Image wrongly indexed - SP response

[WilmaM]

I discovered an image the other day wich was wrongly indexed - Shand was on the index as EHAND, though clear twice on the image.

I sent a contact form to SP giving full information and I recieved this reply today:

Wilma,

We at Scotland's People only provide access to the records which are held
and indexed by the General Register Office for Scotland. We are sorry to
hear there has been a mistake in the indexing for one of the records you are
interested in. The Register Office are normally quite efficient about
correcting such problems and we have a procedure in place for bringing such
issues to their attention. This procedure is as follows:
- Go to the Scotland's People Website
- Click on 'Contact Us'
- Click on 'Continue here to fill out the contact us form'
- Click on the relevant link from the two displayed
- Fill in the fields leaving the 'Issue' field as the one already selected
This will send the query directly to the General Register Office for
Scotland.

Hope this is helpful,
Regards,
Dave Caughey
Scotland's People

HUH

Should SP not channel this information to GROS?

I have replied inthat vein to Dave Caughey, but wanted your opinions too please.

[sporran]

Hello Wilma,


I believe that SP tries to be a "one-stop shop" in most cases, but I suspect that there are good reasons for the actions in this case. By asking you to follow the path through to "Index and Image don't match", Dave has ensured that two things happen:
> the problem is directed to GROS or NAS and they can deal directly with you if there are further questions or issues (apparently not in this case, but other problems may not be straightforward);
> the problem is tracked, so it gets logged on a database and remains open and visible until it is resolved.

However, I shall follow up with Customer Services in SP to see if this is the best way to handle the situation.


Regards,

John

[gzmcwherter]

Hello Wilma & John,
I had a similar problem last July. I could not find a family in the 1871 census for Monifieth that I was sure should be there. (I had their address from their children's birth certificates in 1870 & 1872.) I found a likely family in the index for Orkney but with different spellings on the first and last name, (thanks to all those that keep emphasizing the use of *s on search), but they were not on the page pointed to by the index.
I sent in the contact form for "GROS index and image data do not match" and received a reply the next day from Eileen Thompson. She worked with me over the next couple of days (we were in 2 very different timezones) and it turns out that 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 copy of the correct image. She also indicated that a corrrection had been made but would take a while to get online.
A very positive customer experience.
Regards,
Gina

[ladybird]

Should I also send a contact to SP about a wrong PR transcription for Falkirk?

John Berry Craig married Christian Burt 1825--- not Elizabeth Bird
His brother John Craig married Elizabeth Burt 1829

[DavidWW]

Should I also send a contact to SP about a wrong PR transcription for Falkirk?

John Berry Craig married Christian Burt 1825--- not Elizabeth Bird
His brother John Craig married Elizabeth Burt 1829

As long as you are certain that there is a transcription error as opposed to an original entry error, i.e. if that's the way the record appears in the OPR and is correctly transcribed then it isn't a transcription error but an error of the person who made the entry in the OPR, - the session cleark or the minister.

David

[ladybird]

Well, there's the difficulty.
(See my thread on Statutary Records 7th Sept)
I haven't actually seen the image - loathe to part with the £10 - but it's possibly a mistake on the clerk's part.
Is there anyway SP could check the entry?
Sylvia

[WilmaM]

I had another email from SP this morning:

Hello
Thank you for your email.
Many apologies for this indexing problem. The name is clearly Shand as
you say but for some reason a particular indexer has seen it as Ehand.
I have let the appropriate people know and it will be rectified as soon
as possible here although the correction may take some time to be
reflected on the site. In the meantime I have refunded you some
credits for the inconvenience caused by this.
Hope these will be useful, and thank you for interest in our records,
regards
Eileen Thomson
Scotlands People
New Register House
Edinburgh
EH1 3YT



The credits [ and extra time] are there, so I'm off to track down some more ......

[sporran]

Hello Wilma,


I received a reply today from Alison, with apologies for the delay. The correct response would have been to reply to you and forward your message to the appropriate destination. Dave of SP has been recalibrated (a technical support term!).

However, it helps everyone if people navigate through the "Contact Us" menu and choose the appropriate category. Apart from saving work at the SP support desk, it means that your problem does not sit there in a queue waiting to be redirected.


Regards,

John

[pinkshoes]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I'm sure someone will point me in the right direction if I'm lost.

I was searching recently for a marriage of an Alison Reid, and being in possession of a wealth of credits I set out with determination to find it, no expense spared. However, there was only one in the whole bunch that looked likely so I took the plunge. I was dismayed to find that the marriage record wasn't for Alison Reid at all, but for one Alison Reid Dalrymple Brown (father Andrew Brown, mother Alison Reid m.s. Dalrymple, hence Alison's lengthy handle. I then searched for Alison Brown married to William Townsley in 1919 in Polmont (the one I'd just viewed under Reid) and there was no sign of it.

It's easy to see how the error ocurred as Alison Reid is on one line, with Dalrymple Brown underneath on the next line.

I sent a contact form in, and got a prompt reply from SP saying they'd checked it out and agreed it was an error which would be corrected in the fullness of time.

The reason for posting is really to say if anyone's looking for Alison Brown's marriage, try searching for Alison Reid

Hope this might help someone, sometime. Meantime - I'm still looking for Alison Reid

[AndrewP]

Hi Pinkshoes,

The certificate that was wrong for you may in fact be correctly indexed.

Given that the child could have been raised by either parent, or by each of them at separate times, then she could have been known by her father's surname or her mother's surname (maiden surname, or subsequently married surname). So it is correct that she should be indexed under all three surnames.

I grant you that can be confusing, but I believe it is correct.

All the best,

Andrew Paterson