> 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/

There is also the wonderful map provided by FamilySearch showing the various jurisdictions for parishes in England. http://maps.familysearch.org/ Paul Smart of FamilySearch advised us at the recent Guild of One-Name Studies conference that the map is in the process of being extended to cover Wales. See my report from the conference http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/guild-of-one-name-studies-2014.html Here is a Tiny URL in case the link breaks: http://tinyurl.com/GOONS2014 Debbie

This is probably a problem with no good solution, the more i look at it... We already have 3 current definitions of county outside of genealogy: ancient, ceremonial and modern. In the modern era some counties are broken up and no longer exist, whilst on the other hand some authorities, though now unitary, are coterminous with the previous county of the same name (Northumberland County, Wiltshire) so don't give us too many problems. Others have changed name and or boundaries twice or more since the 1963 Local Government Act established the GLC and several other Metropolitan counties. As genealogists, we tend to use the 1889-1965 definition for convenience, don't we? Often we talk of "pre 1974" counties, but more often mean pre 1965 ones, except for the inconvenient fact that the new authorities run or at least pay for the record offices. This puts Westminster in London, Wokingham in Berkshire and Swindon in Wiltshire, and 1965 (after the 1963 act) was the last time that recognisable counties covered every inch of the land. I think these counties are also the basis for the ceremonial counties (though not sure about that part of Berks that is now in Oxon!) I agree that situations will increasingly arise like the post 1983 GRO indexes. As the underlying records were created after 1974, i would expect names to conform to post 74 standards. If counties were named where none existed because of a unitary authority then i would expect this to be the ceremonial county, but most likely i would expect it to be absent (eg just "Swindon"). Logical but a database designers nightmare! My focus area was from 1837 to 1871, so fully eighteen years before county councils came into being, and when Westminster was still in Middlesex, becoming part of London in 1889 with the creation of the LCC. (Actually, part way through that period in 1844, Wokingham moved from Wiltshire to Berkshire, so was Wiltshire in 1841, but the 1841 census has it in Berkshire, doubtless because the Wokingham Union possibly covered parts of both!). Aargh! I guess it is part of the art of genealogy to learn about the history of places, but unless online systems (in extremis, if only in the notes) make it clear which definition of "county" is actually in use, then searching becomes more difficult and less systematic than it might. Obviously, if SoG, GSU, or a FHS or a record office has done a transcription and added county to the data, this will carry through to the results. I would like to think though that enough information will be available to see this reflected in the text next to the search boxes, wherever possible. Perhaps this suggests a project to document the successive changes to boundaries in the uk, as i assume that until the mid 1800s these were not set down in writing, unlike in the United States, where county boundaries are and were always documented, so tools can be created to map one to another, or validate them with a date. And no, at nearly 71 i feel that starting such a huge enterprise could possibly finish me off, though i would be happy to help. Anyone from one-place studies reading this? Dave Beakhust On 30 April 2014 23:05:16 "John Hanson" <john.hanson@one-name.org> wrote: > David > The problem that you describe might not be FMPs fault. > > The post 1983 BMDs are a database supplied by the GRO that they are not > permitted to amend. > > Several of the other databases on the site are not transcribed by FMP but > are supplied by the licensee (including the SoG) > > 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 David Beakhust > Sent: 30 April 2014 19:22 > To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP training > > Sorry, due to a finger problem, this post was partially sent a few moments > ago. This is the intended one. > One aspect that might have afflicted the old system, but for me came into > sharp focus as a navigation and search filter issue is the question of > inconsistent and inappropriate use of Counties. > Finding myself unable any more to select uniquely and only the records from > Westminster archives, a matter of moments on the old site, i searched for > advice. > Included (and it worked, to a point) was to select "Middlesex" as the > county. Trouble was, it did not single out Westminster Archives material, > but did indeed include it. > > This drew me to another aspect. On census and BMD records you can only > search for recent counties, so back in Westminster, I find my man when I > choose "London", but don't find him with Middlesex. > This is inconsistent with the advice and findings on Westminster archives > records, so FMP seems to be using two meanings for county. > > Also in transcripts of BMD Index records, county appears (and did previously > appear) in the results, though it is not part of the record set. > Registration districts did span county boundaries, so some of these must > surely be plain wrong. > The one thing that does not ever change till the end of the world is the > name of a place that ruled at the time the record was created. Yet you > cannot use that if it includes a pre 19th century county. > Example: Wokingham (or Oakingham) WILTSHIRE, this is in post County Council > but pre 1974 BERKSHIRE. It is a long way from Wiltshire, but before county > councils existed, such fragmented counties were common, and records included > them. > Where a FMP search includes county, you must enter Berkshire for that one. > > Indeed, a FH program I use that is American in origin will report if a town, > county, state combo are valid for a particular date, and this is of value > for example where one element is absent from the original record, or a date > is in doubt. > Would that a comprehensive "county validator" was available for the UK! > And FMP was consistent (or preferably allowed you to search for pre- CC era > counties as an alternative to more recent ones (and was clear about which > you were choosing) > > On 30/04/2014 18:11, Adrian Bruce wrote: > > > > <<snipped>> > > I don't know how long they spent testing the site but it clearly > > wasn't adequate. > > <<snipped>> > > > > While I agree that user testing wasn't adequate - plainly! - the fact > > is that the new system was tested for some months before full > > cut-over, as numerous people were using it in pilot mode. > > > > We also need to remember that the new screens were demonstrated at > > WDYTYA Live and, so far as we understand, were generally well > > received. Though of course they would have been chosen to display the > > powerful aspects of the new system. > > > > My suspicion is that the testing and demonstrations focussed on > > individual screens and the appalling navigation was never in focus. > > After all, if you are demoing screens, you are just not going to go up > > and down, up and down all the time. This is *not* an excuse - > > navigation should be part of the test - but it may be an explanation. > > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 think in the particular case of Wokingham the parish was partly in Berkshire and partly in Wiltshire, until the Wiltshire part was transferred to Berkshire in 1844 - a long time before the county councils were created in 1889. There is a very useful Wikipedia article on the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844 which lists the boundary changes made in that year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counties_%28Detached_Parts%29_Act_1844 Surely what matters for civil registration and the census is the registration district, based on poor law unions, and the notional "poor law counties" which result from the fact that unions quite frequently crossed county boundaries. And for images of parish registers, in practice sites like FMP and Ancestry are likely, perfectly reasonably, to organise these in "collections" based on the record office that currently holds them. Chris Pitt Lewis On 30/04/2014 19:21, David Beakhust wrote: > The one thing that does not ever change till the end of the world is the > name of a place that ruled at the time the record was created. Yet you > cannot use that if it includes a pre 19th century county. > Example: Wokingham (or Oakingham) WILTSHIRE, this is in post County > Council but pre 1974 BERKSHIRE. It is a long way from Wiltshire, but > before county councils existed, such fragmented counties were common, > and records included them. > Where a FMP search includes county, you must enter Berkshire for that one. > --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

