Comments on: Improved data now on site, including some enhancements

By: jan royal

jan royal — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:45:01 +0000

I finally found my gr gr aunt Jane Brafield in Chiswick - at least I think it’s her - her age is out by 12 years - maybe she was fibbing or head of household didn’t know.
Most frustrating is her birthplace is mainly written in the infirmity column, so blocked out. I can read this ‘parents of British Origin’ then underneath what looks like a word beginning with M….. then blocked.

Jane was born in Melbourne, Australia but I think I will always wonder if this is actually her…….have lost her trail after 1911.
Jan

By: Ian Thirlwell

Ian Thirlwell — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:14:24 +0000

This morning, 30th April, I eventually sent in a contact message about the wrongly redacted image, got an acknowledgement almost immediately. There followed a personal reply 15 minutes later itself followed by a replacement image. Excellent service from the customer support team.

By: Ian Thirlwell

Ian Thirlwell — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:08:35 +0000

@Ian: anything on my last query regarding the redaction of something in the top right corner of the houseschedule where the schedule number box would be?

By: iantester

iantester — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 07:12:50 +0000

@David: sorry about this, it looks like our email server was sick and threw you a bunch of garbage instead of a sensible reply. Should be working again now so if you haven’t heard back from Customer Support feel free to give them a nudge (in case your original email got eaten en route).

By: David Lake

David Lake — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:50:37 +0000

Would you please explain what this piece of goboldygook means. It was sent to me as a reply to an email re two missing streets on Rawmarsh, Rotherham.
” The process Genealogy Incident(1) is not in a valid state to carry out the action. Or the process Genealogy Incident(1) does not support the Action Update:.
”
Many thanks

By: Ian Thirlwell

Ian Thirlwell — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:49:46 +0000

Having fun, if with a lighter pocket, now that Northumberland is available, I have found an oddity. For some reason on of the images I downloaded the schedule number box has been redacted in the same way as the infirmity column. Can this be checked please to see if this is an error? The image is RG14PN30550 RG78PN1751 RD558 SD1 ED12 SN8. Obviously the SN is given as part of the file name, but why has it been blocked out on the image?

By: iantester

iantester — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:05:50 +0000

@Ian - yes, that is broadly correct - the transcriptions form the basis of the search index with some tweaks. Currently the only way you can submit corrections is via the transcript - we realise this is not great if you going straight for images, and are looking at ways of fixing this.

By: Ian Thirlwell

Ian Thirlwell — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:48:09 +0000

I presume that the names that come up as the result of a search are the names that the entries were transcribed as. Since I have managed to identify correctly a couple of entries and downloaded the original images, how do I report the transcription errors, without additional cost in downloading the transcript? The originals are ok so “Report original page error” would be inappropriate.

By: iantester

iantester — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:41:33 +0000

@Joan - please report these using the “Report Error” buttons on the transcript page.

By: Joan Coope

Joan Coope — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:12:42 +0000

I have found 2 errors:

1 Shown as George Malcolne Coope M 1866 Bolton Lancashire
Should be George Malcolm Coope as confirmed by baptismal records and FreeBMD website

2 Shown as Clarence Coope F 1899 Bolton Lancashire
Should be Clemence Coope. Clarence is a man’s name and the baptismal records and FreeBMD website show that it was a daughter.