FMP v Ancestry

[Heather]

I really like using FMP finding Ancestry harder to use, I know everyone has their own favourite and it is good to have different sites to compare information. I do however have a problem with FMP regarding missing information. When I started my research I used Ancestry, especially when they had free use weekends. I have recently needed to go back to a few ancestors to try to do more research and found that even though I have the census reference number from Ancestry, I get no results on FMP when I do a census reference search. I have contacted FMP regarding this and they have admitted that there seems to be some information missing on their site and they are trying to fix it. I have revisited these searches a few times and now from the four pages that I could not find , two have now been included. Has anyone else had a similar problem with FMP?

 

[peter]

Since writing about Ancestry errors in my newsletter I've had a string of emails from members about parts of censuses that are missing from Ancestry but present at findmypast - but it wouldn't surprise me if sometimes it's the other round.

When you're scanning and transcribing 20 to 30 million records there are bound to be some inadvertent omissions - but when they occur it isn't necessarily the fault of Ancestry or findmypast - they can only scan what they're given.

For us it's easy - we can check one site against the other. For them it's more difficult - one of them has to be first, and whoever's second would no doubt consider it unethical to refer to the other's site.

Even when an omission is pointed out it is very hard to fix - they have to get access to the source material and scan it, which might cost thousands of pounds (we're not talking about handheld scanners, remember). And then they have to transcribe the records then slot both images and transcriptions into the database, which I'm told isn't a trivial task. So don't expect either Ancestry or findmypast to fill gaps in censuses overnight, and in some cases it will take months or even years.

There is one findmypast census that might appear to have gaps where there aren't - 1841. They didn't do the original transcription - it was done by Origins - and the book number was not transcribed for every county. So when you're doing a census reference search in 1841 you need to try it with and without the book number.

 

[Heather]

There is one findmypast census that might appear to have gaps where there aren't - 1841. They didn't do the original transcription - it was done by Origins - and the book number was not transcribed for every county. So when you're doing a census reference search in 1841 you need to try it with and without the book number.

Thanks Peter for this useful information. The question I now have is which number is the book number? On the search page on FMP for searching by the census reference number, the info required is, the census year - a drop down box, with eg 1841 HO 107, then piece number, folio number and page number, which has to be typed in, no provision for a book number. The problem I have with my two missing pages they are from the 1851 census and FMP have told me that yes those pages are missing and have thanked me for informing them and as you have said, they say it may take some time befor they can fix the problem.

 

[MARMOR]

Although I much prefer FMP, I've had a problem with "missing" or misplaced records. In the 1901 census there is an area of south Durham which has been transcribed as North Yorkshire. This affects Middleton St George, Hurworth and Neasham as far as I can tell and in all cases the census document itself clearly states Durham. FMP's response was that these are all taken from the National Archives catalogue and they were passing my email to their data team to check with the catalogue. Nothing has happened since I reported it at the end of May. What if the National Archives catalogue has got it wrong?

 

[peter]

Although I much prefer FMP, I've had a problem with "missing" or misplaced records. In the 1901 census there is an area of south Durham which has been transcribed as North Yorkshire. This affects Middleton St George, Hurworth and Neasham as far as I can tell and in all cases the census document itself clearly states Durham. FMP's response was that these are all taken from the National Archives catalogue and they were passing my email to their data team to check with the catalogue. Nothing has happened since I reported it at the end of May. What if the National Archives catalogue has got it wrong?

Ancestry also put Middleton St George in Yorkshire (although not Hurworth and Neasham). I imagine the confusion is because the Darlington Registration District spans both counties. Similarly, Stansted Mountfitchet - where LostCousins is based - is in Essex, but for census purposes it was in Hertfordshire (because it was in Bishop's Stortford Registration District until 1939).

 

[AnneC]

Stansted Mountfitchet - where LostCousins is based - is in Essex.

Up until a few weeks ago I had never heard of Stansted Mountfitchet, but then I found a family of second cousins came from there and started to research the area. I then met up with another lost cousin who was visiting from the US, and we arranged to meet just down the road from Stansted Mountfitchet. Three mentions in as many weeks....

