• Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

Hide People Tagged as Missing From Census

P

PK-KTK

LostCousins Member
I use Legacy and I've just downloaded Family Tree Analyzer to check who I'm still "missing" - quite a few which doesn't surprise me, but I saw in Options that I can tag people as missing from a census - what should the custom event name be for this please, as I am aware of at least 3 people for whom this applies.
Thanks
 
The tag should be MISSING. You actually need to add it but it should be missing ;)

It works the same way as a Lost Cousins fact and a census fact is: you should have a date for the missing fact so the program knows which year they are missing on the census.
 
Alexander Bisset said:
The tag should be MISSING. You actually need to add it but it should be missing ;)

It works the same way as a Lost Cousins fact and a census fact is: you should have a date for the missing fact so the program knows which year they are missing on the census.
Click to expand...

How do I find out which census fact is missing in the top line of the following Lost Cousins tab report?

1881 England & Wales Census: 37 Found, 1 Missing
1841 England & Wales Census: 12 Found, 0 Missing
1911 England & Wales Census: 53 Found, 0 Missing
____________________________________________________
1881 Scotland Census: 2 Found, 0 Missing
____________________________________________________
1911 Ireland Census: 0 Found, 0 Missing
____________________________________________________
1881 Canada Census: 0 Found, 0 Missing
____________________________________________________
1880 US Census: 0 Found, 0 Missing
1940 US Census: 0 Found, 0 Missing
____________________________________________________
LostCousins facts with bad/missing census fact: 2
____________________________________________________
Totals: 102 Found, 3 Missing

You have 3 Census facts with no LostCousins fact
Click the Lost Cousins website link to add them today.

I do not understand the arithmetic associated with the last few lines of this report. Can someone please explain?
 
Hi Bryman,

The purpose of this report is to identify people that you can add to the Lost Cousins website.
FTA analyses the gedcom file, and matches (in this example) all the people with an 1881 Census Fact (or Residence Fact) with a Lost Cousins 1881 custom fact that you have added.

So the report is saying: it has found 37 1881 census facts, but it's only found 36 custom Lost Cousins Facts, i.e. you have one person to add to Lost Cousins.
This person is easily identified by pressing the "1881 England and Wales" button which is on the left hand side of the screen below the relationships filter.

There is also a button called "Lost Cousins w/bad Census" which will list the other 2 people that you will need to investigate. You may have added an LC fact but there is no census recorded.
 
Thank you Tim, I wonder why I could not have found that for myself??? Perhaps I have enjoyed Cmas too much with family visiting from UK?

However, that still leaves the arithmetic for the red part of the report. Aren't some of the census facts missing so the report should not be showing 3 present with missing LC facts???
 
Hmmm, the maths doesn't seem right. It should be 104?

It's saying that you have 3 Lost Cousin facts missing. 1 from the top line and 2 from the bad/missing line.

But I hear what you're saying!
 
Hmmm yes that's a nightmare report to get the maths right on as the counts come from different sources. Clearly theses a combo not catered for that appears in Bryman's file.
 
Bryman said:
How do I find out which census fact is missing in the top line of the following Lost Cousins tab report?

1881 England & Wales Census: 37 Found, 1 Missing
1841 England & Wales Census: 12 Found, 0 Missing
1911 England & Wales Census: 53 Found, 0 Missing
Click to expand...

Family now off to look at other locations on South Island so I have an opportunity to catch up with genealogy.

I did as Tim suggested and used the 1881 E&W Census button to show the offending record but the census details looked good, until I looked in more detail. I had the reference specified as . . .
Class: RG11; Piece: 3262; Folio: 95; Page:21;
When I inserted a space after "Page:" the reported error disappeared.

Might there be less chance of errors being reported if spaces were removed before FTA performed its magic?
 
Bryman said:
LostCousins facts with bad/missing census fact: 2
____________________________________________________
Totals: 102 Found, 3 Missing

You have 3 Census facts with no LostCousins fact
Click the Lost Cousins website link to add them today.

I do not understand the arithmetic associated with the last few lines of this report. Can someone please explain?
Click to expand...

My Lost Cousins tab now shows . . .

1881 England & Wales Census: 40 Found, 0 Missing
1841 England & Wales Census: 22 Found, 0 Missing
1911 England & Wales Census: 54 Found, 0 Missing
____________________________________________________
1881 Scotland Census: 2 Found, 0 Missing
____________________________________________________
1911 Ireland Census: 0 Found, 0 Missing
____________________________________________________
1881 Canada Census: 0 Found, 0 Missing
____________________________________________________
1880 US Census: 0 Found, 0 Missing
1940 US Census: 0 Found, 0 Missing
____________________________________________________
LostCousins facts with bad/missing census fact: 14
____________________________________________________
Totals: 116 Found, 14 Missing

You have 14 Census facts with no LostCousins fact
Click the Lost Cousins website link to add them today.

