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
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
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
> 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/
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