FreeBMD and Post-ems

[Pam Downes]

This sounds a slightly silly tip, but every so often (say once a year) if your relative was born, married or died between 1 July 1837 and 31 Dec 1983 check their BMD registrations on FreeMD. i.e. check each registration.
Someone may just have posted a 'post-em' against the entry which could give you further information about them. Some people give an email address for contact.

I'm a great believer in adding post-ems, even for non-family members. Without wishing to sound too virtuous (not a word usually associated with me anyway :biggrin:) I've just added details about someone changing their name by deed poll, a widow marrying, and a Diamond Wedding announcement. The details were found in newspapers so I've also given the title of the newspaper and the date.
Previous post-ems include what I believe is an indexing error by the GRO concerning an incorrect surname and lots of marriage corrections whereby the GRO Index is incorrect compared to the parish register.

Anyone can write a post-em - as long as it's relevant to the person and is accurate, so for goodness' sake PROOF READ - at least three times! - before pressing the 'submit' button.

Pam

[thewideeyedowl]

Yes, agreed - this is very important, particularly for marriages.

Sometimes for marriages there are, say, five names revealed when you click on the page number, i.e. two and a half couples, so you have to try to find the missing spouse (possibly lurking on the next page). It is then a good idea to put a postem pointing to the location of the elusive name and giving your reasons, e.g. you have seen a clearer scan elsewhere/have certificate evidence that the couple married. I had to do this with one of my EZARDs.

And, as Pam says, you can add useful info too. I was delighted to find this extra info with the registration of my brickwall grandfather:

https://www.british-genealogy.com/extensions/uploads/fecd4198-ef96-47b9-b474-8bf8c037438f.jpg

Swooping off.

Owl

[Peter Goodey]

Sometimes for marriages there are, say, five names revealed when you click on the page number, i.e. two and a half couples, so you have to try to find the missing spouse (possibly lurking on the next page).

But it can be perfectly valid for there to be five names on a page if one of the players has an alternative name. Two names, one person.

You cannot validly have the bride and groom on different pages. It's an impossibility. If they appear to be on different pages, there must be a transcription error somewhere and a postem is not an appropriate way to deal with those.

it may be worth adding that, generally speaking, before 1852 there were up to four marriages per page and after 1852 up to two.

[thewideeyedowl]

Thank you, Peter - have just learned something new.

Here is an example of a postem that enabled me to find the correct spouse for Charles EZARD. When I first searched I did not know his wife's name. FreeBMD returned this ref: EZARD, Charles 1861 Dec Q Scarboro Vol 9d p615. This revealed five names and a postem, which led me to p618, which is correct. I have copied and pasted several images to keep this post short(ish). Apologies if the smaller bits are blurry:

https://www.british-genealogy.com/extensions/uploads/45d25379-2f09-47d9-a9be-853d18a96521.jpg

The mistake had been made because the transcriber had read 618 as 615 - have shown the original in the image created.

Well, as it was a transcription error, perhaps the info should not have been added in a postem? Should the writer of the postem have contacted FreeBMD to point out the error?

Anyway, I was very very pleased to find it because it enabled me to identify the wife. Later, I found newspaper refs to Charles acting as executor for his father-in-law, Richard Saltmar, which proved beyond doubt - to me, at least - that Charles married Sarah. (Both surnames, of course, can be subject to creative spelling.)

The point of this thread is that postems are vitally important - they can help you solve mysteries, so you should help others too if you yourself can add a bit of additional info.

Owl

[Pam Downes]

Thank you, Peter - have just learned something new.

Here is an example of a postem that enabled me to find the correct spouse for Charles EZARD. When I first searched I did not know his wife's name. FreeBMD returned this ref: EZARD, Charles 1861 Dec Q Scarboro Vol 9d p615. This revealed five names and a postem, which led me to p618, which is correct.

The mistake had been made because the transcriber had read 618 as 615 - have shown the original in the image created.

Well, as it was a transcription error, perhaps the info should not have been added in a postem? Should the writer of the postem have contacted FreeBMD to point out the error?
Yes, yes, and yes. :smile5:
There's a link on the same page as the 'view original' and 'make postem' to send in a correction to FreeBMD.
The first time you send in a correction just make sure you read all the bumpf as there's a box you have to tick 'hidden' in the middle of it basically saying that you've read all the instructions and that you're reporting a genuine mistranscription.

When I find errors like these I ask for a copy email to be sent to me, and then I can always check in a few weeks time that the error has been corrected. They used to send emails saying that the error had been corrected or not but I don't think they do any longer. FreeBMD transcripts are double-keyed so even if one entry has been keyed correctly it's worth reporting the incorrect one as that gets amended and removed from the system.



The point of this thread is that postems are vitally important - they can help you solve mysteries, so you should help others too if you yourself can add a bit of additional info.

Owl
So very true.

Pam

[Ken_R]

I think to get the best out of FreeBMD one needs to read, and understand, their UCF (Uncertain Character Format) instructions as given to Transcribers.


