The 1939 Register

[peter]

No woolly is not a good thing because it doesn't give the subscriber the chance to prioritise which redacted records they most want to see.

You don't need to know what the limit is in order to prioritise.

However, I can see that FMP doesn't put customers first - just themselves!

Surely by trying to avoid imposing any limit, but reserving the right to do so should this be necessary, they are putting the interests of the membership as a whole first?

I run LostCousins in exactly the same way. There is no published limit to how many requests for help and advice from any one member I will respond to, but if someone sends in so many emails that it affects my ability to help other members then I put my foot down. This has only happened on a handful of occasions since 2004, but it's important to have this safety valve.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Of course I need to know a limit (if there is one). My priorities differ. For my maternal grandparents home my aim was to open every record for sentimental reasons. My grandparents, aunts and uncles loved that home in Poplar and I wanted to show them all living there. Other priorities are where birth date is not known or trying to ascertain where relatives might be living (some of it is guesswork). If they impose a restriction and then find many of their subscribers are not uploading death certs they could always up the allowance. Their rules are all in favour of themselves. Yes, they have spent money putting these records online but their customers have spent money buying credits, being subscribers and purchasing death certificates - there has to be some give and take.

 

[peter]

Of course I need to know a limit (if there is one).

That's unfortunate, because I very much doubt that even Findmypast know what the limit will be, or whether they will need to introduce a limit. It's probable that they have budgeted for a certain percentage of their sales (of credits) to be spent on opening up closed records, and there's no magic formula to translate that into a limit per subscriber.

However, if your main interest is in opening up entire households, my advice is to wait until their systems support this - opening up one person at a time is bound to be far more time-consuming for TNA, and therefore more expensive for Findmypast. I'd also suggest that you focus on individuals whose dates of birth are not recorded in the death indexes, since we know that Findmypast hope to persuade TNA to let them open up closed records by matching the 1939 Register against the death indexes.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

So far in my correspondence with them over lack of acknowledgement for some death cert uploads, no one from FMP has mentioned a limit and suddenly I've had loads of correspondence from them. Two of my submissions weren't where I guessed they might be living but that's fine. At least I can rule them out and speculate whom the redacted entries might be. Still have one entry at my maternal grandparents home to remove the redacting from but I don't even know if they are receiving my certs as 7 times out of 10 I don't get an acknowledgement. Awful website and if this is supposed to be a tech company then the mind boggles!

 

[peter]

Awful website

Perhaps you can be more specific in case there are other members who have solutions (or are struggling with the same problems)?

 

[emjay]

Awful website

I suspect robots have taken over! Something seems amiss recently,but I would not describe it as an 'awful website'.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I think it is an awful website because it rejects people's credit cards that are not rejected on other websites. I also haven't forgotten the pigs ear they made when they converted from the old site to the new site. If this is a tech company who runs this I'd have expected a much smoother transition. I wouldn't have expected everything to be perfect from the word go; but the launch was terrible. Still don't think their searches (especially the census) are as good as Ancestry. The only thing I will commend them on is I find their transcriptions far superior to Ancestry. We also have this secondary problem with non acknowledgement of death certificates - if that's not an awful website I don't know what is! To thank you for registering when you've sent a death cert is totally stupid. I don't have all these problems with Ancestry apart from their dire transcriptions. I also find FMP slower than Ancestry.

I received another response from FMP today re non acknowledgement of Death Certs. Here is their response:

Dear Lynn

Thank you for taking the time to report this problem.

Our technical team are aware of the specific problem that you reported and we will be implementing a solution as soon as is possible.

Your patience while we work to resolve this is much appreciated.

With kind regards,

 

[peter]

I think it is an awful website because it rejects people's credit cards that are not rejected on other websites.

This isn't Findmypast's fault - see my earlier comments and also Katie Bee's contribution.

I also haven't forgotten the pigs ear they made when the converted from the old site to the new site. If this is tech company who runs this I'd have expected a much smoother transition. I wouldn't have expected everything to be perfect from the word go; but the launch was terrible.

The launch was indeed a terrible experience for all concerned but, when you consider that all they were doing was extending to the UK the data structure and search that had always been in place at the other Findmypast sites around the world, you can perhaps understand why they were over-confident about the reception the new site would get. The fact that prior to the launch users who had seen the new site demonstrated at WDYTYA were clamouring to get early access to it might also have misled them.

