Looking for Bengeo Marriages

[Derek Baker]

Find my Past have somehow wrongly attributed all Bengeo marriages from 1696 to at least 1760 to Barkway.
If you find a genuine Bengeo marriage (use the HALS people on line index) and then page backwards through the images on FMP you will eventually get to the first page where lo and behold it states that this is the Parish of Bengeo. I have reported this to FMP.
Derek

 

[peter]

Find my Past have somehow wrongly attributed all Bengeo marriages from 1696 to at least 1760 to Barkway.
If you find a genuine Bengeo marriage (use the HALS people on line index) and then page backwards through the images on FMP you will eventually get to the first page where lo and behold it states that this is the Parish of Bengeo. I have reported this to FMP.
Derek

I'm afraid this is a common problem when parish records go online - it only needs a mistake to be made at the start of the batch/register and the whole lot are wrong. Perhaps you can suggest to Findmypast that they annotate the list of parishes since I don't suppose they'll be able to reassign the marriages themselves in the near future?

 

[Derek Baker]

I have pointed out the error to FMP, but I am not confident that they are going to do anything about it.
Their list of coverage for Bengeo shows that they only have 1813-1922 which is wrong as I know they have 1696 to 1760.
From dialogue with them in the past over other missing transcriptions in other counties it would seem that they don't transcribe themselves but buy in from 3rd parties.
If you scroll forward through the Bengeo (als Barkway) images you will get to a point ca 1760 where there in a upside down page and then a set of banns/marriages in what looks like a totally different register, possibly actually Barkway for the same period, it is not at all clear.
I get the feeling that they would look to the original transcriber to correct the problem as they have admitted to me that they don't have access to the original source (presumably a fiche or micro film copy of the originals).

 

[NicolaP]

Its not a simple as just having listed Bengeo marriages as Barkway as the Barkway marriages are also within the same data set. I wouldn't hold your breath getting it changed as I actually reported it when they were originally uploaded, as I was looking for copies of marriages I already knew about, but received no response and nothing has been done about it.

Its not the only issue with just Bengeo. Their parish list claims they have records for Watford and Rickmansworth to 1900, yet virtually all the baptisms, marriages and burials for the two main parish churchs post 1800 (for Rickmansworth) and 1813 (for Watford) are missing. When I raised this with them they initially said they were looking into it with Hertfordshire Records Office but when chased at a later date I was informed that the problem was caused by the Records Office itself. They suggested that the RO were responsible for the digitisation of the records, rather than staff hired by FMP. Others have subsequently inquired to be told that nothing is being done about it and Herts RO aren't responding to enquiries about this issue either. It makes the collection pretty much useless as Watford and Rickmansworth aren't isolated areas, there are missing records for St Albans St Stephens too. It means back to trying to view microform copies and for me personally its impossible to get to Hertford for the day as it is a 9 hour round trip, something I know since I had to go for work once. Staying over isn't an option for the forseable future either.

 

[peter]

As I hinted in my earlier post making these sorts of changes to the database isn't easy, so you cannot expect instant resolution - hence my suggestion that a note is added to the list which shows coverage by parish.

They suggested that the RO were responsible for the digitisation of the records, rather than staff hired by FMP.

As I understand it most digitisation is done by FamilySearch, not by Findmypast or Ancestry - and that's one reason why it can be difficult to fill in gaps. There are all sorts of reasons why registers or parishes might be missing - in some cases the incumbent might refuse permission (it does happen, unfortunately), in some cases there is no microfilm (or the microfilm is of poor quality) so the registers need to be scanned. HALS would have a role to play in both of these cases.

 

[NicolaP]

As I hinted in my earlier post making these sorts of changes to the database isn't easy, so you cannot expect instant resolution - hence my suggestion that a note is added to the list which shows coverage by parish.

I appreciate it can take time for changes but as I reported it over 15 months ago, you would expect some sort of change by now. Its not unreasonable to expect.

