Lives of the First World War launch - February 2014

[spof]

I have now received another letter telling me what to do, and have dutifully made the effort. Again no success.

Even by selecting the medal card, one simply cannot alter the unit or battalion. Perhaps one can add info, but not change what is already there. There is no error in Discovery.

Moreover the unit war diary mentions my uncle Edgar Gollin as an officer Dec 1915 and mentions his being wounded (he died of wounds) in the same 13th Battalion in 1917.

I've edited your unlce's page with details from the MIC.

If you are having problems editing information after clicking on the green link to Medal Index Card, I'd suggest you email their support - contact[at]livesofthefirstworldwar.org (replae [at] with @

[David_Underdown]

So if a correction was made at TNA would it automatically be reflected in Lives, or would it require a second manual intervention?

I'd have to check (and I'm now on leave until June), but I suspect there was a one off export, so best to fix in Lives, and send an email to the Discovery team via the contact form (just put #suggestionform on the end of the URL for your man's card)

[Chris_Baker]

Thanks, David. I may attend to it one day.

[AdrianBruce]

... I have posted a suggestion that Battery gets replaced with Brigade.

I've added my votes to that and supporting comment

David and SPOF - I've commented on that suggestion but to make it visible here, I'll paraphrase my comment....

It may be dangerous for me to use logic, given my limited library, but....

Surely the answer to "Brigade or Battery" is "It depends"?

My relative in the Royal Garrison Artillery was in 159 Siege Battery. His Statement of Services shows "RGA 159 S Battery". There is no mention of any level higher than that (such as HAG, etc...) on the Statement. So the Level1 item would be "Royal Garrison Artillery" and the Level2 item would be "159 Siege Battery".

My grandpa was in the RFA (New Army part) - his records are lost but I'm sure they would show A Battery 86 Brigade. Therefore his Level1 would be "Royal Field Artillery", Level2 would be "86 Brigade" and his Level3 would read "A Battery".

So my two relatives use Battery at two different levels.

I've been trying to find an RHA example because the RHA Battery letter-codes seem to be the permanent feature. Batteries move around from Brigade to Brigade, retaining their letter-code, while the TF units of the RHA are definitely Batteries. ... I appreciate that RHA Batteries were in brigades but we're talking about attributes of the soldiers here. The brigade was a property of the battery here, not of the soldier, and I bet the brigade is not on their statement of services. Anyone care to comment on that?

I could make a guess that RHA and RFA Regulars at the start of the war were like the RGA and their Level2 would be Battery. Whereas RFA New Army, as I say, would have Level2 Brigade and Level3 Battery.

So - if we are aiming to give the details of the soldiers, then I don't agree with the proposal.

In summary, "If a Battery is mentioned" then it should only go into the current item labelled Sub-Unit if it's an RFA New Army battery - no doubt with lots of exceptions....

Dare I ask where you'd put Companies for Royal Engineers compared to Companies for infantry? (cue sickly grin...)

Adrian

[E Wilcock]

I have heard from the Lives of the FWW that info they have put up from the medal cards is seed info from the Imperial War Museum and cannot be altered. If Luke is reading this, would you please like to have a look?

I am told I can challenge the fact citing other evidence - but it is the medal card itself which gives the correct battallion. Only the transcription is wrong.

It is inevitable that there are transcription errors when any massive piece of data is transcribed. The censuses are another example.

But the Lives people are saying they cant correct this error as it comes from the IWM.

[AdrianBruce]

... info they have put up from the medal cards is seed info from the Imperial War Museum and cannot be altered. ... it is the medal card itself which gives the correct battallion. Only the transcription is wrong.

I added an External Reference to Evidence that refers to my copy of the Medal Index Card. Since I have the Ancestry version (in full Technicolor), I used the Website sub-option of External Reference, giving the URL of the Ancestry index entry for the MIC (not the URL of the Ancestry image). If you downloaded a version from TNA, it might be better to use the "Copy of Official Document" sub-option as there is no live URL. (Though the text items for this version seem to be absurdly pedantic in not allowing punctuation, etc.)

Then select the Evidence you just added, and select the correcting facts. Note that you get a window at this point giving you the option to either Add a New Unit and Rank or Improve An Existing Unit and Rank. I keep missing the improve option but that's the one you need to take. You can see what's there now - select "Improve" by the side of the incorrect data to release the item for editing and you should be OK to correct it, and save it all, etc.

While this might seem long winded, it is all consistent with the care this shows for evidence. You can't alter the TNA supplied data because that's what TNA supplied. You can add your own Source of Evidence and overlay the correct data on top.

[Chris_Baker]

But the Lives people are saying they cant correct this error as it comes from the IWM.

That is all correct but it is the National Archives rather than IWM.

[E Wilcock]

I am not sure who it is on this Forum that has worked the miracle. But my OH and I offer heartfelt thanks. I could not believe it when I read your post and went to the Lives of the FWW site and saw Edgar Gollin with the correct battalion, and the medal card cited.

Of course, I do feel slightly ashamed that I didnt manage it myself, which I should have done.

