Other way round!
-
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
canadianbeth
LostCousins Star
Thanks, Alexander and Bob. I tried it with a couple of people and it shows the information in the right-hand column. I also entered the actual link.
I have 9999 in one of my 1911 census records, for one of my great-uncles.
I have 9999 in one of my 1911 census records, for one of my great-uncles.
PhilGee
LostCousins Member
Oops! Apologies, Peter
Bryman
LostCousins Megastar
Panic over, there are no duplicate entries on My Ancestors page. There had been a one letter misinterpretation of the surname in the transcription of the census entry so the error was corrected and displayed in italic font but looked like standard text.
As we say in England, "should have gone to Specsavers".
We say that in Scotland too (and Wales before Red chips in).
Last edited:
Peter am I right in thinking that if someone wants to upload their wife's family for matches the correct procedure is to create a second account and add her relatives census references to that account.
In FTAnalyzer this can be achieved by using the second account login details and setting the root person as his wife.
In FTAnalyzer this can be achieved by using the second account login details and setting the root person as his wife.
Margery
LostCousins Member
And in Oz!
In the interests of inclusivity I should mention that the Specsavers head office is based in Guernsey, and they have branches in Ireland, so they probably say it there, too.
Bryman
LostCousins Megastar
In fact the joke is on Specsavers because they say it here in NZ too and my eyes were tested by them recently and shown to be better than ever!
I have been checking my uploaded data and realised that my married females had been entered with there maiden names as this how I have then in my family tree.
I have gone into LC and sorted my records by household and am now amended the surnames to those found on the census, this may also mean that some of my Forenames are wrong as well.
revised comment
going through I have found some with the correct (married) surname but have not been able to find out why they are behaving in different ways
I have gone into LC and sorted my records by household and am now amended the surnames to those found on the census, this may also mean that some of my Forenames are wrong as well.
revised comment
going through I have found some with the correct (married) surname but have not been able to find out why they are behaving in different ways
Last edited:
jorghes
LostCousins Superstar
It does that with mine as well, to be honest, unless it says "Unknown", I've been ignoring it.
Just another note, this update (with the new release) for every single record it says failed, it actually succeeded... so keep an eye on those you think may have failed! (this has been for 1881 census entries so far).
The grey arrows should always be used to check new entries, and this is especially important if you're uploading data using FTA for the reasons you've stated (and, in the case of the census where we use the transcribed data, transcription errors).
PhilGee
LostCousins Member
Is that due to not having a "marriage" record? The few new entries I have added to date all had the correct surname and maiden name entered. I haven't entered anyone on LC with custom "married" data, which identifies a spouse where the family is not currently included (giving me a start point if/when that status changes).
All my GEDCOM census entries have the format "1 CENS Ref: Class RG11; Piece 2148; Folio 31; Page 3; (Schedule 11) [Name: Edward Gregory Scott; Age: 3m (1881)]" which places the text following "1 CENS" in the Ancestry "description" field - the name/age is my interpretation of the census image! The "Ref:" element, of course, is processed by FTA.
Phil
Somebody asked me whether relatives added during the period of the competition should count even if the data is incorrect. There seem to be three options: one is to disqualify all incorrect entries, another is to allow all entries irrespective of whether they are correct or not, and the middle course is to allow entries which whilst not completely correct, would show up as a near match.
What do others think?
What do others think?
It uses the name at the time of the event as best as it can determine it. So if the marriage date is entered and before the census it will use their marriage date. If it's after the census or not entered it will use maiden name.
Note I'm going to be adding a checking function that takes the data you've entered manually and via FTAnalyzer and cross reference with the FMP indexes using the links from the site. It will then give a traffic light indication if the data all matches green. If there is some tolerance involved (age slightly out or fuzzy match on name) then yellow, if the record needs to be a transcription match and it is close but not quite then orange to show it's bad but not entirely wrong. Finally red for that doesn't match the FMP index at all.
Hopefully this will allow users to very quickly visually see where they have mistakes and need to fix them. The aim being to get them all green so the matching algorithm works properly.
Hopefully this will allow users to very quickly visually see where they have mistakes and need to fix them. The aim being to get them all green so the matching algorithm works properly.