View Full Version : lol 1939 Register - if you know enough...
I couldn't find my maternal grandparents who moved house around the time the register was taken. I found their old house and new house, but they didn't seem to be living at either of those places. So, for 12 hours or so I gave up.....
Today is a new day, so I thought I'd try another tack.... These are the facts I was working with....
Grandfather, Walter Henry Clark b 1 Apr 1888 male married occ interior designer/architect/civilian worker for the army
Grandmother, Winifred May Harriet Clark b 8 Nov 1892, but generally lied about her age, losing up to four years, female married, occ housewife
They had two children both of whom were still alive in 1991 so their records should be closed. If they were living near to either of their two possible addresses then I needed to look at either Hoddesdon in Herts or Swindon in Wiltshire.
Today I chose to begin with my grandfather's dob with male and married (too many results) so also added occ architect as that was the only job he held qualifications in, though it wasn't the job he was doing in 1939. There were six matches, one in Hoddesdon, so I investigated that and found the following people living in the same household:
Brian J Redshaw 1888 (has Walter's dob and occ)
Joyce A Pavitt (Redhsaw) 1895 (has my gran's birthday but wrong year as expected)
Kate Pallett 1924 (has my mum's dob even though she is still living. Her name isn't Kate or anything similar)
There's one closed record which I bet has matching dob for my aunt who died in 2005.
So, I wasn't going to purchase this record because all I wanted to know was whether my gran lied about her age on it. Now I want to purchase it to see what sort of **** ** has been made!! (and I wonder when they think mum died?!!!)
The name Brian Redshaw doesn't seem to exist until the 1920s, so I don't know where they got that name from. I feel like fmp are trying really hard to extract my money!!!
My grandfather was mildly dyslexic - a fact he used to joke he kept hidden with poor handwriting, but it wasn't that bad!
kiterunner
03-11-15, 07:17
Joyce A Redshaw married a Pavitt Jan-Mar 1955 Ware district.
Joyce Ann Pavitt died Dec 2003 Hatfield district, dob 27 Oct 1935.
So I am guessing they have mixed some people up!
So, what's the betting if I buy this record it will be for the Pavitts and not for my lot?! Meanwhile I can't find mine by name, possibly if they are hidden if the system thinks they were born in 1935!
ElizabethHerts
03-11-15, 07:36
What a mess, Merry! You would think people would double-check.
kiterunner
03-11-15, 07:50
Last night when I was looking at some households (on the free search and preview) for my father's side of my tree, that I previewed the first member of each household that I found, noted down the reference number, e.g. RG101/1460C/010/7, and then copied the middle two sets of numbers into Piece Number and Item Number on the advanced search form, and the name I already had as "other household member's name", leaving all other fields (including the main name) blank, to get a full list of the rest of the open records in the household.
If you do the same but leave out the "other household member's name" you get a longer list, which I assume should be all the names on the page. Then you can sort them into households using the same system.
For the family you were looking at, the numbers are Piece Number 1616A and Item Number 006. There are a couple of Clarks on the page but it could be a coincidence. This is supposedly the household the Clarks are in:
Elizabeth Boyce 1908
Harry Clark 1904
Jessie Clark 1935
Muriel M Hampton (Redshaw) 1930
Emma M Redshaw 1933
Stanley V Redshaw 1905
Victor E Redshaw 1907
Florence E Smith 1870
Sydney E Smith 1897
and 1 closed record.
ElizabethHerts
03-11-15, 07:51
I've been using that tactic, too, Kate.
Elizabeth Boyce 1908
Harry Clark 1904
Jessie Clark 1935
Muriel M Hampton (Redshaw) 1930 << sibling of Joyce
Emma M Redshaw 1933
Stanley V Redshaw 1905
Victor E Redshaw 1907
Florence E Smith 1870
Sydney E Smith 1897
and 1 closed record.
Victor and Emma are the parents of Joyce, Muriel and Victor Redshaw. Victor E Redshaw was born in 1899 not 1907. Emma was nee Smith, so I guess Florence and Sydney are her relatives. So that leaves Eliz Boyce and the two Clarks. Walter had a sister called Jessie who I hadn't looked for so I'll see if I can positively identify her elsewhere now. Harry doesn't mean anything to me.
kiterunner
03-11-15, 08:26
Looking at FMP's guide to searching the 1939 Register, I can see that we shouldn't be surprised the results are all messed up.
http://www.findmypast.co.uk/1939register/1939-register-getting-started
They have an image of the "Churchill Household" record for a Winston Churchill born 1900, 2 more people, and 3 closed record people, living in Rhondda, Glamorgan. Below this image it says the following:
With this information, you can confirm that you've found the correct record or household. The image above shows the preview for Lily Phillips. We can see that she was born in 1898, is resident in Bolton, Lancashire and lives with three other people, one of whom has a closed record (either because they were born after 1915 and are still alive, or born after 1915 and their death hasn't been recorded in the register. With this free information, we hope to help you to be more confident that the correct record has been found.
Yes, I've just found my Jessie living in Swindon in the same house she was in until the 1970s, so def her (and correct dob lol)
So, now I'm wondering if I can work out where the Redshaw's were actually living - I'm going to try next door to the house where my grandparents were probably still living.
EDIT - I got fed up with that idea as there are too many address searches that cannot be viewed. I looked at about 20 successfully and was surprised to note that probably more than half of them had no surname or no first name or both. Surely the handwriting couldn't be that bad??
One thing I had forgotten (and hadn't entered on my tree :o) is this post I made in 2012 where I'd been trying to track down mum's old neighbours:
At first mum knew nothing about them at all (who??), but eventually she remembered her mother rushing across the road to tell the neighbour's Norwegian wife that Germany had invaded Norway which reduced the poor woman to tears because she hadn't already heard the news.
