 |
 |
Batch reliability - (was to do with Pedigree R.F. reliability)
Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:11:39 GMT soc.genealogy.britain
previous
Geoff...
|
Ken and Jill,
Ken said of IGI data, |
Geoff...
|
Utter balderdash, besides saying in effect, "100% correct, BUT
might not be". The ONLY thing which is 100% correct is the location from which the extracted details come which is perhaps why Ken doesn't trust his 100% and advises checking of the film. Some time ago I searched the BT's of Stinchcombe in GLS for all information on the surname WOODWARD and have recorded the details I found.. Between the years 1728 and 1810 there were about 80 (but likely more) baptisms of Woodwards. The LDS film I searched was number 0427779 On the LDS Batch number C054951 (Extracted from film number 0427779) there are only 11 Woodward baptisms recorded between 1728 and 1810. Such a large disparity is not questionable. So Jill's comment, |
Geoff...
|
is eminently reasonable.
It's best not to use the IGI direct except for locational info. so go to :- for extracted batch details. If you find what you want it's very likely to be correct but just because it isn't there . . . . . . ! I dare say most of the Woodwards missing from batch C054951 but present in my list, might be found as submitted entries in the IGI - I have not bothered to check it out but will supply my findings if anybody is interested in so doing. Bear in mind that the above site's batch numbers have not been updated for some time so go to GENUKI where there's a procedure for finding batch numbers. But you still need to check source doc's because of batch number data unreliability. As has often said on the NG, it's a great pity the LDS's submitted details do not identify source documents. Hugh Watkins...
|