• 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

Publicising Lost Cousins

Bryman said:
I do not wish to argue with you. The way that you work is your choice and not for me or anyone else to say that you are wrong. However, may I suggest that you could get some considerable benefit from progressively entering your paper held records into one of the fairly recent family tree programs. One major advantage that you would have over a new researcher is that you already have the information needed in your paper records.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify - I am no longer wholly reliant on paper records, nor have I been since the mid 1990s. Once internet enabled, I bought a family tree program and started designing my own genealogy website. I entered everyone in my tree into both, but while census details and references were uploaded to my website, it wasn't so easy back then to enter it into the family tree program, so I didn't.

Although my family tree program has been through numerous updates since the mid 90s (and is now almost in the latest version), as mentioned previously, it has never been my primary record. My main record keeping is done with research notes, once pencilled onto A4 sheets and now typed into my computer, and on my website.

I guess it works for me though I wouldn't be surprised if more organised folks are tearing their hair out over my methods! But the thought of spending hours and hours entering everything I have noted elsewhere into my family tree program fills me with dread - I'd rather be researching.
 
Alexander

FTA updated to 7.3.2.0 today so I loaded a GEDCOM to "have a play". Despite some errors (see below) LC was updated successfully with 12 new entries from the 25 without LC flags and my data updated accordingly.

There were a few errors reported, mostly of my making but three were of concern:
1. "0 @SI46@ INDI" had the "I" replaced with two characters - either 0 or O followed by I or 1, the sans font prevented identification but I suspect "01" :oops:
2. "0 @SI84@ INDI" was changed and was reported as the same person as "0 @SI184@ INDI"
3. "0 @SI3594@ INDI" and "0 @SI4298@ INDI" were reported as the same person

I have since made the Id references four digits, eg SI0046, and am now getting three errors before stopping at "Calculating Relationships..." because the root person is being reported as "child not found" . There is also a "child not found" for the root persons family where the parents are "unknown". As a result, there are three "lone individuals". The root family does not have a "S" or "M" prefix.

The letters "S", "M", "F", "I" are linked to my "filing" system.

Phil
 
Where in FTM does one enter census records? Just under person notes? Or under Web links - and if so, just how much of the web link?
 
PhilGee said:
I have since made the Id references four digits, eg SI0046, and am now getting three errors before stopping at "Calculating Relationships..." because the root person is being reported as "child not found" . There is also a "child not found" for the root persons family where the parents are "unknown". As a result, there are three "lone individuals". The root family does not have a "S" or "M" prefix.

The letters "S", "M", "F", "I" are linked to my "filing" system.

Phil
Click to expand...
Hmm interesting. FTAnalyzer will add prefix 0's to allow for proper sorting but only where the ID starts with an I. When you say these errors were reported where were they reported? On the loading screen or elsewhere? I did include a fix for missing root person when the ID had zero prefixes so that might be fixed already in v7.3.2.2.
 
canadianbeth said:
Where in FTM does one enter census records? Just under person notes? Or under Web links - and if so, just how much of the web link?
Click to expand...
You click the + button to add a fact (not the little arrow beside the plus) then scroll down and choose CENSUS as the fact type.

Basically any fact you add you click + and add the appropriate fact type for the fact you are adding.
 
Is anyone checking each individual record added to My Ancestors page by the new facility of FTA 7.3?

I have found several duplicates added by my tests using the beta versions which will need to be deleted in due course. They do not appear to be duplicates by the LC checks performed so have been added erroneously. I believe this has come about where there were 'errors' on the original census forms/transcriptions so they differ slightly from the details on the generated GEDCOM file used by FTA, ie name spellings and DoB. I do not know if similar duplicates may still be added using the latest versions of FTA.
 
In the census references, what do you enter for Schedule Number if there isn't one on the census sheet? I have several in the 1911 census where the person (in one case a whole family) is in the Army or an institution where there is no SN. FTA comes back with 'incomplete reference' for these, and Lost Cousins won't accept a blank in the SN field.
 
I'm planning on adding a feature where it checks the FindMyPast records. At present it checks for duplicates via the name being the same or similar the age being within 2 years and the reference being identical. Specific examples of duplicates may help. I'm wondering if I should only be comparing on forename not forenames for example. As the middle name may be the issue.
 
Alexander Bisset said:
Hmm interesting. FTAnalyzer will add prefix 0's to allow for proper sorting but only where the ID starts with an I. When you say these errors were reported where were they reported? On the loading screen or elsewhere? I did include a fix for missing root person when the ID had zero prefixes so that might be fixed already in v7.3.2.2.
Click to expand...

