British (and Irish) Newspaper Archive Special Offer

[Bryman]

You only have the compare the two sets of results to see that Google didn't - if it had then you would have got the results below.

Sorry Peter but that is a very blinkered reaction and I expected better from you. Google did do as Bob said but not in the order that you were expecting. I have never needed to add the word "acronym" to obtain the appropriate definition so would not have found two sets of results to compare. Please don't assume that everyone has the same knowledge as you or even that everyone thinks the same way as you.

I don't expect everyone to know what DNB stands for, but I do expect researchers to know how to use Google.

I think that I do know how to use Google but I would have probably missed what DNB stands for if I had performed a search. Having spent much of my working life in the computer industry, I have been subjected to a lot of jargon and found that expansion of acronyms when first used saves a lot of confusion.

When I started to create this post there was another from you containing the initials BNA but that seems to have disappeared while I have been writing so I cannot include the quote. My initial search for BNA only produced references to "Brand New Animal" so I then tried adding the word "acronym" to the search and found . . .



and failed to find the relevance to the US Census block numbering area so even the inclusion of "acronym" does not always get the result that you intended. It is always better to define terms when first used and avoid confusion amongst readers.

 

[At home in NZ]

It's possible that in New Zealand you get slightly different results from those shown below, but Bob is in the UK.

Google is Google isn't it? If I want something pertaining to NZ I add NZ to my search words, likewise UK or any other country.

I used a different search, I typed 'dnb meaning' into my browser. It came up with a lot of suggested websites and I went to this acronym finder where you will see that DNB is in fact Dunn and Bradstreet's stock symbol.

 

[jorghes]

Do you have evidence that this is the case? If not it seems like a very big assumption.

In my experience the ages of young children, servants, and very old people are more likely than most to be overstated, but there are plenty of people whose age is understated, so if you presume their age has been rounded up you'll be at least 2 years out.

Simply that generally when you find a birth register entry for the same individual, say the census says 1874 (as mentioned previously with Ada), then the register entry will often be 1873. I assume only because of shear weight of numbers, but of course would not limit myself to this, and not do I change an entry on my tree until I have evidence of a birth year one way or another.

But as with Ada, whose age as I mentioned could be as much as 8 years out on a census and up to 15 years out on the 1939 Register, you evaluate each case on the evidence you find.

 

[canadianbeth]

I am not sure just how to do that. I do not see an option for clearing them; I just see keep filters and exact search. I just entered her name on the home page and got a great many results for the name but not her.

 

[Heather]

When I started to create this post there was another from you containing the initials BNA but that seems to have disappeared while I have been writing so I cannot include the quote. My initial search for BNA only produced references to "Brand New Animal" so I then tried adding the word "acronym" to the search and found . . .

Post number 38 Bryman.

BNA UK in Google produces British Newspaper Archive.

 

[peter]

Sorry Peter but that is a very blinkered reaction and I expected better from you. Google did do as Bob said but not in the order that you were expecting. I have never needed to add the word "acronym" to obtain the appropriate definition so would not have found two sets of results to compare. Please don't assume that everyone has the same knowledge as you or even that everyone thinks the same way as you.

I'm sorry, but experienced researchers like the people on this forum should be capable of using Google. Having recognised that DNB was an acronym Bob should at least have tried including the word in his search rather than trying my patience.

Part of my role is to encourage LostCousins members to figure things out for themselves.

 

[peter]

Simply that generally when you find a birth register entry for the same individual, say the census says 1874 (as mentioned previously with Ada), then the register entry will often be 1873.

That's the opposite of what you said in your first post, where you talked about ages being rounded up.

Historic British censuses don't show years of birth, they show ages - the year of birth shown in the transcript/search results is n0 more than a calculated value produced by the website subtracting the age given from the year of the census. As all of the censuses were held in the first half of the year the majority of people won't have celebrated their birthday in that year, but it doesn't mean that the age shown is incorrect (though, as we know, they often are).

 

[Susan48]

Simply that generally when you find a birth register entry for the same individual, say the census says 1874 (as mentioned previously with Ada), then the register entry will often be 1873. I assume only because of shear weight of numbers, but of course would not limit myself to this, and not do I change an entry on my tree until I have evidence of a birth year one way or another.

