GRO new search facility

[Sylvia C]

oh, there was much intermarrying in that area!!

Even if the surname is different, it often turns out the father of one was a sibling of the mother of the other!

The strangest one was that I knew that there were Stuchberry (with variant spellings) who had inter-married with the Cadds, both in England and in Australia, but never with my direct ancestors so I hadn't done much research on them.

10 years ago OH's nephew married in his bride's church in a town about 50 miles from here ............. the minister was called Stuchberry. I nudged OH during the service and kept saying "I wonder???"

I just had to go up to the poor man later ....... he must have thought I was a real mad woman as I rushed toward him and said, not "That was a lovely wedding", but "Is your name Stuchberry?? Do you know if your family comes from a small area in England?"

It turned out that he knew there was a connection with Buckinghamshire but had never done much to find out, and really wasn't interested!

[Loopy Linda in La La Land]

Found a problem though. My GGGrandmother and all of her siblings are missing although I have their birth certificates. Tried all sorts of combinations...weird

Linda

[Anne in Carlisle]

Report it to them. I have found some from the same page missing as though the page has been missed in transcription. It is also a bit of a pain that you MUST put a surname in. If you could just put the district, forename and year it would help. I did try just putting part of a surname in and it offered similar things but not the right one.
In one case I had two entries next to each other on the page. I found the entries on either side of them but not those ones. Surely someone transcribing would not 'see' a different initial letter of the name whilst transcribing a list, although it was one of those old handwritten pages and very hard to read. The names were Arnott, Arrand and Arrandale. I could get Arnott and Arrandale on the search but not Arrand!

Anne

[Loopy Linda in La La Land]

Thanks Anne, I'll do that

Linda

[GallowayLass]

At last! Second code came today by email at 15:46. I've just checked my phone and found the email. Logged in successfully now with 5 minutes to spare. Phew...
Codes only being valid for an hour is a real pest. I've been busy with laundry and cooking all afternoon. I last checked around 1pm and there was nothing. Unlike my hubby and stepsons, I am not welded to my mobile phone.

[TrevorFranklin]

My four requests ALL came through at 15:48 today, it must be a human being who is issuing the approval codes.
I have just used one to authorise my account (so nearly 2 hours after it was received) and it works :o

At last! Second code came today by email at 15:46. I've just checked my phone and found the email. Logged in successfully now with 5 minutes to spare. Phew...
Codes only being valid for an hour is a real pest. I've been busy with laundry and cooking all afternoon. I last checked around 1pm and there was nothing. Unlike my hubby and stepsons, I am not welded to my mobile phone.

[Guy]

My four requests ALL came through at 15:48 today, it must be a human being who is issuing the approval codes.
I have just used one to authorise my account (so nearly 2 hours after it was received) and it works :o

The GRO was having a problem with the authorisation codes for some ISPs I believe the problem has been solved now
Cheers
Guy

[PhotoFamily]

Does anyone know:
Was the search engine built from the existing index records -OR- was the search engine built from the actual records?

The reason I ask: on previous threads there's been discussion that in the early days of registration, some registrars didn't get their events registered on time, some of them may have been more than a month or two off. If the search engine was built from the actual records (how else did they get the earlier MMN?) then events registered in the wrong year might be found.

Hoping I have time in the next few days to play!

[JayG]

Does anyone know:
Was the search engine built from the existing index records -OR- was the search engine built from the actual records?

The reason I ask: on previous threads there's been discussion that in the early days of registration, some registrars didn't get their events registered on time, some of them may have been more than a month or two off. If the search engine was built from the actual records (how else did they get the earlier MMN?) then events registered in the wrong year might be found.

Hoping I have time in the next few days to play!

From what I can gather they have been done from the actual birth & death registers held by the GRO as that is the only way to obtain the MMN pre 1911 & age at death pre 1865.

[Sylvia C]

Does anyone know:
Was the search engine built from the existing index records -OR- was the search engine built from the actual records?

