What to enter in Search Fields

[Tim]

I think with all searches on these sites that it's worth remembering to start searching with a lot of detail. If this doesn't produce the correct results, then you can start to widen year ranges, use soundex or even in our case, remove names.

Hopefully you'll eventually get a hit.

 

[Bob Spiers]

It doesn't find any hits when I searched for Rachel Moulton, but I got a hit when just searching for the surname.

That sort of thing -failing to find under a detailed search, and then the exact or near exact name you were seeking magically appears in the list found under a surname search- is usually the time my wife asks why I am talking to myself. I am almost certain to remark: "so what is it about Frederick B that you dislike, when those very names pop up on a surname only search listing?" Invariably adding: "I could write a better search algorithm with one hand tied behind my back". (I couldn't really but it gets it out of my system)". Mad or what?

Yes I know minimal can be (emphasis can be) best -I've been doing it long enough - but my standard procedure rarely varies: {First Name/Surname with variants; DOB with +/- 2 years; from/to date (if applicable); & region/county(ies) =SEARCH}. If that fails I might reduce one or more search parameters, but just as likely switch and repeat the search in the rival program (Ancestry/FMP whichever). I never cease to be amazed how often one finds what the other cannot. However if neither works, that is the time when I resort to a minimal search.

Currently I have FMP lagging behind Ancestry (which has improved of late) but it is a transient thing at best.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Invariably adding: "I could write a better search algorithm with one hand tied behind my back". (I couldn't really but it gets it out of my system)". Mad or what?

Hmmm "bondage" coding. Not tried that doubt it would be too successful either. I'm usually quicker to code using two hands.

 

[Liberty]

Yes I know minimal can be (emphasis can be) best -I've been doing it long enough - but my standard procedure rarely varies: {First Name/Surname with variants; DOB with +/- 2 years; from/to date (if applicable); & region/county(ies) =SEARCH}. If that fails I might reduce one or more search parameters, but just as likely switch and repeat the search in the rival program (Ancestry/FMP whichever). I never cease to be amazed how often one finds what the other cannot. However if neither works, that is the time when I resort to a minimal search.
.

I have found that specifying place of birth (in particular) in censuses can sometimes lead to my not finding my relative. Apart form the obvious mistranscriptions, you can get very bad spellings. I know I bang on about my ancestors from Sheringham, but this innocuous town appears as Sheringham, Sherringham, Sherenam, Sherrington, etc. This last example indicates that my standard search term of *sher*m* will not pick up all records. You might think that specifying 'Norfolk' would cover bases, but I have one example where the place of birth was given as Shoreham to which 'Essex' has been added. Another relative born in Banningham, Norfolk appears in the 1881 census as born Birmingham, Warwickshire. When you find the record, you can see how they got there, but if you were doggedly thinking that 'county of birth' would be the one thing that would be correct you never find the record at all.

 

[Bob Spiers]

.... but if you were doggedly thinking that 'county of birth' would be the one thing that would be correct you never find the record at all.

Yes I go along with that and as well as mis-transcriptions, often the county boundary has changed. The Worcestershire that was, is now Warwickshire (and vice versa). In my numerous 'Midlands' searches I also get caught out when Warwickshire areas are moved to Staffordshire, and -in extremis - Shropshire! I am sure the same is true for other county boundary changes.

Thankfully FMP allows multi choice using the CTRL key, or one can leave blank as Liberty suggests and pray you are not delivered multiple pages of search results. Of course Census searches do not allow multi county choices, so although I do prefer to enter a county (which lets face it can produce an immediate singular or at least a manageable number of results) it I get no success, then I repeat omitting the county and resign myself to wading through multiple results.

In the end I am thankful that the vices of one search engine (which are each only as good as the transcriptions they are searching) are not necessarily repeated in others. Of course sometimes -perhaps more often than one would like - people just cannot be found 'period'! Then it is time to take stock and try other methods; a 'bare bones' or 'wild-card' search or, as sometimes bears fruit, direct attention to another family member, especially one with a different surname (a mother-in-law perhaps). I have even had success with a lodger shown in one Census and found in another, with the family you really want turning up under some quite unimaginable spelling variation.

 

[Tim]

I've also used addresses. So the address from 1851 and then used that to search 1861. Sometimes they were at the same address other times I have to view the sheets either side to locate the misspelt and mis-transcribed names.

I tend to only put county in when there are too many results listed, I just leave it blank.

 

[emjay]

I once used the address shown on a marriage certificate to carry out a 1841 Census search. The address was recorded on the certificate as: "Turkshead yard". It would
not come up with a result on FMP 'search by address'. So out of curiosity I tried a search on Google Earth (with little hope that the address would still exist in Preston)
Google Earth said "did you mean Turks Head Court, Preston ? "

And so back to Census address search and I found the family I'd been looking for

 

[Heather]

Sometimes when searching by address at FMP and not having any success, I just enter the town and it is amazing how many times I have found the address I am looking for, say under a misspelling or "other establishments" just by scrolling through the results.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I once used the address shown on a marriage certificate to carry out a 1841 Census search. The address was recorded on the certificate as: "Turkshead yard". It would not come up with a result on FMP 'search by address'. So out of curiosity I tried a search on Google Earth (with little hope that the address would still exist in Preston). Google Earth said "did you mean Turks Head Court, Preston ? ..

I am not greatly enamoured with 'address' searches on FMP. Great by concept but from my own experience a totally frustrating experience. Let me explain.

