Kevin Tobin Posted 5 November , 2009 Share Posted 5 November , 2009 Don't know if anyone has recieved this email from Ancestry? Dear Kevin, From A-Z - the complete works We have some great news for those people looking for family members who fought in the Great War. We have finished indexing all the surviving British Army WWI Service Records. Previously records were only available online up to the letter N - but now if you can't find the record here you won't find it anywhere else. Although German bombers destroyed some, 2.8m records survived or were carefully reconstructed from pensions records. Finally, after two years of painstaking work, these astonishing records are ready for you to research online. As well as the WWI Service Records we have some other great WWI records for you to enjoy and search through. De Ruvigny's Roll of Honour, 1914-1924 In the early days of war, the Marquis de Ruvigny started a roll of honour giving biographical details, and portraits, of those who died. Sadly the scale of the losses in 1916 and 1917 overwhelmed him and the project couldn't be completed. But there are 25,000 entries - including 7000 accompanied by photos - all available online. Ireland, Casualties of WWI, 1914-1918 Do you have Irish ancestors? If so they may be honoured among the 49,000 Irish conscripts who served and died in the Great War. These records are works of art, originally published in 8 volumes and beautifully illustrated by eminent artists of the day, such as Harry Clarke. They're well worth researching for appearance alone. These new records provide a great insight into people who fought and died in the Great War. So start your search now. Kind Regards Ancestry.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelS Posted 5 November , 2009 Share Posted 5 November , 2009 Here's a BBC local Radio interview (iplayer so only available for a short time)with Tony Robinson today (5th Nov) about the release of the pension records as if the whole lot has only just come on line now ie 'day one' and hadn't been available previously to historians before; IMO a shameless bit of PR and advertising for Ancestry - the comment about that there might be some errors in the transcriptions made me laugh. Although I could, I'll refrain from further comments! (WARNING don't have bricks or similar items likely to cause damage to a PC close at hand should you decide to listen) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p004x...ike_05_11_2009/ NB THE INTERVIEW IS AT APPROXIMATELY 1 HR 40 MINS INTO THE PROGRAMME NigelS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 5 November , 2009 Share Posted 5 November , 2009 Just updated to IE8, and I'm saying NUTHIN' just in case I jinx it.... Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Marshall Posted 5 November , 2009 Share Posted 5 November , 2009 Ireland, Casualties of WWI, 1914-1918 Do you have Irish ancestors? If so they may be honoured among the 49,000 Irish conscripts who served and died in the Great War. I have always been under the impression that conscription was never introduced into Ireland. Am I wrong? Cheers, Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 5 November , 2009 Share Posted 5 November , 2009 I have always been under the impression that conscription was never introduced into Ireland. Am I wrong? Cheers, Nigel Nigel, I think the quote was from an email from Ancestry - those people who still believe that Aldershot was the most lethal theatre of war! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Marshall Posted 5 November , 2009 Share Posted 5 November , 2009 Thanks David, I was quoting the email as you said.......How can they carry on like this? Don't Ancestry realise that people are sniggering and pointing at them as if they have just come out of the toilet with their skirt tucked into their knickers? Ah well I've found a dozen or so new records that I will enjoy reading through. Cheers, Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALANJONES Posted 6 November , 2009 Share Posted 6 November , 2009 Like most I have given up trying to use the search engine for just now (how do I get hold of the 'old one' - Ancestry offers up a new one and just does not work as well as the previous one?). Eg. For regiment and or regimental number you have to put this in the 'keywords' box - it does not seem to work if you try and put both in. When putting just the Regiment the results (sometimes thousands) come up with no order/priority relating to the regiment and using the search term seems to be totally irrelevant! There is usually no consistent logic in the sequence of alphabetical names. Each edition I have gone back to Ancestry with a message commenting (constructively) on potential enhancements (typing in RGA and Royal Garrison Artillery should produce all options .......) No-one with 'military history' (eg GWF) experience seems to be involved in the process with howling errors etc. I have never had an acknowledgement. This lack of knowledge extends into the publications that they have produced and I find it difficult that something as big as this cannot utilise the professional/experienced knowledge that is available in GWF etc. Of course it is a fantastic basic archive - I use it to search for members of a Battery so is particularly time consuming anyway. What irks is that even going for all conceivable serch options there may well be information in the system that the indexing is just not showing up ................. This has all the hallmarks of being rushed out in time for Remembrance Day ............... Oh and De Ruvigny - search for RGA [say] alone and the system clearly does some kind of filtering - but the names does not seem to relate in any way to people in the RGA ........ Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyhound Posted 6 November , 2009 Share Posted 6 November , 2009 I usually find it's best just to enter the service number, you don't get too many results that way. Then try searching on other criteria if your man doesn't come up, in case the number was unreadable. But in general, numbers are less prone to mistranscription. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALANJONES Posted 6 November , 2009 Share Posted 6 November , 2009 I agree - they certainly worked well in the previous search engine - they have not worked so far in the 'new' system (but this may simply be a combination of no record/number not transcribed - or the pesky search engine). I am going to try with some I know which are there and do some 'check' results - I have not bothered earlier as the Regimental search was simply not working .......... Thanks for your reply - if only we could someone from Ancestry or the NA to read this Topic .................... As I implied earlier, much excellent work has been done (in a rush?) but it is let down by the actual transcription and search phases!! Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulsten Posted 6 November , 2009 Share Posted 6 November , 2009 must admit tried to find a walter spencer including service number got nothing entred service number only and found him, all good stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hywyn Posted 6 November , 2009 Share Posted 6 November , 2009 Alan The 'old search/new search ' toggle should show up towards the top right. I much prefer the Old Search even though it seems on the blink at the moment and I can only search via the keyword box. Re the De Ruvigny problem. I find sometimes that I have to reset the Exact match tick. Maybe it is on soundex for you? It is extremely annoying that we can't search as we used to by surname etc. I'm hoping that it is a glitch that is to be sorted out soon. At least I hope so!! Another annoying thing I find is, when searching for a series 5 or 6 digit numbers using the * wild card it will only accept XXX* and not XX* or XXXX* etc even though the bumph states it should. Unless I'm doing something wrong of course. hywyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hywyn Posted 6 November , 2009 Share Posted 6 November , 2009 With regards to searching by a numberagainst a Regiment. I have found on many an occasion where the number doesn't fit the Regiment. I.e. the inputter has selected the 'first' number of a series crossed out on the record but not known which of the Regiments to put. E G A number of men I'm interested in enroled in the RWF and given a 40XXX number. Two months into training they are transferred to the MGC as, say 35XXX. Ancestry show them as MGC 40XXX (this 40XXX would not show on the Medals of course) Hywyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALANJONES Posted 6 November , 2009 Share Posted 6 November , 2009 AAhh! Lots of useful tips there - thanks everyone. Strange that more thought has not gone into this aspect - I guess also that they probably that many folk look up whole regiments etc! Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 6 November , 2009 Share Posted 6 November , 2009 At last! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave pearce Posted 7 November , 2009 Share Posted 7 November , 2009 It would be nice if Ancestry gave us a free period like they did last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 7 November , 2009 Share Posted 7 November , 2009 I've found that the ".com" search is working ok, but the ".co.uk" search is the one that I can't get to work. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hywyn Posted 7 November , 2009 Share Posted 7 November , 2009 Well spotted Steve Just run the two side by side in the Old Search mode. Searching Williams in .co.uk returns 180 hits ie those with Williams in first names In .com it returns 10956 hits Happy days. many thanks for spotting/sharing Hywyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen p nunn Posted 7 November , 2009 Share Posted 7 November , 2009 Hi I haven't actually searched the service records for my remaining men - but if my eyes aren't deceiving me, Ancestry is stating that all service records are now up Tim The search facility doesn't seem quite right to me. Have had mixed success with surviving records - found them for Edward Tindale (in my signature below) but, disappointgly, not for my wife's grandfather John Richardson and we had been waiting on that one for a long while! Regards. SPN Maldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now