Hello,
At last, some sympathetic ears!
I've encountered problems with my "previous searchs" database, beginning with the ScotlandsPeople web interface update in early June. I was trying to download some images using results from a previous well used search and found that the displayed data consisted of unfamiliar and incorrect name records. I looked around at various pages in the list to locate my data and was unaware that I was being charged (no notification or warning provided) for each new page until my credits were exhausted.
Further investigation indicated that a significant number of my previously good paid searches, primarily ( but not limited to) , 1871, 1891, and 1901 Census results, contained either erroneous data or no data.
I've sent three different emails to ScotlandsPeople since then and received no reply (except for the automated acknowledgement of message receipt).
The first email stated that I had observed a problem and suggested (but not insisted) that restoration of the ten credits that I had lost would be a reasonable action.
A month later my email once again mentioned that I had encountered a problem and requested some guidance on how I should proceed.
After another month, I emailed a detailed list of of the data problems that I had observed.
It's like trying to talk to a brick wall. I can understand that ScotlandsPeople may be dealing with monumental database problems, since it seems improbable that I would be the only customer who has had his data compromised. All I was looking for was some general advice on how I should deal with my data problems.
This experience has made me a little wary about committing new resources to redo corrupted searches, especially if there are any plans to correct errors in my existing "previous searches" database. Needless to say, my Scottish genealogy research has been on hold since June.
I guess my basic question is whether or not my experience is typical, and if it would be considered advisable to delay my research a little longer. The postings that I have read regarding experience with the newly available 1861 Census are not exactly encouraging.
Regards,
Ron
Are my SP data problems unique?
Moderator: Global Moderators
-
Ron
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:50 am
- Location: Issaquah, WA, USA
-
DavidWW
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm
Ron
Please copy your emails to me at 106200.1510@compuserve.com and I'll take this up with SP. I'll also need, please, your SP login name, but not your password.
I'll take this further with SoL/SP as you at least should have had the courtesy of an acknowledgment.
David
posting as an SP User Group member.
Please copy your emails to me at 106200.1510@compuserve.com and I'll take this up with SP. I'll also need, please, your SP login name, but not your password.
I'll take this further with SoL/SP as you at least should have had the courtesy of an acknowledgment.
David
posting as an SP User Group member.
-
DavidWW
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm
RonDavidWW wrote:Ron
Please copy your emails to me at 106200.1510@compuserve.com and I'll take this up with SP. I'll also need, please, your SP login name, but not your password.
I'll take this further with SoL/SP as you at least should have had the courtesy of an acknowledgment.
David
posting as an SP User Group member.
See reply below from Richard Callison of ScotlandonLine/SP to my email to him with a copy of the text of your direct email to SP.
QUOTE
Re: Unanswered Contact Forms and Email
David
This is my fault not our customer services team. They passed it to me so
that I could get the best person to fix our lookup tables (our ones not
GROS). The good news is I did, the bad news is I didn't tell anyone.
However I am fairly sure the fix will only work for new searches (certainly
at the moment). You can either send this on to Mr Yuill with my sincere
apologies, as I try to explain, or I can email him myself.
In the previous searches table, the search criteria is stored not the
results and the problem here is the error is in the stored search string,
so using the previous searches on these particular combination of counties will still produce the wrong results It is basically trying to look for a super county called Lanark/Renfrew. If Mr Yuill retries using the form, results should be better. I have allocated 60 credits just now to allow him
to try this for any searches he needs to redo. The viewed images should
still show as paid as it is the filename that is checked against (I think).
If Mr Yuill needs more credits then please let me know.
The Lanark Renfrew was an issue for the districts that moved between the
counties (eg Cathcart and Eastwood if I remember). And our lookup table had those districts belonging to both counties at the same time. The final part of the fix has yet to be deployed so there might still be one or two
spurious results.
Cheers
Richard
ENDQUOTE
Please don't hesitate to let me know if the fix isn't working properly, or if 60 credits is insufficient.
David
-
scotmum
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:02 pm
Ron, unfortunately your problem has not been unique.
David, your reply to Ron has given me hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that I am not (as I was starting to wonder) going daft.
