GRO

[webwiz]

When I access the last set of years 1984-2004 it seems to take no notice of the sex or MMS and shows everyone who matches on the surname. It's as if when they introduced this set they used a different app to display them which is buggy.

 

[At home in NZ]

When I access the last set of years 1984-2004 it seems to take no notice of the sex or MMS

In the GRO site I filled in the same fields as in your screen shot, except the mother's maiden and the result was a list of Taylors, male and female.
I narrowed it down to Liverpool and the result was all Taylors registered in Liverpool.
I went to Ancestry and examined three of those from the Liverpool list and found the mother's maiden name is recorded.
I am inclined to agree there is a bug which I would suggest you draw to the attention of the GRO. I would also suggest you use Ancestry as a workaround, if you subscribe.

 

[peter]

When I access the last set of years 1984-2004 it seems to take no notice of the sex or MMS and shows everyone who matches on the surname. It's as if when they introduced this set they used a different app to display them which is buggy.

Those indexes were computerised from the beginning rather than being recreated - it's perhaps not surprising that there are inconsistencies, and I suspect that gender was not one of the fields that was captured when the indexes were created (gender isn't shown in any of the original indexes). There's no compelling reason to use these indexes since they're available at many other sites, and have been for years - I imagine the GRO provides them primarily for ease of ordering and processing.

With regard to the mother's maiden name the FAQs state:

"For modern birth indexes, the mother’s maiden name will only be included in the returned index if it was already entered as part of the online search."

I imagine this restriction is for data protection reasons - it's rather like the way that LostCousins works.