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.
>
>
>
A warning.
Don't bother to reply to the original message entitled "Relevance" which
Steve Hayes sent without checking and changing the newsgroup your reply
goes to
Steve Hayes has redirected any replies to alt.troll
rather than them going here at soc.genealogy.britain where he posted it
Earlier this year, I put in a considerable effort helping him out with
his "Where is Ingleton?", "Looking for Emma EDE, born 1858-1860" and
other queries
I won't be helping him with any future queries he might have or replying
to any of his comments here or in any other newsgroup as I will no
longer see his postings
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