This means I now know that my family were still in Broxbourne on 8th April 1940 which was news to me as mum always said they moved out when war was declared! She now realises that wasn't quite correct!
So, my family should be listed at their Broxbourne address in 1939 which was Sunny Lawn, High Road, Broxbourne. I found this address yesterday but all it had was one closed entry and one open entry which had no name or date transcribed. Maybe I'd better try Kate's trick with the refs to see if anything else is revealed?
OK, so I've done Kates numbers search and come up with the following:
— — — Hoddesdon U.D. Hertfordshire
— — — Hoddesdon U.D. Hertfordshire
Sheila M Hines (Chaplin) 1916 Hoddesdon U.D. Hertfordshire
Annie E Holden — Hoddesdon U.D. Hertfordshire
Leonard ? Marlow 1899 Hoddesdon U.D. Hertfordshire
— — — Hoddesdon U.D. Hertfordshire
Winifred S Wright — Hoddesdon U.D. Hertfordshire
I did a double take at Sheila M Hines as Sheila M is mum's name, but this Sheila was a real person, b 1926 (not 1916) and died as Chaplin before 1991.
I did note the Holden in there!!
I'm supposed to be starting on decorating the living room today and this isn't helping!
When fmp say they have 98.something% transcription accuracy I presume that doesn't include all the people they haven't transcribed? (I don't mean the closed records, but all those — — — entries) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
kiterunner
03-11-15, 09:09
When fmp say they have 98.something% transcription accuracy I presume that doesn't include all the people they haven't transcribed? (I don't mean the closed records, but all those — — — entries) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Yes; like I said, I had seen the 98.5% figure bandied about a lot in replies on Facebook etc, but then when I was reading one of their guides, it said it with reference to "readable pages", and I assume that all the - - - entries, the ones with ? in, etc, don't count as "readable" and therefore aren't included in the accuracy stats.
Yes; like I said, I had seen the 98.5% figure bandied about a lot in replies on Facebook etc, but then when I was reading one of their guides, it said it with reference to "readable pages", and I assume that all the - - - entries, the ones with ? in, etc, don't count as "readable" and therefore aren't included in the accuracy stats.
Hmmm, I bet we could have read a large percentage of the 'unreadable' records. I've not seen anything to suggest a lot of these records are damaged in some way or anything similar.
Durham Lady
03-11-15, 09:50
I'm disappointed in the records, out of those I wanted I can't find, my OH's mother or my paternal grandmother.
OH's mother is not with her husband. He's with 2 of his brothers, FiL and 1 brother married, 1 brother widowed. FiL's mother is with her unmarried daughter and the DiL of the married brother with FiL !
Out of 5 records I found 2 had mistakes.
To make matters worse when I used the discount code link it didn't give me the discount so I was charged full price. :mad:
kiterunner
03-11-15, 09:54
To make matters worse when I used the discount code link it didn't give me the discount so I was charged full price. :mad:
If you email FMP support they might sort that out for you. Worth trying, anyway.
Durham Lady
03-11-15, 16:07
If you email FMP support they might sort that out for you. Worth trying, anyway.
I did that last night but not heard anything back yet :(
I did a double take at Sheila M Hines as Sheila M is mum's name, but this Sheila was a real person, b 1926 (not 1916) and died as Chaplin before 1991.
Your mother was not real? :d
I did note the Holden in there!!
I noted that and felt a little bit scared for you.
The address search result have changed to alphabetical order since I last looked earlier in the week. This led me to discover my grandparents house appears three times in the index.
The first version has one closed entry and one person who hasn't been transcribed and no name for the household (that's the one I found before and is probably upthread)
The second version has two closed records and one person not transcribed and no name for the household.
The third version has the Redshaw family with all the dobs that match my grandparents and mother and my grandfather's occupation, so now that I know the dates occ and the house match together I'm wondering if I buy the page will my grandparents magically appear? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
......... and will my mother be included even though she is still living?
This post is purely to summarise the previous posts and where I've now got to in the search for my grandparents, before I potentially waste my money on the wrong 1939 register page.
By using the address search I have found their property listed three times. Two of the entries have only untranscribed individuals and closed individuals and the third version has the Redshaw family (my grandparents surname was Clark).
The Redshaw family have my grandparents dobs and my grandfather's occupation. One of them has my mother's dob even though she is still living.
I have collected data on the 44 people listed on the page using the piece, item and individuals numbers and sorted them into the order they apparently appear on the 1939 page. There are seven closed records. For 22 of the remaining 37 records I have obtained their dob from a death record or a Q and year from their birth registration. So far no one has the right year/date recorded in the transcription. Many of the individuals from this page appear twice on the register and (so far - I'm still looking at this!) on the 'other' occurrence they have a year of birth recorded that appears correct when compared with my research. Most of the households on the page I'm researching seem to be headed up by individuals who are part way through a household - eg Mr and Mrs Redshaw apparently have their eldest three children living with them but their fourth child (aged 5) is the head of the next household (and he's the one with my grandfather's dob). There are 18 individuals on the page with 'unpaid domestic duties' as their occupation, several look unlikely - men, children and babies included.
Having read that transcribers did their work in columns to protect the information of potentially living people, I expected to find, once I'd put my data together, it might become obvious how all these mistakes had occurred - for instance if a transcriber had listed some information twice or missed a line then the horizontal data might not line up, but I can't see anything like that here. And whilst I've found my grandparents dobs hidden under Redshaw, why don't their names appear anywhere, even with incorrect dates? Are they hiding in the other two households for their home where names have been transcribed as ---- ---- ? Will I have to purchase three households to find them? I've never been a successful gambler! lol
I don't think I could resist purchasing it just to see what's going on!
My OH's grandfather appears twice - once with his own dob and once with his wife's. Her name is missing.