> From: David Beakhust > Sent: 01 May 2014 12:26 > > Perhaps this suggests a project to document the successive changes to > boundaries in the uk, as i assume that until the mid 1800s these were > not set down in writing, unlike in the United States, where county > boundaries are and were always documented, so tools can be created to > map one to another, or validate them with a date. And no, at nearly 71 > i feel that starting such a huge enterprise could possibly finish me > off, though i would be happy to help. It's already been done, even down to the level of changing parish and township boundaries. See http://www.visionofbritain.org/ 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/

Worth searching PIN class records at TNA too, which are in their online catalogue. Most (all?) of the entries are just surnames and initial forename though. Peter Bennett On 30 April 2014 17:57, Adrian Bruce <abruce@madasafish.com> wrote: > > <<snipped>> > Anyone (from the first world war) who was considered for a pension or > allowance, and certainly those who did receive an allowance, is likely to > be > in the WO 364 records available at TNA and on Ancestry. Unlike WO 363, my > understanding is that these records are reasonable complete. > > (I do stand to be corrected on any of this) > <<snipped>> > > Alas Keith - my understanding is that the WO364 records represent only a > fraction of those WW1 soldiers receiving a pension. In fact, no-one can > really explain why the pensions people had what's there - suggestions range > from "surveys" to "couldn't be bothered to send them back". That, at any > rate, is the story from The Great War Forum. > > Certainly the WO364 stuff is pension linked (usually!) but there are > anomalies, such as soldiers in both 363 and 364. > > Again - I stand to be corrected! > > Adrian > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