But, to their credit, even before the launch they created a Feedback Forum where users could report issues, suggest improvements, and vote for improvements suggested by others - and all those who contributed deserve our thanks because what we've ended up with is far better than the old site.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Yes, they did admit they made some cockups re the new site and it took some time before they got it as user friendly as it was before. I still prefer Ancestry's approach for letting you search each census separately instead of having to say which census you wish to search. I don't like FMP one size fits all approach and the fact you can't add a birthplace. I also don't like the fact that with Suffolk Baptisms I have to search three databases when I'm actively looking for someone. Why could they not combine the three databases?

Re credit cards, it was FMP fault to send me a sub remewal in dollars rather than sterling. If I'd been a bit more suspicious I'd have queried it and demanded they send a sub renewal in sterling but I foolishly thought all would be well. From that day my usual credit card doesn't work there, so was it my fault that FMP doesn't seem to realise I live in the UK rather than Australia or the USA? They do have my details in a database somewhere I presume!? I spent a lot of money on phone calls to query my credit card problems and they must only have 6 people on the phone. I gave up in the end and contacted them by email. I have taken the tick out of continuous renewal because if they send it in dollars again I'll hit the roof! Sorry but I've had more problems with the FMP website than any other website I visit and I visit a lot of websites.

 

[peter]

I still prefer Ancestry's approach for letting you search each census separately instead of having to say which census you wish to search. I don't like FMP one size fits all approach and the fact you can't add a birthplace.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying - at Findmypast you can search each census separately if you want, you can search them all at the same time, or you can search any combination of censuses simultaneously.

You can enter a birthplace when you search individual censuses, but not when you search multiple censuses - that's because the birthplace information differs from census to census. In 1841 no birthplace is stated, and in 1871 only the county of birth was indexed by Origins (from whom Findmypast licensed the transcription).

I also don't like the fact that with Suffolk Baptisms I have to search three databases when I'm actively looking for someone. Why could they not combine the three databases?

You can search them simultaneously (though there are fewer boxes on the Search form): choose Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records, then Births & Baptism, then click Browse record sets and search for 'Suffolk'.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Yes, I can see what you mean with the Suffolk baptisms and I think I would get the same effect by just putting Suffolk in the where box. It seemed to bring up a selection of Suffolk baptisms in assorted places. But as far as I can see you can only search a census individually by going to the year box and just putting 1881, 1871, 1891 with no plus or minus years. Or I can just put the person's details in without specifying a year and it "should" bring up all entries pertaining to them.

I still prefer Ancestry's approach of having separate census databases that you choose rather than using the same search form for everything (on size fits all).

 

[peter]

But as far as I can see you can only search a census individually by going to the year box and just putting 1881, 1871, 1891 with no plus or minus years. Or I can just put the person's details in without specifying a year and it "should" bring up all entries pertaining to them.

I still prefer Ancestry's approach of having separate census databases that you choose rather than using the same search form for everything (on size fits all).

If you want to search an individual census (or any individual dataset) go to the A-Z of record sets; as it's sorted alphabetically the censuses are all on the first page:

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I think FMP suffers from too many ways to search and you have to keep clicking from screen to screen to find these databases. Personally I prefer Ancestry's method of putting all the census links on the home page (that's where I have them anyway). Otherwise I seem to spend too much time clicking from screen to screen. I do use the A-Z facility a lot when I want to find baptisms. Most other counties have one set of baptisms why Suffolk had to have three is anybody's guess.

 

[peter]

I think FMP suffers from too many ways to search and you have to keep clicking from screen to screen to find these databases. Personally I prefer Ancestry's method of putting all the census links on the home page (that's where I have them anyway). Otherwise I seem to spend too much time clicking from screen to screen. I do use the A-Z facility a lot when I want to find baptisms.

It's certainly convenient having links to the censuses on the Ancestry home page, but it only take a couple of seconds longer at Findmypast.

Most other counties have one set of baptisms why Suffolk had to have three is anybody's guess.

There's no need to guess - the answer is there if you look for it.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Without getting to the 'nitty gritty' of the FamilyHistoryGal/Peter exchange I have to applaud and agree with FHG's comments regarding Ancestry searching versus FMP. This last week I have been using both data bases via multiple computers; much of it Census searching with related BMD searches for an entirely new line I am researching for a friend. There was no contest when push came to shove Ancestry gave the best response if for no other reason than the infuriating 'nul' responses provided by FMP compared to far fewer from Ancestry.

As a generic example (although the Smith surname did relate to my own searching) if you put in (e.g.) George T Smith, Birmingham 1865 (+/-2) FMP provides a nul response, Ancestry second guesses Aston, Warwickshire and leads to the person sought, and on occasion does so when the date is 4 years adrift! To achieve the same with FMP you need to leave out Birmingham and remove the second initial (perhaps extend the date to +/-5) and wade through the results in the hope you will find what you seek. When you do he appears as G.T. Smith, Warwickshire, 1863! I had so many instances of infuriating FMP searches it is small wonder I never posted on the subject, if only to let off steam.

