From: john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr   
      
   On 15/08/2020 08:51, Steve Hayes wrote:   
   > For the last few years I've been using FamilySearch a lot, comparing   
   > our records with ones on their family tree, and trying to verify   
   > everything.   
   >   
   > But they recently seem to have acquired a new source, "Cumbria   
   > Parish Records", which they are showing in their "Hints". It actually   
   > seems to be an index rather than a transcription, and has far less   
   > information than their "English Birth and Christenings" resource,   
   > which is a transcription rather than an index, and often has a link   
   > to images of the actual parish records where you can check the   
   > accuracy of the transcription.   
   >   
   > I spent several hours trying to disentangle a couple of families   
   > that seem to have got entangled as a result.   
   >   
   > They were Mark Elwood who married Mary Jackson and was born in   
   > Branton, Westmorland in 1794, and Mark Ellwood (or Elwood) who   
   > married Mary Mauncey (or Mouncey) and was born in Appleby in 1`796,   
   > son of William Ellwood and Anne Simpson.   
   >   
   > Censuses show that the children of the former Mark and Mary Ellwood   
   > were born in Arkholme or Dalton in Furness in Lancashire, while   
   > those of the latter Mark and Mary Ellwood were born in Long Marton   
   > in Westmorland and Lazonby in Cumberland.   
   >   
   > But the new "Cumbria Parish Records" index shows them all as having   
   > been born in "Cumbria, England. United Kingdom", as a result of   
   > which the two families have god thoroughly entangled in   
   > FamilySearch's family tree, and no doubt in the family trees of   
   > several of their users.   
   >   
   > I don't know if family history societies have enough clout to   
   > persuade FamilySearch to withdraw the "Cumbria Parish Records", or at   
   > least not to display it so prominently in the "Hints" to prevent the   
   > contagion from spreading further and degrading their whole family   
   > tree effort.   
   >   
   > Even their "English Births and Christenings" resource is not devoid   
   > of pitfalls, as it is the product of many different volunteers   
   > transcribers, and it appears that some of them thought that if a   
   > person was baptised in a church they must have been born in it as   
   > well, but often the images are linked so one can correct them.   
   >   
   > In the case of the Lancashire records one can often find better   
   > transcriptions on the Lancashire Online Parish Clerks web site, but   
   > I don't know of an equivalent resource for Cumberland and   
   > Westmorland, the other constituents of the present-day Cumbria, which   
   > did not exist in the time of more of the events in the "Cumbria   
   > Parish Records" resource.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   IN my opinion, cross-posting to six newsgroups   
      
   england.genealogy.misc   
   soc.genealogy.britain   
   soc.genealogy.computing   
   alt.genealogy   
   free.uk.genealogy   
   soc.genealogy.misc   
      
   is bad form, especially when several are irrelevant   
      
      
   Trees are only as good as the data and the compiler. You cannot rely on   
   other trees unless you can verify the original source. The trees on   
   Ancestry, Findmypast, etc are of a similar quality   
      
   Those compiling and publishing trees just assume data they have is   
   correct or make guesses all the time. In the 1990s, I shared a few trees   
   with other individuals but I stated I didn't want it shared further. I   
   usually added a piece of incorrect data as a trace. My wish wasn't kept.   
   With the advent of online family trees, that incorrect data has now been   
   propagated many times in the online databases.   
      
   There is nothing wrong with the Cumbria Parish Records on FamilySearch.   
   They are just not as specific as you would like. I suspect you will find   
   more detailed BMD versions on one of the subscription services?   
      
   Why are you complaining about the quality of work of different volunteers   
   transcribers and volunteers in family history societies?  Without their   
   work you wouldn't even have a lot of what you do have.   
      
   Now you've done the work of verifying the data, I hope you have   
   corrected the records for others?   
   https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/fix-incorrect-record-links/   
      
   Search https://www.ukbmd.org.uk/index.php or GENUKI   
   https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng for information on the available   
   records for Cumberland and Westmorland   
      
   Cumbria Archive Service   
   https://www.cumbria.gov.uk/archives/Online_catalogues/default.asp   
      
   Cumbria Archive Service - Church of England Parish Records   
   https://www.cumbria.gov.uk/archives/Online_catalogues/Ecclesiastical/parish.asp   
      
   Cumbrian Church of England parish registers   
   https://cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/542/795/6637/4246111910.PDF   
      
   Cumbria Family History Society   
   https://cumbriafhs.com/cgi-bin/cumbria/cfhs_main.pl?action=cfhs_parish_records   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)