Genealogy Chat

Yes, it would be good if people put counties (i must admit to not being consistent about it myself) but there are lots of instances where there is no placename at all. This means you could have an apparent match of name and date of birth, but no idea if it is worth getting in contact with the `owner' of the record, who could be researching at the opposite end of the country. It would also be good if when doing a name search the names came up sorted either by date or place, at present if you click on all the Mary's say, they seem to come up in the order they were added to the site. Then you have to scroll through dozens of entries in random order.

I would be happier if the entries were filed under County first, then Parish. Trouble is, some people put the Street Address, some put the name of the Village, Some even mis-spell the name of the Place. It all adds to the many frustrations we Genealogists feel when hunting Ancestral Relations. Still, maybe one day there will be a definitive way of recording which is consistant and sensible. We also still have to solve the problem of different spellings of Surnames. They are all the same family on our Trees, but can be widely separated on the Index Listings. Jim. Gosport.

Good idea Susan, but I have another idea aswell, I have been researching my family in Durham, but when I search there aren't many under the name I am looking for in Durham, but when I don't put Durham in ,there are lots of them, as people have put precise places, but the places are actually in the county of Durham, that means the names may be overlooked by a distant relative. I know in the early days of research I have done this, thinking it was the correct way to do things, but I learnt the hard way! So please can people put counties aswell.

I've started to edit my "place of birth" field e.g. John SULLIVAN - Ireland - I have now added "then Livepool" How about doing that for ancestors who settled in places other than their place of birth? Sue