Stony silence from CWGC

[Chris_Baker]

This is an enquiry that I'm hoping Terry Denham or others with experience of the way CWGC works might help with.

On 21 August 2002, I sent an email to CWGC, from the enquiries link on their website:

"Dear Sirs

I beg to point out an error in the Debt of Honour register, with regard to

WILLIAM ARTHUR CLAYBYN

Corporal

1688

Royal Horse Guards

who died on

Sunday 18 October 1914 .

His age is given as 6, which looks like a transcription error when the

database was created.

With kind regards

Chris Baker"

I received the usual "yes we'll look into it" kind of response. I just looked at the entry on the database and it is still showing the error, almost a year later.

I feel a range of emotions: sadness at the continuing misrepresentation of William Claybyn, annoyance that I have wasted my breath; puzzlement as to why checking and making a simple change like that could not be just, well, done. Any thoughts?

PS To point out that this was not isolated, I also sent them this one.

"Dear Sirs

I beg to point out an error in the Debt of Honour register, with regard to

EDMUND FRANK MORTIMER COLE

Corporal of Horse

1481

Royal Horse Guards

who is shown as died on

Thursday 8 October 1914 .

This soldier died on Sunday 18 October 1914 as I am sure your original

records show. This looks like a transcription error when the database was

created.

With kind regards

Chris Baker"

Guess what the database is still showing? You got it.

[Terry Denham]

Chris

Your posting shows a common mis-understanding of the current CWGC web site.

This uses a static copy of the CWGC database and therefore is fixed in time at the moment the copy is taken. Updates have only been undertaken at quite long intervals for a number of reasons. The data that you and the genral public can see is dated around February 2002 and your amendments will not show up.

When the new site goes live, it will have been entirley rebuilt for use by the public and CWGC themselves and, as a result, will be using the real time database - meaning that amendments will appear as they are done.

As I have access to the new site with updated data, I have checked your two points. The first item concerning CLAYBYN has been corrected. In fact, I reported on this forum some time ago that CWGC had gone through all ages of below 14 years on the site and corrected them (all were caused by scanning errors).

The second item concerns either a scanning error or an error of historical fact. This has not yet been amended on the data to which I have access (the test site still uses a static copy of the data but dated January 2003). It may have been corrected at some time since January (I'll check with my contacts tomorrow for you).

However, it may be that their records show the date given on the website and has been in error since IWGC were first given the date by the authorities. In this case you would have to supply written evidence for a change to be made - you do not say if you did this. They cannot simply take your word for it! They are not a research organisation and have no facilities to check historical facts if the data does not appear in their (sometimes meagre) records - other than to refer the matter back to the military (This could have happened in your case).

Hope that clears up your point and I'll let you know where the query regarding COLE has got to.

[Drummy]

Chris,

I have sent similar types of emails and waited a few months for the CWGC to reply to confirm errors have been amended, but I am sure this will be a thing of the past when the new site goes live. One thing that does frustrate me, and I am sure there is the reason of only putting on what the WD passed to them - is casualties of ww1 who are shown only with initial and suname, with SDGW and medal cards containing this information, I think it should be added. Cheers Neil.

[Chris_Baker]

Thanks for the quick replies, Gentlemen. Terry, your answer was most thorough and I'm pleased to hear of Claybyn being corrected.

But as for a website using a fixed copy of a database - ha! Whoever proposed, approved and supplied that! If I were them I'd ask for my money back!

[Terry Denham]

Chris

They are long gone! It was all a money saving exercise in the early 90s as (I suspect) was the lack of a regular update facility. Also, ten years ago the technology was not as safe, sound and user friendly as it is today.

The vast majority of CWGC's budget goes on cemeteries and memorials (of which I am sure we all approve). The records operation only gets the crumbs.

I agree that full first names are better than initials but, I am afraid, it is CWGC's policy that initials are sufficient. Again, I think that this stems from a total lack of resources and them not being a research operation. (Incidentaly, SDGW cannot be used as evidence as it contains too many errors).

