Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Errors in IFHF Records

  • 14-11-2014 2:22pm
    #1
    montgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 565 ✭✭✭


    I have found numerous errors, some minor and some of them no doubt errors by the priest. Do you make a note of the mistakes and notify IFHF?

    I have a record of one of my ancestors which is rather odd.

    According to their Church Baptism Record
    Bridget was baptised on 2 Feb 1888
    According to their Civil Record
    Bridget was born on 2 May 1888 & baptised on 21 July 1888

    A Civil death record has Jane dying in 1899 while the Will index states 1897 and the BMD index has 1897 as well.


Comments

  • #2
    Coolnabacky1873
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Coolnabacky1873


    I can only image the amount of errors that are in the IFHF records. From their website:

    In the early years of the indexing of local records the data was recorded manually on index cards and sorted by surname, first name and so on. Circa 1991 and 1992 many centres began to computerize their card indexes and directly input new records on to a specially designed database.

    That means some (and probably most) were transcribed TWICE!

    Also, don't forget that most of the initial transcription was done by people on employment schemes in the 1980s. Just think about that, young folk with no interest or care in genealogy/history having to transcribe old parish registers, day after day, trying to decipher the handwriting.

    If at all possible, verify what you get on IFHF with the original record.


  • #3
    shanew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,777 ✭✭✭shanew


    montgo wrote: »
    ..According to their Civil Record
    Bridget was born on 2 May 1888 & baptised on 21 July 1888..

    the 2nd date on a civil record should be date of registration rather than baptism, so more a category/labelling error.


  • #4
    shanew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,777 ✭✭✭shanew


    a possibility I forgot to mention ... the dates of baptism and reported for the birth might also be correct. Dates of births were apparently fudged sometimes to fit with the required registration time limit - which I think might have been 90 days...


  • #5
    montgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 565 ✭✭✭montgo


    Many thanks for replies.

    Shane, I hadn't considered the fudging of the date of birth!

    Wonder why IFHF didn't change the wording to date of registration? I didn't bother much with the civil birth records preferring to get the names of the sponsors on the the baptism record so hadn't noticed this problem.


Advertisement