PENSION CARDS - Redaction [by WFA/Fold3] - what/why/when/how/how viewed?

[PRC]

10 minutes ago, David Tattersfield said:

These are redactions by Ancestry/Fold3 during the scanning process. 

That would seem quite a labour intensive way to go about things, requiring checking the information on each card. Even if it was only against a list of successful requests to have information redacted received from individuals \ governments \ organisations, etc.,  it would have added considerably to the overhead - and therefore the cost. In such an exercise you'd expect a paper trail - not just to justify the additional cost, but also to demonstrate that Ancestry \ Fold 3 have complied with whatever it was they believed they were enforcing.

Having carried out such exercises myself in the past it should then be a case of reverse engineering, and shouldn't involve needing to check every card. Done as a one off exercise from their own hit list would surely be more cost-effective than dealing with (repeated) queries on a case by case basis.

Or am I crediting Ancestry with too much professionalism

Cheers,
Peter

[ss002d6252]

2 minutes ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

It does suggest that Ancestry have access to/a form of liaison with  the DWP database- reverse engineering suggest that those  -possibly- still living (or no notice of death)  may have produced a small database of  names to redact.  Or that Ancestry have run births against deaths on their own systems and produced such a list- though as Ancestry is 6-7 years adrift of Reg-Gen, then that would be a problem.

Where the date of birth is shown they may just have followed the standard policy many places use of redaction on anyone less than 100. It seems to just have been a very limited issue.

Craig

[PRC]

23 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

Where the date of birth is shown they may just have followed the standard policy many places use of redaction on anyone less than 100. It seems to just have been a very limited issue.

Craig

While I'd like to agree with you Craig, in the two examples quoted, one is for the eldest child, when details of the younger child are shown, and the second is for a daughter turned down for a pension as she was 21.

The explanation might be that the application of any policy for redaction is on a par with the transcription level - and I assume the transcription must have taken place before any decision could have been made about whether to redact or not. So garbage in, garbarge out

I cannot imagine that any successor organisation to the Ministry of Pensions would have been involved and the existance of a War Pensions database covering all such claims on their part is I suspect wishful thinking.

Cheers,
Peter

[RaySearching]

1 hour ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

( I am well away from Ancestry-what does SWB give as his date of enlistment??)

Martin re-enlisted on the 2/10/14 acording to his Silver war badge entry

He was a pre war regular soldier Pte 2263 Dragoon Guards

I presume called up or offered his services at the outbreak of the war

Edited 2 October , 2022 by RaySearching
adding info

[PaulC78]

I think part of the problem is that Ancestry can be rather heavy-handed with regard to material they deem "sensitive". I quite often refer to the Liverpool burial registers on Ancestry, and earlier this year I became aware that quite a few pages from the registers were missing, in some cases pages that I know had been there previously. After making enquiries with Liverpool Record Office (who supply the images; Ancestry did not reply to me), I was told that Ancestry had intentionally removed any pages which refer to stillborn children, leaving only the transcriptions for all other entries on those pages. While I can certainly appreciate the sensitivity over such matters, I wouldn't expect it to apply to records that are now a century or more old, where none of the people concerned would still be alive. But that's the approach they've taken.

[Matlock1418]

Thank you all for your continuing interest  in this thread/topic [apologies for not naming you all individually] - I think the tip of a redaction 'iceberg' is visible at Fold3 [perhaps small in general size but potentially big in effect - certainly a nuisance when encounted - and it certainly seems there are very murky waters surrounding the orgins of redactions and future resolutions]

I hope @David Tattersfield can perhaps get an explanation and possibly a find a resolution.

I hope there is a will to resolve - certainly more than I see with the much redacted 1939 Register [which seems likely a bigger issue and which really could do with sorting too]

I think we will all be following matters with interest.

M

[PaulC78]

A few more redacted pension cards that I've recently found. In the first case I assume it's the name of one or more children that has been blanked out. The second card is less obvious.

https://www.fold3.com/image/669327614?xid=1022

https://www.fold3.com/image/668992197?xid=1022

[Matlock1418]

On 27/12/2022 at 21:07, PaulC78 said:

A few more redacted pension cards that I've recently found.

Thank you

Always useful to have examples for when @David Tattersfield next meets with Fold3 - hopefully soon !!

M

Edited 30 December , 2022 by Matlock1418