I don't think I could resist purchasing it just to see what's going on!
If I could be more sure which of the three same house addresses might be the right page I would be happier, but if I purchase the Redshaw household and its not the one I shall feel forced to pay for the other two and I really don't want to be put I that position, particularly as I don't need the info!
maggie_4_7
08-11-15, 08:50
I don't think I could resist purchasing it just to see what's going on!
My OH's grandfather appears twice - once with his own dob and once with his wife's. Her name is missing.
Am I right in thinking that's what would happen with 'slippage' due to different transcribers seeing only some columns and not one complete row?
Possibly, though is seems more likely the transcriber typed the same name twice by mistake.
Must admit, I haven't actually paid to look at any records yet. Both sets of grandparents were living in the same houses they were living in when I was born and I don't have any mysteries to explore. No doubt I'll succumb eventually though.
If I search piece 1616A with a given item number all the results have the item number minus one, except for the people transcribed as ---- ---- ----. Those blank people have the correct item number.
When fmp were giving you the piece and item numbers at the bottom of the household results screen (and at that point Id not looked at the urls for the pages) I'm 100% sure the named people had the correct item number, but I'm less sure about the blank people as I was aware they didn't fit in to the household names I had and think they probably fitted in with the households on the following item number (as they still do0, just that everything has moved along one!!
OH is starting to say he will pay for what ever it takes to shut me up, so I may be getting some pages soon!! :D
kiterunner
08-11-15, 15:20
Make sure not to "unlock" two households which are on the same page, though, Merry, because apparently you get charged twice to view the same image if you do that.
Very good point Kate! Thanks.
maggie_4_7
08-11-15, 15:26
oh is starting to say he will pay for what ever it takes to shut me up, so i may be getting some pages soon!! :d
:d :d :d
Keep talking...
lol Maggie - no problem there!! :D
I was thinking the same Maggie.
What other records etc do you need Merry? Start talking about them too. :d
ElizabethHerts
12-11-15, 21:34
I had another look for a great-aunt who should have been easy to find.
The only reason I have found her is because she flagged up under her future husband's name - de Borchgrave - which is easy to find, although it was transcribed as Borchgrove.
Her surname of Purkis has been transcribed as Parker.
The relatives she was staying with (another great-aunt) had the surname O'Shaughnessy and that has been mistranscribed too.
Olde Crone
12-11-15, 22:25
I swore that this register could hold no interest for me but my brother looked at it and found two relatives living in an unexpected place. That reminded me of a family mystery connected to these two sisters and some further research has now uncovered quite a lot of information and unearthed a will, which might have some answers.
So, no direct new information (other than that one sister was a Matron, which we didn't know) but a good prod into doing some more research and getting somewhere with it at last.
OC
So, OH paid for the page :D and my family are indeed on it, but with the wrong names!
It turns out none of the 36 open names on the actual page (1616A 006) have been transcribed by fmp at all (ie they are not appearing anywhere else on the database). All the rest of the information on the page has been matched together along each horizontal line accurately , but with names duplicated from page 1616J 006. The closed records on 1616A 006 have been applied by using the transcribed dates from that page, but some of the names from 1818J 006 belong to people still living (ie they are closed on 1616J 006), so those few names should not be slowing at all.
Time to contact fmp!
I'm confused. Can you see your family or not on the actual page?
The actual page has my family - my grandparents, my aunt whose record is closed as she was born after 1915 and died after 1991 and my mother, whose record is open when it shouldn't be.
Everyone on the page has been transcribed correctly for every field except the name field. The names have been sourced from a completely different page of the Register which is why I didn't recognise my family until I searched by birthdate combined with my grandfather's occupation!.
Got it!!
So glad you can see your family, even if the transcribing is wrong.
I wonder how many other pages are wrong? Not fair on those who buy wrong pages and don't have your detective skills.
I am feeling even more annoyed now.
I had a reply from customer 'support' saying they can only accept transcription corrections via the link when you purchase a page.
So, I looked up the page again and found the link for Brian Redshaw (so actually Walter Clark, my grandfather, the head of the household I'd already unlocked) and rather laboriously corrected his entry. This involved correcting fields for his surname, forenames, other household member's first name(s), other household member's last name(s) and the household name as all those bits were wrong. I then did the same for the other people in the household (my grandmother and mother - I'll worry about mum's entry being open later!)
However, I couldn't correct the other 37 entries on the page because I would have to unlock each household to do it (10 households!!) and obviously I'm not paying to do fmp's job for them!
There was a comments box alongside each correction field so in the surname and forenames comments box I wrote:
"None of the entries on this page have the correct names as they are all transcribed with the names from page 1616J 006."
I doubt they will take notice though. They now have 90 days to make the corrections!
OH suggests I phone them, but I would have to calm down first!
kiterunner
17-11-15, 09:17
You could post on their Facebook page, Merry - nobody ever takes the trouble to calm down before doing that!
They also tend to reply there too.
They don't like bad publicity.
I'm probably a bit dumb, but I've never got to grips with facebook, as I still don't understand where to post unless it's just a comment on someone else's post :o:o:o
I assumed I'd find the fmp Facebook page easily enough, but I found dozens. Please could someone point me in the right direction?
kiterunner
17-11-15, 09:47
https://www.facebook.com/findmypast/?fref=ts
Thanks Kate.
I can see that Visitor Posts are where the 1939 comments/complaints appear (It's taken me since yesterday to work that out!), but I can't see how to post a visitor post, so I'm still stuck :o
kiterunner
18-11-15, 07:17
Thanks Kate.
I can see that Visitor Posts are where the 1939 comments/complaints appear (It's taken me since yesterday to work that out!), but I can't see how to post a visitor post, so I'm still stuck :o
They display as visitor posts, but the place to type it in is near the top of the screen. Just below the big "1939 Register" banner and tabs marked Timeline, About, Photos, Videos, More, with Like and Share buttons, you should see on the right hand side of the screen, a box with "Write something" in it and with a Post button. It's just above FMP's own posts.