I too have been having a nightmare of a problem with my Previous Searches for some time now and in a similar vein to Ron. Some will not show up and merely take me to an outage page (SP has experienced a problem or something to that effect), whilst others take me to lists with various Renfrew returns that I believe I have never asked for in the first place or Lanark Returns with a sprinkling of Renfrew ones included too. As quite a large part of my nine stored pages of searches were in the Lanarkshire area, this is a headache.
To this ongoing query, the (in the past) usually very helpful 'helpdesk' have given me a couple of replies along the lines of:
September:
"the fix would not go in
> place until it has been fully tested - this has not
> happened yet.
>
> The engineers and design staff will decide when this
> does take place and
> when it does, there will be a message under " latest
> news"
>
> Once the fix is in place, the customers who are
> receiving this error should
> then have these searches available again. If they
> don't, then management
> will decide the next course of action".
In fact, to this one I replied that I felt the authors tone seemed slighlty abrupt or annoyed (they did write back and explain they had not meant it to be such but appreciated that their own frustration with the situation may have been reflected in the reply I received).
I have really tried to be patient with them concerning this matter but my last letter to them on Wednesday 26th October has, as yet, not even been acknowledged or replied to. I herewith copy the bulk of same (you will see that I had finally noticed the 'rogue' Renfrew issue myself and was wondering if this is what was causing my problems):
"Thought it best to write direct to you rather than via
website form as this is an ongoing matter.
Well, I have tried my best to be patient and so
avoided the site as much as possible this month
(popping in a few times to see if problems had been
resolved). However, I really feel it necessary to
write again. As they do not appear to have been
resolved (and I do realise you did could not give a
resolution date), I have spent some time this morning
looking again at my Previous Searches list. There are
still numerous entries on same that when I try to view
the contents of the list created in my original
search, I either get a page saying 'site currently
unavailable or has encountered a problem' (or words to
that effect), but also now, for others, a page saying
'This search found no matches' (remember, this is on
my Previous Searches List so there must have been
results for me to have paid the one credit each to
populate same).
Now, although it does not just apply to the results I
am having trouble viewing, I have noticed that on
numerous searches on my nine Results Pages, the
Location column regularly says Lanark Renfrew. I would
not have had any cause to search Renfrew for the
majority of these (if any) and anyhow, surely when
carrying out a search, it would not be possible to
stipulate two different Counties/cities as the box
only allows for one, and, to my knowledge, when
choosing Lanark, the district box would also not give
Renfrew as an option. This is now also giving me
concern.
Are these last two points separate problems or
connected to the existing one.
My use of the site is being greatly frustrated by all
of this as is my confidence in same.
Your further advice/comments would be much
appreciated."
So, in desperation, I was wondering if you could be of any help in my situation, David? I have spent a lot of money on the site in the past and am now reluctant to spend more until this matter is finally resolved. As well as using some of my previous searches which I can't at the moment, I also really want to get stuck into some 1861 Census research but am not confident/happy in doing so with this outstanding (although I would again state that prior to this ongoing issue, I had always found queries of various nature to be handled in efficient and timely manner and always felt this was a reflection how well the site was being run and appropriate for what is, after all, a service funded by clients payments).
David, your reply to Ron has given me hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that I am not (as I was starting to wonder) going daft.
I too have been having a nightmare of a problem with my Previous Searches for some time now and in a similar vein to Ron. Some will not show up and merely take me to an outage page (SP has experienced a problem or something to that effect), whilst others take me to lists with various Renfrew returns that I believe I have never asked for in the first place or Lanark Returns with a sprinkling of Renfrew ones included too. As quite a large part of my nine stored pages of searches were in the Lanarkshire area, this is a headache.
To this ongoing query, the (in the past) usually very helpful 'helpdesk' have given me a couple of replies along the lines of:
September:
"the fix would not go in
> place until it has been fully tested - this has not
> happened yet.
>
> The engineers and design staff will decide when this
> does take place and
> when it does, there will be a message under " latest
> news"
>
> Once the fix is in place, the customers who are
> receiving this error should
> then have these searches available again. If they
> don't, then management
> will decide the next course of action".
