john wrote:

> On 08/12/2023 15:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <ukuv4r$1nkf0$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 8 Dec 2023 06:36:58,
>> knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> writes
>> []

> After the England/Wales 1921 census are there any major databases to add
> which would attract researchers? I doubt many "millennials" will be
> interested (and their parents/grandparents will possibly already have
> done significant research?) It is mainly filling gaps so they will have
> to invent "gimmicks" to keep the money flowing in.

dunno if this is already answered but they do hold the 1939 register,
although anyone deemed still alive when it was uploaded is redacted,
but i've found it very useful even so. Personally I find ancestry
much more informative than FMP; ancestry generally finds more accurate
hits than FMP, but occasionally FMP finds something ancestry cant.

My main gripe with ancestry is that sometimes sources I find 1 day seem to
vanish or not come up when I search for them another day, plus there
is the problem with all digital collections, they depend on the
efficiency of the scanner and the state of the original document.
Sometimes names are terribly mangled. Thats why I find UK govt
proposals to destroy millions of old wills and just rely on
digital versions quite alarming.

Mike

In message <147b8cb7533aaf2e0fe7680665e6b9ee@news.novabbs.com> at Sat,
23 Dec 2023 23:31:28, miked <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>john wrote:
>
>> On 08/12/2023 15:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <ukuv4r$1nkf0$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 8 Dec 2023
>>>06:36:58, knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> writes
>>> []
>
>> After the England/Wales 1921 census are there any major databases to
>>add which would attract researchers? I doubt many "millennials" will
>>be interested (and their parents/grandparents will possibly already
>>have done significant research?) It is mainly filling gaps so they
>>will have to invent "gimmicks" to keep the money flowing in.
>
>dunno if this is already answered but they do hold the 1939 register,
>although anyone deemed still alive when it was uploaded is redacted,
>but i've found it very useful even so. Personally I find ancestry

Both have it - and it may still be that only FMP have the facility to
tell them someone's died and thus have their record un-redacted (that
was certainly originally the case).

>much more informative than FMP; ancestry generally finds more accurate
>hits than FMP, but occasionally FMP finds something ancestry cant.

They each have better parish record scans than the other for some
counties (LostCousins very occasionally does a list of which has which
county), though I think some are increasingly on both).
>
>My main gripe with ancestry is that sometimes sources I find 1 day seem to
>vanish or not come up when I search for them another day, plus there
>is the problem with all digital collections, they depend on the
>efficiency of the scanner and the state of the original document.

I find FMP's instant-hit counter very useful - plus they accept more
versatile wildcards.

>Sometimes names are terribly mangled. Thats why I find UK govt
>proposals to destroy millions of old wills and just rely on
>digital versions quite alarming.

I mostly agree - though in cases where the scan is more than adequate to
capture every last nuance of the original (which certainly isn't the
case for black-and-white high contrast scans of old microfilms!), there
may be some validity. (There needs to be adequate provision for periodic
refresh of the digital images, of course, so it's not a no-cost option!)
>
>Mike
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Play dirty. If a fellow contestant asks the audience if they've got any
requests for what he or she should play, reply, "Yeah... Monopoly."