Thank you for explaining how to reference the ancestry index, as that is the version of the card I have too. And it could well be that I will make use of your guidance above, if I begin to link the site to my wider list of artillery people, or other officers from 13th Liverpool.

Thank you very very much.

[ianw]

Based on the old adage of a picture being worth a thousand words, I am shamelessly taking the easy option and putting pictures on the site. But I do much appreciate the efforts of diligent motivated folk doing the hard stuff.

[stoj22]

Based on the old adage of a picture being worth a thousand words, I am shamelessly taking the easy option and putting pictures on the site. .

Me too, I have lots of headstone pictures to add.

[cfraser]

I had a go. Got the request for money, training videos, requirements to link to evidence and have read on here that I likely can't add downloaded material from prior Ancestry searches (I join for a month here and there when I am researching) because it's copyright. So I am left with an ability to upload a photo of a letter and to see my great uncle's MIC; even though i have done a 15 page site on my relative I don't see how most of the info can be input. If I as an enthusiast can't or won't bother figuring this out, I expect IWM will be lucky to get 1% of the 8 million. While I understand the need for reliability, it has overwhelmed usability. Wiki does not require footnotes and sourcing....it only encourages same. Anyone can add data and if it's wrong someone else can change it. I give up for now. I may come back in 2016 to see if anything has changed. Hope it's still here.

Colin

[E Wilcock]

I know I said I wouldnt try again, but having sorted my Uncle, I began to look for the officers in 243 Brigade - as per my site and the army list. Because many of the medal cards lack the Brigade number or numbers.

I added the missing forenames and unit (Brigades) to the first officer on my list, the lamented Major Geoffrey Dennis Browne. For source, I used Ruvigny's Roll of Honour as a printed source and also because it is on line through ancestry.

But my next officer, Henry H. D'E. Vallancey, wasnt there at all, it seems. So I was forced to message the site owners, giving details of his medal card on ancestry and the PRO WO reference for his Service file.

It looks as if many people are appealing for some easy way to notify the errors and omissions. I didnt offer to test the beta as I was busy and the weather is too good at the moment to sit indoors. But as the situation stands, for anyone of the public looking for an ancestor's war service via the medal cards, the new IWM site seems inferior to that already available on ancestry, which has been honed and corrected by users over many years.

The problem with crowd sourcing (if that is what it is called), is that it relies on the public donating time. And there is no very evident reward.

Many of us did report to the IWM via this Forum that we had a relatively low success rate when attempting to identify the medal cards and 1911 census entries of men and officers listed in our unit records or war diaries.

My hit rate using ancestry has improved recently - particularly if one knows the service number of the man one is looking for.

But using Lives of the FWW is really a repeat exercise of trying to find the people via their medal cards.

[HeatherC]

have read on here that I likely can't add downloaded material from prior Ancestry searches (I join for a month here and there when I am researching) because it's copyright.

Yes and no. You can't add the actual image that you may have downloaded from Ancestry. What you can do is add the original source of that image (census, GRO Index or whatever) as an "external reference" and then once you've defined that source (as a website if you have the direct Ancestry link to it or as a copy of an official document if you don't) you can add all the relevant details from it. Once you see the point of connecting and defining the evidence before adding the details from it then you will find it gets easier. Of course if you are used to Ancestry then you do it the other way round (info first and surce second) so it takes a few goes to get into doing it the other way!

It's really not that hard and it IS worth persevering with.

[cfraser]

Thanks for trying Heather. I am done for a while but if I try again I am sure I will find your advice useful. I no longer have the links to the original ancestry documents and there's no way I am paying just to find them. If you mean I can just quote the documents' existence that would doable but I doubt that meets the reliability standard. I have no idea where to link the original record from except through ancestry.

My point is really how many non-members of GWF and non-historians are really going to bother figuring this out? I think the value in this initiative would have been volume/completeness and cross-linking stories. I don't see that happening. Hope I m proved wrong.

Colin

[HeatherC]

Hi Colin

Yes you can quote the "documents' existence" provided you have some sort of reference number that will enable anyone else to find it online if they have the necessary access. So for example if you have the 1911 census entry you clcik on "add external reference" then add it as "copy of official document". It then asks you for some details of that document, which for the 1911 census you fill in as follows (or something similar):

Title "copy of 1911 census entry"

Reference. If you have the complete thing recorded from Ancestry, Class, piece, schedule number of household then great, if not put suffiient for anyone to find it again. Note that for the 1911 census when you save from Ancestry, the file name you get has the class number (two letters and then some numbers) first followed by an underscore and then the piece number (just a number) and In 1911, the schedule number is on the top of the census form itself, so you can get the whole census reference very easily from the file you downloaded in the first place. It looks something like this RG14/15180/114

Source of document "downloaded for Ancestry"

Description "this is the 1911 census entry downloade by me from Ancestry in [put year here]

Then you can connect this evidence to the "Life" and go ahead and add the information from it as facts. I realise this may seem long-winded if you are used to the Ancestry method but ask yourself how many glaring erros you have found on Ancestry where no hard evidence is required? I know I have found some right howlers, people being identified in the census 5 years after they died for example...

