Moderator Control Panel ]

1939 Register

Share your thoughts with your fellow family historians – and the Who Do You Think You Are? Magazine team – here

Re: 1939 Register

Postby Margaret Hirst » Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:21 pm

Guy
....it is not perfect but much of what is wrong with the 39 register is down to the way they have been forced to transcribe it due to data protection legislation....


I would hazard a guess here that the reason it was transcribed in the way it was - columns rather than lines - was more to do with saving money and less to do with Data Protection restrictions.

By doing it in columns, nobody saw anything of any use. By doing it in lines, transcribers may have been exposed to personal information about living people. But I worked for donkey's years on much more sensitive personal information about living people than this, with no problem at all - however, I was vetted to a high level at a significant cost to my employers.

For the "hundreds" of "professional" transcribers to be allowed to see lines, would have meant them also being vetted; and the expense of doing that would have been prohibitive. Also, having conducted vetting, I can tell you that to find "hundreds" of suitable people would have been extremely difficult. Add to that we don't know how much of this transcribing was done overseas, and you have to ask whether this was a very poor business decision by FMP.

But all of that is of no consequence whatsoever in the great scheme of things. The transcriptions were apparently contracted out to one or more private companies, and allegedly audited to a high standard until all audited transcriptions were correct; a "claim" of 98.5% accuracy has been made, but how that has been worked out I don't understand unless every single record was checked. Either it is 100% or it is unquantifiable. They state on their website ".....we were contractually obliged to meet an accuracy rate in readable records of 98% or greater."

Under UK Consumer Law, a product must be suitable for the purpose for which it is sold, and by the sound of things from FMP's FB page, some people have actually been reimbursed the cost of their searches where errors in transcription have led to them accessing the wrong record. This all harks back to 18 months ago when people were reimbursed their subscriptions after the launch of the new website.
Margaret Hirst
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:58 pm

Re: 1939 Register

Postby Guy » Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:31 pm

Margaret Hirst wrote:
Er, no. It isn't "perfectly obvious". And where was it specified that this was the only way it was to be used?


You are the only one who mentioned it was the only way to use the register, an old tactic that, twisting what has been said or written to suit yourself.

Margaret Hirst wrote:Shock Horror!!!! And why is that wrong? Again, where is it specified that you aren't "allowed" to do that?

As I don't possess an Authorised Version of Permitted Searching According to Guy, and I'm not aware that any restrictions were ever placed on the use of the search screen and subsequent freely returned results by FMP, I'm still at a loss.


Common decency tells us what is right or wrong in such situations without having to be told before hand.

Sarcasm is not worth replying to

Margaret Hirst wrote:
Findmypast have to cover their costs remember no other company was willing or able to take the risk
Yet according to Annelies Van Den Belt, FMP didn't get the 1939 by default, they actually bid for, and WON, the contract.[ /quote]

Interesting how now you stoop to cropping a sentence to remove what it refers to.

Margaret Hirst wrote: It's one thing being an apologist for, and defender of, FMP, but sometimes you really should just step back, otherwise your argument may begin to look more than a bit biased and illogical.


I apologise for no one let alone FMP but I will defend anyone or thing I think is being unfairly treated.
Findmypast have been subjected to a torrent of lies and abuse. I thought family historians and genealogists had better manner than that, but it seems I was wrong.
No wonder I am surprised when I hear people steal microfiche from Family History Society libraries or tear pages from Parish Registers.

I naively thought that maybe the fiche were taken in error but this thread has made me realise that yes there are family historians who would go into such a library with the intention of stealing fiche if they can get away with it.

Perhaps archivists were correct when they despised genealogists and tried to prevent them using the records they held, seems they knew the truth about genealogists that I never saw.

Cheers
Guy
As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.
Guy
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: 1939 Register

Postby AntonyM » Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:34 pm

I have looked at four households in my own family, and found significant ( and obvious) transcription errors in three of them, which suggests that the quality control process wasn't great.

But I don't think it is any better or worse than many similar datasets have been.
AntonyM
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:12 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire

Re: 1939 Register

Postby Guy » Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:47 pm

Margaret Hirst wrote:Guy
....it is not perfect but much of what is wrong with the 39 register is down to the way they have been forced to transcribe it due to data protection legislation....


I would hazard a guess here that the reason it was transcribed in the way it was - columns rather than lines - was more to do with saving money and less to do with Data Protection restrictions.

By doing it in columns, nobody saw anything of any use. By doing it in lines, transcribers may have been exposed to personal information about living people. But I worked for donkey's years on much more sensitive personal information about living people than this, with no problem at all - however, I was vetted to a high level at a significant cost to my employers.


That's where you are wrong again it was down to the security the contract required and yes the transcribers did have to be vetted or security cleared.

Margaret Hirst wrote:For the "hundreds" of "professional" transcribers to be allowed to see lines, would have meant them also being vetted; and the expense of doing that would have been prohibitive. Also, having conducted vetting, I can tell you that to find "hundreds" of suitable people would have been extremely difficult. Add to that we don't know how much of this transcribing was done overseas, and you have to ask whether this was a very poor business decision by FMP.


Again you are wrong does not say much for your research techniques, we know the transcribing was done in the UK
Cheers
Guy
As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.
Guy
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: 1939 Register

Postby Margaret Hirst » Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:06 pm

"....we know the transcribing was done in the UK...."

Really? Who by?
Margaret Hirst
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:58 pm

Re: 1939 Register

Postby Margaret Hirst » Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:12 pm

Guy, when you say "I would have thought that was perfectly obvious the correct way would be to use it to find the correct record then to pay to see that record." You said "the correct way" singular, ie one / 1, ie only.

We can play the semantics game 'til the cows come home.
Margaret Hirst
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:58 pm

Re: 1939 Register

Postby Margaret Hirst » Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:30 pm

Findmypast have been subjected to a torrent of lies and abuse. I thought family historians and genealogists had better manner than that, but it seems I was wrong.
No wonder I am surprised when I hear people steal microfiche from Family History Society libraries or tear pages from Parish Registers.

I naively thought that maybe the fiche were taken in error but this thread has made me realise that yes there are family historians who would go into such a library with the intention of stealing fiche if they can get away with it.

Perhaps archivists were correct when they despised genealogists and tried to prevent them using the records they held, seems they knew the truth about genealogists that I never saw.


This is rather a worrying turn of events.

It might be wiser to put such a thought process elsewhere, otherwise somebody might consider that it was directed at a specific person or persons. And, of course, you can't accuse anyone of partaking in criminal offences. such as you've detailed above, without proof, or defame them of the same, otherwise it becomes libellous.
Margaret Hirst
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:58 pm

Re: 1939 Register

Postby madducks » Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:13 pm

I think it is great the Register has been released. I think the prices are a bit steep but so too was the 1911 when it first came out. I think personal attacks from anyone are unhelpful and needless....I believe we are all grown ups. Let's be constructive not destructive.
madducks
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:36 pm

Re: 1939 Register

Postby JaneyH » Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:29 pm

madducks - if this forum had a 'like' button I'd give you a 'like' for your last post!


Sent from my iPad using WDYTYA Forum
User avatar
JaneyH
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: 1939 Register

Postby Mick Loney » Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:24 pm

Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of the charging for this access, the quality of the transcriptions suck. How can they get it so wrong?
Out of all my close relatives I looked for, I only found 2! Where are all the others, most of whom died at least 15-20 years ago?


Sent from my iPad using WDYTYA Forum
Mick Loney
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:39 am

PreviousNext

Return to Genealogy chat


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests