-
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!
-
It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here
Publicising Lost Cousins
- Thread starter Alexander Bisset
- Start date
Helen7
LostCousins Superstar
Thanks for the link to the latest Mac version. Actually I do have v1.1.1 (build 38) but for some reason used a previous version (which I've now deleted to avoid confusion!) Anyway, whichever version I use I still get the same '0 census references' message as before. Attached the GEDCOM exported from FTM for just that one individual whose 1881 census ref I quoted above.
Helen7
LostCousins Superstar
Thanks for this. Yes, I realise Ancestry saves census info as residence info and this carries through to synced FTM files. I get residence facts treated as census facts as you do, but it is the line below the one you quote which refers to census references (as opposed to census facts) where I get the zero. I'd be interested to see what you get for census references on the line below your residence facts.
Helen7
LostCousins Superstar
Thanks, I thought it was just me when I tried it earlier, but I see the searches are now working again on FMP (so the grey arrows now work too)
OK I think I know what the issue is. In Options under Census check if the option to skip Census Reference checking is enabled or disabled. I strongly suspect it is skipping census reference checking.
I've edited the code to warn about this rather than report zero loaded.
Do you need to use an ID number as reference? Won't the census ref, names and age (or year of birth) be enough to make a unique record?
Helen7
LostCousins Superstar
Yes, that's it! The skip census references box was checked, so I've unchecked it and I now get:
Found 2675 census references in file and 61 facts missing a census reference, with 412 references with partial details and 156 references that were unrecognised.
I think the partial/unrecognised ones may well be 1911 censuses where Ancestry does not list the full census details in the record. I'll check these, but at least the vast majority are now being recognised.
Thanks for the help, much appreciated.
No not really the problem with names & dates of birth is that they can change for the same person. eg: you will have loads of records where at one time the date of birth was imprecise eg: ABT 1875 and subsequently has become more precise or exact eg: 7 AUG 1875. That means that person's record would have changed.
So dates of birth are bad for indexing purposes and names are not unique enough.
Beta 16 now available. Barring any show stopping bugs I'm going to release this as v7.3.0 so consider it v7.3.0-ReleaseCandidate-1
Last edited:
Peter can you advise how a 1881 Canadian census with a pattern of "C_13266; Page 67; Family 301" becomes an enterable Census ref. I'm assuming at present that this is an incomplete census reference?
It is indeed incomplete. Here is an example of an entry from my tree:
Source Canada 1881
District number 134
Sub-district F
Division
Page 188
Household number 888
Surname Butwell
Forename Henry
This is the FamilySearch page: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MVF3-5Y7
Note that FamilySearch no longer include the sub-district in their transcription (they did originally) - it has to taken from the image. So it's a similar situation to E&W 1911.
Bryman
LostCousins Megastar
Don't rush to make this available to all. I have found some odd results using beta16. Sorry I have not tested sooner but my daughter is visiting from UK and I do not have much time available.
In my test, the final totals (39 and 23) did not match the reported success, already present cases (I found 36 and 27) and the one reported failure seems to have picked up details of a non-LC census year, 1891 instead of 1841. Where would you like me to send further details (possibly in 10 hours time when I will be more awake)?
Last edited:
email to ftanalyzer@gmail.com ideally with the sample GEDCOM so I can test with the same data set.
Release Candidate 2 available fixes issue with some Counts of missing Lost Cousins facts.
FTAnalyzer can carry out a census search for people who are missing but it never updates someone's tree so the user is always in control of THEIR tree. This is my guiding principal. The program never attempts to write data back to their family tree software. It will find data and suggest research matches but it is up to the user to determine if the suggestion is valid.
My gut feeling is that automated searches are great as it saves so much typing but at the end of the day a human has to make the decision on how to record the data otherwise it's nothing more than clicking random hints, and I loathe that. From a programming perspective it's easier too as there are so many different and varied formats of program out there to cater for them would be a nightmare and the risk of accidentally corrupting someone's data would be too high.
So whilst FTAnalyzer can find census records it is the user who will enter the data in their tree and therefore it's up to the user to accurately record the census reference. So naturally there is a scope for user error in the process.
Peter is right though when he said earlier that it's still up to the user to verify each entry again there is only so much an automated system can do. That said Peter's system already highlights some issues that need fixing and shows the user with a red mark they need to investigate.
What I'm not sure of is how extensive that checking is and whether that could be beefed up without adding too much extra load to the server?
I do however now have a situation when a user has logged in and uploaded their data that their ancestors page is loaded into FTAnalyzer (to prevent sending data that's already on the website). So it might be possible to have a routine that ran a check against that data via the link that's on the page already to the FMP site and check the index info on the FMP site against the reference info on LostCousins site (and in FTAnalyzer) for discrepancies.
My gut feeling is that automated searches are great as it saves so much typing but at the end of the day a human has to make the decision on how to record the data otherwise it's nothing more than clicking random hints, and I loathe that. From a programming perspective it's easier too as there are so many different and varied formats of program out there to cater for them would be a nightmare and the risk of accidentally corrupting someone's data would be too high.
So whilst FTAnalyzer can find census records it is the user who will enter the data in their tree and therefore it's up to the user to accurately record the census reference. So naturally there is a scope for user error in the process.
Peter is right though when he said earlier that it's still up to the user to verify each entry again there is only so much an automated system can do. That said Peter's system already highlights some issues that need fixing and shows the user with a red mark they need to investigate.
What I'm not sure of is how extensive that checking is and whether that could be beefed up without adding too much extra load to the server?
I do however now have a situation when a user has logged in and uploaded their data that their ancestors page is loaded into FTAnalyzer (to prevent sending data that's already on the website). So it might be possible to have a routine that ran a check against that data via the link that's on the page already to the FMP site and check the index info on the FMP site against the reference info on LostCousins site (and in FTAnalyzer) for discrepancies.
Alexander, the red exclamation marks indicate close matches with other entries in the database where the only difference is the name. But most of the time there won't be another entry in the database. Other than the reference checks (which you already have) the grey arrows are the primary means of checking the data at the LostCousins end.
One thought - although manually adding additional household members after the first is a pretty trivial task, I know there are quite a few members who, to save time, have only entered one or two members of a household. Is there any way of automatically pulling in the census data for the other members of the household who are in the user's tree, then updating their My Ancestors page automatically?
One thought - although manually adding additional household members after the first is a pretty trivial task, I know there are quite a few members who, to save time, have only entered one or two members of a household. Is there any way of automatically pulling in the census data for the other members of the household who are in the user's tree, then updating their My Ancestors page automatically?
Bryman
LostCousins Megastar
That might be very helpful but I would prefer that FTA lists the individuals found as potential updates and then to allow the user to modify/correct any information before requesting the update be made, rather than have everything fully automatic and require later correction if appropriate, such as when transcription is wrong.
For the most important censuses (1880/81) we use the information in the transcription anyway. Perhaps this feature could be introduced for those censuses only?