Image wrongly indexed - SP response

[pinkshoes]

Hi Andrew - SP did point out that people could be indexed under any surname they'd been known by, but having checked the records agreed that this one was incorrectly indexed :

Thank you for your e-mail and many apologies for this index error.
Because people can be indexed under any name they may have been known as
at any point in their life I had a look for the parent's marriage, just
to double check the details, and then having located both it and
Alison's birth I would agree that it does appear to be a genuine mistake
in the indexes. I will inform the relevant people and hopefully they
will be able to rectify the entry on-line in due course. In the meantime
I have refunded your 6 credits. I hope this is of some help, and thank
you for bringing this error to our attention.

I'd have thought then that her marriage would be indexed under Brown as well, but I didn't find it - unless I didn't look properly? Perhaps SP will index Alison under all her surnames?

Either way, if someone searches TS for Alison Brown or Alison Reid (or even Dalrymple) - they may find a clue

BW
Pinkshoes

[ladybird]

Hi Pinkshoes

Did your Alison Reid have a brother named Robert who married a Grace Jeffrey?

Sylvia

[pinkshoes]

Hi Sylvia

Alison did have a brother Robert born 1885, but I don't yet know who he married (there are so many Robert Reids!)

The rest of her family (so far) were :

parents : Robert Reid and Jessie Dunlop who married in Whitburn West Lothian in 1872. They had the following children :

John, Margaret, James, William, Alexander, Robert, Jessie and Alison. Jessie was my grandmother, so if there's any connection here for you, I have more information.

Hope the sun's shining where you are

Pinkshoes

[ladybird]

Thanks Pinkshoes
Will have to get in touch with my cousin about these. Robert and Grace Reid were her parents.
I'll get back to you later if there's anything hopeful
cheers Sylvia

PS The Townsley connection is interesting too, though my Townsleys had changed their name to Townsend by the 1900's.

[gzmcwherter]

Hello,
I posted the following in Sep 2005 regarding a search carried out in Jul 2005 for AL*N, JUL*:
"... the names had been indexed exactly as in the image but the parish code for Monifieth (310) had been entered as the parish code for Stronsey (031).
I received additional credits and a [paper] copy of the correct image. She also indicated that a corrrection had been made but would take a while to get online."
I have checked my searches several times since then but the initial mistaken result is still there. Does this mean that the correction has not been loaded? [I'm not sure if the search results are stored as they were in Jul 2005 or wether the search argument is stored and then executed anew each time the search query is revisited...]
Any light on this subject would be helpful.
Regards,
Gina

[sporran]

Hello Gina,


SP stores the searches, not the results, so that when a previous search is re-run you should see the most up-to-date results.

Corrections are sent (on CD) from GROS to SOL, the other half of the SP partnership. I have not been given the details, but SOL report that the way that GROS reference the information does not lead to an automatic update process. The updates to the SP database have to be done manually and take many days.

However, from User Group minutes, SP have committed to update regularly (at least once a year), and I will check when the next update is likely to happen.


Regards,

John

[joette]

I was not happy with the reply I recieved from SP over a search I had been conducting for my Greers-Gilbert,Mary,William,Thomas & Robert in the 1851 Census.
Then some nice person here on TS found the men-living in Luss.Searched again still no joy.Sent an e-mail to SP & recieved a reply saying "we do not undertake searches for this you will have to contact GROS"
Sorry search?what search?What I want you to do is tell me why I cannot find an entry which is there-got a copy from my FHC.
The name is very clear Greer & is repeated unusually for three of the family rather than the usual ditto.
So I sent off another e-mail & am awaiting reply.It is not just the time/credits(lots!!!) spent looking for them.It is the fact that a less intrepid searcher-which I pointed out to them& one without the help of TS & access to a FHC would not have been able to verify the results.
I searched under other names on the same page & they are there-just not mine.
I needed this info to verify place of Birth for Gilbert sen.who died in 1856 & as I cannot find him on the 1841-presume he was off travelling in his work as a Mason Journeyman in every sense of the term-although Mary &children are in Renfrew.

[gzmcwherter]

Well, it looks like they finally corrected my 24/07/2005 search of the 1871 Census for AL*N, JUL*. The ALLAIN JULIET F index entry now shows 310 (Monifieth) instead of 031 (Stronsey). However, it no longer thinks the image has been viewed (which of course it hasn't - since the old index entry was mistakenly pointing at a different page with no such person). When I select the corrected entry, it wants me to pay again! When I go to my viewed images for 24/07/2005, the old incorrect ALLAIN JULIET F image is still there.
I think I feel a headache coming on... maybe a hot toddy will help . But no, it's almost midnight and my husband just came to tell me it's time to go to bed.
Regards,
Gina

[DavidWW]

Gina

Since you have previously paid to view the image linked to the index entry, even although it was an unconnected entry, you should not have to pay again.

It's back to the "Submit a Contact Form" procedure!, pointing out the situation, and asking for a refund of the previously wasted credits so that yuo can view the correct (we hope!) image.

David