. This, of course, could apply to any compound place-name that includes a contraction. Of course, those of you with interests in such areas may already do the equivalent of searching on "Albans" already and I'm way behind the times! Adrian B

> FMP does not seem to allow registration district to be entered > as a search term in gro index searches You can enter the registration district as a keyword - it's not ideal, but it works fairly well. To get to the right search form start with "Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records" from the dropdown menu on the home page, then choose (say) "Births & baptisms" from the All Collections dropdown menu; finally filter for the specifc record set. Or click here: http://search.findmypast.co.uk/results/united-kingdom-records-in-birth-marriage-death-and-paris h-records/and_births-and-baptisms/england-and-wales-births-1837-2006 Peter

Thanks for the visionofbritain info, plus the familysearch maps. I have seen odd fragments of the familysearch maps, but never explored the thing in full. Thank you. Very useful as it is graphical, interactive, and based on 1851, so is pre- county council era (hence worcestershire still spread all over the place like spilt coffee!), but after some tidying up in the preceding decade, so counties are not QUITE as fragmented as in the previous century. It is nonetheless very useful at a good level of detail, albeit for only one date. I have bookmarked it. To this i can add the genuki pages starting here http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/districts/index.html listing the changes affecting registration districts, their constituent parishes and counties, all the way from 1837 forwards, and linked to from free BMD. I tried to count the changes affecting shipston on stour, but ran out of fingers! Not graphical, but most changes can be mentally projected onto the familysearch maps, though not all, as parish boundaries may change. All we need is a way to graft all this together (maybe that is what we need our brains for!) I note that FMP does not seem to allow registration district to be entered as a search term in gro index searches, nor to filter or prioritise results, even indirectly; but indirectly ancestry does (as a place name). Shipston on stour RD is interesting as free BMD has it as Warwickshire (and this is the basis of the Ancestry search), but familysearch map has it spread across three counties, warwickshire, gloucestershire and Worcestershire. Actually, specific *results* in free BMD DO mention the spread across 3 counties, but even that is apparently lost if you search via ancestry (value subtracted?). [Tested by searching for a specific 1849 birth.] Most of the visionofbritain stuff is closed to me, as joe public, and the rest seemed to be suffering from broken links today, but i see that some of the data only goes back to 1906. If anyone knows a way to sort, filter or search for registration district in fmp, i would love to know. Perhaps it will do that if i don't explicitly limit myself to the gro data sets, so can enter it as a placename? Who knows? Is there a well hidden "advanced search" feature? I do find myself using free BMD a great deal more these days for gro searches, unless i want a post 1950s event. It is so open to manipulation of the results, that the value i get out is FAR greater than on any pay platform. Sorry, FMP! Sorry Ancestry. Well done free BMD and all who sail in her! Thanks for all the assistance. Dave Beakhust