_ (Underscore) A single uncertain character. It could be anything but is definitely one character. It can be repeated for each uncertain character.

* (Asterisk) Several adjacent uncertain characters. A single * is used when there are 1 or more adjacent uncertain characters. It is not used immediately before or after a _ or another *.
Note: If it is clear there is a space, then * * is used to represent 2 words, neither of which can be read.

[abc] A single character that could be any one of the contained characters and only those characters. There must be at least two characters between the brackets.
For example, [79] would mean either a 7 or a 9, whereas [C_] would mean a C or some other character.

{min,max} Repeat count - the preceding character occurs somewhere between min and max times. max may be omitted, meaning there is no upper limit. So _{1,} would be equivalent to *, and _{0,1} means that it is unclear if there is any character. Ensure the complete field is enclosed in quotes to avoid the comma being taken as a field separator, e.g. "williams{0,1}".

? (Question mark) Only used where it is unambiguous that there are no characters in the field, e.g a missing Volume. The question mark must be the only character in the field.
Note: If it is unclear whether the field is empty or not _{0,1} is used.

It is probably better viewed in the original at Http
freebmd.org.uk/beginhelp.shtml - Scroll down the page.

Generally, any ambiguities [regarding numerals] fall into two groups. The 'curly' ones, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and the 'straight' ones, 1, 4, 7.

Hence, with the example given, it could quite legitimately have been transcribed as "61[58_]". Perhaps it should have been?

When one encounters these 'surplus' people, it is well worth considering where any error may have occurred and amending the Search accordingly. Even to the extent of using a 'wildcard' in the Page field.

Vol errors are rare but do occur. However, such are somewhat 'self checking' as the District name is also inputted.

[Pam Downes]

But it can be perfectly valid for there to be five names on a page if one of the players has an alternative name. Two names, one person.
As always, an important point made by Peter. :smile5:



You cannot validly have the bride and groom on different pages. It's an impossibility. If they appear to be on different pages, there must be a transcription error somewhere and a postem is not an appropriate way to deal with those.
I agree whole-heartedly with Peter's first sentence.
And the first half of the last one, but would argue that a postem is currently the best way to inform the general public of the error.
I say 'currently' because in ten years time the GRO may have a new and as-complete-as-possible Index, having gone back to square one and got the local registrars' offices to submit all the certificate information again, and then not only added the missing ones but corrected all the errors that they (the GRO) made when they transferred their original handwritten Index to a typed one.
To say nothing of the present day errors they've made. I've mentioned before that, in the 1950s, according to the GRO, auntie and uncle married in different registration districts. So they, for example, are not going to show on the same page on FreeBMD.

There's plenty of examples whereby the FreeBMD transcriptions show the correct registration district and the correct volume and page number according to the GRO image but FreeBMD show the registration district in italics indicating a possible error.
I had been going to write 'an error' at the end of the previous sentence but after spotting something I've had to change my wording.

I wonder what other people think of this?
On FreeBMD, select marriages, district St George Hanover Square, and a year between 1925 and 1929.
Look how many entries in the June quarters have the district name in italics. There's quite a high proportion, and when you click on the entry you're told that 'The expected page range for this district is xxx to yyy'.
Now either FreeBMD have been given/worked out incorrect information regarding the page range or the GRO have made a lot of mistakes in their indexing. I'm inclined to think that in this case it might be the former. Odd instances in a district are either FreeBMD transcriber error or GRO error, e.g. when their typed index says volume 8a for Lincoln district when even I know that it should be 7a. :smile5:



it may be worth adding that, generally speaking, before 1852 there were up to four marriages per page and after 1852 up to two.
Something else people might not be aware of, so thank you again, Peter.

Pam

[Peter Goodey]

You do indeed run up against the objectives of the FreeBMD project which are to provide an accurate transcription of the GRO index, not a corrected version. A postem is the only way to signal an error in the GRO index as opposed to an error in FreeBMD's transcription.

But we should remember that the GRO indexes are not lists of registrations - they are indexes to help us and GRO to locate an ancestor’s certificate. If the index is good enough to achieve that end, it is 'fit for purpose', I would argue and it doesn't matter if the index says Lambeth when it should have said Southwark.

However, I'm not arguing with what you say about postems, Pam. You are right. I only intervened because another participant introduced some misunderstandings which could have seriously misled a beginner.

[Peter Goodey]

St George Hanover Square, and a year between 1925 and 1929.

I don't know whether it's relevant but there seems to have been a confusing situation around then. The civil parish of St George Hanover Square ceased to exist in 1922 although the registration district of that name continued until 1933. Dunno. Perhaps I need another coffee to get my head round it.

[Pam Downes]

Peter, I wouldn't worry about the St George Hanover Square thing for a little while. :smile5: I've emailed FreeBMD and now await their reply. It's curious that it seems to be only the June quarters that have the disproportionate number of errors.

Pam