As I understand it most digitisation is done by FamilySearch, not by Findmypast or Ancestry - and that's one reason why it can be difficult to fill in gaps. There are all sorts of reasons why registers or parishes might be missing - in some cases the incumbent might refuse permission (it does happen, unfortunately), in some cases there is no microfilm (or the microfilm is of poor quality) so the registers need to be scanned. HALS would have a role to play in both of these cases.

Not all of it is because the Shropshire registers were digitised by Worcestershire Archives for Shropshire Archives. I suspect the images that are digitised from microfilm may well be done by Familysearch as they originally microfilmed many of the registers for a lot of the Archives. I know I heard rumours that "volunteers" were digitising for Hertfordshire, although whether this is true I don't know but it was from someone fairly well placed to know.

In the case of ancestry, there have been some adverts for temporary employees posted online by ancestry for digitisation projects because I have actually seen them advertised myself. So I think you'll find familysearch aren't involved in all the digitisation projects.

 

[Pauline]

I appreciate it can take time for changes but as I reported it over 15 months ago, you would expect some sort of change by now. Its not unreasonable to expect.

Do you know if anyone has tried contacting the RO (or whoever provided the data) about this?

When I discovered a problem with a number of WW1 medal card transcriptions at FMP, after a number of fruitless emails, it eventually emerged that as they did not have access to the originals and had not made the transcriptions, it was up to the data owner (TNA) to fix the problem. It was also clear that they had no intention of raising the issue with TNA themselves, so I did and although it still took several months, this did do the trick.

(I did write about this in the Lives of the First World War forum but I'm doing this on my iPad and am having difficulty adding a link to it.)

 

[Derek Baker]

In my original reply I got from FMP they stated:

"Thank you for your email.
The source of the transcriptions can be seen at the bottom of the transcription. The Transcription in this case is from Family Search.
As we do not have the original image to compare it to and only the Transcription we would suggest that you contact:
https://familysearch.org/
highlighting the issue and asking them to double-check their records.
Once they have investigated the issue and have come to a conclusion, please could you forward their response to us at FMP. At this point, we will be able to update the records accordingly and flag the image as incorrect."

I checked the 'Source' at the bottom of the transcription and it says 'Hertfordshire Archives & Local Studies' and not Family Search as they claimed.

Checking with the Herts (HALS) names on line they have the marriage correctly in Bengeo, so they may not be the source of the error. It is difficult from information available to pin point exactly who did the transcription.
This I reported back to FMP, which is where it remains.
I have also asked that they annotate the Parish Coverage List, I await in anticipation, but not holding my breath.
Derek

 

[peter]

Derek, it sounds to me as if the person you were corresponding with at Findmypast wasn't clear which dataset you were referring to. Findmypast has FamilySearch transcriptions from many counties, including about half a million for marriages in Hertfordshire, and it must be difficult for Findmypast support staff - who probably aren't nearly as familiar with the records as you and I - to get it right every time.

 

[peter]

So I think you'll find familysearch aren't involved in all the digitisation projects.

Quite right - I said most. Sometimes the owners of the data won't allows FamilySearch near it - for example, some years ago there was an order from the Vatican not to let them have access to Catholic records. But the bigger the project, the more likely it is that FamilySearch will be involved, simply because they own the biggest and best scanners.

 

[Derek Baker]

Peter I made it quite clear that I was referring to the Hertfordshire Marriage collection.
FMP support say that they don't have the facility to annotate the records, but message is being passed on to the Management team.
Maybe someone higher up can make annotations or even data corrections!!!
I only posted this here as an advice to others looking for Bengeo marriages and finding them moved to Barkway, I was in no way intending any criticism of FMP.

 

[peter]

I was in no way intending any criticism of FMP

It's not a problem if you criticise Findmypast, Ancestry, or even FamilySearch - it's just that I always try to look at the other side of an issue, since I know from experience things aren't always as black and white as they first appear.