 

[Heather]

There is one findmypast census that might appear to have gaps where there aren't - 1841. They didn't do the original transcription - it was done by Origins - and the book number was not transcribed for every county. So when you're doing a census reference search in 1841 you need to try it with and without the book number.

Thanks Peter but which one is the book number? On the search page on FMP for searching by the census reference number, the info required is, the census year - a drop down box, with eg 1841 HO 107, then piece number, folio number and page number, which has to be typed in, no provision for a book number.

 

[Cathy]

Findmypast combine the book number with the folio number with a slash between
eg Piece 484 Folio 8/6 Page 5 finds the page with my 2G grandfather

 

[MARMOR]

Ancestry also put Middleton St George in Yorkshire (although not Hurworth and Neasham). I imagine the confusion is because the Darlington Registration District spans both counties. Similarly, Stansted Mountfitchet - where LostCousins is based - is in Essex, but for census purposes it was in Hertfordshire (because it was in Bishop's Stortford Registration District until 1939).

I am intrigued to know which parts of the Darlington Registration District are or were in Yorkshire. In any case, surely the administrative county transcribed should be the same as that shown on the original census document.

 

[Katie Bee]

I am intrigued to know which parts of the Darlington Registration District are or were in Yorkshire.

Hi Marmor, the Genuki site lists the Darlington Registration Districts.
I have ancestors in Barton, North Yorkshire, but Darlington Registration District, which can cause problems.

I get no results on FMP when I do a census reference search. I have contacted FMP regarding this and they have admitted that there seems to be some information missing on their site and they are trying to fix it. I have revisited these searches a few times and now from the four pages that I could not find , two have now been included. Has anyone else had a similar problem with FMP?

Barton was left out of the FMP 1851 census until recently, so keep looking.
At least they now accept the problem, when I contacted FMP they told me they could not do my research for me!

 

[MARMOR]

Hi Marmor, the Genuki site lists the Darlington Registration Districts.
I have ancestors in Barton, North Yorkshire, but Darlington Registration District, which can cause problems.


Barton was left out of the FMP 1851 census until recently, so keep looking.
At least they now accept the problem, when I contacted FMP they told me they could not do my research for me!

Thanks for that Katie Bee but the GENUKI list only shows areas that are actually in North Yorkshire but came under Darlington for registration purposes. Middleton St George, Hurworth and Neasham are, and as far as I know, always have been in County Durham so to place them in North Yorkshire despite what is stated on the census document is a bit odd!

 

[peter]

Middleton St George, Hurworth and Neasham are, and as far as I know, always have been in County Durham so to place them in North Yorkshire despite what is stated on the census document is a bit odd!

It may be odd, but the fact that Ancestry also have Middleton St George in Yorkshire suggests that findmypast's comments about the National Archives Catalogue could be correct.

When you're searching for someone who lived near the county boundary it's always a good idea to search the adjoining county as well.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

when I contacted FMP they told me they could not do my research for me!

These companies must get hundreds if not thousands of emails a week. The vast majority of them may well be people confused about using the site or who are asking for advise on finding someone. Therefore it is not surprising to get a stock answer "we can't do your research for you". The challenge for the more knowledgeable researcher such as yourself Katie is to put across the genuine problem you have found with the data in a wording that lets them know you aren't just asking for a lookup.

It's too easy for them to mis-read and dismiss as another "I can't find 2g grandfather find him for me" email.

 

[Wendy Cooksey]

I really like using FMP finding Ancestry harder to use, I know everyone has their own favourite and it is good to have different sites to compare information. I do however have a problem with FMP regarding missing information. When I started my research I used Ancestry, especially when they had free use weekends. I have recently needed to go back to a few ancestors to try to do more research and found that even though I have the census reference number from Ancestry, I get no results on FMP when I do a census reference search. I have contacted FMP regarding this and they have admitted that there seems to be some information missing on their site and they are trying to fix it. I have revisited these searches a few times and now from the four pages that I could not find , two have now been included. Has anyone else had a similar problem with FMP?

