Developments at the GRO? My wish list

[At home in NZ]

Arising from Newsletter – 28th July 2021

It's nice to know there is possibility to have some input into what the GRO could do.

This is my small wish list:

Search the GRO Online Indexes page to be extended to include:
Deaths for the years 1958 to 1983
Marriages including the ability to order Marriage certs in PDF format.

Good luck Peter.

 

[At home in NZ]

I have another item to add:
Search the GRO Online Indexes page to be extended to include Births for the years 1935 to 1983.

Thanks.

 

[Sue_3]

I'd just like to echo the suggestion in the newsletter of having the option to search the indexes with a county instead of just a registration district. I often know which county might be relevant but am less often able to zero in on a specific registration district. This can be very problematic with a more common surname, as selecting a district might exclude the entry I need, but omitting one gives far too many results. This problem is compounded where registration district boundaries have changed - a fact not necessarily known or retained while searching the index. Still need the registration district as an option too, though, as it can be essential to distinguish between families with the same surname and mother's maiden name combination.

 

[PhilipT]

GRO online index records are missing for some individuals. These records must once have existed since they appear in derivative databases, and it's clear that they do exist. I reported one of these last year but they appear to have misunderstood the problem - which is that the online index doesn't include this event. (They posted: Status: Investigated – No amendment required GRO Index Reference: 1856 D Hungerford 2c 224b
GRO Comments: Indexed data is correct. - from https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_report_status.asp)

What can be done about this problem? (I've just reported another instance in the hope that they will understand.)

 

[At home in NZ]

GRO online index records are missing for some individuals. These records must once have existed since they appear in derivative databases, and it's clear that they do exist. I reported one of these last year but they appear to have misunderstood the problem - which is that the online index doesn't include this event. (They posted: Status: Investigated – No amendment required GRO Index Reference: 1856 D Hungerford 2c 224b
GRO Comments: Indexed data is correct. - from https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_report_status.asp)

What can be done about this problem? (I've just reported another instance in the hope that they will understand.)

Your link takes me to my own list of GRO Index Record Reports, would need a screen shot of your report in order to see what you are talking about.

Need a bit more info to find the person, was it a birth, is it male or female, which registration district? because, nothing comes up in either birth or death for male and for female.

 

[Sue_3]

Was it one of the birth entries in the attached screen shot that you couldn't find on the GRO site? If so, which one? If not, please explain further?

 

[peter]

GRO online index records are missing for some individuals. These records must once have existed since they appear in derivative databases, and it's clear that they do exist. I reported one of these last year but they appear to have misunderstood the problem - which is that the online index doesn't include this event. (They posted: Status: Investigated – No amendment required GRO Index Reference: 1856 D Hungerford 2c 224b
GRO Comments: Indexed data is correct. - from https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_report_status.asp)

What can be done about this problem? (I've just reported another instance in the hope that they will understand.)

Why is it a problem when you've already found the entry in the quarterly indexes?

You will know from my newsletters that there are hundreds of thousands of missing entries, mostly in large blocks - if the GRO has to fix them one by one it will cost millions, money that will come out of our pockets. It could also divert resources from more important work.

 

[At home in NZ]

Why is it a problem when you've already found the entry in the quarterly indexes?

In the GRO Online Index they invite you to draw attention to incorrect entries and provide a form to fill out.
There is a whole page devoted to it. Part of it:
All error reports will be investigated within 10 working days and where an error is found, we will update the Index to reflect the correct information. If our records show that there is no error to the indexes we will inform you of this and explain why no further action has been taken. Updates to the indexes will be made on a weekly basis.

It sounds to me as though there might be a dedicated team for this work.

 

[Pauline]

It's a while since I reported any errors, but all those I have reported say they have been investigated and the online index updated. The only problem is that almost invariably the online index hasn't been updated, despite the most recent being investigated some months ago. The site says the index is updated weekly.

 

[peter]

In the GRO Online Index they invite you to draw attention to incorrect entries

They have to do this - but remember, we're the ones who are paying.

It sounds to me as though there might be a dedicated team for this work.

Either way it's all funded by us.

If and when they provide more flexible searching (one of my wish list items), such as searching by index reference, most of the errors wouldn't need to be reported, because we could still find the entries and place orders.

 

[PhilipT]

Thank you all for your responses.

