Scotland 1881 search fault

[Bob Spiers]

But, lo and behold, I tried it again this morning and it worked! So whatever was wrong has apparently been fixed.

Yes I agree, and checked again the arrow alongside the one that previous produced a 'zero match' error and it worked. Likely just an Ancestry self rectification, who knows?

 

[Helen7]

Thanks Helen and I cannot blame you for agreeing, but what you (they) fail to understand -but I thought obvious - is what if the Head of Household is NOT a family member?

I can see your reluctance to use the reference for a Head of Household who is unrelated to you. However, if the people are all living in a single household, I take the instructions to mean that you use the page where the Head of Household appears. I have several examples of this where my relative is a live-in servant, and clearly the Head is not a family member, but I've entered the Head as related by Employment, and used their page in the reference, even where my relative is on the next page.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Sorry if my ‘agree’ disrupted your sleep. I was going to write something, but having just moved house, time and energy are in short supply.

Actually it was my bedtime crossword that suffered as I decided to respond online instead. But I do understand all about house moves being strenuous and energy sapping, so you are excused.

My response to Helen explains the point I thought I was making about the Head of Household not being a family member, so will let you pick up from there.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I take the instructions to mean that you use the page where the Head of Household appears

Yes that is factual and the 'rule' - and I have long expressed my feelings on rules -'RULES ARE MADE FOR THE GUIDANCE OF WISE MEN*, AND THE OBEDIENCE OF FOOLS' *(apologies for being non-pc, but I merely quote a well known saying)

I prefer the 'guidance' bit and cringe at 'fools', and would rather see some sort of caveat built in as ISASSC ASIMOV did when writing the Rules for Robots. Always obey Rule 1 unless it impacts on Rule 2 (and Rule 2 unless..and so on). There is and always will be a Rule 2, or put another way an alternative reason to divert or modify a rule. Sadly one only has think of the Covid Pandemic to understand that.

 

[PhilGee]

I have to disagree, Bob - there is no ambiguity in the instructions. The instructions relate to census data where the "household" is determined by the enumerator, not family relationships, and (usually) clearly defined on the paperwork. If you decide to ignore the instructions (not rules) you get into the "rubbish in, rubbish out" mode that computers are very adept at implementing

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have to disagree, Bob - there is no ambiguity in the instructions. The instructions relate to census data where the "household" is determined by the enumerator, not family relationships, and (usually) clearly defined on the paperwork. If you decide to ignore the instructions (not rules) you get into the "rubbish in, rubbish out" mode that computers are very adept at implementing

Lovely to hear from you Phil and may I say, for once, I understand the position you take and the reasons given. Unfortunately I view family relationships above all else and if this bias causes divergence from the Enumerator determined 'household' - my conscience is quite clear. The way the facts and details are recorded in Tribal Pages is my prime priority so that family can follow things without the complexities that surround genealogical research.

 

[peter]

So whatever was wrong has apparently been fixed.

Excellent news - and I can confirm that they have also fixed the similar problem with the 1881 England & Wales census.

 

[peter]

Lovely to hear from you Phil and may I say, for once, I understand the position you take and the reasons given. Unfortunately I view family relationships above all else and if this bias causes divergence from the Enumerator determined 'household' - my conscience is quite clear. The way the facts and details are recorded in Tribal Pages is my prime priority so that family can follow things without the complexities that surround genealogical research.

How you record census entries in your family tree and at Tribal Pages is entirely up to you. However if you want to find matches with other LostCousins members then, as others have pointed out, you have to follow the instructions whether you like them or not.

Pauline correctly remembered that the 1881 Census was originally recorded in precisely the same way - if you have a computer old enough to support the LDS CD ROMs you'll be able to confirm this. Naturally we adopted the same system at LostCousins -it would have been completely counter-intuitive to have done anything different.

