On reviewing my Previous Searches, I find that for the 20 SRI Marriage searches that I made during 2003 and 2004, the search criteria have all disappeared. I do not believe that I searched for all the SRI marriages in Scotland from 1855 to 1952/53 - especially not 20 times. On clicking on the view link to see the results page, I am directed to the "Site Not Available" page. The SRI marriage searches made in 2005 are unaffected - criteria and results intact.
Contact form submitted.
All the best,
Andrew Paterson
Previous Searches - SRI marriages
Moderator: Global Moderators
-
AndrewP
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6189
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:36 am
- Location: Edinburgh
-
Linda Malpass
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:31 pm
- Location: Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
Re: Previous Searches - SRI marriages
Hi Andrew, I have the same problem, I think were all in the same boat with previous searches, for instance I looked for Muir births in Lanark, and now my previous searches say page 1 of 264 pages (6338 records) ..... there is no way I looked at 264 pagesAndrewP wrote:On reviewing my Previous Searches, I find that for the 20 SRI Marriage searches that I made during 2003 and 2004, the search criteria have all disappeared. I do not believe that I searched for all the SRI marriages in Scotland from 1855 to 1952/53 - especially not 20 times. On clicking on the view link to see the results page, I am directed to the "Site Not Available" page. The SRI marriage searches made in 2005 are unaffected - criteria and results intact.
Contact form submitted.
All the best,
Andrew Paterson
, I also sent a contact form.Linda
__________________
Researching: Hyslop, Lawrie, McCracken, Muir, Ritchie, Tweedie, Glendinning.
__________________
Researching: Hyslop, Lawrie, McCracken, Muir, Ritchie, Tweedie, Glendinning.
-
Laura
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:30 pm
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Previous Searches With A Mind Of Their Own
16 pages of search results for the surname ELDER in Fife in the 1871 Census are now an assortment of births, marriages and census results for other surnames, mostly my MCKELLARs. I should have checked first before purchasing more time.
Contact form has been sent to "unmanned @ scotlandspeople".
Regards,
Laura
Contact form has been sent to "unmanned @ scotlandspeople".
Regards,
Laura
-
AndrewP
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6189
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:36 am
- Location: Edinburgh
-
marva
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:08 am
- Location: Michigan USA
On May 18, 2005 I looked up death index and had 13 names come up. Could not confirm any, so thought I'd work at it and see if I could narrow it down. On June 3, Friday, I pulled it up again and only got 2 names, which neither could possibly be what I was looking for. Sent Contact Form, hope I get my 13 names back.
Marva
Marva
Searching: Glasgow, Renfrew area: McArthur, McAulay, Park, Boyd, Bainie, Campbell,Rutherford, Mc Farlane, Kincardine area: Craig, Wood, Allan, Fowler, Duncan, Forbes, Moir, Touch, Robertson,Leiper, Smith
-
Laura
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:30 pm
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
-
NeilP
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:16 pm
I have been experiencing similar problems. All previous searches of statutory births, deaths and marriages where I had narrowed down the search by using a county or parish now include all counties. So, where previously I may have seen a single page of results for a previous search now I see tens or pages. And whats more, if I try to view these extra pages I am charged a credit. Effectively I have lost the results that I have originally paid for, unless I stump up the credits to view every page.
I submitted a contact form a week ago and have heard nothing, but not surprised as SP must be snowed under with complaints at the moment.
Neil
I submitted a contact form a week ago and have heard nothing, but not surprised as SP must be snowed under with complaints at the moment.
Neil
-
soccerchick
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 10:21 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington USA
I also have had issues since they converted to the new format. My search results under 'Previous Searches' for Statutory Marriages are no longer in alphabetical order.
When I do marriage searches for a particular surname I always conduct one for females and one for males. Before the conversion the results were in alphabetical order by the first name, i.e. for all female Borthwicks they would start with A. Now they are in reverse order by latest year (1929) with a subsequent reverse sort by the males last name, i.e. starting with W.
This defeats the whole purpose of a surname search, especially when you are uncertain of whom the person married.
I sent a contact form a couple of days ago asking if this issue was being addressed, and when we can expect it to be fixed. I got the following reply from SP:
"Your email Request (copied below) has been received, and has been assigned Request Number 29535. Please reply to this email when making enquiries about the status of your Request"
Has anyone else received this type of reply?
We all know what our frustration level is, but can you image what SP programmers are going through? Boy-howdy they must be working around the clock to get things straightened out.
Kelly
When I do marriage searches for a particular surname I always conduct one for females and one for males. Before the conversion the results were in alphabetical order by the first name, i.e. for all female Borthwicks they would start with A. Now they are in reverse order by latest year (1929) with a subsequent reverse sort by the males last name, i.e. starting with W.
This defeats the whole purpose of a surname search, especially when you are uncertain of whom the person married.
I sent a contact form a couple of days ago asking if this issue was being addressed, and when we can expect it to be fixed. I got the following reply from SP:
"Your email Request (copied below) has been received, and has been assigned Request Number 29535. Please reply to this email when making enquiries about the status of your Request"
Has anyone else received this type of reply?
We all know what our frustration level is, but can you image what SP programmers are going through? Boy-howdy they must be working around the clock to get things straightened out.
Kelly
Researching: Anderson, Borthwick, Cooper, Dalgleish, Cousin(s), McMurtrie, Morrison (Mathieson), Robertson (Robinson), Wingate, Wyllie
-
NeilP
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:16 pm
Today I received an email reply from SP to the contact form I submitted, apologising for the delay in responding and informing me that the problem has been fixed. On checking my previous searches, sure enough, they are back to normal. In addition they have credited me with 10 credits by way of apology for inconvenience caused. I hope everyone else has had as good a response as I have. Well done SP!!
Neil
Neil