Thanks very much :o
I'll get on to it this evening when I'm not so painty. I've under a quarter of the living room walls to go and then seven out of eight curtains still to turn up before I can get back to other things properly.
Oh, those sneaky rats. I clicked on Kite's link in post #44 and came to a FindMyPast Facebook page but I couldn't see anything like what she was describing. Then I noticed that the URL said www[dot]facebook[dot]com/findmypastus. Looking around I then saw that at the top of the page it said "Findmypast Website Redirected from Findmypast" where this last word contained a link. Clicking on it, I finally came to the Facebook page with "1939 Register" in the cover photo.
Just in case anybody else is scratching their head.
Kate's link worked for me, Janet, but I have a brain blockage when it comes to facebook! Anyway, I've just posted my query in very polite terms! This is what I said:
(This post is regarding page 1616A/006. All the transcriptions for the open records on this page (40 names) have the names duplicated from page 1616J/006 in error, but all other data transcribed correctly)
I have unlocked the household for my grandparents family (on page 1616A/006). and used the Report Error facility to offer corrections for the names of the three open records in the household. Am I correct in thinking there is no way for me to submit corrections for the other ten households on the page as I have not unlocked these households (but I have of course physically viewed them!)? I tried reporting the 40 incorrect names by email, but was told I must use the Report Error facility to offer corrections. I'm afraid I am not willing to pay for ten extra households to do this!!
Surely when I pay to unlock a household the system should show I have unlocked all the households on the page not just the one I've paid for?
Have they somehow removed the piece and item numbers from the urls too now?
Kate's link worked for me, Janet, but I have a brain blockage when it comes to facebook! Anyway, I've just posted my query in very polite terms! This is what I said:
I think it will work as long as you're in the UK. It was just that they had redirected me to the U.S. site without making that really clear. But I doped it out! :d
I think you were admirably controlled in your explanation of their foibles, Merry. :D
kiterunner
19-11-15, 07:08
Have they somehow removed the piece and tem numbers from the urls too now?
Yes, they did that a couple of days ago.
lol Janet.
Kate - t seems they didn't really think this through before they released the database. What's the point of giving search boxes for the Piece and Item numbers if we don't now know them?!! (perhaps those search fields have gone too? I've not looked at it in the last couple of days)
kiterunner
19-11-15, 07:50
Kate - t seems they didn't really think this through before they released the database. What's the point of giving search boxes for the Piece and Item numbers if we don't now know them?!! (perhaps those search fields have gone too? I've not looked at it in the last couple of days)
The boxes are still on the search screen. I think they put them in so that people who had previously ordered a Register entry using the Freedom of Information requests system could easily find the same household using the reference numbers, but I agree they can't have thought it through as it should have been obvious that if they were displaying the reference numbers on their preview screen, people would use them to search!
Good point about the Freedom of Information requests.
kiterunner
19-11-15, 09:28
Ooh, they've posted a reply saying they have passed it to their Data Team for correction!
Ooh, I'm at parents evening at the mo, but will look when I get back
Three times I posted a reply to their reply - the first two times the reply vanished whilst I was looking at the TV!
I don't suppose fmp will reply again to my posts on the same topic, so I'm just adding here what is probably the end of the conversation in case I can't find it again (my laptop doesn't like scrolling the facebook visitor messages box one bit)
fmp's reply to me (my original comment is in post #49, above):
Hi Sarah. We’ve been able to replicate this issue so we have gone ahead and passed the details to our Data Team for correction. If you have unlocked a household, you can view the transcriptions for the other members of the household at no extra cost. This doesn’t apply to other households under the same reference number.
and my response:
Thank you for passing on the information to the Data team.
It's disappointing that when a household is unlocked the transcriptions for other households on the page are not made available - I would understand it if the other households on the page were hidden from view, but they are not.
It's now really bugging me that my grandparents home seems to be on the 1939 register three times. I've purchased the Redshaw household which is actually my Clark household. The second household consists of one closed record and one person who has no name transcribed. The third household has two closed records and one person with no name transcribed.
I've just realised that on page 1616A/006 there are 40 transcribed records and by the time I'd finished mucking about with the names etc I'd lost track of the fact that there are only 36 visible names on the page. There's one crossed through person and three non-existent entries which fmp have transcribed as ----- ---- ----.
So, goodness knows where the alternative versions of my grandparents home would lead if I had a pot of money to spare!
kiterunner
20-11-15, 07:17
Maybe it will be sorted out when they correct the page?
I've made a note to check regularly to see what happens!
****, have they removed the thingy numbers from the free preview page? =/
They have now corrected the entries for my grandparents family, so Redshaw has changed to Clark with the correct forenames. They have not corrected the rest of the page, but I had to inform them of that separately.
The next issue is that my mother's entry is open when it should be closed.
The next issue is that my mother's entry is open when it should be closed.
That didn't take long, because I can't do it!!
This is part of what fmp has to say:
Please note you will be required to provide proof of identity of the subject in the record when submitting this request. This can include either a copy of a valid passport, driving licence or national identity card – an officially issued document bearing your signature and date of birth. In these instances records will be removed from the website on receipt and will prompt further investigation as to why the record is open.
Records opened in error are a result of one or more of the following:
a.Error in the date of birth field on the original record
b.Transcription error on the date of birth field
c.An incorrectly listed Death code in the postings column
d.Subject is over 100 years old – please see above paragraph
My mother doesn't have a valid passport and as she hasn't driven for over 40 years I don't know where her driving licence is. She doesn't have a national identity card. I don't really know what they mean by 'an officially issued document bearing your signature and date of birth'. << Any ideas?