The reason I ask: on previous threads there's been discussion that in the early days of registration, some registrars didn't get their events registered on time, some of them may have been more than a month or two off. If the search engine was built from the actual records (how else did they get the earlier MMN?) then events registered in the wrong year might be found.

Hoping I have time in the next few days to play!

I'm always careful when searching bmds on any site ...............

I never put only the year I think or know it should be, I always do +/-2

I never even thought about altering my system when looking up on this new one! I've been changing the +/- box from 0 to 2 automatically


That should solve the above problem!

[JayG]

Does anyone know:
Was the search engine built from the existing index records -OR- was the search engine built from the actual records?

The reason I ask: on previous threads there's been discussion that in the early days of registration, some registrars didn't get their events registered on time, some of them may have been more than a month or two off. If the search engine was built from the actual records (how else did they get the earlier MMN?) then events registered in the wrong year might be found.

Hoping I have time in the next few days to play!

From what I can gather they have been done from the actual birth & death registers held by the GRO as that is the only way to obtain the MMN pre 1911 & age at death pre 1865.

The index has been compiled from the registration date rather than the event date. Info here

https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/images/Guide%20to%20searching%20the%20online%20historic%20indexes.pdf

[PhotoFamily]

I never put only the year I think or know it should be, I always do +/-2

Some names I even search with wildly open years.
When I'm searching for William Mitchell...it's a whole 'nother story

Someone had a really cute essay by a genealogist who was searching the registrations for ancestors, and talking about how wildly different registration years could be from events, or how they seemed to find different registration districts to have their events.

Wish some could recount it.

[PhotoFamily]

The index has been compiled from the registration date rather than the event date. [/url]

Well, that's kinda disappointing - the search is based on the registration of the event.

But it's still not clear which set of registration information the search database is derived from. For instance: what if the name was illegible or poorly legible on the registration index, but correctly, clearly written on the register itself. If the search database is built from the latter - perhaps I can finding some of my missing. If it's built from the former, it may be subject to the same error.

Also, did the GRO build its own index, or were they able to borrow from FreeBMD. Again, a new index to the registers may reveal lost family members.

Maybe I'll find my g'g'grandmother's 1842 birth registration!

[Olde Crone Holden]

The GRO index was compiled long before Freebmd existed but it is my understanding that we now have a new index compiled from the digitized records. This ought, in theory,to be more accurate but of course ANY handling of records inevitability produces errors.

I read somewhere that early registration compliance was low and it may just be that the registration you seek does not exist.

OC

[Anne in Carlisle]

As I collected my one name study records I have noticed that several mistranscriptions I originally managed to find on FreeBMD are shown with the correct spelling in the new Gro indexes. Of course that doesn't mean they were wrong in the first place, just mistranscribed. It might mske some people easier to find though.

As for registration date versus event date .... the registration would normally be no later than the next quarter, which might mean the next year if that's the next quarter. Not really a problem.
Anne

[AntonyM]

The index has been newly created from the GRO copies of the register entries .... so there may well be differences between it and the indexes used by FreeBMD. That older index has errors in it and no doubt this new one will too .. but it 'should' be an improvement.

[PhotoFamily]

The index has been newly created from the GRO copies of the register entries .... so there may well be differences between it and the indexes used by FreeBMD. That older index has errors in it and no doubt this new one will too .. but it 'should' be an improvement.

[lennon2011]

I've been trying to find a death of a one year old using the information I know but haven't been able to find him so I used the Volume and Page number instead and he's come up aged 11 though. Does anyone know how this can be corrected for future relatives?

[Guy]

I've been trying to find a death of a one year old using the information I know but haven't been able to find him so I used the Volume and Page number instead and he's come up aged 11 though. Does anyone know how this can be corrected for future relatives?

If you have been using the new GRO index it is a know fault with the index for some children.
I believe the beta testers have notified the GRO of that problem.

I.E. If an infant died aged 8 days, 8weeks, or 8 months the age at death
*may* have been recorded as 8 years

Cheers
Guy

[lennon2011]

Upon double checking Ancestry it is 11 months which accounts for the 11 part. Thank you for the advice though Guy :D