From: john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr
On 16/08/2020 20:19, Steve Hayes wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
I suggest you look at those newsgroups.
It seems you don't as otherwise you would not
have bothered to post to them. The chances
you would get a response are negligible.
https://alt.genealogy.narkive.com
https://free.uk.genealogy.narkive.com
https://england.genealogy.misc.narkive.com
https://soc.genealogy.misc.narkive.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