These errors were on the loading screen but, as you comment, FTA updated this morning and everything seems to be working. They were, also, the only three without a "M" or "S" prefix! Much appreciate your efforts :)

Phil
 
Helen7 said:
In the census references, what do you enter for Schedule Number if there isn't one on the census sheet? I have several in the 1911 census where the person (in one case a whole family) is in the Army or an institution where there is no SN. FTA comes back with 'incomplete reference' for these, and Lost Cousins won't accept a blank in the SN field.
Click to expand...
Not quite following Helen. Can you post a link to the census that you're talking about?
Often Ancestry hasn't added the schedule number and you have to go and get it from viewing the sheet.
 
Bryman said:
I do not know if similar duplicates may still be added using the latest versions of FTA.
Click to expand...
Yes updating to FTA 7.3.2.2 and following through with an Update to Lost Cousins, it seems to have added duplicates which LC reports as 18 records need to be checked. Some of these are the same duplicates as found when using an earlier beta copy, each of which was dutifully checked and corrected for some slight variance (mostly middle names or initial as I recall). So will have to do the same again. Perhaps Alexander will comment.

Edit: it seems FTA adds in again something previously corrected in LC and presumably this will reoccur. I had expected the 'already present' would prevent this but seemingly not as the middle names or initial variances still determines the person is different to the one shown in LC?
 
Last edited:
I also have some instances where there are full duplicates appearing on My Ancestors page! They probably have different IDs so FTA tries to update LC but the ID does not get passed to LC so why are duplicates appearing when viewed in Household sort order. I will investigate further in the morning.
 
Tim said:
Not quite following Helen. Can you post a link to the census that you're talking about?
Often Ancestry hasn't added the schedule number and you have to go and get it from viewing the sheet.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know you have to view the Schedule Number on the sheet as Ancestry usually doesn't include it in the reference. The situation I'm talking about is where there is no SN on the original image, because it's from an institution or military barracks.
 
Bob Spiers said:
Yes updating to FTA 7.3.2.2 and following through with an Update to Lost Cousins, it seems to have added duplicates which LC reports as 18 records need to be checked. Some of these are the same duplicates as found when using an earlier beta copy, each of which was dutifully checked and corrected for some slight variance (mostly middle names or initial as I recall). So will have to do the same again. Perhaps Alexander will comment.

Edit: it seems FTA adds in again something previously corrected in LC and presumably this will reoccur. I had expected the 'already present' would prevent this but seemingly not as the middle names or initial variances still determines the person is different to the one shown in LC?
Click to expand...
Thanks Bob. I'll upload v7.3.2.3 with a fix can you use the preview to check if it is going to upload duplicates again.
 
Of course the long term solution is to tag the person as having been entered in Lost Cousins manually this will override any checks to upload.

Note though anyone uploaded should be recorded in your database and tagged with a Lost Cousins tag. If on a fresh load you are still seeing people needing updated can you use the backup database option on the file menu and email me the file to ftanalyzer@gmail.com so I can check why the database isn't recording the record. I suspect it may be the same issue Tim had as he'd used lots of the betas and hadn't got the updated database done right.
 
Alexander Bisset said:
Of course the long term solution is to tag the person as having been entered in Lost Cousins manually this will override any checks to upload.

Note though anyone uploaded should be recorded in your database and tagged with a Lost Cousins tag. If on a fresh load you are still seeing people needing updated can you use the backup database option on the file menu and email me the file to ftanalyzer@gmail.com so I can check why the database isn't recording the record. I suspect it may be the same issue Tim had as he'd used lots of the betas and hadn't got the updated database done right.
Click to expand...
I've created manual LC Facts for all of mine :cool:
 
Helen7 said:
Yes, I know you have to view the Schedule Number on the sheet as Ancestry usually doesn't include it in the reference. The situation I'm talking about is where there is no SN on the original image, because it's from an institution or military barracks.
Click to expand...
I believe what you need to enter is 9999 for this type.
 
The problem with duplicates is probably the requirements for the name entered:
- 1841 and 1911 - as on transcript
- 1881 - as on image
whereas the GEDCOM will have "what I believe is the correct name" based on evidence available (Certs etc); excluding those who "randomly" add names to people :rolleyes:

Due to the way I store "raw" data, every census sub-record ("1 CENS" in the GEDCOM) has the reference data and the name from the image as interpreted by me (I have time to look at the handwriting in detail, unlike the transcribers).

Anyway, the simple test I have done is now responding as expected with the raw census data set to generate the necessary LC flags in the future.

Phil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top