My ancestors to a very large extent are based in and around Birmingham, although many originate from Worcestershire the neighbouring county. When unable to find them by a person search -which thankfully is quite rare, thanks to the backup by Ancestry - I then try an address search; almost always in Birmingham and it is no surprise when right up front it refuses to acknowledge the street or road exists.

Like Emjay's example, nearly right is not good enough, or even very nearly right. Soundex names do not work (for instance Beech Street will not work for Beach Street) and is totally unforgiving with mis-spellings, even if you are copying something from a previous Census.

What really winds me up is when it finds the street but then only shows a portion of the house numbers. By trial and error you find the other part comes under (say) Aston. And if you second guess it must be Aston, the part you want is in Birmingham. And I know, they know and everyone knows all come under the Metropolitan town, later city of Birmingham.

And then there are the legendary Birmingham back-to-back houses and how they are shown within the street - that varies from Census to Census and often within the same street . So 3 back of 10 can be 3/10 or 10/3 or 3 Court (along with 4,5 6) without reference to its prime street number which might appear on its own. This is repeated with every 'Court' so you have to search them all to find the one you want. If despite all this you fail to find the family, you still do not know if it is your searching or indicative of the family moving.

Of course none of this prevents a first time search of a small town or village being spot on. That happens of course, but just be wary of searching a large City with ancient boroughs. Get it wrong and you will search in vain! Give me person searching any day!

 

[Britjan]

Don't know about new and improved but this is a "recent update" I received...."As of today you have been automatically upgraded from a 12 month Foundation subscription to a new 12 month Britain subscription – at no extra cost! Your membership now includes access to all UK records. You can see exactly what your subscription includes here.
When the time comes for you to renew your subscription you can do so at your old price, so you’ll remain a Britain subscriber at no additional cost. The following year you’ll have the option to renew your membership again at the new price. "

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Whilst understanding Bob's frustrations when looking at a city and Birmingham is the biggest city in the UK that isn't London (ie: isn't served by all manner of different extra resources in online catalogs) so I can understand precisely the level of frustration that is likely to cause. That aside the trick with FMP census address search can be to search for a parish name rather than a street or farm name. Then you get a list of every place in the parish and can see where things might be spelt slightly differently to what you are expecting. Effectively then you are browsing the place index for that parish, and this can be far easier than trying to find someone from a name search.

A second good trick with this method is where you know someone eg: my 4g grandmother is on the 1851 census and the 1871 but can't be found on the 1861. I tried looking for her next door neighbours farm name as it was relatively unusual. I was then able to find that farm on the 1861 and find my 4g grandmother living alone but the name of her farm cottage was unrecognisable and she had been put with ditto marks against the previous household by mistake hence she was indexed under the wrong name and an unrecognisable place name.

 

[emjay]

Ditto Alexander, to your ditto comment.

 

[Liberty]

Oh those dittoes, and over-enthusiastic transcription!
I have a relative who, while a widower, had a bunch of children with his housekeeper before marrying her. The family appears in one census as Mark Chapman, followed by a few kids marked 'ditto' and 'son/daughter', who were legitimate from his marriage. Then comes the housekeeper Emily Brett with another string of 'dittoes', also marked 'son/daughter'. These were the illegitimate children, fully acknowledged by their father but bearing their mother's name. However, the children are all transcribed as Chapman.
I made contact with a descendant of one of these Bretts, who had hit problems because they could not trace him back in time - as far as they could see he suddenly appeared in his late teens.
'Fortunately' for them, he is on my tree in GenesReunited, and has a distinctive Christian name. So they asked what I knew about him, and all was revealed!

[And, yes, I recruited my new cousin to LC ]

 

[emjay]

Strange how you can fail to get a result from entering for example, the head of a household, when entering another known member brings up the result. This is one of those occasions when I am heard to "speak" to my computer

 

[Katie Bee]

the trick with FMP census address search can be to search for a parish name rather than a street or farm name. Then you get a list of every place in the parish and can see where things might be spelt slightly differently to what you are expecting. Effectively then you are browsing the place index for that parish, and this can be far easier than trying to find someone from a name search.

I have just tried to find a farm in Great Aycliffe for the 1881 census on FMP. I had to go to Registration District level find out that Great Aycliffe was actually indexed as 'Aycliffe Great'!
It is on the original census form as Gt Aycliffe. So lots of different name combinations to try to find the correct one.
Searching for the actual farm gets zero results.

1871 census, 'Great Aycliffe' gets a result.
1891 census the farm is now a house and in Aycliffe not Great Aycliffe anymore.

So you may have to search Registration District level to find your address!
Good luck

 

[Heather]

I have just tried to find a farm in Great Aycliffe for the 1881 census on FMP. I had to go to Registration District level find out that Great Aycliffe was actually indexed as 'Aycliffe Great'!
It is on the original census form as Gt Aycliffe. So lots of different name combinations to try to find the correct one.
Searching for the actual farm gets zero results.

1871 census, 'Great Aycliffe' gets a result.
1891 census the farm is now a house and in Aycliffe not Great Aycliffe anymore.
Good luck

So Katie Bee, did you actually find your farm in 1881? If not maybe someone would like to try and help and have a look for you, just give us the details.

 

[Katie Bee]

So Katie Bee, did you actually find your farm in 1881? If not maybe someone would like to try and help and have a look for you, just give us the details.

Yes thank you Heather, I found it. It was under 'other establishments' in 'Aycliffe Great'.
Thanks to Alexander's comment I searched under the Registration District name as well as the parish.
We have to keep one step ahead of the transcribers and thanks to this forum we have a good chance.