1881 UK Ancestry Census differs from FMP

[At home in NZ]

I have a family of 6 and used Ancestry, there are 3 missing in the FMP record.
Reference is 583/100/18
In Ancestry there is:
Charles
Emma
Laura
Alice
Henry
George
Last name is Maynard

In FMP there is
Charles
Emma
Laura
I cannot view the transcript in FMP as I do not have a sub.

Any suggestions as to why these three people are missing?

As an aside I am finding the visible transcriptions in FMP are often inaccurate.

 

[Heather]

Sorry "at home in NZ" not sure what you are asking here, the whole family are there on Ancestry and FMP.

 

[Helen7]

I see the family is split over 2 pages in the census. Alice, Henry and George are listed at ref. 583/100/19 on FMP but at 583/100/18 on Ancestry. Maybe this is why they aren't showing up in your FMP search.

 

[At home in NZ]

the whole family are there on Ancestry and FMP

They don't show up in FMP for me, I am checking my Ancestors using the arrows and only the first three names are in the result.

Alice, Henry and George are listed at ref. 583/100/19 on FMP

Thanks very much Helen7, I would never have found that out because I cannot see the full record in FMP.
Although this is probably not a frequent occurrence it's a drawback for those of us who do not subscribe to both sites.
I'll change the ref in My Ancestors page.
EDIT: I did that for Alice and the arrow couldn't find her so I've changed it back. It makes it look like there is a flaw in FMP.

 

[Pauline]

I'll change the ref in My Ancestors page.

As I understand it, everyone in a household should be entered on our My Ancestors page using the reference of the head of the household.

I believe this is how the 1881 census index was done initially, which is why there is sometimes a difference between Ancestry & FMP - Ancestry are still using the original index whereas FMP have updated theirs.

 

[peter]

You don't need to subscribe to Findmypast to see the transcripts! (That's why we use the 1881 Census)

You only need to be a subscriber to see the images. (That's why we use the transcripts in 1881.)

To see the entire household click the Transcript icon alongside the head of the household


(That's why we use Findmypast for this census.)

 

[Helen7]

Alice, Henry and George are listed at ref. 583/100/19 on FMP but at 583/100/18 on Ancestry.

Apologies, it's 583/101/19 on FMP (sorry, misread it in my earlier post).

But Pauline is quite right that everyone in a household should be entered on the My Ancestors page using the reference of the head of the household. So you need to use ref. 583/100/18 for all of the family.

 

[peter]

But Pauline is quite right that everyone in a household should be entered on the My Ancestors page using the reference of the head of the household.

This advice is on the Add Ancestor and Edit Ancestor forms - no need to remember it, just read the instructions!

 

[Helen7]

This advice is on the Add Ancestor and Edit Ancestor forms - no need to remember it, just read the instructions!

True, but if you click on the check arrow for a household member on the next page, they won't appear in the FMP results list if they've been assigned a different reference. I've found this to be the case with my 'split page' households. I haven't generally entered the name of the head of household where my relative is a lodger, but I have entered the reference for the head of household as per instructions (even though my relative isn't shown on clicking the check arrow).

 

[peter]

True, but if you click on the check arrow for a household member on the next page, they won't appear in the FMP results list if they've been assigned a different reference.

Correct, but when you click the icon to display the household it shows them all. See my earlier post.

 

[Helen7]

Correct, but when you click the icon to display the household it shows them all. See my earlier post.

Well yes, and it works for families, but in cases where I've only entered the lodger who is my relative, I can't remember the name of the head of household to display the whole household without looking up my original records. My fault, I should really have entered the head of household as 'landlord' I suppose!

 

[peter]

Well yes, and it works for families, but in cases where I've only entered the lodger who is my relative, I can't remember the name of the head of household to display the whole household without looking up my original records. My fault, I should really have entered the head of household as 'landlord' I suppose!

Why not just click the name of your relative, then when the household is displayed click the head of household. It only takes a couple of seconds.

 

[Helen7]

Why not just click the name of your relative, then when the household is displayed click the head of household. It only takes a couple of seconds.

I agree it's quick where you can rapidly identify the head of household. I'm talking about cases where I can't do so without looking up my original census record (admittedly not too difficult to look up from my family tree but takes more than a couple of seconds).

 

[peter]

I agree it's quick where you can rapidly identify the head of household. I'm talking about cases where I can't do so without looking up my original census record (admittedly not too difficult to look up from my family tree but takes more than a couple of seconds).

Just try what I suggested - it really takes 2 seconds.

 

[Helen7]

Just try what I suggested - it really takes 2 seconds.

I have done, but it takes more than 2 seconds. If I click on my relative, their surname is not listed in the FMP results. I then have to look up that census in my family tree (in FTM or Ancestry) to find out the name of the head of household so I can then go back to the FMP list and click on it to see the whole household.

 

[At home in NZ]

To see the entire household click the Transcript icon alongside the head of the household

Before I started this discussion I had clicked on an icon and was presented with the usual request to pay to see it. Having another attempt now, I can see the full list of people but I cannot view the image, perhaps I had used the wrong button for my first attempt.

Just try what I suggested - it really takes 2 seconds.

It does not if you have several trees and cannot immediately identify which tree your ancestor is in.
I have discovered you do not need to select the head of the household in order to see the transcript, it is working for me on all visible members of the family I raised this discussion for.

 

[Bryman]

I sometimes find an unexpected result if I have clicked on a child which is not on the same page as the Head of Household. Now I make sure that I always click on the Head of Household to avoid such errors.

 

[peter]

I cannot view the image,

Viewing the image requires a subscription - that's why we use the transcript for this census.

There is never a need to view the image when using the 1881 Census at LostCousins - all the information is in the household transcript. In fact, Findmypast didn't even have the 1881 images until several years after LostCousins started.

It was only at that point that Findmypast changed the census references for split households - previously they used the same protocol as FamilySearch (and Ancestry). Now, as Bryman says, you have to be careful that the references shown are the ones for the head of household, which is why I suggested clicking the head of household when the household transcript is displayed. Usually the references won't change, but it's a good habit to have, and only takes 2 seconds extra.

 

[peter]

I have discovered you do not need to select the head of the household in order to see the transcript, it is working for me on all visible members of the family I raised this discussion for.

Always click the head of household (in the household transcript) to make sure the correct census references are displayed. It really does only take 2 seconds!

 

[John Dancy]

Same subject as the title but a different 'issue' Tracing relatives in Derbyshire have found the images for the father's family and his son's the wrong way around on Ancestry although the references are correct. The reference for the son takes you to his father's page and you have to step back one (although from the reference it should have been plus one.