One of the key debates during this current round of proposed cuts focuses on the removal of instant access to surrogate material, including HLF funded microfilms for First World War service records and pension files in WO363 and WO364.
A survey has been conducted into the means of access to these datasets, provided by Ancestry, because doubts were raised about the ability of an online researcher to find a document given the limited search engine and quality of transcription.
Two exercises have been undertaken. The second will be issued as ‘The Cook Challenge’ to all researchers in due course: can you find a named soldier with key biographical data via Ancestry’s search engines? Details to follow.
However, the first revolves around a sample name search, using a fairly unusual name. Using the online search engine, only 62% of records were found; yet a quick search of the microfilm found 95%.
Clearly, anyone relying solely on TNA’s online access – which will be the ONLY means of access once the changes are implemented – would naturally think their ancestor’s service records were amongst the estimated 50% destroyed in the Second World War, whereas this clearly might not be the case.
At present, the only proposed reason for requesting access to withdrawn microfilm available online will relate to the quality of the digital image, NOT the lack of sufficient search facilities. This must be addressed immediately.
It is also clear that TNA failed to specify that key search fields should inserted into the contract with Ancestry, such as the regiment / battalion – despite advice from TNA’s own military experts; to rectify this mistake, TNA are now faced with paying Ancestry, estimated to be the in region of £30,000.
These findings undermine TNA’s claims of digital excellence, and doubts about their entire strategic approach – close onsite access to fund online access – must surely be raised.