Q1. Where did the 2 entries for 1881 Scotland come from?
The census references shown by the ticked 1881 Scotland Census button are . . .
Piece: 602; Folio: 12; Page: 18; (at 51 Meadow Road, Lambeth, Surrey)
Piece: 5642; Folio: 5; Page: 15; (at sea aboard HMS Mosquito)

Q2. Shouldn't the red message be . . .
You have 14 LostCousins facts with no Census fact.
rather than as reported?
 
Q1. Try putting Surrey, England and see if that makes a difference? I'm not sure how FTA determines whether it is Scottish or English, it could be country or it could be the code in the Volume/Registration number or the Piece.

Q2. I think the issue might be that the report has evolved from where it started. When it reported on just the "Missing", it was correct. So technically speaking, it would be more accurate if there was a 3rd red line to show something like
You have 1 Census facts with no LostCousins fact
You have 14 LostCousins facts with no Census fact.
Click the Lost Cousins website link to add them today.

Perhaps you should raise an issue over on the Codeplex site?
 
Thanks Tim. I have included the country for all locations since FTA started using Google geocoding. I am fully expecting to have to raise an issue as long as I have not misinterpreted something. That is why I posted the questions here first in case there was a simple explanation which I had overlooked. Also, by giving further information, I was hoping that if there is a problem/mistake then it might be easier to identify just what might be wrong.
 
Bryman said:
Family now off to look at other locations on South Island so I have an opportunity to catch up with genealogy.

I did as Tim suggested and used the 1881 E&W Census button to show the offending record but the census details looked good, until I looked in more detail. I had the reference specified as . . .
Class: RG11; Piece: 3262; Folio: 95; Page:21;
When I inserted a space after "Page:" the reported error disappeared.

Might there be less chance of errors being reported if spaces were removed before FTA performed its magic?
Click to expand...
That's very very very odd. Source references should play absolutely no part in anything other than some reports. Nowhere at all in the program do source references play any part in error calcs. However clearly something is odd.

Spaces should indeed be tolerated I'll check the code for this again to ensure that they are tolerated for this specific example but I'm almost certain they are. Could it possibly be that editing the source tweaked the GEDCOM a bit for that entry? I don't suppose you still have before and after GEDCOM files do you?
 
Bryman said:
Q1. Where did the 2 entries for 1881 Scotland come from?
The census references shown by the ticked 1881 Scotland Census button are . . .
Piece: 602; Folio: 12; Page: 18; (at 51 Meadow Road, Lambeth, Surrey)
Piece: 5642; Folio: 5; Page: 15; (at sea aboard HMS Mosquito)

Q2. Shouldn't the red message be . . .
You have 14 LostCousins facts with no Census fact.
rather than as reported?
Click to expand...

A1. Surrey should be auto identified as England, I'll check. I wonder why it translated as Scotland. Do you have the GEDCOM for that census fact. Note again the census references play no part in these calculations. They should only ever be treated as a special note to a fact.

A2. Hmmm yes it would make more sense to have both wordings separate. .
 
Alexander Bisset said:
That's very very very odd. Source references should play absolutely no part in anything other than some reports. Nowhere at all in the program do source references play any part in error calcs. However clearly something is odd.

Spaces should indeed be tolerated I'll check the code for this again to ensure that they are tolerated for this specific example but I'm almost certain they are. Could it possibly be that editing the source tweaked the GEDCOM a bit for that entry? I don't suppose you still have before and after GEDCOM files do you?
Click to expand...

I think you may be right and perhaps some other update made at the same time fixed the error. I have gone back and removed the space but FTA did not then report the error. Unfortunately, I only keep the latest Gedcom file for each of my trees so will have to remember to save if I ever notice any repeat of this situation (but I hope that doesn't happen).
 
Alexander Bisset said:
A1. Surrey should be auto identified as England, I'll check. I wonder why it translated as Scotland. Do you have the GEDCOM for that census fact. Note again the census references play no part in these calculations. They should only ever be treated as a special note to a fact.
Click to expand...

I think I have had a bit of finger trouble as when I was extracting the relevant information from the Gedcom file, I noticed that the CENS PLAC record did not have the full address, only the house number (51). When I added the missing street/town/county/country information it was reported correctly. Sorry to have worried you unnecessarily.

However, that still leaves the other individual reported as living in Scotland when he was really "at sea aboard HMS Mosquito". Do you have a default country (like Scotland?) if you cannot make sense of the census address? Should I be recording the address differently in this case?
 
There might be some residual code that defaults to Scotland as country. When I began writing the program with only my own tree in mind that was a default. As it expanded I removed that default, or thought I had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top