If the census date was, say, April 1st then those with birthdays between January and March - i.e. before the census - would appear a year older than those born April to December. In other words, in the 2021 census my age is 73 because I was born in March 1948, but my husband's age is 82 because he was born in July 1938.
I'm not sure if I've explained what I mean but am happy to try and clarify further.

 

[peter]

If the census date was, say, April 1st then those with birthdays between January and March - i.e. before the census - would appear a year older than those born April to December. In other words, in the 2021 census my age is 73 because I was born in March 1948, but my husband's age is 82 because he was born in July 1938.

You're spot on as far as the published censuses are concerned. However, so as not to mislead overseas members (or future readers of this discussion), it's important to mention that the 2021 England & Wales Census didn't ask us to state our age, but our date of birth.

This discussion is a good reminder of the important difference between primary sources and secondary sources - the latter is an interpretation of the former.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Well mentioned Bob. I have never heard of DNB before and the general rule of using acronyms is to fully expand the acronym at the time of it first being used.

Thank you Bryman my thoughts exactly. Write in full once followed by acronym. I do so for example when mentioning Tribal Pages (TP) as I do not expect people to just know what TP stands for. As for Peters stance to add 'acronym' when using Google, I find this quite surprising and totally unnecessary. He is someone who encourages minimalistic searching with * and ? wild cards , and then wants to revert to belt and braces when googling.

However he is not alone in superfluity my wife does the same when stuck on a crossword clue and sets out to Google for an answer. Let us say she is stuck on a British River (7 letters), she will type in the clue and add 'crossword'. She gets a half dozen or more answers from dedicated crossword clue answering Apps, and selects the 7 letter river she seeks. I am not a Crossword person but have pointed out to her many times that there is no need to add 'crossword'. Google will second guess that the reason for the request is most likely someone seeking a crossword or trivia answer and will come up with the same answers anyway. The reason this is so it that millions of people around the world seek the self same things day in and day out and the Google algorithm needs no additional prompting to find an answer.

 

[peter]

Thank you Bryman my thoughts exactly. Write in full once followed by acronym. I do so for example when mentioning Tribal Pages (TP) as I do not expect people to just know what TP stands for.

Tribal Pages is a fairly obscure source and it isn't one of the 187 meanings of 'TP' that Google comes up with when I type 'TP acronym' (similarly LostCousins doesn't come up if you type 'LC acronym'). But the Dictionary of National Biography was the FIRST of 27 meanings given for the acronym 'DNB'.

As for Peters stance to add 'acronym' when using Google, I find this quite surprising and totally unnecessary.

You find it "surprising and totally unnecessary" and yet it works. Surely when your first search didn't produce an answer that seemed to fit it was worth giving Google a little more information to go on?

He is someone who encourages minimalistic searching with * and ? wild cards , and then wants to revert to belt and braces when googling.

You're referring to the technique I recommend for searching Findmypast - it's specific to that website. If I'm searching at Ancestry or FamilySearch my technique is very different - possibly similar to yours.

I choose the technique that produces the best result at each site - because for me, getting the best results is my primary goal.

 

[Bryman]

Post number 38 Bryman.

BNA UK in Google produces British Newspaper Archive.

Thank you Heather. That was my error while trying to do too many things at once and complete some tasks before needing to go out. It was not helped by other members posting while I was rushing. That is not an excuse but just shows that I am not as capable as I once was. Unfortunately, if I do not make my post immediately then I will probably forget and not do it at all.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Part of my role is to encourage LostCousins members to figure things out for themselves.

And they do Peter, believe me and what motley examples we all are. Some (not unlike yourself) have pedantic, clinical and brevity (perm any from 3) as watchwords (I have none of these qualities) whilst others show flashes of genius but offer them in abstruse prose. So many shades, expressed so many ways but each with a part to play.

No two minds think alike and rarely express themselves alike. You may lead, guide and cajole but in the end people make up their own minds. I enjoy reading Postings and Comments made. I may echo sentiments (like/agree); have no set opinion for or against; and yes with some, I disagree and say so.

This interchange of ideas is what makes the Forum great and original and one should not be too surprised when others disagree or offer a different slant on things … and especially not let them try your patience! C'est la vie.