Peter of course rightly provides in depth knowledge for tackling FMP searches and no doubt following such may get you to where you need to be, but Ancestry seems to accomplish this without the need for so much fuss. This is because I believe it has a far better algorithm search technique after all it has been doing it for a long time. With FMP you have to hold its hand and do much of the work yourself; then you have better chance of finding what you seek.

Of course when you do find what you seek with FMP - and Census transcriptions in particular - it can be a differerent story and one tends to forget the anguish in searching....until the next time. I have always been a staunch Ancestry fan and do honestly believe FMP's search standards have fallen over time. Even so I still subscribe and will likely continue to do so.

 

[peter]

Both Ancestry and Findmypast have improved their searching over the past year or so - Ancestry was very poor at handling forenames/initials and Findmypast was very poor with birthplaces.

In practice which site works out best depends very much on what information you're starting with - no two searches are the same . For example, at Findmypast you have the option of searching by address, and by occupation (in some censuses). But if I was searching for someone living in or born in the Birmingham area the way that Ancestry allows you to search adjacent counties might be very useful (you can achieve the same thing at Findmypast using filters, but you need to be better at geography). On the other hand, if you have a Findmypast subscription you also have the option of using FamilySearch to search the census - there is no simple answer.

However there are three key factors that seem to account for most failed searches - one is entering too much information on the search form, another is not using wildcards, the third is trying to search multiple datasets, rather than focusing on a single dataset. In other words it's search technique that matters more than the choice of website - and we often don't have a choice, because many key records are only available at one of the sites.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Who on earth pays for something they do not want?

Anyone who falls victim to the "it was on sale" or "it was a bargain" so I had to buy it mentality. I'm reasonably sure from your past comments that you know someone like that

 

[Marguerite]

Marguerite, I have encountered problems like the ones you describe on several occasions over the past year - and every single time it was either the bank or Visa who had blocked the payment, although they didn't always admit it during the first phone call.

They were all transactions within the UK, some with debit cards and some with credit cards, and in every case there were ample funds available. All of the companies I was dealing with were reputable, and none of them were in any way related to family history.

So whilst I can't be absolutely certain that Findmypast weren't in some small way to blame for the problems you faced, my experience would suggest that it is extremely unlikely.

Peter

I have been subscribed to FindmyPast and its predecessor for nigh on 17 years. The same goes more or less for Ancestry.

We have also used Paypal when offered and receive a monthly account of our purchases.

FMP and Ancestry have never had problems with Mastercard transactions previously. Neither have any companies from which we have purchased many items.

I have been very busy lately but yesterday I searched the Web for FMP + PAYASYOUGO transactions. Scotspeople (sic) only have this option but a number of people admitted they were confused by this type of Transaction and one person considered it as a higher risk Transaction.

When FMP "suddenly" found themselves not able to access my Mastercard through the UK (which they have done so for at least the last 12 months on a monthly basis) they tried to access the account by their US Website. I received a notification that they could not access payment for my monthly payment and replied that I did not wish to carry out my transaction in US Dollars. They then informed me that if this were the case, I should only subscribe to the UK Site.!!!!!!!

It's like talking Swahili to these people.

For me FMP World subscription is ideal. I have mainly Cheshire ancestors but also German ancestors through my grandfather. His brother emigrated to the States and also my step grandfather with his four children.

With FMP World I have access to British AND US historical newspapers which have enlightened me to backgrounds concerning my family which I would never have found from "sterile" records.

I think that my reputable MasterCard issuer is suspicious of the new PAYASYOUGO transactions.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have a theory FMP are likely victims of their own success experiencing a flurry of activity where before transactions were mostly of the annual or lesser subscription type and just the occasional newcomer paying to view each time. Both Visa and MasterCard would suddenly be confronted with numerous authorisation requests (from around the world) which I am sure is what triggered their numerous 'computer says no' reactions. Numerous requests for modest sums (judged by the internet standards) to one web site from a variety of ISP addresses has all the hallmarks of Hackers at work. Sad but true.

As my card issuer had a mobile registered for me it texted asking me to confirm the transaction. Unfortunately as I am not one of those who perpetually have my mobile glued to my hand, I did not read the message until a couple of hours later, so suffered the transaction being rejected. After confirming I had authorized the payment it went through.

That (cough, cough) is my theory that it is (with apologies to 'Ann Elk of Monty Python fame) Ann Elk

 

[Gillian]

My thanks is for the link to Ann Elk!!