Sue_3 The particular entry in question was (as revealed by FreeBMD) a male birth entry for Q4 1856: Talmage Tobias Hungerford 2c 224 - my great grandfather as it happens.

Pauline: These entries are not incorrect, but searches via www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_search.asp fail to reveal them. But the entries must exist if e.g. FreeBMD or Ancestry or FindMyPast can show them.

Peter: Are you suggesting that we shouldn't waste the GRO's time by reporting problems? As you have previously conceded, the GRO indexes show all given names as well as the surname, unlike some other sources. Not unusually for common surnames, that information can be helpful for identification purposes. It's also helpful on occasion to see the mother's name when a birth was recorded, another detail that may be omitted from other sources.

 

[At home in NZ]

we're the ones who are paying.

They recoup cost by charging for the certs/PDFs. Yes I know it's a government organisation therefore taxpayer funded, so everybody in UK who pays tax is paying for it.

 

[Sue_3]

Thank you all for your responses.

Sue_3 The particular entry in question was (as revealed by FreeBMD) a male birth entry for Q4 1856: Talmage Tobias Hungerford 2c 224 - my great grandfather as it happens.

OK, that's not showing up for me on the GRO site, whatever search parameters I use.

 

[At home in NZ]

OK, that's not showing up for me on the GRO site, whatever search parameters I use.

When I find this problem at the GRO I look at the quarterly return then search for the people above and below the one I am looking for. Suggest you try that and if you can't find those either then maybe there is a block missing as outlined earlier in this discussion.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Updates to the indexes will be made on a weekly basis.

It sounds to me as though there might be a dedicated team for this work.

Oh dear, bless such naivety - a 'dedicated team' indeed. Even before the Pandemic in any Government department I doubt staff assigned to look into queries amounts to much more than a 'Ted' and 'Doris' on a low tier contract, employed to tackle jobs beneath Manager/Supervisor pay grades. Now midst Pandemic, such helpers long on furlough, reassigned or contract terminated are no longer available. In order to meet the demands of their publicised Quality Procedures ..."Updates to the indexes will be made on a weekly basis", this calls for skilful responses to queries and assurances that matters are in hand...and they will be eventually!

A trifle pessimistic - yes of course - but only to counter some of the 'blue birds over the rainbow' optimism being generated that someone somewhere is looking into your problem (one of hundreds almost certainly) when departments have higher priorities satisfying Ministers and Parliamentary questions...and meeting budgetary restraints!

This should not of course apply to the private sector but again shortage of staff and how to cut costs still applies. So the moral of the story is one can ask, and one can expect a response, but don't expect it to be met with the same level of enthusiasm you have when passing on your query.

 

[At home in NZ]

Oh dear, bless such naivety - a 'dedicated team' indeed

A put down? Thanks!

 

[Pauline]

Pauline: These entries are not incorrect

My mention of errors should perhaps have said 'errors and omissions' - I've reported both.

 

[peter]

They recoup cost by charging for the certs/PDFs. Yes I know it's a government organisation therefore taxpayer funded, so everybody in UK who pays tax is paying for it.

That's wrong - the GRO isn't financed by the taxpayer!

In England all government agencies have to balance the books - they are neither allowed to make a profit or loss, nor can one service subsidise another. This means that if the GRO's costs go up, so does the price of certificates and PDFs. Similarly if the costs come down (as happened with wills) they reduce their prices. This was explained to me 5 years ago by the Deputy Registrar General himself - it's one of the reasons that they ran trials of the PDF service.

So it's in the interests of all of us to help keep the GRO's costs down - whether you are a UK taxpayer is irrelevant.

 

[peter]

When I find this problem at the GRO I look at the quarterly return then search for the people above and below the one I am looking for. Suggest you try that and if you can't find those either then maybe there is a block missing as outlined earlier in this discussion.

Just to clarify, the block of entries to review are the ones on the same page in the register, not the ones on the same page in the quarterly index. You can find these most easily at FreeBMD.

 

[Sue_3]

When I find this problem at the GRO I look at the quarterly return then search for the people above and below the one I am looking for. Suggest you try that and if you can't find those either then maybe there is a block missing as outlined earlier in this discussion.

Good idea, in fact I can't find any of the other people whose births were registered on the same page (well I haven't tried them all, but none of the one's I have tried are there) in the GRO's 'new' index either, so it may well be that a block is missing.