As for the reason the record is open:
a. The dob is correct on the original record
b. The date is correctly transcribed
c. If the postings column is the one headed 'See Instructions' then it says 'B24' in that column. Is that a death code? (I've only paid for three 1939 Register pages and so only happen to have access to three records for people born after 1915. The other two don't have anything like B24 in the last column)
d. The subject is under 100 years old
So, her record is going to have to stay open, but I'm not happy about it.
I just saw this on Rootschat:
The notifications of death 'D-codes' were noted in the part of the register we don't get to see - the right-hand page which has confidential medical information that can't be revealed. However, the D-code information was made available to FindMyPast, so that they could unlock the records that had been so annotated up to 1991.
So, I cannot see if a death code has been erroneously added to mum's entry and would have to take fmp's word for it. With the amount of other mistakes they have made I don't feel particularly confident that this isn't just another error.
kiterunner
01-12-15, 12:58
I doubt that there is a death code mistakenly put next to her record, though as you say, we can't check.
Surely they are breaking the Data Protection Act and the terms of their licence for this database if they are knowingly giving out information about living people less than 100 years old, to people other than the actual data subject?
I just don't know what the best way of tackling this is though.
When they say "'an officially issued document bearing your signature and date of birth" I think they are just describing the documents that they have just listed, passport, driving licence, national identity card. I would have thought that an alternative was for the person in question (i.e. your mother, or anyone else whose record is open) to swear to her identity before a notary public / commissioner for oaths, but that probably wouldn't be very easy to organise in this case.
http://findlaw.co.uk/law/government/other_law_and_government_topics/500499.html
But have you contacted FMP support about your particular case, since they corrected the names, or are you just looking at the usual way of doing things? If I were you I would contact support giving the details and pointing out that they have just corrected the transcriptions, and pointing out that a, b, and d don't apply, and see if they will close the record without your mother having to prove her identity. I'm thinking that if the record had been transcribed correctly in the first place, the record would have been closed automatically.
Yes, I was only looking at getting them to close the record through the normal channels.
I'm thinking that if the record had been transcribed correctly in the first place, the record would have been closed automatically.
I'm not sure as it seemed as if everything on the page I purchased was transcribed correctly except for the names, but it's always possible the hidden data on the opposite (hidden) page doesn't match - I don't have much confidence in their abilities at the moment!!
Anyway, nothing ventured nothing gained - I shall contact them now.
It's funny, up until I saw mum's name actually showing in their transcriptions I thought it wouldn't bother me at all that her entry is open, but now it's there it does!!
I've just noticed that although fmp has corrected the names for my Clark family when you click preview it still says Redshaw Household at the top even though I corrected that too!
I've contacted them with this:
I have already reported an issue via your Facebook page detailing a transcription error where all the entries on page 1616A/006 have the names of the individuals from page 1616J/006 in error. This issue was passed to your Data Team for correction on the 19th Nov. At the same time I submitted individual corrections for the people in my purchased household on page 1616A/006. My corrections have been dealt with, but the data Team have not dealt with the rest of the page yet.
I'm assuming the above issues have led to the entry for my mother showing as open when she is still alive. Her details are ........................... I'm guessing there is no Death Data recorded for her and her record is open in error (after all, there isn't an entry on this page that is transcribed correctly).
Please advise me whether you are able to correct this error.
Olde Crone
01-12-15, 18:09
Merry
Surely your mum is in receipt of a State Pension and I would have thought that the most recent letter from them is proof that she is still alive.
I think TNA might take this matter more seriously than FMP.
OC
maggie_4_7
01-12-15, 18:35
Don't all faint but I am about to send off copies of 10 death certificates to get records opened...
...wish me luck as you wave me goodbye, Cheerio, here I go, on my way...
Margaret in Burton
01-12-15, 19:07
Ive had 4 opened. Didn't take too long. A couple of weeks. They send an email when it's done
Good luck Maggie!
I note I didn't get an email when they'd done my corrections.
OC - Yes, mum has a state pension, but her most recent letter is currently proving her identity at a financial institution. The previous one I have is so old it's not much proof she is alive!
I've had a reply from Sophie at fmp Customer Support Team.
She says a bank statement will do! lol I'm just scanning one to send. After that they have 72 hours to close the record, but if there's a problem with the documentation that have ten days to decide whether they are going to open the record again!
Oakum Picker
03-12-15, 07:54
I note I didn't get an email when they'd done my corrections.
Mine arrived about 2 weeks after it was opened.
After that they have 72 hours to close the record
Surprise, surprise the record is still open after two weeks!
Time for another email I think.
(They haven't yet corrected the full page of mistranscriptions either, but maybe that will take longer? I have a note in my diary for 90 days after I officially submitted the correction at their request.)
I've just sent:
Hi Karen,
On 2 Dec I sent a copy of a bank statement for Mrs S????? M??? B??????? nee Clark to Sophie at your Customer Support Team in order that her 1939 register entry be closed as she is still living. I understood that you then had 72 hours to close the record. I see it is still open, so perhaps someone could let me know why that is, please?
The 1939 Register details are :
Blah, blah - 1616A 006
kiterunner
16-12-15, 09:01
You would think that closing open records of living people would be their top priority, wouldn't you? I bet they would act faster for their own parents.
I expect the bank statement doesn't fit their criteria now I've sent it, even though it was their suggestion!
maggie_4_7
16-12-15, 13:14
I expect the bank statement doesn't fit their criteria now I've sent it, even though it was their suggestion!
What's the betting they don't actually have a defined protocol for closing records because they didn't think they'd need it.
lol Maggie - Anything's possible!!
I love the irony of having to contact them to close records which shouldn't be open, when so many records which should be open are still closed.
