Dear Catherine, Thank you for such a helpful reply. When the information is correct it really is splendid, and I'm pleased that Ancestry understand the importance of correcting it. We'll await the results in August eagerly. If you want an example of the combining of two churches within one batch, it has happened with Royston St John the Baptist and Sowerby St Peter's. One of the list members gave us a baptism of Thomas Cooper, son of Robert, in 1733 which appears twice in the index, once at each church, and the image pages in the Royston batch are from both churches. The correct parish is not easily identified if you don't know the area, so I symathise with their problem - a bit. If you don't mind, I would ask the list to report any new problems to you directly and copy the list: please, listers, give a full example if it's a new problem so that Ancestry can work out what has happened. Many thanks Maggie -----Original Message----- From: Catherine Taylor <ctaylor@wyjs.org.uk> To: 'maggiemole@aol.com' <maggiemole@aol.com> CC: 'WEST-RIDING@rootsweb.com' <WEST-RIDING@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:20 Subject: RE: West Yorkshire Parish Records on Ancestry Dear Maggie (and rootsweb members), Thank you for your email which has been passed to me as I currently have oversight of our contract with Ancestry.co.uk. As you mention in your email there are a number of issues with the data as it currently is provided on Ancestry. I think I was aware of all the issues you mention and have reported them to Ancestry and since been in discussion with them about how they are to fix the problems. The reason it has taken me a few days to reply to you was so I could get the latest information from ancestry to pass on. You mention the following as being the particularly problems you have noticed: - an individual's record being attributed to more than one parish church - an individual's record being attributed to the wrong church - more than one church's records within what is meant to be a single batch - that your own labelling at the foot of an image has been cut off on the display, so we cannot cross-check from your paper documents The first two appear to have been at least partially caused by Ancestry using the information on the head of the page to create the parish attribute rather than the reference number from the image (your issue four has not helped with this), further difficulties seem to have been caused by them confusing records from one diocese and attributing them to another. With regards issue three I have been unable to ascertain why this has happened. What Ancestry have agreed to do is to check each image against the reference numbers and correct the citation and parish attribution as necessary. It is hoped that the amended indexing will be live from August. I am working alongside Ancestry to offer advice where they are struggling to correctly identify the images. At the same time Ancestry are apparently going to fix some of the more common transcription issues such as where surnames have been omitted or names have been commonly mis-transcribed e.g. Lykes for Sykes. I hope that this will go a long way to fixing the problems but would be grateful if you could continue to highlight any further major errors. Yours sincerely, Catherine Catherine Taylor E-Services/Offsite Services Coordinator West Yorkshire Archive Service West Yorkshire Joint Services PO Box 5, Nepshaw Lane South Morley, Leeds LS27 0QP (LS27 7JQ for sat nav) t: +44 (0)113 289 8287 f: +44 (0)113 2530311 w: http://www.archives.wyjs.org.uk West Yorkshire Archive Service has launched it's e-shop! You can now purchase most of our services online athttps://eshop.wyjs.org.uk/ including research service time, copies from the Registry of Deeds and from our collections as well as high quality colour tithe maps of the Leeds area! From: maggiemole@aol.com [mailto:maggiemole@aol.com] Sent: 10 July 2011 10:55 To: Archives Cc: WEST-RIDING@rootsweb.com Subject: West Yorkshire Parish Records on Ancestry Dear WYJS, In common with other genealogy researchers, I have been using the recent releases of the above records on Ancestry. In many cases, I have been rewarded with information I did not previously have and which would have taken inordinate effort to acquire - so the release is very welcome, and the images remarkably clear to read. Well done! However, there are also many errors of indexing coming to light. I am copying the rootsweb mailing list as you can see above as complaints have been aired widely across the world over the last week or so. I wonder what supervision you have had over the indexing process? We have found: - an individual's record being attributed to more than one parish church - an individual's record being attributed to the wrong church - more than one church's records within what is meant to be a single batch - that your own labelling at the foot of an image has been cut off on the display, so we cannot cross-check from your paper documents and generally widespread confusion. Do you have any comments on this, please? We would be more than willing to provide examples of these and probably other issues, if you are not already aware of them. (I have not been appointed spokesman for the group, but have taken it upon myself to ask you what is going on, and what can be done to put matters right - someone has to. If this offends any member of the group, I apologise.) I/we look forward to your response. best wishes Maggie Berry, in Surrey -- Scanned by iCritical.