As it turned out, it was fortunate that we did adopt that system - the concept of households didn't exist when LostCousins launched, and the only reason that you can view your entries by household today is because we sort them into household using the census references.

You seem to be confusing households with families - they are not the same thing, as anyone who has lived in a shared house or shared flat can tell you.

 

[Bob Spiers]

How you record census entries in your family tree and at Tribal Pages is entirely up to you. However if you want to find matches with other LostCousins members then, as others have pointed out, you have to follow the instructions whether you like them or not.

I think we can close by saying I note what you say but will, as always, interpret things in my own way. If this gels with LC standard practice -and mostly it does - good, if not the devil take the hindmost. I am not a person who reads instructions -as my wife knows only too well - and even when I do I tend to cherry pick those that make sense (to me of course) and those that do not.

In a way I am sorry I entered this discussion, and did so for the best reasons possible, to see if I could unravel the problem. I did not of course, but am pleased it has been fixed anyway. Along the way I identified a 'household' versus 'family' anomaly which made no sense to me, then or now. I now know everything hinges on the original LDS concept of Households which LC adopted so I thank my lucky stars households are merely items of interest in the way I record things, and families take precedence every time.

It may disappoint that LC matching plays far less a role in my way or working, although I have always saluted the concept (and its creator). I actively contributed in adding Ancestors which in time earned me Superstar although just as happy as a Member. I will continue to pay my subscription and love contributing in the Forum. When all is said and done I prefer to play by the rules, but never lose sight of the concept that they act as a guidance, and not just for blind obedience.

 

[peter]

I now know everything hinges on the original LDS concept of Households which LC adopted

You've got the wrong end of the stick - the difference between households and families is nothing to do with the LDS or LostCousins.

From the 1851 Census onwards, each household - not each family - completed a separate census form - a household schedule. Everyone in the household was listed on the same form, whether they were related to each other or not. Although we don't see the household schedules until 1911, you can see the schedule numbers in the enumerators' summary books - they are in the first column. Had the schedule numbers been transcribed we might well have used the household schedule number as one of the census references, but they weren't - so we use the folio and page numbers instead.

The protocol that the LDS adopted, and we followed, is to use the census references for the head of household for everyone in that household - it's logical because it groups everyone in the same household together, just as they would have been had the schedule number been used instead.

When all is said and done I prefer to play by the rules, but never lose sight of the concept that they act as a guidance, and not just for blind obedience.

Nobody but you can see the entries on your My Ancestors page - they're only there so that they can be matched by the computer against the unseen entries that other members have made. The detailed instructions on the form are there to ensure that members who enter the same relative enter the same data. If you enter one of the census references differently, irrespective of the reasoning behind it, you won't get a match.

 

[peter]

The protocol that the LDS adopted, and we followed, is to use the census references for the head of household for everyone in that household - it's logical because it groups everyone in the same household together, just as they would have been had the schedule number been used instead.

It's worth noting that Ancestry still follow this protocol for the 1881 England & Wales census (and so did Findmypast for a number of years).

 

[Bob Spiers]

You've got the wrong end of the stick - the difference between households and families is nothing to do with the LDS or LostCousins.

Oh I got the right end of the stick Peter, but -immortalising the words of Morecombe and Wise in their famous Andre Previn sketch - 'not necessarily in the right order'.

The detailed instructions on the form are there to ensure that members who enter the same relative enter the same data. If you enter one of the census references differently, irrespective of the reasoning behind it, you won't get a match.

I freely admit that there have been occasions -very few I might add - when I chose not to enter the nominal 'Head of Household' although where I did then his/her census references would have been used throughout. But when omitted I would start with 'Head of Family' and use his or her census reference in lieu (which may of course been the same as Head of Household). I have also omitted 'sundry household others' (visitors/lodgers/borders) who I deemed of no interest. I see absolutely no reason to enter every Tom, Dick & Harry just because they are in the Household, so I doubt I will change practice, although I might think about the pros and cons first.