Margaret in Burton
16-12-15, 15:40
I love the irony of having to contact them to close records which shouldn't be open, when so many records which should be open are still closed.
I agree
maggie_4_7
16-12-15, 18:18
I love the irony of having to contact them to close records which shouldn't be open, when so many records which should be open are still closed.
Indeed :)
Olde Crone
17-12-15, 10:34
I think it shows their contempt for living people's right to privacy and that they are only paying lip-service to the conditions of their lease as set down by TNA.
OC
Their reply:
Dear Sarah,
Thank you for your patience.
We have reported the transcription error, are are awaiting the change in the Data before we can remove the record in question.
Once the transcription error has been rectified. the record will be removed. This can take up to 6 weeks.
Many thanks for your patience, apologies for any delay.
With kind regards,
Adam Redpath
Findmypast Support Team
Originally they said 9 weeks for the transcription error, so 6 is probably about right now.
Not impressed one bit, as they have already corrected the transcription for mum - that's why her name is showing.
My response to Adam:
Hi Adam,
It’s disappointing the details of a living person are going to take so long to remove (when your site says 72 hours to correct) as the transcription for Sheila Clark no longer has any errors in it. The remaining transcription errors on the page are for all the other households but not the Clark Household.
maggie_4_7
15-01-16, 13:44
Good luck Maggie!
I note I didn't get an email when they'd done my corrections.
OC - Yes, mum has a state pension, but her most recent letter is currently proving her identity at a financial institution. The previous one I have is so old it's not much proof she is alive!
Well out of 10 I managed to get three opened problems with others that I can't quite work out by the emails I got! :rolleyes:
Three out of ten?! Excellent!
fmp have 13 days left to close mum's record. I'm now officially taking bets! lol
I don't think it will happen before day 14, at least.:rolleyes:
I agree :D
Plus, I made a mistake when counting the weeks and they still have another three and a half weeks until the nine weeks :( I was looking at their original six week target they set themselves before they upped it to nine!
kiterunner
22-01-16, 07:27
They should really be prioritising this (closing records of living people) especially in the run-up to them including the Register in annual subscriptions. After the 16th Feb, there is a much higher chance of people viewing any particular record.
Absolutely.
I probably already said, but their excuse for not closing mum's record immediately is that all the other household on the page are mis-transcribed and they need to get to the bottom of why that happened before they can do anything with her entry. Sounds a bit feeble to me.
Funnily enough the 90 days they set themselves is up on Feb 16th (co-incidence??!)
I've just back one that said she wasn't living there or to quote
The reason for this is the name is not recorded within this household.
Will these be included on any FMP sub, or only an annual?
kiterunner
26-01-16, 16:26
Just the annual ones.
They should really be prioritising this (closing records of living people) especially in the run-up to them including the Register in annual subscriptions. After the 16th Feb, there is a much higher chance of people viewing any particular record.
Absolutely.
I probably already said, but their excuse for not closing mum's record immediately is that all the other household on the page are mis-transcribed and they need to get to the bottom of why that happened before they can do anything with her entry. Sounds a bit feeble to me.
Funnily enough the 90 days they set themselves is up on Feb 16th (co-incidence??!)
Tomorrow is day 91 following my receipt of fmp's email giving themselves 90 days instead of 72 hours to close mum's 1939 register entry.
As at this morning all the other entries on the page are still incorrectly transcribed and mum's entry is still open, but they do still have a few hours lol!!
I think you can safely prepare your next email to them. Personally I'd complain on their FB page, they don't like that.
kiterunner
15-02-16, 10:50
Yes, I agree. It is unbelievable that they haven't closed her entry or just blocked the whole page till they sort it out.
kiterunner
16-02-16, 10:23
Someone posted on FMP's Facebook page today that the details of a living person were being shown and FMP asked her to email them the details and they immediately closed the record.
lol Did you mean this one?
Re 1939 civil reg. 'We try to review submissions within 90 days' What about living persons who have their details on view due to very poor transcribing? I appreciate you may well have a lot of errors to view but 3 months seems very sloppy. Revealing a living persons date of birth needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
and fmp's response:
You can make a request to close an open record by selecting 'Make a Request' on the transcription page. These requests are dealt with swiftly.
I suppose it depends how they quantify "swiftly" lol
Earlier today I sent them an email asking for an update on my issues with mum's record which has been going on since 15 Nov.
*drums fingers*
kiterunner
16-02-16, 12:48
Yes, it was that one, Merry. If you read all the replies on there it ends with these:
I need to send you a link to this record then the error will be obivious to you. The excessive information you require about me is not neccessary.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs
Findmypast
Findmypast Please send the full details to
[email protected] and our support team will look into this for you.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs
Thank you, the person in question appears to have been hidden on the image already. I'm very impressed by your swift action.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
I've received a standard reply to my email which includes;
We have received a higher than usual number of emails and we are working round the clock to respond as quickly as possible.
We wanted to let you know we have your email and you will receive a response as soon as possible. Normally we are able to get back to you within 24hrs so we really appreciate your patience and thank you for waiting a little longer than usual.
A little longer than nine weeks?!!
Janet in Yorkshire
16-02-16, 21:09
I have been waiting over 2 yrs for them to add a missing complete piece of E Yorks census. it's been so long since my initial request that I can't remember which year it was! It was long before the site total revamp which created mayhem and caused meltdown.
I'm not sure I can work up enough steam to have another conversation about it with their non-support team.
Jay
Janet they have lost your request or have filed it in the too hard basket.
I can't see it happening unless you ask again.
I think Merry should post a reply to the post Kite posted about from FB. Complain about her 9+ weeks she has been waiting and why do some get a fast service and her poor mother has had to wait over 9 weeks.
I think Merry should post a reply to the post Kite posted about from FB. Complain about her 9+ weeks she has been waiting and why do some get a fast service and her poor mother has had to wait over 9 weeks.
