auchonvillerssomme Posted 16 January , 2009 Posted 16 January , 2009 I haven't had any problems with it...yet, that being said it has given me a bigger headache, I wanted to narrow down 3 possibles but now I have 4 possibles! Mick
keggy65 Posted 16 January , 2009 Posted 16 January , 2009 I think 'findmypast' is an overly complicated site even though it looks simple - don't, whatever you do, hit the 'back' button. The search facilities have always been very limiting, not just for the 1911 census. I have been able to find 3 of my families but only after a long, long frustrating hunt and it wasn't because there were lots of people looking! I didn't think I'd ever say Ancestry was really good but it's fantastic compared to fmp and IMHO better value. Mabel
Pighills Posted 16 January , 2009 Posted 16 January , 2009 A couple of helpful hints I found from another site using the 1911 census: Quote: 'You can search the 1911 with just a first name if you put a full stop only in the surname box. also, I've noticed people complaining that you can't use wildcards - this is from the help pages " Wildcard searching allows you to replace letters or sequences of letters with an asterisk (*), if you are unsure of how a name was spelt, or can't find it with the usual spelling. A wildcard can be used at the beginning of a word, where it is especially useful as capital letters in cursive writing are more likely to be transcribed incorrectly (although the site has a transcription accuracy of 98.5 per cent). For example, if you search for William Lancaster and you type in William *caster, the search will return a list of results that include names such as William Doncaster or William Hilcaster - as well as William Lancaster. You can also use two wildcards to search for a string of letters such as *ollin*, if you are perhaps looking for a Rollind or a Collins. The wildcard can be used within all search fields, apart from ones which contain the drop-down menus. " end quote
Greyhound Posted 16 January , 2009 Posted 16 January , 2009 Is the wildcard search enabled yet, Kim? They said that it wouldn't be at first, in order to reduce pressure on the site, but didn't give any idea how long before it would be added.
Pighills Posted 16 January , 2009 Posted 16 January , 2009 From what I understand, Grace, people have been using the searches as described above - haven't tried it myself as I've resisted the urge to find my rellies - I want to wait until it becomes part of ths subs (probably next year) and by that time I'm sure all the bugs will have been ironed out and I can search for everyone then - including 'my' men!
NigelS Posted 16 January , 2009 Posted 16 January , 2009 A letter in today's (16/01/09) Daily Telegraph (Scroll to "Census Errors"): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters...c-recovery.html NigelS
Pighills Posted 16 January , 2009 Posted 16 January , 2009 I understand the transcrition error rate was low, I can't quote the exact figure, but I do remember being very impressed by it. More worringly, the letter directly above the one regarding census errors was from a Mr Steven Broomfield - not our very own surely?????
CGM Posted 16 January , 2009 Posted 16 January , 2009 That red text appears anyway when the search returns no results. A thought the same as you at first. It doesn't think you failed to enter a surname, just that no results were returned..which it should mention in the box above. Many thanks tmm. I didn't realise.
Jim Clay Posted 16 January , 2009 Posted 16 January , 2009 ...More worringly, the letter directly above the one regarding census errors was from a Mr Steven Broomfield - not our very own surely????? The very same, Kim, the very same. Jim
Greyhound Posted 17 January , 2009 Posted 17 January , 2009 From what I understand, Grace, people have been using the searches as described above - haven't tried it myself Ah. Well, it should be noted that some of the search functions, including wildcards, will be available but aren't yet enabled to reduce pressure on the site. It does explain this on the site. Searching without a surname is another feature that hasn't yet been enabled, but as has been observed above, a dodge has been discovered to get round it! And something else I figured out: if you've paid to download a transcript or original, you have the census reference for the address. If you want to see who the neighbours are, go to advanced search, enter the SD, ED, RD numbers from the end of the reference number in the census reference field BUT add or subtract 1 from the RD (household) number, and use the comma in the surname field. You will get the names of everyone in the household next door. How naughty is that. Transcription error rate? Pretty high, from what I've seen. On the whole though, thoughtful use of the advanced search options gives a lot of opportunity to find out loads of information without parting with money.