David The problem that you describe might not be FMPs fault. The post 1983 BMDs are a database supplied by the GRO that they are not permitted to amend. Several of the other databases on the site are not transcribed by FMP but are supplied by the licensee (including the SoG) 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 David Beakhust Sent: 30 April 2014 19:22 To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP training Sorry, due to a finger problem, this post was partially sent a few moments ago. This is the intended one. One aspect that might have afflicted the old system, but for me came into sharp focus as a navigation and search filter issue is the question of inconsistent and inappropriate use of Counties. Finding myself unable any more to select uniquely and only the records from Westminster archives, a matter of moments on the old site, i searched for advice. Included (and it worked, to a point) was to select "Middlesex" as the county. Trouble was, it did not single out Westminster Archives material, but did indeed include it. This drew me to another aspect. On census and BMD records you can only search for recent counties, so back in Westminster, I find my man when I choose "London", but don't find him with Middlesex. This is inconsistent with the advice and findings on Westminster archives records, so FMP seems to be using two meanings for county. Also in transcripts of BMD Index records, county appears (and did previously appear) in the results, though it is not part of the record set. Registration districts did span county boundaries, so some of these must surely be plain wrong. The one thing that does not ever change till the end of the world is the name of a place that ruled at the time the record was created. Yet you cannot use that if it includes a pre 19th century county. Example: Wokingham (or Oakingham) WILTSHIRE, this is in post County Council but pre 1974 BERKSHIRE. It is a long way from Wiltshire, but before county councils existed, such fragmented counties were common, and records included them. Where a FMP search includes county, you must enter Berkshire for that one. Indeed, a FH program I use that is American in origin will report if a town, county, state combo are valid for a particular date, and this is of value for example where one element is absent from the original record, or a date is in doubt. Would that a comprehensive "county validator" was available for the UK! And FMP was consistent (or preferably allowed you to search for pre- CC era counties as an alternative to more recent ones (and was clear about which you were choosing) On 30/04/2014 18:11, Adrian Bruce wrote: > > <<snipped>> > I don't know how long they spent testing the site but it clearly > wasn't adequate. > <<snipped>> > > While I agree that user testing wasn't adequate - plainly! - the fact > is that the new system was tested for some months before full > cut-over, as numerous people were using it in pilot mode. > > We also need to remember that the new screens were demonstrated at > WDYTYA Live and, so far as we understand, were generally well > received. Though of course they would have been chosen to display the > powerful aspects of the new system. > > My suspicion is that the testing and demonstrations focussed on > individual screens and the appalling navigation was never in focus. > After all, if you are demoing screens, you are just not going to go up > and down, up and down all the time. This is *not* an excuse - > navigation should be part of the test - but it may be an explanation. > > 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 ------------------------------- 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

Thanks for the advice re a-z data sets...... I see it now. (I still think that county is being used to a degree inconsistently, but this is arguably not a ui issue but probable a genuine difference of opinion.) Also do others find what i have - possibly because of changed search form design: If you change to searching a different data set, you have to enter data again (sometimes there are naturally different fields). So far so obvious, but irritating if you want to follow one family through the 51/61/71 etc census. However, the browser helps you by remembering words, names, dates previously entered in similar fields, so retyping should be minimised in some cases. So far so good, and often useful in the old design. With searches involving a handful of surnames or place names this has been a time saver. However, with the new design, I am as likely to find that the browser remembers a bunch of place names for a date field, a surname for a place name and so on. I conclude that the underlying code has just "field1", " field2" etc, instead of meaningful names. As a result, when moving to another dataset, the remembered fields are not in useful places because the presence of an extra field moves the re membered data into the wrong place. Anyone else found this? Dave Beakhust