I have posted a comment on that facebook post, but that doesn't move it back to the top of the visitor posts does it? (I still don't get Facebook lol)
I don't know. They should get a notification that you replied to them though.
Oooh, I've received a two line email telling me they have closed mum's record. I have checked and it is closed. So all that talk that they couldn't close it because of the other mistakes on the page were a load of *******!! The rest of the page is still incorrectly transcribed/indexed.
I will leave it a few days before having another go at them!! lol
kiterunner
17-02-16, 09:31
Glad to hear the FB post worked, Merry.
I don't know if the FB post helped as they were super fast closing the record and sending me the email (three minutes) though I guess it's possible! lol They didn't worry last time I posted on FB.
Still, the main problem is solved, so that's good. If I wasn't busy doing other things I could spend time correcting all the others on the page now I have access to every household! lol
I thought if everyone in a household was a closed record the address didn't appear on the index? Have remembered that incorrectly?
There are three spellings for my grandparents house in the address listings for their village. One is from the page I've had al the issues with and is spelled correctly and the other two contain one and two closed records respectively. I'm just curious as to whether there really were three houses with the same name in the same street in one small village. I wouldn't have liked to deliver the mail! lol
It would be helpful if you could view the page a closed record appears on in order to help with the location by seeing the open records on the same page.
kiterunner
17-02-16, 11:52
I thought if everyone in a household was a closed record the address didn't appear on the index? Have remembered that incorrectly?
I think that's right, Merry. Unless they have changed it recently.
I've had 2 replies so far for my request to open approx 30 closed files all for the same road but you couldn't ask for a blanket search so had to do it individually.
They're still giving themselves 10 days to reply but given that before it was free access it took 12 days I think they're being a bit optimistic.
Lol Julie, let us know what happens!
Margaret in Burton
17-02-16, 21:12
I have posted a comment on that facebook post, but that doesn't move it back to the top of the visitor posts does it? (I still don't get Facebook lol)
I saw your comment on FB today but only I think because I'm on your friends list. What is it you don't understand about FB? It's easy
I've made a couple of transcription corrections and I get a pop up message thanking me and saying it ca take 90 days for the changes to be updated.
I saw your comment on FB today but only I think because I'm on your friends list. What is it you don't understand about FB? It's easy
Just keep in mind you did ask! lol
I know there's two pages for me to look at - one called by my name and one called Home. I see the one called Home has stuff my friends have written on it and the one with my name also has stuff my friends have written on it (so I don't understand the difference - is it that they have mentioned me by name in the second case?). Should I be looking at both pages all the time or does the stuff from one appear on the other but not the other way round?
I constantly have a number of notifications in red at the top but if I click that they are always things I've already seen so is there something I'm not doing?
I think in 2014 it took me a couple of months to find my happy birthday messages which was a bit embarrassing lol but that was so long ago now I can't remember what happened!
Then there's a chat box which covers some of the side of the entries on my named page, so I can't fully read them.
So, my lack of understanding mainly lies in the difference between the two pages and where to type and read stuff. Oh and whether there is anywhere on the site you can write a message for someone else that cannot be seen by anyone other than the person you are contacting?
Post #44 on this thread has a link Kate kindly posted for the Facebook fmp 1939 register page. The only way I know to get to that FB page is to go to post #44 and click the link. I'm sure that's not how it should be?? How do I connect to that page?
My daughter told me she would give me a FB lesson last Monday, but she doesn't have the patience lol and lost her temper after about three minutes!:o:o:o
Olde Crone
18-02-16, 07:26
*Sits next to Merry*
OC
If it helps I can't find your post even by clicking the link on post 44.
Your wall is things you post or when people tag you in something.
The home button is things other people post on their walls. You can also see your wall on there is someone comments on it, or likes it etc.
The notifications should be a list of everything that has happened, back 99 times so it is possible that you have seen things there. If you click on the numbers they will revert back to start.
Margaret in Burton
18-02-16, 08:04
Merry
Your daughter really should show you as it's easier to do it visually.
The home page is the main one, your newsfeed. I only look at the one with my name on if I want to find something specific.
Newsfeed is where you see stuff your friends have posted. You will get ads too but anything you don't want to see can be removed by clicking on the tiny grey arrow at the top right of the post.
The look of FB is different on a mobile or tablet app to how it is on a computer. I mostly use the app.
It might be easier to show you what buttons do what via email as I can do screen grabs. I'll do that later this evening.
The symbols at the top in the blue bar are 2 people is for incoming friends requests. The 2 speech bubbles are private messages where only you and the person you message can read it. Anything written anywhere else on a persons page will be read by all of their friends.
As for finding the FMP FB page, use the search bar at the top. You use that when searching for anyone's page person or group.
Margaret in Burton
18-02-16, 08:13
Are you accessing FB on a phone or tablet or on a computer? Screen grabs will slightly different.
As for the chat section, you can turn it off. I have mine turned off. I find it annoying if I'm doing something or reading something and someone who is bored just wants to chat about nothing in particular. If I want to contact someone I use the message system
Thanks Marg and Toni.... I will have to read your replies more slowly later.
I might try again with my dau later as she has a streaming cold so won't have the energy to be cross.
*goes for a lie down*
At the moment I'm accessing FB on my (extremely slow) notebook sized laptop. I have looked at it on the desktop computer where it looks the same. Tried on my phone but decided that definitely wasn't for me! lol
Margaret in Burton
18-02-16, 15:56
At the moment I'm accessing FB on my (extremely slow) notebook sized laptop. I have looked at it on the desktop computer where it looks the same. Tried on my phone but decided that definitely wasn't for me! lol
Laptop and PC versions will be the same. I prefer the app on my phone and iPad
Oooh, I've received a two line email telling me they have closed mum's record. I have checked and it is closed. So all that talk that they couldn't close it because of the other mistakes on the page were a load of *******!! The rest of the page is still incorrectly transcribed/indexed.
