Find Ancestors

I can only agree with Dea and Gins.

Reported age at death did not appear in the index until the late 1860's. GR or whoever's records GR uses have obviously introduced defective software that assumes that if no age is shown in the index then it assumes that the deceased died before they were one year old.

I think is was about 1866 when approx ages were added to the registration

They need to get that sorted, imagine how many other people have spent money and then even worse, dismissed an entry and ended up face to face with a brick wall they are never going to breakdown

:-| :-| :-| :-| :-|

Im sending that record I posted to GR and asking them why they have given the age of death as 0yrs when that info is not available

It might save others from being misled

I just thought that I would post the reply from GR regarding my question to them about ages being listed on their death records


Dear Gins

Thank you for your email,

When there is no age at death recorded at the time it is shown as 0 years as we still have a field for it but no information to enter.

Please just ignore this.
Kind Regards,


Alex Brett
Genes Reunited Support Team


:-0

Unbelievable. That ranks along the lines of if it doesn't exist, make it up.

I am not a programmer but surely if that particular field (Age at death) in the GR software was designated as one that can be void if no figure shown in the index then the problem of inaccurate or misleading information being generated would be avoided.

Another simple remedy would be to program in that if the year of death field is less than 1866 (The year that age at death first appeared in the index) then the problem would also be avoided.

It might also not be a bad idea to ensure that if you ask someone to write a computer program concerning genealogy that you first ensure that they have a full working knowledge of the subject they are to write the program for.