ancestry's indexing

[kylejustin]

ancestry's indexing is atrocious!

i'm looking in the west yorkshire records for a betty dibb c.1742, kirkby overblow. nothing shows up, but an elizabeth dibb 1737. so i put elizabeth's father, eleazar. turns out kirkby overblow 1742 has been indexed as 1792.

and i clicked on a baptism once only to find it was a burial! in a different parish! and there is no way to report these problems to them!

[Olde Crone Holden]

Oh, it's maddening, but in defence of Ancestry (cos I'm really, really kind, lol!) I have seen more than one early parish register where it is almost impossible to work out whether an event is a baptism or a burial.

OC

[Marmaduke 123]

When I find something like this I always put a comment in the comment box. It won't help with a search of course. It's difficult to find out how to contact Ancestry, but they did respond very well when I had to tell them they had indexed many of the Huddersfield St Peter records as Nomina. It's taken them a while to sort out though. They've removed Nomina from the parish list, but I'm not sure the records have been reindexed yet, so might not come up on a search.

I've done a fair bit of struggling with early records on film, they're not always in order and often pretty illegible even if you are looking for a specific name. Its a miracle some of the West Yorkshire records have been transcribed at all!