From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:18:57 +0200, john   
    wrote:   
      
   >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   
      
   How is genealogy irrelevant to genealory NGs?   
      
   It is good Usenet etiquette, since none are irrelevant.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/   
        http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com   
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)