Re: Who Do You Think You Are Live 2010
- From: Mick <mick@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:57:44 -0500
JJupar@xxxxxxx wrote:
In a message dated 28/02/2010 20:38:57 GMT Standard Time, guy.etchells@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
It's not good to be known to not worry about error correction - look howseriously everyone takes the IGI!
Lesley Robertson
What a ridiculous comment.
The IGI is 100% correct when used for the correct purpose.
When the IGI is misused, the people who misuse it claim it is inaccurate.
Hi Guy,
The IGI as it used to be, was very good. It is just the Patron Submissions which are at fault because they differ on quite a few dates which causes chaos because of their inaccuracy. I could let you have some instances if you need them..
JUDY ELKINGTON
[N. Derbyshire, England]
www.elkingtonfamily.com
ELKINGTON@xxxxxxxxxxxx
www.one-name.org/profiles/elkington.html
Member submission in the IGI are as accurate as that members research was anything found there should be used as a guide to further research and verification. Not taken as factually accurate. This applies to any records based on submissions by people researching their families. Inclusing Genes Reunited et al.
Similarly GRO records are records of information given ad the event (BMD) there is no verification as to the accuracy of that information.
Same for Parish records whether located via the IGI or any other source.
.
- References:
- Re: Who Do You Think You Are Live 2010
- From: JJupar
- Re: Who Do You Think You Are Live 2010
- Prev by Date: Cost of GRO Certificates
- Next by Date: Re: Cost of GRO Certificates
- Previous by thread: Re: Who Do You Think You Are Live 2010
- Next by thread: Re: Who Do You Think You Are Live 2010
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
