Census References

[Bryman]

I might be the only person making this mistake but thought that I ought to share this information just in case I am not alone (and at the risk of showing myself to be an eejit ).

I have read Peter's instructions about using the census reference of the first family member where the family details are split across two pages but did not realise that I was not always following them!

I did not appreciate this until I found an instance in the 1901 census where a family of 11 members was split with 3 on one page (Folio 6 Page 4) and 8 on the following page (Folio 7 Page 5). I had searched for one of the children and found the whole transcribed family under the second reference. I had then recorded that reference for all members of the family, not realising that the family had been split across two pages.

Much later, I made another search for the head of the household and was returned the reference for the first of the two pages. When I saw the different Folio numbers, I thought that there had been an error with the indexing at FMP. FMP Support then told me that there are only ever two pages to a Folio and their indexing is correct! There is no Folio 6 Page 5.

I shall now have to go back and check all of my census references, at least on My Ancestors page, in order to make sure that matches have not been missed due to my incompetence.

In future I will have to remember to always check the census image, or at least perform the search for the first member of the family (not necessarily the Head of Household???). Previously, I have only checked the original image when there appears to be something wrong or unexpected.

 

[Liberty]

Bryman, how discouraging!
You are certainly not an eejit or incompetent, and thanks for alerting us to the importance of checking the original image. It's not just references that can get messed up; I have found some relatives entered under completely wrong surnames because the transcriber has misunderstood what the 'ditto' referred to.

 

[emjay]

Bryman, how discouraging!
You are certainly not an eejit or incompetent, and thanks for alerting us to the importance of checking the original image. It's not just references that can get messed up; I have found some relatives entered under completely wrong surnames because the transcriber has misunderstood what the 'ditto' referred to.

Yes, Golden Rule : Always check the original ! Not viewing the original is potentially missing out on some interesting information. I always download the original image
which goes to my photo/image programme ("FastStone Image Viewer") from where I can re-name and drag and drop into folders e.g. '1881' , '1911' or family name folders. Occasionally I browse them and spot info I had not noticed before (or forgotten about).

 

[Britjan]

Checking forward and back at least two images at least in rural settings is invaluable. My finds particularly on 1881 census include a whole bunch of misspelled/transcribed relatives and helped confirm future "related by marriage" LC's. The old phrase "it takes a village" certainly rings true when it come to matchmaking.

 

[Liberty]

Checking forward and back at least two images at least in rural settings is invaluable. My finds particularly on 1881 census include a whole bunch of misspelled/transcribed relatives and helped confirm future "related by marriage" LC's. The old phrase "it takes a village" certainly rings true when it come to matchmaking.

Good point - though this tip isn't limited to the original images. The FreeCen records allow you to move forward/backward by household. This walk along the street sometimes reveals a lot about who is living next door , or sometimes in the same house but called a different household.

 

[Bryman]

Yes, Golden Rule : Always check the original ! Not viewing the original is potentially missing out on some interesting information.

I am learning (albeit slowly) and am glad that I decided to start this discussion. I had not expected any of the more experienced forum members to have made the same mistake as me but hope that others, especially when this forum is opened up to all, will avoid any necessity to go back and revisit all their earlier research.

Initially, I did not record which sources the information had been obtained from as I was in a rush to make progress! Apart from obvious/apparent transcription errors there did not seem to be a need to look at the original census form. Then I made notes so that I could go back and recheck if/when inconsistencies appeared. Now I try to record a lot more, especially in a standard format to help with a mechanised analysis such as via FTA. However, I am probably still not doing enough and there are still many holes yet to be filled in.

This fine detail seems unnecessary at first when starting out but revisiting is such a pain later when the number of branches in the family tree has grown.
Fortunately, the instance described in the original post related to the 1901 census which does not affect the LC matching but I am still having to check all other records, just in case. No similar mistakes found so far but it is difficult to keep motivated. I almost hope to find a few errors just to make it all seem 'worthwhile'.

Thanks also to Britjan and Liberty for their comments about viewing adjacent images as that may help me find missing entries where some people are inexplicably omitted from a particular census, even when allowing for name variations.

 

[Bryman]

This fine detail seems unnecessary at first when starting out but revisiting is such a pain later when the number of branches in the family tree has grown. Fortunately, the instance described in the original post related to the 1901 census which does not affect the LC matching but I am still having to check all other records, just in case. No similar mistakes found so far but it is difficult to keep motivated. I almost hope to find a few errors just to make it all seem 'worthwhile'.

Phew, what a chore! However, I have now checked the LC census years for 1841, 1881 and 1911 and found a similar error in one of the 1881 records.
If anyone else is not examining the original source images as a matter of course then please change your ways immediately. Much, much better sooner rather than later. I have found a surprising number of instances where families are split across adjacent pages and it is then very easy to get the reference wrong.

My 1881 error involved a direct ancestor who was recorded twice, firstly with her parents and then additionally while visiting her older married sister. In the second case, only the sister's husband was recorded at the bottom of a page and the rest of the household and visitors were shown on the next Folio/Page. When I originally searched for my ancestor, the whole household was shown on the transcribed record under the second reference. Without checking the original image, the wrong reference was duly recorded on the LC database and automatic matches would not have been possible.

Unfortunately, a subsequent check for new matches did not find any. A positive result would have made my day.

As it was, I took Emjay's advice while checking the census records and downloaded them to my computer. All details now match those on the LC database but I did notice one omission from my records where a widowed head of household was shown with her 8 year old grand daughter and I don't even know who her parents were! Yet another task for another day. Perhaps this cloud will have a silver lining yet.

 

[peter]

In case anyone missed it, this issue was the subject of an article in my previous newsletter.