To search Westminster records go to search at top of page, Bottom item is A-Z of record sets, Just type westminster and you get 4 options. Hilary On 30 April 2014 19:21, David Beakhust <dave@beakhust.com> wrote: > Sorry, due to a finger problem, this post was partially sent a few > moments ago. This is the intended one. > One aspect that might have afflicted the old system, but for me came > into sharp focus as a navigation and search filter issue is the question > of inconsistent and inappropriate use of Counties. > Finding myself unable any more to select uniquely and only the records > from Westminster archives, a matter of moments on the old site, i > searched for advice. > Included (and it worked, to a point) was to select "Middlesex" as the > county. Trouble was, it did not single out Westminster Archives > material, but did indeed include it. > > This drew me to another aspect. On census and BMD records you can only > search for recent counties, so back in Westminster, I find my man when I > choose "London", but don't find him with Middlesex. > This is inconsistent with the advice and findings on Westminster > archives records, so FMP seems to be using two meanings for county. > > Also in transcripts of BMD Index records, county appears (and did > previously appear) in the results, though it is not part of the record > set. Registration districts did span county boundaries, so some of these > must surely be plain wrong. > The one thing that does not ever change till the end of the world is the > name of a place that ruled at the time the record was created. Yet you > cannot use that if it includes a pre 19th century county. > Example: Wokingham (or Oakingham) WILTSHIRE, this is in post County > Council but pre 1974 BERKSHIRE. It is a long way from Wiltshire, but > before county councils existed, such fragmented counties were common, > and records included them. > Where a FMP search includes county, you must enter Berkshire for that one. > > Indeed, a FH program I use that is American in origin will report if a > town, county, state combo are valid for a particular date, and this is > of value for example where one element is absent from the original > record, or a date is in doubt. > Would that a comprehensive "county validator" was available for the UK! > And FMP was consistent (or preferably allowed you to search for pre- CC > era counties as an alternative to more recent ones (and was clear about > which you were choosing) > > On 30/04/2014 18:11, Adrian Bruce wrote: > > > > <<snipped>> > > I don't know how long they spent testing the site but it clearly wasn't > > adequate. > > <<snipped>> > > > > While I agree that user testing wasn't adequate - plainly! - the fact is > > that the new system was tested for some months before full cut-over, as > > numerous people were using it in pilot mode. > > > > We also need to remember that the new screens were demonstrated at WDYTYA > > Live and, so far as we understand, were generally well received. Though > of > > course they would have been chosen to display the powerful aspects of the > > new system. > > > > My suspicion is that the testing and demonstrations focussed on > individual > > screens and the appalling navigation was never in focus. After all, if > you > > are demoing screens, you are just not going to go up and down, up and > down > > all the time. This is *not* an excuse - navigation should be part of the > > test - but it may be an explanation. > > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Sorry, due to a finger problem, this post was partially sent a few moments ago. This is the intended one. One aspect that might have afflicted the old system, but for me came into sharp focus as a navigation and search filter issue is the question of inconsistent and inappropriate use of Counties. Finding myself unable any more to select uniquely and only the records from Westminster archives, a matter of moments on the old site, i searched for advice. Included (and it worked, to a point) was to select "Middlesex" as the county. Trouble was, it did not single out Westminster Archives material, but did indeed include it. This drew me to another aspect. On census and BMD records you can only search for recent counties, so back in Westminster, I find my man when I choose "London", but don't find him with Middlesex. This is inconsistent with the advice and findings on Westminster archives records, so FMP seems to be using two meanings for county. Also in transcripts of BMD Index records, county appears (and did previously appear) in the results, though it is not part of the record set. Registration districts did span county boundaries, so some of these must surely be plain wrong. The one thing that does not ever change till the end of the world is the name of a place that ruled at the time the record was created. Yet you cannot use that if it includes a pre 19th century county. Example: Wokingham (or Oakingham) WILTSHIRE, this is in post County Council but pre 1974 BERKSHIRE. It is a long way from Wiltshire, but before county councils existed, such fragmented counties were common, and records included them. Where a FMP search includes county, you must enter Berkshire for that one. Indeed, a FH program I use that is American in origin will report if a town, county, state combo are valid for a particular date, and this is of value for example where one element is absent from the original record, or a date is in doubt. Would that a comprehensive "county validator" was available for the UK! And FMP was consistent (or preferably allowed you to search for pre- CC era counties as an alternative to more recent ones (and was clear about which you were choosing) On 30/04/2014 18:11, Adrian Bruce wrote: > > <<snipped>> > I don't know how long they spent testing the site but it clearly wasn't > adequate. > <<snipped>> > > While I agree that user testing wasn't adequate - plainly! - the fact is > that the new system was tested for some months before full cut-over, as > numerous people were using it in pilot mode. > > We also need to remember that the new screens were demonstrated at WDYTYA > Live and, so far as we understand, were generally well received. Though of > course they would have been chosen to display the powerful aspects of the > new system. > > My suspicion is that the testing and demonstrations focussed on individual > screens and the appalling navigation was never in focus. After all, if you > are demoing screens, you are just not going to go up and down, up and down > all the time. This is *not* an excuse - navigation should be part of the > test - but it may be an explanation. > > 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

