Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

Genes Extras

Genes Reunited subscription bonuses

As a way of saying thank you to our subscribers, we have launched Genes Extras. You'll find exclusive competitions and discounts on family history magazines, days out and much more.

Take me to Genes Extras

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

London England Electoral Rolls

Page 1 + 1 of 3

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Chris in Sussex

Chris in Sussex Report 24 Apr 2012 21:21

I think, but await to be shot down, that the Electoral Registers are not transcribed but have been indexed using OCR technology.

So if OCR 'misreads' then you get a 'mistranscription'.

Certainly from the number of corrections I have submitted it would suggest that no human has transcribed the entries as they are perfectly clear to read and there was no way they could be misunderstood!

Chris

WhiffingSiggs

WhiffingSiggs Report 24 Apr 2012 22:18

Everyone has been to Surrey. Good grief!

Porkie_Pie

Porkie_Pie Report 24 Apr 2012 23:32

My personal thoughts are that Nadia posted this thread to ask a question,

The question is not important? but the fact that Nadia asked is important to her

GlitterBaby answered with another question,
"Why should records that say London include Surrey ?"

GlitterBaby, thought her response was justified and a reasonable response, How ever to some one who does not no the area in question and also may not be used to researching on the Internet this response could IMHO be taken the wrong way?

Now you could argue that as others have that a quick Google would have found the answer for the OP

But the fact that Nadia is asking, says that she does not no the answer and thought that the community on GR could help,

just because some would have just googled is irrelevant Nadia did not think to google,

this has led to 2 post's being RR'd one of Nadia's and 1 from Susanne

I did read these post's before they where RR'd and cannot understand the itchy finger because they where just posting as part of the debate and Nadia's post was no more abrupt (for want of a better word) than that of GlitterBaby's

and i could see nothing wrong with Susanne's post


If every one was as apt at research and using the Internet as some on GR then their would be no requirement for the Genealogy Chat, Find Ancestors, or Find Living Relatives boards and so no requirement for members to help at all

in summery I think both GlitterBaby and Nadia where justified in their own way and both had a point?


That's all just my opinion like it or not

Roy


Rambling Rose

Rambling Rose Report 24 Apr 2012 23:46

Roy, I take your point but one of the things it is most important to learn, imo, is being able to look for oneself...rather than have the answer produced,

Advice to "Google" isn't members not wanting to help, it's exactly the right advice to help people long term as I'm sure you have found yourself, Just as an example if I had never been directed to google and played around with it, I would never have found the text of an old book that mentioned my family on google page 30 or whatever it was.

I think what you find out for yourself sticks in the mind much better than what you are 'told' by others. And whilst the members on here know huge amounts on a wide variety of topics ...none of us know everything :-D

Porkie_Pie

Porkie_Pie Report 25 Apr 2012 00:01

Rose, I totaly agree, but sometimes its the way the advice is presented that causes the problem as in this case

Roy

GlitterBaby

GlitterBaby Report 25 Apr 2012 00:07

Well I would like to thank some members for their comments.

Roy did you not spot that I put the confused :-S before my comment. Why that was taken so badly I do not know.




Frankly I do not like comments such as-

" if it was too much trouble for you to look it up why the hell are you on here ?"



So you think this comment is acceptable ?

"I'm rather shocked at the way GlitterBaby is attacking people "

I have no idea who sent that for review either



Wend

Wend Report 25 Apr 2012 00:12

Glitter Baby's first response to a member who had posted only a few times was, in my opinion, just negative and off-hand. Being so experienced, which I have well observed, I believe she could have responded in a far more friendly and positive way, without making the OP feel stupid.

I am sure the poster is feeling dumb and stupid now and won't dare post a query again and well done (not) to those who have supported Glitter Baby.

FGS - life's too short :-|

GlitterBaby

GlitterBaby Report 25 Apr 2012 00:15

Just go back and read my first post

It was not negative or off hand

Rambling Rose

Rambling Rose Report 25 Apr 2012 00:19

The trouble is, and it's why I don't like the internet much lol, is that a simple question, that if asked in person is entirely pleasant, suddenly sounds 'brusque' when asked in print.

"why did you do that?" can have a curious tone, an angry tone, a depairing tone, a wry tone... but when in black and white how can you tell the tone? other than putting smilies all over the place... :-(

Porkie_Pie

Porkie_Pie Report 25 Apr 2012 00:20

I think that as part of that debate all post's from every one should have been left in their entirety so then any one reading would be able to come to their own conclusion and in that context Susanne was entitled to her opinion

Any one who RR'd the post has only left it open to speculation by removing them

no one can make a judgment with only one side of the story/debate

as for the confused face yes i did see that but its not me who was upset about your post

Roy

GlitterBaby

GlitterBaby Report 25 Apr 2012 00:31

Roy

But you said you could see nothing wrong with the post from Susanne. So is it alright for a member to have a go at me then ?

All I am guilty of is being a straight talker.


Maureen

Wend

Wend Report 25 Apr 2012 00:34

I'm just grateful I'm not Nadia and didn't post the initial query, because I could so easily have done, not being an experienced researcher. I know just how I would've felt if I'd received the first response from Glitter Baby, but very grateful for the following helpful replies. End of.

GlitterBaby

GlitterBaby Report 25 Apr 2012 00:38

Again I repeat there was nothing wrong with my first reply and I do not understand why some members think it is so negative and off hand.

Porkie_Pie

Porkie_Pie Report 25 Apr 2012 00:39

As i said I read all the post's as they where posted last night and in the context of those post's that where in tact at that time, then she was entitled to her opinion,

I also noted that apart from Nadia being RR'd last night some post's where also deleted after being read by me

Edited, Just wondered did anyone else notice?

Roy

Wend

Wend Report 25 Apr 2012 00:51

I don't know Roy, but I think Nadia has probably received the answer to her query from several helpful members on here and is now tucked up in bed sleeping peacefully, just like I shall be shortly.

Goodnight and sweet dreams :-)

Porkie_Pie

Porkie_Pie Report 25 Apr 2012 00:57

Yep, I'M off to Good Night all :-D

Roy

CupCakes

CupCakes Report 27 May 2012 08:52

OMG another post about almost the same thing - probably going to get another verbal kicking but...

The helpers are great - they spend a lot of time sorting out problems for people but...there are some who just can't resist telling people what to do, what to say, what to write - that is not help or plain speaking. It is forcing their opinions down people's throat.

If those concerned took a step back and just helped without all the comments we would have a much more friendly board and maybe we could encourage more people to participate.

The new catch phraes in Uk is Chillax - some researchers should just take a chill pill and stop thinking people are getting at them all the time. :-D :-D

GlitterBaby

GlitterBaby Report 27 May 2012 11:49

So you do not include yourself then in this comment

"there are some who just can't resist tell people what to do, what to say, what to write - that is not help or plain speaking. It is forcing their opinions down people throat."

I do not have to defend myself on these boards to you or anyone else.

There was no need to add again to this thread Susanne - was there !!!!!

MarieCeleste

MarieCeleste Report 27 May 2012 16:28

Susanne, are you deliberately dredging up old threads so you can put your hap'porth in and be antagonistic? What's the point?

Take your own advice and "chillax".

Sheila

Sheila Report 11 Sep 2013 18:17

I am looking for my cousin, Wendy Buckley, or her daughters or her sisters.

I have material that Wendy requested several years ago....and I have just found it. I tried the phone number I had, but can not get through there.......I would like to send this material on to her!