NigelS Posted 19 January , 2009 Posted 19 January , 2009 The debate continues in the Daily Telegraph... Saturday (17/01/09) http://tinyurl.com/892j5t & today (19/01/09) http://tinyurl.com/9qc2vo NigelS
ronaldward Posted 19 January , 2009 Posted 19 January , 2009 Problem seems to be when you have used the Find my past site previously and forgotten the password used I eventually tried a password I had used in the past and ended a few days frustration.Somewhat similar to uploading a resized photo on the forum which I am still wrestling with.Am told it is picnic....Problem in chair not in computer,Ron Ward (Fred Holling)
Alan Tucker Posted 19 January , 2009 Posted 19 January , 2009 1911 is as frustrating as 1901. Oh for the wonderful days when 1881 was issued on CD ROM by the Latter Day Saints and all for 30 quid. The big problem is transcription errors which makes searching almost impossible. I could not find my great-grandfather on 1911 but then searched for a couple of his adult daughters, my great-aunts. One was living with their father. The reason I could not find him was because I gave his place of birth as 'Rockbeare' (Devon). On the household transcript it is spelt 'Rockbse' which does not even make sense. In the same house was his grandson with the surname 'Hardacre'. It was spelt 'Hardacse' which again does not make sense. I suppose I should be grateful that they spelt Devon correctly! I also do not understand why the NA has done a deal with 'Find my Past'. One of the big breakthroughs for genealogy in recent years have been Public Libraries taking out a Library subscription to Ancestry. I can go to my local library, get on their network and access every census from 1841 to 1901 for free. But not 1911.
Terry_Reeves Posted 19 January , 2009 Posted 19 January , 2009 Transcription errors will always be a problem I'm afraid, and the demand for instant on-line information makes this inevitable. What we have to understand is that those who are doing the transcribing are data-inputters, or process workers. They are keyboard operators who have little or no knowledge of family or military history, From that, they will also have no knowledge of specific geography and are most likely transcribing from abroad anyway. That is not a criticism of them, but it is a matter of fact and is driven by our demand for instant results. Let me give you a personal example. I could not find my Reeves family name on the 1901 Ancestry release. However, through the good offices of forum member Sue Light, a first class researcher, it turned out the the transcriber had mistaken Reeves for Neeves. Taking a look at the original document it is easy to see why; the R was flattened and looked like an N. I don't pretend to be a family history expert, but I do know that from 30 years experience of research that you need to look at primary source documents yourself if there is the slightest doubt, and that includes WW1 research incidentally. TR
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 21 January , 2009 Posted 21 January , 2009 Something we should all remember Terry. Let they without typo caste the thirst scone!
Jim Clay Posted 21 January , 2009 Posted 21 January , 2009 Something we should all remember Terry. Let they without typo caste the thirst scone!
NigelS Posted 21 January , 2009 Posted 21 January , 2009 A response from Findmypast.com to the previous correspondence in the Daily Telegraph in today's (21/01/09) paper (scroll to Census errors) : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters...-the-banks.html NigelS
NigelS Posted 23 January , 2009 Posted 23 January , 2009 Probably the final letter on the subject in the Telegraph today (23/01/09) - the discovery of a new regiment! http://tinyurl.com/d69mfn (scroll to "Tight infantry") NigelS
NeilEvans Posted 23 January , 2009 Posted 23 January , 2009 anyone got a clue when Flintshire will be ready? Neil
Doug Lewis Posted 23 January , 2009 Posted 23 January , 2009 I must have been lucky no problems getting into site,no transcript errors always able to see my previous searched records and found loads of my relatives. Started looking at entries for men I'm researching very interesting Doug.
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 25 January , 2009 Posted 25 January , 2009 I've had a problem with the household name where the son in law (with of course a different surname) on the transcriptions being given the name of the head of household. So I used the report error function. That's what its there for.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now