Whilst in the Confession box, I also admit to only occasional use of the arrow checking method. I do so if an entry is queried or if I think the census references I am using are vague or indistinct. I do agree however it is a useful 'back-up' tool to have.

So to sum up and bow out of this thread: if any of my actions (or inactions) have jeopardised matching, that is sad but one cannot miss what one never had, and that works on both sides. I have no complaints on the number of matches found over the years from a variety of genealogical sources (Ancestry & DNA related in particular) so any garnered via LC I regard as a bonus.

 

[peter]

I see absolutely no reason to enter every Tom, Dick & Harry just because they are in the Household

I certainly don't advocate entering people just because they're in the same household - only do this when there is a good reason. However, whether the head of household is a relative or not, it's their census references that should be used.

I also admit to only occasional use of the arrow checking method. I do so if an entry is queried or if I think the census references I am using are vague or indistinct. I do agree however it is a useful 'back-up' tool to have.

The checking arrows were originally put in to make it easier for me to check members' entries. However there are almost 4 million entries and only one of me, so it makes much more sense for members to do their own checking. Just as entries only need to be input once, they only need to be checked once - it's not a great burden.

The arrows make it so quick to check the entries I don't know why anyone would forgo them - other than hubris or obstinacy. It takes a minute or two to enter a household, but only a few seconds to check the entry using the arrows.

I have no complaints on the number of matches found over the years from a variety of genealogical sources (Ancestry & DNA related in particular) so any garnered via LC I regard as a bonus.

It's not the quantity of matches that matters, it's the quality. I may have tens of thousands of DNA matches, and made contact with hundreds of cousins, but the number of cousins found at Ancestry who I'm actively collaborating with can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

 

[At home in NZ]

The arrows make it so quick to check the entries I don't know why anyone would forgo them - other than hubris or obstinacy. It takes a minute or two to enter a household, but only a few seconds to check the entry using the arrows.

When I used Family Tree Analyser to add ancestors it added about 400 (at a guess) so checking every one of those was too daunting. Even more so when I have to look at an unfamiliar format (yes I mean the dreaded FMP) and sometimes at two pages. It takes me more than a few seconds!

I have not entered any ancestors to partake in the current competition because it is the wrong time of year. It's summer, spring growth was phenomenal this year so I have a garden to maintain as well as Christmas preparations to do.

 

[peter]

When I used Family Tree Analyser to add ancestors it added about 400 (at a guess) so checking every one of those was too daunting. Even more so when I have to look at an unfamiliar format (yes I mean the dreaded FMP) and sometimes at two pages. It takes me more than a few seconds!

When you use Family Tree Analyzer it's essential to check your entries against the census because the program takes the information from your family tree, and not from the census. This means there will inevitably be many differences.

Typically there will be discrepancies in the names and/or ages of around half of the entries, and because of this it takes longer than a few seconds per household - correcting the incorrect entries is even more time-consuming. However, as an incorrect entry won't match with your cousins' entries it's well worth getting them right.

 

[Gill14]

I used FTA to add the 1911 censuses entries from my tree to Lost Cousins in November 2020. I thought I'd kept a track of the 1881 census entries and most 1841 entries but had added few, if any from the 1911. I now have 2670 1911 entries. I then had a message telling me to check some entries, which I've now finally worked through. However, having been told it is essential to make sure you add the information from the census as it is transcribed, it is upsetting to now discover that FTA uses the info in my tree not the census to add records. Indeed FTA adds people who were not even alive at the time of the census or indeed a part of the household. I now have over 2700 census entries to check. I am daunted by the amount of time and effort required to check each and every entry, which is why I've been putting it off. Firstly it takes over a minute watching that little wheel whirring round while the thing is checked and then I'm taken back to the top of the page before I can look at the next entry. I am very frustrated.

 

[At home in NZ]

I'm taken back to the top of the page before I can look at the next entry. I am very frustrated.