If anyone has found a workaround that will enable me to download a copy of a newspaper article, I would be grateful if they would share the secret with me. Unfortunately, the Snipping Tool is not producing a sufficiently clear and complete copy. Best wishes, Marion Woolgar Bognor Regis, West Sussex

<<snipped>> I don't know how long they spent testing the site but it clearly wasn't adequate. <<snipped>> While I agree that user testing wasn't adequate - plainly! - the fact is that the new system was tested for some months before full cut-over, as numerous people were using it in pilot mode. We also need to remember that the new screens were demonstrated at WDYTYA Live and, so far as we understand, were generally well received. Though of course they would have been chosen to display the powerful aspects of the new system. My suspicion is that the testing and demonstrations focussed on individual screens and the appalling navigation was never in focus. After all, if you are demoing screens, you are just not going to go up and down, up and down all the time. This is *not* an excuse - navigation should be part of the test - but it may be an explanation. Adrian B

Yes, have cancelled my automatic renewal too - won't be renewing until I see a vast improvement. Have seen that video John - it doesn't help with some of my queries - I have been in touch with customer services and my query has been passed on - still waiting for a response. Rae Knight On 30 April 2014 18:03, John Hanson <john.hanson@one-name.org> wrote: > Rae > > You might want to have a look at the Youtube video put to together by Myko > Clelland at FMP which whilst not as exhaustive as Monday and certainly too > quick (so you may need to go through it a few times) it does explain some > of > the ways to get meaningful results from the site > > 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 Rae Knight > Sent: 30 April 2014 15:15 > To: SOG-UK@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SOG-UK] FMP training > > Can anyone who attended the recent FMP training at the SOG please report > back on if they learnt anything useful. > > I am still having terrible problems with the site and FMP aren't replying > to > legitimate questions on Facebook (their chosen media). > > They have also deleted literally 1000's of comments from their feedback > site > including many helpful workarounds. > > I was wondering how the training/meeting went and if it was in any way > helpful. I would liked to have gone but all the places seemed to go within > 2 hours. It would be nice for somebody to post a report on how it went. > > Thank you > > 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 >

Rae You might want to have a look at the Youtube video put to together by Myko Clelland at FMP which whilst not as exhaustive as Monday and certainly too quick (so you may need to go through it a few times) it does explain some of the ways to get meaningful results from the site 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 Rae Knight Sent: 30 April 2014 15:15 To: SOG-UK@rootsweb.com Subject: [SOG-UK] FMP training Can anyone who attended the recent FMP training at the SOG please report back on if they learnt anything useful. I am still having terrible problems with the site and FMP aren't replying to legitimate questions on Facebook (their chosen media). They have also deleted literally 1000's of comments from their feedback site including many helpful workarounds. I was wondering how the training/meeting went and if it was in any way helpful. I would liked to have gone but all the places seemed to go within 2 hours. It would be nice for somebody to post a report on how it went. Thank you 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

A a matter of interest I, too, have cancelled my automatic sub renewal on my file. Their new system is abominable!! Chris Stupples