In fact, to this one I replied that I felt the authors tone seemed slighlty abrupt or annoyed (they did write back and explain they had not meant it to be such but appreciated that their own frustration with the situation may have been reflected in the reply I received).
I have really tried to be patient with them concerning this matter but my last letter to them on Wednesday 26th October has, as yet, not even been acknowledged or replied to. I herewith copy the bulk of same (you will see that I had finally noticed the 'rogue' Renfrew issue myself and was wondering if this is what was causing my problems):
"Thought it best to write direct to you rather than via
website form as this is an ongoing matter.
Well, I have tried my best to be patient and so
avoided the site as much as possible this month
(popping in a few times to see if problems had been
resolved). However, I really feel it necessary to
write again. As they do not appear to have been
resolved (and I do realise you did could not give a
resolution date), I have spent some time this morning
looking again at my Previous Searches list. There are
still numerous entries on same that when I try to view
the contents of the list created in my original
search, I either get a page saying 'site currently
unavailable or has encountered a problem' (or words to
that effect), but also now, for others, a page saying
'This search found no matches' (remember, this is on
my Previous Searches List so there must have been
results for me to have paid the one credit each to
populate same).
Now, although it does not just apply to the results I
am having trouble viewing, I have noticed that on
numerous searches on my nine Results Pages, the
Location column regularly says Lanark Renfrew. I would
not have had any cause to search Renfrew for the
majority of these (if any) and anyhow, surely when
carrying out a search, it would not be possible to
stipulate two different Counties/cities as the box
only allows for one, and, to my knowledge, when
choosing Lanark, the district box would also not give
Renfrew as an option. This is now also giving me
concern.
Are these last two points separate problems or
connected to the existing one.
My use of the site is being greatly frustrated by all
of this as is my confidence in same.
Your further advice/comments would be much
appreciated."
So, in desperation, I was wondering if you could be of any help in my situation, David? I have spent a lot of money on the site in the past and am now reluctant to spend more until this matter is finally resolved. As well as using some of my previous searches which I can't at the moment, I also really want to get stuck into some 1861 Census research but am not confident/happy in doing so with this outstanding (although I would again state that prior to this ongoing issue, I had always found queries of various nature to be handled in efficient and timely manner and always felt this was a reflection how well the site was being run and appropriate for what is, after all, a service funded by clients payments).
-
DavidWW
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm
Scotmum
Please copy your emails to me at 106200.1510@compuserve.com and I'll take this up with SP. I'll also need, please, your SP login name, but not your password.
David
Please copy your emails to me at 106200.1510@compuserve.com and I'll take this up with SP. I'll also need, please, your SP login name, but not your password.
David
-
scotmum
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:02 pm
Got all excited this evening 
.
Logged onto SP to see if anything had changed re my (and , I believe, others) 'problems'. Noticed the SITE UPGRADE 6 Dec 2005 message and clicked to read:
The site was successfully upgraded with a number of operational and administrative enhancements.
Great, I thought, it will be fixed at last. Checked and...yes...it wasn't (the stray 'Renfrew' field in previous Lanark searches is still there - I have over 90 such on mine alone).
One day, one day...I live in hope.
.Logged onto SP to see if anything had changed re my (and , I believe, others) 'problems'. Noticed the SITE UPGRADE 6 Dec 2005 message and clicked to read:
The site was successfully upgraded with a number of operational and administrative enhancements.
Great, I thought, it will be fixed at last. Checked and...yes...it wasn't (the stray 'Renfrew' field in previous Lanark searches is still there - I have over 90 such on mine alone).
One day, one day...I live in hope.
-
scotmum
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:02 pm
Well here we are in a New Year and I am still having ongoing issues re the 'rogue' Renfrew in numerous of my Previous Searches as well as still being directed to a 'this search returned no results' page when results were clearly there previously and in other instances seems to have corrupted some results.
The problems have, like the original poster's, been there since mid way through last year and I initially raised the issue with SP in September. Some emails back and forth then I gave up for a while (was becoming too frustrated). Hoped the usergroup could usetheir influence but nothing yet on that front (DavidWW, have you heard anything back?). Sent a new contact form yesterday about a couple of other issues plus mentioned this still seemed ongoing and have been told today that they will check with the site manager but think the problem was still being addressed between SP and GRO. I await the outcome of this with baited breath.