I also find this frustrating.
I haven't added anything for ages because it takes so long to do the checking.
However, when I used FTA it did not add people who weren't alive at the time of the census.

 

[peter]

Firstly it takes over a minute watching that little wheel whirring round while the thing is checked and then I'm taken back to the top of the page before I can look at the next entry. I am very frustrated.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about the little wheel, but if you're referring to the delay between clicking the checking arrow and the census search page appearing, I only have to wait about 3 seconds, even though my Internet connection is one of the slowest in the UK.

The quickest way to check your entries is to check a household at a time and do any editing in a separate tab (you can then return to the original tab). Also see the other tips at the end of this post.

Please bear in mind that the checking isn't automatic - it's up to you to compare your entries against the search results, bearing in mind that for the 1911 census it's the handwritten census that matters (though the transcript is an excellent guide to the ages of your relatives , and also to whether some forenames have been omitted, or are shown only as initials.

The only part of the checking that is 'sort of' automatic is the census references for UK censuses - if you've got those wrong you won't get the right search results (and may not get any at all).

I haven't added anything for ages because it takes so long to do the checking.

The answer is surely to enter your relatives manually, as most other members do? I find that the time taken to enter relatives on my My Ancestors page manually is negligible compared to the time it takes to find them on the census and record information in my tree.

There are some tricks everyone can use when entering relatives manually to speed up the process, for example:

• Always use a computer, not a smartphone or tablet
• I work from a printout of the census page/transcript - it saves a lot of time and reduces the chance of making a mistake; the paper isn't wasted, I file it with my other paper records for the same line or branch
• Use the tab key to move between fields, rather than the mouse, and hit Enter to add the entry rather than clicking; if you haven't moved the mouse the pointer will still be over the + button so all you have to do is left-click to enter another relative in the same household
• If you're at all worried you might have entered the census references incorrectly, click the checking arrow after entering the first person in the household - that way only one entry will need to be amended
• If you do need to amend or delete an entry do it in a new tab (right-click); you can then go back to the Current household screen and refresh it
• Tempting though it is to click the Search button after entering each new household, I don't - it slows the process down considerably because of the time it takes to redisplay the My Ancestors page

If it takes longer than a minute to enter an average household (or two for a large household)

 

[At home in NZ]

If it takes longer than a minute to enter an average household (or two for a large household)

That looks like an unfinished sentence.

In response to some of the points:
I always use a computer.
I rarely print anything, especially not census records because I create a jpg of each one and attach it to the profile(s). I don't need heaps of paper records that will more than likely not even be looked at when somebody clears my deceased estate.

Using two tabs is second nature to me but right click does not procure a second tab.
I worked with computers for many years, two screens became the norm for those of us in IT positions (not technical for me) but that's not practical in a home situation.

I used FTA because I have the document 'A Guide to using Family Tree Analyzer and Lost Cousins'. It was an easy way of finding all the census records in my trees.
If FTA is not the way to go, what are you going to do to prevent LC members from using it?

 

[peter]

Using two tabs is second nature to me but right click does not procure a second tab.

This screenshot shows part of the menu that comes up when I right-click in Chrome:

I worked with computers for many years, two screens became the norm for those of us in IT positions (not technical for me) but that's not practical in a home situation.

Thanks - it's a good paper-saving suggestion for those who can manage it. Many people have a tablet as well as a computer, which is why I felt it necessary to remind members to use their computer when they're completing their My Ancestors page. Others have a desktop and a laptop, which gives them two screens - or you could use a TV.

But I prefer to use paper - I need to keep paper files anyway, since I don't believe in throwing away documents after scanning them.

I used FTA because I have the document 'A Guide to using Family Tree Analyzer and Lost Cousins'. It was an easy way of finding all the census records in my trees.
If FTA is not the way to go, what are you going to do to prevent LC members from using it?

Why should I prevent members from using FTA? It's a very valuable utility.