<<snipped>> Anyone (from the first world war) who was considered for a pension or allowance, and certainly those who did receive an allowance, is likely to be in the WO 364 records available at TNA and on Ancestry. Unlike WO 363, my understanding is that these records are reasonable complete. (I do stand to be corrected on any of this) <<snipped>> Alas Keith - my understanding is that the WO364 records represent only a fraction of those WW1 soldiers receiving a pension. In fact, no-one can really explain why the pensions people had what's there - suggestions range from "surveys" to "couldn't be bothered to send them back". That, at any rate, is the story from The Great War Forum. Certainly the WO364 stuff is pension linked (usually!) but there are anomalies, such as soldiers in both 363 and 364. Again - I stand to be corrected! Adrian

I found what appears to be a good explanation of the causes for discharge at: http://www.forrestdale.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ In this case my guess would be that he never became an active soldier, never saw the front, and would not have received any medals. He would not have received an allowance as the condition did not occur in service. Anyone (from the first world war) who was considered for a pension or allowance, and certainly those who did receive an allowance, is likely to be in the WO 364 records available at TNA and on Ancestry. Unlike WO 363, my understanding is that these records are reasonable complete. (I do stand to be corrected on any of this) regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 30/04/2014 14:20, Susan Francia wrote: > I am researching a man who enlisted in the British army in September 1914 and was then discharged for medical reasons in December 1914 as being unfit for service. The reason was given as 'Medically Unfit Para 392 (iii) C KR 1912.' I understand that this means he was not likely to become an efficient soldier. Does anyone know whether he would have been awarded any kind of allowance? > S. Francia > > ------------------------------- > 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 so much for that Rosemary. I don't know how long they spent testing the site but it clearly wasn't adequate. Quite frankly I am appalled at the number of errors and inconsistencies. It's very good to get such an honest appraisal from a professional genealogist something which has been lacking in my opinion. Rae Knight On 30 April 2014 16:23, Rosemary Morgan <rosemarymorgan@btopenworld.com>wrote: > I attended the training but I'm sorry to say that the main thing I learnt > was that "we're all in the same boat - it's not just me then!" > > I felt sorry for Paul Nixon as it was apparent that many in the audience > understood the new site (and its idiosyncrasies) better than he did (but > he is now in charge of licensing and not "Search"). > > I did, however, have a private meeting with the FMP development team in > the afternoon, representing professional genealogists, and passed on > several detailed feedback papers, including screenshots, from > professionals on what doesn't work (or works inadequately). I understand > that the much loved census household page is currently being restored to > something like it was before. But I was shocked to discover that the team > had no idea that the layout of many of the search pages and results pages > varies according to the route you take to access them. Apparently no-one > had mentioned that! As an ex-market researcher I do despair of the user > testing they have done. > > After my visit, I had an email from the CEO of D C Thomson (who own FMP) > asking me for a telephone conference with her and her Chief Customer > Officer - and this took place yesterday evening. So the feedback I > gathered has now been taken to the very top of the organisation!! They > certainly know what we professionals think of the current site, and I was > assured that ALL the functionality of the old site will be restored as > quickly as they can possibly do so (no timings were given unfortunately). > > I did find the two latest Lost Cousins newsletters helpful, especially > regarding the way you access different searches: > > http://lostcousins.com/newsletters/easter14news.htm#FindmypastTips > > > http://www.lostcousins.com/newsletters/lateapr14news.htm#findmypastTips > > > If I get a chance I may blog about all the workarounds - someone should! > > I can also report back here when FMP give me a progress update on their > corrections (which I've asked them not to call "improvements") which they > have promised to give me. > > Rosemary Morgan > Professional Genealogist > London Roots Research > www.londonrootsresearch.blogspot.com > > > > On 30/04/2014 15:15, "Rae Knight" <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Can anyone who attended the recent FMP training at the SOG please report > >back on if they learnt anything useful. > > > >I am still having terrible problems with the site and FMP aren't replying > >to legitimate questions on Facebook (their chosen media). > > > >They have also deleted literally 1000's of comments from their feedback > >site including many helpful workarounds. > > > >I was wondering how the training/meeting went and if it was in any way > >helpful. I would liked to have gone but all the places seemed to go within > >2 hours. It would be nice for somebody to post a report on how it went. > > > >Thank you > > > >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 >