Hope this helps

Heather

[cfraser]

Thanks for taking the time to write this Heather. Right now I have my blog on my great uncle's service that documents all my research...and I expect it will last as long as google blogger does.

The interface on this digital memorial still seems very clunky. I will try again in a bit when I have some time to burn.

Very generous of you to provide this guidance.

Coin

[AdrianBruce]

I really would encourage anyone to read things like Heather's guidance and have a go. No, it's not a 5 minute job, not least because the TNA sourced Medal Index Cards seem to have lots of issues and you need to both find them and correct them.

But I can see where IWM were coming from. Family Historians are amongst the most likely people to load stuff about individuals and I'm afraid our tendency to claim pedigrees back to Adam is not one to encourage anyone else (NB - "pedigrees back to Adam" is not a figure of speech). Hence IWM decided to require evidence - otherwise, I can guarantee we'd have mis-identifications galore (after all, how many John Griffiths can there be in the Cheshire Regiment?) and I'll reckon we'd also have lots of stories duplicated, triplicated, etc.

[HeatherC]

Adrian - I can see you've seen the same "wonderfully researched trees" that I have on Ancestry eh? Don't get me wrong, Ancestry is a brilliant resouce that I am happy to coniue paying for but oh my goodness some of the "research" on there makes me shudder...

[spof]

Heather

Do you like the one I saw which had my gt-gt grandfather being 58 years old when his own father was born!?

Glen

[Sue Light]

Sorry if this has already been asked. Is there any way to initiate an entry or add information for those who didn't serve overseas and therefore don't have a medal index card. As the majority of women served 'at home' including most nurses in military hospitals, how will any their 'life stories' be started? Or is this going to be another example of great swathes of women being cast into anonymity? The FAQs suggest that 'over time' they will be adding records for the Navy, Air Force and Canadian Expeditionary Force, but no mention of women in, or attached to, the Army.

Sue

[HeatherC]

Good question Sue and I think the issue is that for now there has to be some sort of record that can be added to the site first to "set up" the index as it were so that people can look up their "Lives".

The Lives team would probably welcome any suggestions of additional record sets that might be added to cover "missing" people. Here's what is already there or planned https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/a-z-of-record-sets Note that where they are only accessible to paying members that doesn't mean you can't add facts from them if you have access to that record via another source like Ancestry or whatever, you just do it as an "external reference".

There's also now a "suggested life stories" area here http://support.livesofthefirstworldwar.org/forums/246125-suggested-life-stories for just exactly the kind of people you are talking about who don't appear in any of the existing records. CEF records are on the site already by the way.

[E Wilcock]

I sent Lives of the FWW the medal card reference for my missing officer Henry Havelock D'Estampes Vallancey M.C. and the PRO WO file number of his service file with web links for both.

I have received a standard reply ignoring the contents of my message. It gives various reasons why one may not be able to find a person - long screed explaining not everyone is there yet, and no thanks or suggestion that they will now add him.

I have to say I agree with the people above. I tried the Lives site but now have no alternative. Any remembering has to be done via my own site.

[HeatherC]

Heather

Do you like the one I saw which had my gt-gt grandfather being 58 years old when his own father was born!?

Glen

I especially liked the one that linked together two families of the same name resulting in the poor woman having 10 children in 5 years...

[HeatherC]

I sent Lives of the FWW the medal card reference for my missing officer Henry Havelock D'Estampes Vallancey M.C. and the PRO WO file number of his service file with web links for both.

I have received a standard reply ignoring the contents of my message. It gives various reasons why one may not be able to find a person - long screed explaining not everyone is there yet, and no thanks or suggestion that they will now add him.

I have to say I agree with the people above. I tried the Lives site but now have no alternative. Any remembering has to be done via my own site.

I assume what you have received is an auto-acknowledgment e-mail. Be fair it's Bank Holiday weekend and I doubt anyone is sat at IWM working on the site... Why not add your man's details to the "Suggested life storeis" section http://support.livesofthefirstworldwar.org/forums/246125-suggested-life-stories

Edited to add I found him - see post on next page of this thread

[Sue Light]

Good question Sue and I think the issue is that for now there has to be some sort of record that can be added to the site first to "set up" the index as it were so that people can look up their "Lives".

The Lives team would probably welcome any suggestions of additional record sets that might be added to cover "missing" people. Here's what is already there or planned https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/a-z-of-record-sets Note that where they are only accessible to paying members that doesn't mean you can't add facts from them if you have access to that record via another source like Ancestry or whatever, you just do it as an "external reference".

FindMyPast do have a complete transcription of the Royal Red Cross Register online (TNA WO145/1, 145//2 and 145/3) though not under that name (comes under 'Military Nurses'), which includes more than 6,000 names of women who received the award during the Great War, many of them just for service in the UK, and in many cases include details of where they worked, their position, their service they belonged to etc. Also details of members of the nursing services of Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand who worked as trained nurses. I did the transcription for them, so have a copy here as well :-)

Sue