User talk:Tomwilde

My user page has had unwelcome content added- there is a word for entering a personal user page-vandalism. The user page has a talk tab which is an appropriate means of communicating.

You posted a query in relation to Known Issues. Perhaps you might visit Kent Parish Registers Known Issues talk page and identify which parish you refer to.

As you have no user page I have no means of knowing who is attempting to communicate with me. FamilySearch is a labyrinthine organisation; I assume that you are a volunteer rather than a member of staff. May I invite you to add a user page profile if you are attempting to contact contributors?

DowneOPC 07:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Keston, Kent
It appears that your query may relate to the known issue identified in a support case (see talk page for the parish). Here is the content of the original support case:

Kent Online Parish Clerks with the the approval of the Archdeacon of the Diocese of Rochester and Bromley Archives are preparing a transcript of the registers for Keston parish. This involves work with the original records in the archive and use of microfilmed images for comparison by the transcription team. In addition I have examined the image presentation of FamilySearch Historical Records which is a restricted access collection available to LDS sign in or to the public at FamilySearch Centres or at the Kent Archive and Library Maidstone. The original record, Keston Marriage Register, 1754-1810; banns 1754-1801 is held at Bromley Archives under a single volume reference (P/208/1/3) and include 63 marriages followed by the banns entries bound in a single volume. Bromley Archive is the designated Diocesan Archive for the deanery of Rochester Diocese which includes the parish. The Historical Records presentation of images contains duplicate images of the marriage register the second series of marriage images are from images 11-19 and the banns book entries commence at image 22 of 28 with the final entry at image 26 of 28. You are therefore using additional server space and confusing searchers in the present arrangement of images. The way point is accurate in year range for marriages only; it could be improved by adopting the same catalogue description as the Bromley Archive Catalogue "banns 1754-1801". Your present waypoint and the Family History Library description of the film is not helpful for searchers and the duplicated images reflect the microfilming technique used to adjust exposure and light levels to acquire images. One wonders why the digital images cannot be presented to reflect the original record rather than duplicate it, again confusing the searcher. The way point does not reflect that the parish is in the Diocese of Rochester; the historic County of Kent has over 400 parishes and includes 2 dioceses. The FamilySearch use of County rather than relevant diocese is therefore also questionable; as FamilySearch acknowledges in FamilySearch Research Wiki the exempt deanery of Shoreham also needs to be distinguished and there are differing contractual arrangements for each of these.

The Bromley Archive Catalogue is continually revised as a result of feedback from community transcribers like the team I lead and visitors to the archive are guided by diocese and deanery to parish material as is the case at other London Borough and Kent Library and Archives.

The Kent Online Parish Clerk index for all parish register entries for Keston will be published online during 2013. All Kent Online Parish Clerk indexes are copyright of that site. A Co-operative Indexing Agreement is under consideration by FamilySearch in respect of Keston parish although at this time we await a decision by FamilySearch; if approved we will undertake the transcript within 12 months of the supply of data by FamilySearch. I am leading a team of transcribers for a number of West Kent parishes in the Diocese of Rochester in various deaneries at work in various record archives on similar transcripts for a number of records approved by Kent Library and Archives service and Diocese.

I would be grateful if both the issue of waypoint correction and presentation of images could be escalated to improve the search of your image presentation which at present is impaired.

This case resulted in an engineering ticket for waypoint correction and consideration of representing the images without duplicate images.

However it has not entered the wiki as Known Issue. I understand that you are reviewing this aspect of the issues raised. The original support case also points out that your catalogue entry could be much more accurate. For a further view on this aspect of the FamilySearch labyrinth see Anthony Camp's user page critique of the Catalogue https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/User:AnthonyJCamp