I had a relative to which this applied. He was a sucker for punishment, as he signed on in 1903 and was discharged in a few weeks for the same reason "not likely to become an efficient soldier". On that occasion he signed on in Middlesex, but was in Dublin at discharge. He stayed there. Not sure if the army did not fund a return home or he fancied it there. He is found in a church run soldiers home in Dublin in 1911, so not exactly thriving (or just canny of course!) On the outbreak of war in 1914, he signed up again (in Dublin) and again was discharged for the same reason, but this time, possibly because i found this record in the pensions section, the medical situation was spelled out. He was deaf. Also this record was from about 1920 and appeared to suggest a claim was being made. I have no evidence of how much if anything he would have been entitled to by way of pension, or whether he needed a paper to say he was ex service to get some dole or payment, or recognition of disability. By now he was married (indeed was by 1914) had become Catholic, and went on to found the Irish branch of my registered surname. His service at discharge was reckoned up as so many days. I guess it is possible that a pittance may have been paid as pension, but i have no evidence of the amount if any. The 1903 service seems to have been forgotten. It is very likely that your person had a "hidden" disability, such as deafness, as my chap had, extreme short sight, asthma, or general weakness. Possibly something more serious such as TB, but not apparent on enlistment. I got the impression that if you had two legs, two arms and a head and were not actually raving, you were signed on, leaving the unit you were assigned to for training to sort out the mess! If you find the pension records from after the war, an actual diagnosis might be mentioned, but may have been at the whim of the MO. I only have one mans records to go on. Good luck Dave Beakhust On 30 April 2014 14:25:02 Susan Francia <safrancia@hotmail.com> wrote: > I am researching a man who enlisted in the British army in September 1914 and was then discharged for medical reasons in December 1914 as being unfit for service. The reason was given as 'Medically Unfit Para 392 (iii) C KR 1912.' I understand that this means he was not likely to become an efficient soldier. Does anyone know whether he would have been awarded any kind of allowance? > S. Francia > > ------------------------------- > 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 attended the training but I'm sorry to say that the main thing I learnt was that "we're all in the same boat - it's not just me then!" I felt sorry for Paul Nixon as it was apparent that many in the audience understood the new site (and its idiosyncrasies) better than he did (but he is now in charge of licensing and not "Search"). I did, however, have a private meeting with the FMP development team in the afternoon, representing professional genealogists, and passed on several detailed feedback papers, including screenshots, from professionals on what doesn't work (or works inadequately). I understand that the much loved census household page is currently being restored to something like it was before. But I was shocked to discover that the team had no idea that the layout of many of the search pages and results pages varies according to the route you take to access them. Apparently no-one had mentioned that! As an ex-market researcher I do despair of the user testing they have done. After my visit, I had an email from the CEO of D C Thomson (who own FMP) asking me for a telephone conference with her and her Chief Customer Officer - and this took place yesterday evening. So the feedback I gathered has now been taken to the very top of the organisation!! They certainly know what we professionals think of the current site, and I was assured that ALL the functionality of the old site will be restored as quickly as they can possibly do so (no timings were given unfortunately). I did find the two latest Lost Cousins newsletters helpful, especially regarding the way you access different searches: http://lostcousins.com/newsletters/easter14news.htm#FindmypastTips http://www.lostcousins.com/newsletters/lateapr14news.htm#findmypastTips If I get a chance I may blog about all the workarounds - someone should! I can also report back here when FMP give me a progress update on their corrections (which I've asked them not to call "improvements") which they have promised to give me. Rosemary Morgan Professional Genealogist London Roots Research www.londonrootsresearch.blogspot.com On 30/04/2014 15:15, "Rae Knight" <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: >Can anyone who attended the recent FMP training at the SOG please report >back on if they learnt anything useful. > >I am still having terrible problems with the site and FMP aren't replying >to legitimate questions on Facebook (their chosen media). > >They have also deleted literally 1000's of comments from their feedback >site including many helpful workarounds. > >I was wondering how the training/meeting went and if it was in any way >helpful. I would liked to have gone but all the places seemed to go within >2 hours. It would be nice for somebody to post a report on how it went. > >Thank you > >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