Remember, they are funded largely by the UK Treasury with additional funds to a set formula from the governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and India. As far as the UK goes, the Treasury has never rushed to hand over extra funds and, as readers of 'The Unending Vigil' will know, have often actively campaigned to have their funding cut!

[Mark]

I have to say I was impressed with the response I received from CWGC when I asked them to expand on the details of my great great uncle. He is currently listed as AE Fort (7KRRC) with no NOK or age. I supplied them with his service records detailing his wife and children, his birth and marraige certifcates and other pieces of information to prove his identity. I posted everything to them and asked for his entry to be amended. I expected a long wait but received a positive reply within 4 days and I await the new website going live to see his amended entry.

The casualty enquiry email service is also first class, the longest I have waited for a reply is 5 days.

Maybe I have just been lucky?

[Terry Denham]

Chris

As promised, I have checked with CWGC the status of your query regarding COLE.

Your suggested amendment will not be made as all the original documentation gives the date of death as 08.10.14. In fact, this is definately not a scanning error as the original 1926 register for Menin Gate also gives 08.10.14 and not 18.10.14.

Therefore, if you have any written evidence to the contrary (not SDGW), you should submit it to CWGC.

[Chris_Baker]

Thank you Terry. I will.

[Drummy]

Terry,

Like most users of the forum, I have done a number of research projects covering casualties of the Great War, in which I have viewed CWGC records that contain minor errors or just initials. In respect of this new site that is being created can you expand on what information the CWGC would be willing to add to a serviceman (or woman's) records. For example a record showing initial and surname eg J Smith, if I were to supply copy document such as SDGW & MIC that contain first name, both records showing 'Joshua' would this be sufficient for the CWGC to add firstname? Likewise if copies of service files were supplied would the CWGC be willing to add parents details and the soldiers home address?

I fully understand that the CWGC is run by budgets but I have no doubt there are many dedictated researcher's and family historians that would be willing to supply copies of original records etc to add further details to a CWGC record, all that would be needed would be the CWGC to review the information supplied and then add, if in agreement, the new information to the soldier's record.

[Terry Denham]

Drummy

Whilst I sympathise and agree with everything you say, you have to understand that researching a casualty's background is not part of CWGC's charter - no matter how much we would like it to be. As far as records are concerned they are only obliged to ensure that a casualty's name is recorded. To do anything else could be regarded as a misuse of their funds by the bean counters.

Having said that, the very understaffed records dept does try to correct and add important information where it is irrefutable. Even if all the corrections/additions in the world were delivered with adequate evidence on their doorstep, they do not have the staff to enter all the data. This is not what we would want but it is a fact of life.

The best approach to have additional information added is to do it a little at a time. Shedloads of information being delivered at once, I suspect would be sidelined.

You must supply as much corroborating written evidence as possible. SDGW is no good nor is family legend. Depending on what you are trying to prove - birth and death certificates are best - so are service records (although these have their fair share of errors).

No one piece of evidence is any good on its own. The more supporting documentation you have, the better it is but every case will be different.

It is CWGC's policy that initials are sufficient for their purposes and this is what appears on most (not all) headstones. However, they would certainly add the names if proper evidence was supplied. I would say that SDGW plus MIC would not be sufficient in the case you cite as both could be in error. Three different documents giving the name would be better and obviously a birth/death certificate should be conclusive.

The n-o-k information was originally supplied by the n-o-k themselves on their Final Verification Forms but it can be augmented by other evidence (although not a high priority item). I achieved this some years ago for a 'new' casualty by supplying photocopies of the man's school attendance record giving the names of his parents. This was sufficient to have the names added.

Don't misunderstand me, CWGC do not say that their record is always right but only that they need reasonable proof before making changes.

Certainly always send details of minor typo/scanning errors that you spot as these will always be corrected as soon as possible. However, amending historical facts can be harder and more time consuming.

Apologies for rambling on but the whole situation is far more complex than first meets the eye.