I will leave it a few days before having another go at them!! lol
I've just sent them another email about 1616A 006.
I could correct all the entries myself now, but don't see why I should and anyway, they are supposed to have been "looking into it" since 17 Nov and I wouldn't want to upset their progress! :rolleyes::rolleyes:
haha at their progress. They are probably waiting on you to do it
I think the issue runs over several pages - no idea how many. In each case the names are from a different piece number but all the rest of the details are from the right pages.
I think they should put you on the payroll as a consultant, Merry, and they already owe you a whole lot of back wages.
I think they should put you on the payroll as a consultant, Merry, and they already owe you a whole lot of back wages.
:D:D:D
I think they see me as a problem creator, not a problem solver!
:D:D:D
I think they see me as a problem creator, not a problem solver!
They obviously don't hang out here, then. :rolleyes:
Aaaahhh thank you Janet :):):)
They have sent me what is probably a standard email which includes this:
At this stage, I am unable to say how long it is likely to be before we receive a positive response from our technical team, but please be assured that they are working through all the queries they have as quickly as possible.
:D
I have just received an email telling me they have passed the problem about page 1616a 006 etc to their Technical Team for investigation.
lol But didn't they do that in November?? :rolleyes:
oh dear.
or they are finally telling you about it.
They've told me several times since Nov that the Technical Dept are 'looking into it". Maybe they think I have medium term memory loss?? :D
It seems odd to me that records are open for people where fmp have been unable to transcribe the year of birth. Surely if the year field has not been transcribed you would expect the entry would be closed as they won't know the age of the individual?
(Page 1616A 006 is still unchanged. Now 127 days since I reported it)
I just looked at page 1616a 006 and they have added an extra 17 entries to it. When I view these 'new' entries they are from the page after the one with my family on it (all still indexed with the wrong names). I wonder what they will do next?
Oh, the new people also have the wrong names in their transcriptions! lol
Some of them appear correctly elsewhere (1616J 007?).
Well, having now seen multiple 1939 records thanks to a relative with an annual FMP sub, all I can say is that I cannot help but feel the majority of people who paid £7 a pop (I think it was?) to unlock households have been well and truly done over. The information is poor, the quality is atrocious and the price for what you're paying for is, frankly, obscene. I realize that the Register is now available to anyone who already has an annual sub, and that's great, but I can see why they had to do that eventually - presumably relatively few people paid to unlock per household.
The theory behind allowing public access to the Register is great, but most of the records I've seen have been of a far inferior quality to the 1911 census, and to the extent that several of them are utterly illegible. There are random bits of sticky tape covering records that aren't even redacted, and when officially redacted records are covered up (with weird, bendy black lines) the effect is that neighbouring open records are either partially or completely obscured by the distortion. Maybe I'm just unlucky with the records I've seen, but it's so bad that many transcriptions are genuinely just pure guesses, and several just have dashes because the transcriber hasn't even been able to guess.
What annoys me most is that FMP promised 'full names and dates of birth' as being information provided, and yet with a handful of exceptions, everyone I've seen has either simply used a first name or a first name and middle initials. I already had those from different (free) sources, and the main reason I wanted to view households on the Register was to obtain full names for several people without having to order birth certificates.
I honestly hope some of you have been able to overcome brick walls in your research by finding unexpected relatives living together and so on, but my personal experience has simply been one of utter disappointing, and that it isn't half as useful as FMP hyped it up to be. It certainly doesn't help that a lot of people's records are either wrongly closed or simply missing altogether.
Now when I search 1616A 006 the first results page says there are 39 matches (originally there were 40 but now mum's entry is closed). The 20 names displayed on the first page of results are the original people still mis-transcribed. When I go to the second (also last) page of results the number of results changes to 56 (and now there are three pages of results!). Some of the names listed on the second page of results are the same people from page one, plus a few and minus a few, all from the original **** up. When I click to see page three I get a new version of page 2 with no names on it!!!
Great stuff. I wonder if they will ever actually make the corrections? (and to all the other pages that are mis-transcribed in this set.)
Olde Crone
12-04-16, 17:17
What superb service, Merry.
OC
Yes, isn't it excellent? :rolleyes:
Today it's back to the original 39 incorrectly indexed names.
As you know, Merry, I haven't shown my face much on GF lately. Lot going on here. (Don't worry, I'll be back whether anyone likes it or not.) But I just have to keep checking in on your spellbinder of a thread! And I must say this latest plot turn is breathtaking. :D
Does anyone know if anything's been said about the 1939 Register details for Scotland & N. Ireland? Will those details be released at any point? I would have thought ScotlandsPeople would want to release Scottish 1939 records at some point, but I've not heard anything about that yet.
kiterunner
18-04-16, 17:17
There is a new version of Scotland's People coming later this year, James, but I don't know whether they are working on adding the 1939 Register to it yet:
http://devolved.governmentcomputing.com/news/nrs-picks-caci-to-help-develop-scotlands-people-ancestry-site-4691870
Going live in September? Interesting. Thanks a lot, Kate. Hopefully it does include the 1939 Register, then.
I wish they would have a subscription option.
The six month mark has now passed since I reported the issue I had with page 1616A 006. Nothing has changed so I have sent them another message!
Their (standard) reply just arrived:
Thank you for taking the time to report this problem.
Our Data Team are aware of the specific problem that you reported and we will be implementing a solution as soon as is possible.
Your patience while we work to resolve this is much appreciated.
Olde Crone
24-05-16, 10:47
LOLOLOL!!!!
Implementing a solution as soon as it is possible.........working to resolve it..........
REMOVE IT, you fools!
OC
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.