It kind of irks when I receive all the SP emails telling me of the latest updates etc and knowing that on this matter, heels seem to be being dragged and I am sure there must be others out there who were also affected by the 'rogue' Renfrew!
Sorry for the rant - just very frustrated. So that it is not all negative, just thought I would add that I also notified them of another problem which has arisen just recently and they have advised that it only seems to be affecting death SR's for women when using two names and that they hope to have this one resolved next week. Also, had an illegible image and Eileen in that section is dealing with it in the usual way (sending out copy etc). They do manage to do many things in a timely manner.
The problems have, like the original poster's, been there since mid way through last year and I initially raised the issue with SP in September. Some emails back and forth then I gave up for a while (was becoming too frustrated). Hoped the usergroup could usetheir influence but nothing yet on that front (DavidWW, have you heard anything back?). Sent a new contact form yesterday about a couple of other issues plus mentioned this still seemed ongoing and have been told today that they will check with the site manager but think the problem was still being addressed between SP and GRO. I await the outcome of this with baited breath.
It kind of irks when I receive all the SP emails telling me of the latest updates etc and knowing that on this matter, heels seem to be being dragged and I am sure there must be others out there who were also affected by the 'rogue' Renfrew!
Sorry for the rant - just very frustrated. So that it is not all negative, just thought I would add that I also notified them of another problem which has arisen just recently and they have advised that it only seems to be affecting death SR's for women when using two names and that they hope to have this one resolved next week. Also, had an illegible image and Eileen in that section is dealing with it in the usual way (sending out copy etc). They do manage to do many things in a timely manner.
-
DavidWW
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm
scotmum wrote:Well here we are in a New Year and I am still having ongoing issues re the 'rogue' Renfrew in numerous of my Previous Searches as well as still being directed to a 'this search returned no results' page when results were clearly there previously and in other instances seems to have corrupted some results.
....snipped ...........(DavidWW, have you heard anything back?).
I haven't even approached SP on your behalf yet, because, - see above post from me, - before I can do that I need to know your logon name at www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk, - until and unless I have that info I can't identify for SP the member to whom I'm referring
David
-
scotmum
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:02 pm
David, thank you for posting, albeit I am a bit confused. I really do appreciate your offer of help but thought we had already gone through the initial stages of same 
:
I sent an email to you on 17th november from my yahoo account, giving all the details including my username at SP and, as you asked, and also attaching copies of my previous correspondence with SP. Then, some days later, as I was uncertain if you had received this, I sent you a PM via this site saying
"although I do not want to pressurise you for an outcome, I was wondering if you had receive the email I sent to you last Thursday regarding the ongoing problem I have with SP that you have kindly offered to try and help with ( from my email address xxx)? If not, please let me know and I will forward a copy. It really is appreciated that you have offered to help.
You replied by PM to me on this site on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 10:44 pm and said:
"Got it...... away from home at the moment on very urgent business, but will ensure that I handle this over the weekend ........"
I assumed with December being a busy month for most folks, that you hadn't had the opportunity to take the matter further, and, as you were offering to help as a usergroup member and were not in any way obliged to be doing this for me, I didn't want to hound you
.
:I sent an email to you on 17th november from my yahoo account, giving all the details including my username at SP and, as you asked, and also attaching copies of my previous correspondence with SP. Then, some days later, as I was uncertain if you had received this, I sent you a PM via this site saying
"although I do not want to pressurise you for an outcome, I was wondering if you had receive the email I sent to you last Thursday regarding the ongoing problem I have with SP that you have kindly offered to try and help with ( from my email address xxx)? If not, please let me know and I will forward a copy. It really is appreciated that you have offered to help.
You replied by PM to me on this site on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 10:44 pm and said:
"Got it...... away from home at the moment on very urgent business, but will ensure that I handle this over the weekend ........"
I assumed with December being a busy month for most folks, that you hadn't had the opportunity to take the matter further, and, as you were offering to help as a usergroup member and were not in any way obliged to be doing this for me, I didn't want to hound you
.