I had a missing entry. Luckily I had the entry on Ancestry so was able to give FMP the reference numbers. They located it for me and corrected it. I have found FMP very quick to fix problems but Ancestry seems reluctant to do so--most frustrating. I use both sites so that I can cross check things. Ancestry has more records but has an appalling search engine. I have reported this with examples each time they ask me to do a survey, but nothing has changed. I find it hard to recommend this site to others because of this.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Ancestry does not need recommendations; Ancestry is what it is, warts and all. It is a Colossus and like one of its stature it falters and stumbles quite often. I have absolutely no axe to grind (or association with the LDS church where its own roots began) but do have tremendous admiration for a site that claims 11 billion worldwide records, 40 million family trees and 2 million paying subscribers (source Ancestry Com. Inc Reports Q3 2012 Financial Results). This in addition to its many associated sites (like Rootsweb.com) and of course Family Tree Maker software which links to Ancestry, and lays claim to being the No. 1 Family History Software.

So Ancestry cannot be ignored and for those who use it to its full potential (and yes I do claim to be one of those) then it is irreplaceable. Does this mean I use it to the exclusion of other research sources? No certainly not. Its records need to be balanced with (and checked against) other equally invaluable records especially those provided by Find my Past (or its ‘Brightsolid’ partner Genes Reunited). Then there are the myriad of other genealogical data bases available online, including those provided from County & ecclesiastical sources.

As I said at the start, Ancestry does not need recommendations but equally to ignore it puts any researcher at an immediate loss. Sooner or later everyone discovers Ancestry and family history research takes on a new element.

 

[trebor]

These companies must get hundreds if not thousands of emails a week. The vast majority of them may well be people confused about using the site or who are asking for advise on finding someone. Therefore it is not surprising to get a stock answer "we can't do your research for you". The challenge for the more knowledgeable researcher such as yourself Katie is to put across the genuine problem you have found with the data in a wording that lets them know you aren't just asking for a lookup.

I fully agree with you but sometimes FMP do read the question correctly and go that step further and find the missing item for you - this happened recently for me when trying to search the un-indexed Lincolnshire parish records. Some pages were out of order, they found them and pointed me in the right direction on more than one occasion.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Yup which is infinitely better than the usual response from Ancestry which can be roughly paraphrased as "we do it right and are too big to care what you think".

 

[Bob Spiers]

Yup which is infinitely better than the usual response from Ancestry which can be roughly paraphrased as "we do it right and are too big to care what you think".

To give some balance, not too long ago I contacted Ancestry about my dislike of the change to opening pages in Pedigree View rather than the dedicated family member page I had searched for and which hitherto had been the default.

They pointed out this change was actually in response to surveys which showed that a majority preferred a Pedigree View opening based around the last member researched (or as a new search). It was also possible now to switch to Family View by clicking the icon alongside. More importantly (which I think was the main reason) they said it now brought it into line with their Family Tree Maker software. They helpfully explained -although I had already sussed it for myself - that it was easy to switch to a dedicated page by moving my mouse over the family member's name, which would then auto underline and could be opened with a mouse click.

I knew it was a done deal even as I read their reply and to be fair it takes but a second to get where I want and not worth pursuing further. I offer the illustration to show Ancestry can respond in a civilised fashion, and on an even earlier communication (I had suggested a small viewing modification), I was told my suggestion 'was of interest' and would be passed to the appropriate review panel. Likely they would do no such thing, but at least they replied.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Oh yes they always reply but much as your answer illustrates they reply to tell you their way is better or they'll consider it, which as you note could mean anything. Never it seems do they reply to say that they have acted.

Even when what you report is a plain and simple bug eg: adding a new person will sometimes not show that person's details refreshed in the tree until you move off the record and back. I did find a 100% repeatable way of causing this and submitted it as a bug report and got the same stock reply, which made me wonder why I'd bothered spending ages tracking down a specific test case to demonstrate the problem.

 

[peter]

You can get any answer you want from surveys simply by asking questions in a certain way or restricting the answers. For example, the survey that Ancestry created in response to the uproar about their proposed ditching of the Old Search asked "What do you dislike about Old Search?" whereas the question I wanted to answer - "What do you dislike about New Search?" - simply wasn't asked.