Genealogy Chat

Hello Phil Moir,
Many thanks to you and your team for correcting my fathers birth record on GR. I know this thread has generated a lot of discussion and I apologise to anyone that may have thought I was wrong in the way I have gone about doing his but I can now say how pleased I am to see the correct name against my fathers detail and gallery.

Thank you Phil Moir.

Thank you, Phil.

I must admit that as part of GR I am a bit embarrassed that it has taken so long to correct this. I have sent a PM to Blue_Fisherman to indicate that the correction has now been logged with the transcription errors for BMDs and should be corrected within the month.

Again for the record, as I have stated previously on other threads, all record sets (images and transcriptions) on GR are owned by or licenced to brightsolid, GR's parent company. This is the same for all record sets seen on brightsolid websites.

With regard to the transcription error reporting on GR. This was a piece of work that was almost completed last year, but has yet to be thoroughly tested and we would rather roll it out when we know it works well.

I hope this helps clarifiy the situation, and apologies for any delays in getting transcription errors resolved.

Depending on what time has lasped since this problem was first brought to the attention of GR and as you state its been a long christmas holiday, it could just be a case of lack of staffing and also there has been more important site issues to sort out to make sure there was no melt down during the chritsmas period which would have caused some near nervous breakdowns,!!,,,,,the index is static and I'm sure will be sorted on this site in due course.

But still downt feel GR have any reason to feel embarrassed about something they clearly havnt got round to correcting at this time....human error's will and do occur.

BF,

What Sylvia is referring to is the lack of an automated process to allow members to report errors directly through the site. This is what site developer Phil Moir is hoping to introduce at some time in the future.

Despite this lack of functionality, GR are able make changes - they have done so previously, so we know it is possible - however the process is manual and as you have discovered, it is all to easy for it to fall down a black hole and get lost.

Not good for their reputation at all....!

Hi SylvialnCanada.

First and foremost, I do not want to get angry with anyone or cause any upset.

I merely pointed out in my first message that GR advised me (twice) that they would take the agreed action to amend THEIR record of my Fathers first name. It was in fact GR staff that searched after my initial enquiry and it was they who found him listed as Edward, where it should be Edwin.

There have been 22 posts on this thread now and it was GR that posted No.5 advising me of the following:................

"Hi,

Just to let you know I have contacted the Support Team in regards to this and they are looking into it.

We are sorry for the delay, but you will be contacted soon.

Many thanks"

I have no more to add to this thread because I am waiting for GR to respond and as it is the Christmas period, I'm more than happy to wait for this

I must point out though that there have been some interesting replies to my enquiry, not least the one from GR themselves, but there have been others where quite clearly they have not availed themselves of the facts and other details before making their post. :-\

and we are trying to tell you that GR might NOT be able to do what they have told you

.......... at least, not at this moment in time.


I WAS told by Phil Moir, on a thread I was contributing to, that GR HOPED to have the ability to either change or add Alternate Information to the records on here SOON


you'll just have to be patient



and not get angry at US .............. after all, we are just members like yourself.


The only way to get GR's attention is to email them.



sylvia

Hi Kay????

My thread says, which I'll re-state,

"My father is listed correctly in BMD at GRO and all other ancestry sites. GR just haven't done what they twice told me they would do".

Blue Fisherman needs to look at other sites and compare the index doesnt he? if its wrongly transcribed in GRO then GR are certainly not at fault as they have transfered information that has been transcribed years ago,and initial transcribing to image form back when records were moved from Somerset House to St Caths and made avaliable on fishe to various RO and Archives.at a great cost.!!.

If youve never seen the GRO public registers you are in for a treat ! then its little wonder when they were transcribed mistakes were made.

Making any alteration to GR indexes or any other sites holdings wont alter what is shown in the official GRO records..

No, IGP


Phil Moir said the other week that they HOPED to have that capability "soon", but they could not yet do it.




and all I was doing was trying to get the facts straight ....... GR carries records obtained from other sites, they have not done transcriptions themselves .............. at least, not as yet!



sylvia

No play on words at all - just an attempt to get the facts straight....!

The fact that GR may or may not have done their own transcriptions is irrelevant.

However, we know that GR are in a position to correct any errors within their copy of the transcriptions - they have told us so on more than one occasion. What they don't have is an automated process for doing this, as I stated earlier.

I think we are playing with words here ...................

IGP posted:-

"This is what GR had to say on the subject of where records are held when it was debated on here last August:-

....."Also, there is some reference to the idea that Genes Reunited don't hold our own records. I can assure you that all records you find on Genes Reunited are hosted by Genes Reunited. We pay commission to record providers in order to supply these records to our members, and at no time do we divert you to other sites to gain access to the records.""



so let's parse this, shall we :-)


"We pay commission to record providers in order to supply these records to our members," ............................ in other words, GR have paid other sites (eg, fmp, GRO {but not freebmd}) to obtain access to records which GR then loads on to this site. Those records have been transcribed by those other sites


"at no time do we divert you to other sites to gain access to the records." ..................... true, as the records are now loaded on GR site.



BUT, and it is a BIG but ..................... nowhere does GR say that THEY have transcribed the records, just that they have paid commission to other record providers.




............... so, my reading of this is that GR has not done new transcriptions, and that they very probably cannot make changes in the records held on this site, because they do not have the authority or ability to do so.




How do I know that GR have paid GRO to access records, but not freebmd for bmd records (or ancestry for that matter)?

Because everyone talks about seeing the INDEX, or being unable to determine the other partner in a marriage........... if GR had paid a commission to either freebmd or ancestry, then one would be able to see the records as shown on those two sites.




sylvia

Thanks ISP i didnt see the August debate.

I do try to give accurate advice when replying to enquires but sometimes my knowledge may not have been up to date. :-(

And the lost cousins' newsletter was after August, in fact 24 September.

-----------------

I still hope that the original poster's issue will be resolved soon. :-)

Shirley,

This is what GR had to say on the subject of where records are held when it was debated on here last August:-

....."Also, there is some reference to the idea that Genes Reunited don't hold our own records. I can assure you that all records you find on Genes Reunited are hosted by Genes Reunited. We pay commission to record providers in order to supply these records to our members, and at no time do we divert you to other sites to gain access to the records."

Did I misunderstand the lost cousins' newsletter then?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, fingers crossed that the original poster's issue will be resolved soon.

Well you live and learn .as they say .
I was under the impression that Genes didnt hold any records but accessed them through another site. This is why I didnt think Genes could do any alterations. They dont have the facility to report errors like FMP and Ancestry.

At least it cleared that up :-D

Jeremy, yes that is correct. The records that GR host are copies obtained under license from other suppliers, who also provided the transcribed search indexes.

For example, when you look at the census on GR you are accessing at the data held by GR, not that held by FMP.

Think of is in the same way as the 1837-1915 BMD records on Ancestry which were supplied by FreeBMD. When you search on Ancestry you do not access the FreeBMD record, but the copy held on Ancestry.

Very true, Sylvia, as had been stated by genes reunited and read elsewhere.

For instance:
http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards.page/board/genealogy_chat/thread/1281462
http://lostcousins.com/newsletters/latesep11news.htm
"Genes Reunited have replaced their census data since I last reviewed the site - they now have the same transcriptions as at findmypast (previously the censuses were provided to Genes Reunited by S&N, owners of The Genealogist)."