Birth on IGI but not on SP

Post by **SarahND** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:42 pm

Hi all,
On the IGI there is this extracted entry:

James Jarvis Ronald
Birth: 15 Dec 1832
Christening: Jan 1833 Barony, Lanark, Scotland
Father: James Ronald
Mother: Janet Liddell

It doesn't appear to be on Scotland's People, yet it should be. No indication that it is other than a church of Scotland christening.

Am I missing something obvious?

Regards,
Sarah

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:35 pm

Hmmmm...don't think you're missing anything but I do think SP is.

I recently uncovered a similar case where a whole chunk of New Monkland marriages are not indexed but images can be viewed by buying backward. Those one affected in that case are from IGI batch M116514 and seem to be prior to 1810.

In your case however I'm not finding a few test names from the C119665 batch file on SP. I did find a Hely ALMOND in August 1832 and tried to buy my way forward to see if I could get to the 1833 data but there are only partial images of seemingly blank pages following the 1832 record. Very odd.

I suggest you send a contact form to GROS and ask what's up???

Best wishes
Jean

Post by **AndrewP** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:50 pm

Hi Sarah,

I agree with your findings and Jean's. The batch C119665 is listed on the online IGI as belonging to Barony Parish (Church of Scotland). This is verified by consulting Hugh Wallis's site.

Here's hoping GROS can track it down for you following a contact form to SP.

All the best,

AndrewP

Post by **paddyscar** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:02 pm

Hi Sarah:

I thought I was being brilliant and Andrew and Jean have beat me to it!

Surname: Ronald (R*n*ld*)
Forename: ______
Sex: Both
Parent name: James
Parent name: Janet Liddell (Lid*e*l)
Date from: 1 Jan 1830
Date to: 31 Dec 1838
All records
All parishes

Produces only 2 hits -
___________

IGI produces 4 children for James Ronald and Janet Liddell

Janet - Feb 1831 - Barony
Source Information:
Batch No.: Dates: Source Call No.: Type: Printout Call No.: Type:
C119665 1830 - 1834 1041478 Film 6901464

James - Jan 1833 - Barony
Batch No.: Dates: Source Call No.: Type: Printout Call No.: Type:
C119665 1830 - 1834 1041478 Film 6901464

Margaret - May 1835 - Glasgow
Batch No.: Dates: Source Call No.: Type: Printout Call No.: Type:
C119749 1834 - 1837 1042939, 0102918 Film 6902909 Film
C119749 1834 - 1837 0102919, 0102920 Film NONE
C119749 1834 - 1837 0994180, 0994181 Film NONE

Thomas - May 1837 - Barony
Batch No.: Dates: Source Call No.: Type: Printout Call No.: Type:
C119666 1835 - 1838 1041478 Film 6901464

Sure enough, when I went back and entered children born to James and Janet between 1834 and 1838 - two hits. Further confirmed those as Margaret and Thomas.

Frances

Post by **SarahND** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:09 pm

Hi Frances,
I'd be glad to call you brilliant

But that is not the word I would use to describe my muddled mind at this moment. Yes, there is a time difference. Yes, I have been pruning the grapevines all day and can hardly move

So I have some good excuses, but I am still not understanding your post

Ah! You were editing it as I was writing, and that's why it wouldn't let me "reply with quote". I wondered what was going on... And now the part that confused me is gone... So I guess I can stop being confused?

Oh my... it's been a long day!

I'll send a contact form to SP and see what they say.

Thanks all,
Sarah

Post by **SarahND** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:41 am

Hi all,
Just arrived back in the U.S. and found this answer from SP in my inbox:

Good afternoon

I am afraid as advised on the site unfortunately we are not permitted to
help with any searches -
http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/conte ... spx?r=1206. We would
only be able to advise what is already online.

Also, we do not hold any original records here - our access is also only via
the web site.

There are help pages for searches located at
http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/conte ... ?r=551&556 and also
http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/conte ... ex.aspx?44 which you may find useful.

If you believe however that an entry has been missed or mis indexed, then you would need to contact GROS directly as only they have the originals to check this - http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/

Regards

www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

So it seems I need to contact GROS directly, which I will do tomorrow once I have had some sleep

Sarah

Post by **SarahND** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:32 pm

Okay, I got an answer from GROS, this one being more satisfying (i.e. I was credited with having some brains and a legitimate query, which is always comforting

) Nothing that gets me annoyed more than when (as often happens with Ancestry) my query is assumed to be irrelevant and I am assumed to have not read the instructions

After all, I spent my entire professional life fuming at students who didn't read my instructions and I hope I know enough not to do the same!

Anyway, thank you Eileen who has answered my query

Hello

Thank you for your email.

Although there are some events noted on Family Search which are sent in
by family members etc and are not from official sources, this is as you
say taken from our OPRs as filmed by the LDS mostly in the 1950s . We
will check out the microfilm here as I can see blank partial pages when
I go through the relevant images for Barony. ( we hold the actual OPR
registers but these can only be looked at in exceptional circumstances
for conservation reasons) I'll let the relevant indexing people know
and if at all possible will email you the entry , or more likely a
transcription from the film.
(this may not be possible)

Looks like there is, indeed, a problem and they will get to it if possible. Ah! As I was writing this, another message came in from Eileen, who attached the image!

She says,

( it seems to be an indexing issue causing a linkage fault)

Here's to Eileen!

Sarah

P.S. Can anyone explain the relationship between GROS and Scotland's People? I'm now confused by the series of events.
1) I send a contact form to SP
2) They answer saying that I didn't read instructions, nor have I read the help files and also that they don't hold any original records and in case I have a legitimate query I should contact GROS
3) I send a contact form to GROS
4) I finally get a to-the-point answer from someone at Scotland's People, who copied her answer to someone at GROS.

Why couldn't I have got a relevant answer from SP the first time? I suppose there is a generic message always sent first? Didn't used to happen.

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:12 pm

Hi Sarah

Sounds like your were finally successful....and yes Eileen is a peach in my book!!!

Perhaps your question will be better answered by those it pertains to...but....my limited understanding is......

First SP query was likely answered by a helpdesk person trained to give a generic answer.....and probably was someone employeed by brightsolid. Any issues to do with how the website operates...usernames...password access....etc would be their concern. If your Eileen is the same Eileen I think it is then she physically works in Edinburgh at GROS. The big place with the dome with all the colorful books in it!! Same place that you can visit and research in person hence her knowledge of where the originals are and what condition they are in. When completing a contact form from the SP website (clickable link just underneath the scenic castle image on bottom of homepage) then it depends on what type of prob you are in contact about. Some of those go directly to GROS (or at least used to) and the rest go directly to SP. Not sure how you described your prob originally.

It might be possible they need to have a re-think at how some of these queries get routed.........

Best wishes
Jean

Post by **SarahND** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:28 pm

Hi Jean (I'm just back in your time zone now),
My memory was that you had to choose from various types of problems, and that none matched exactly what I was wanting to say, so I chose "Other". However, the first answer sounded as if I had requested them to do research for me-- which was certainly not the case! I think the contact choices need a bit more thought.

Cheers,
Sarah

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:16 pm

SarahND wrote:Hi Jean (I'm just back in your time zone now),
My memory was that you had to choose from various types of problems, and that none matched exactly what I was wanting to say, so I chose "Other". However, the first answer sounded as if I had requested them to do research for me-- which was certainly not the case! I think the contact choices need a bit more thought.

Cheers,
Sarah

Isn't that usually the way of things!!

I'll be happy to pass along this episode for their consideration. Change usually comes one grain of sand at a time

btw...Welcome home to this side of the pond!

Best wishes
Jean