General Register Office
While looking for a large number of birth records in the GRO, it has become clear to me that a lot of those records are missing. I have sent in a number of requests to GRO to add missing records I have found elsewhere (FreeBMD, Ancestry, Findmypast).
Most of the time the record is added, but sometimes the reply is either Indexed data is correct or Indexed data not available. However, the records still do not show up.
Since the record is available elsewhere, it must be in the index. First, how do we respond to this? Second, why are there so many missing records ? Third, why is not a major overhaul done on these indexes?
I understand that FreeBMD has been willing to provide their index for updating purposes.
Yes, we can still order the certificate with the reference numbers found elsewhere, but that is not the point. I would think that an official department of vital records would want to be as complete as possible.
I also question why the reply is to not update the index when the error is reported. I understand that spelling differences can occur, but options to include that does still not provide the record.
What is the experience of other researchers? Any insights?
의견
-
Perhaps to a lesser degree but, yes, I have experienced all the issues you have outlined.
I have been particularly confused by the "Indexed data is correct or Indexed data not available" responses. I know some indexes are based on the records held at local registry offices, rather than at the GRO, so there could be a case for certain certificates not being available through the GRO. However, when the references (say on FreeBMD) are definitely GRO ones, either of these responses do need to be explained more fully.
I am not logged into the GRO website at present, so am not sure if there is a means of communicating with them over such matters. But I will have a look later, especially at the specific examples where I have received the two set responses you have highlighted.
0 -
If the GRO think the name reads "Brown", you think it reads "Crown" and it appears in FreeBMD as "Crown", then there is no way that the "Crown" entry will ever appear in the GRO site's indexes. That's one reason.
For the birth records, there is zero chance that the FreeBMD etc indexes and the GRO site indexes will ever match - this is because the GRO changed the indexing rules between compiling the originals for the FreeBMD etc indexes and producing the new GRO-site indexes.
I am yet to be convinced that the GRO understood that they changed the rules, as their responses show zero understanding of the issues and mismatches that they have created.
But basically, so far as I know, the biggest rule-change issue (and there may be others) is with the indexing of births to unmarried parents where both parents are named on the certificate.
Suppose a child named "Kim" is born to parents "John Smith" and "Mary Jones". The BC will not have a surname assigned to the child until late in the 20th century. The original GRO index rules (which fed into FreeBMD etc) would have indexed the child twice (one certificate, two index entries) as "Kim Smith" and "Kim Jones".
The new GRO index rules will, in that case, index the child once under the father's surname. So "Kim Smith" is indexed and "Kim Jones" will not be indexed, will never appear in their indexes, and they refuse point blank to consider anything different - that's when they tell you "Indexed data is correct."
I did have another oddity once where the index entry was definitely on both FreeBMD and in the GRO site indexes. However, I got a response (exact wording forgotten) about data couldn't be found. Which was puzzling since they'd found it when indexing for the new GRO indexes. Putting various things together, it became clear that this entry had effectively been cancelled by the local Registrar shortly after registration (a century ago). However, the cancellation clearly wasn't that obvious as even the new GRO indexes included the entry. It was only when a human being came to issue the certificate that they read the detail and concluded - correctly - that the certificate shouldn't be issued. Hence the "entry not found" response. Probably could have been better explained but no doubt the system only allows 2 or 3 "Computer says no" responses.
"I would think that an official department of vital records would want to be as complete as possible."
No - they are convinced that theirs is the correct index, correct according to their rules, and it's therefore not an issue of completeness.
1 -
This is probably an example of one of the problems you have encountered.
I received the response shown below when I queried why no John Cooper 1c 91 J Quarter is found on the GRO website:
I thought there might have been an error with the FreeBMD / original paper indexed record, then saw the 9c 106 reference (see above) is not for the same period - it relates to S 1863 Quarter.
However, I have already re-raised two other past queries with the GRO - one relating to an "Indexed data not available" response, the other to an "Indexed data is correct" one.
0