1921 Census (E&W*) - some info. on updates etc. [NOT SEARCH QUERIES]

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

1 minute ago, sassenach said:

Ramsgate in April? You must come from hardy stock...

It was in June.

Postponed from April.

[sassenach]

3 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

It was in June.

Postponed from April.

Ah, thanks. Didn't know that. Ramsgate in June knocks anywhere into a cocked hat.

[Matlock1418]

Whilst trying not to appear too ungrateful for FMP and the 1921 Census [as I have found some good stuff :-)] I offer a cautionary note & piece of advice.

Note: Having purchased seven images [at a cost of nearly £25!] I have noted that three images have errors in indexing/transcription of names and addresses = a total of five errors.   That's quite a high miss-hit rate from a small sample. Was just as well I was able to cross-reference with other previous well / demonstrably known data [Once purchased it seems relatively easy to report such errors to FMP but no indication of whether you willl be informed of a change, or a challenge, by them and/or or when it might happen]

Advice [which is fairly standard for most researchers I guess]: Be prepared to search around using other possible 'indexing/transcription' options and/or use wild card *

M

Edited 9 January , 2022 by Matlock1418

[ss002d6252]

10 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Whilst trying not to appear too ungrateful for FMP and the 1921 Census [as I have found some good stuff :-)] I offer a cautionary note & piece of advice.

Note: Having purchased seven images [at a cost of nearly £25!] I have noted that three images have errors in indexing/transcription of names and addresses = a total of five errors.   That's quite a high miss-hit rate from a small sample. Was just as well I was able to cross-reference with other previous well / demonstrably known data [Once purchased it seems relatively easy to report such errors to FMP but no indication of whether you willl be informed of a change, or a challenge, by them and/or or when it might happen]

Advice [which is fairly standard for most researchers I guess]: Be prepared to search around using other possible 'indexing/transcription' options and/or use wild card *

M

I think so far the high error rate in the transcriptions seems to be the most common complaint. There's a lot of people mentioning it elsewhere.

Craig

[mandy hall]

2 hours ago, sassenach said:

Ramsgate in April? You must come from hardy stock...

The census was taken on 19th June, the date was changed from April, can’t remember the reason.

 

Edited 9 January , 2022 by mandy hall
Trouble uploading photo

[ss002d6252]

1 minute ago, mandy hall said:

The census was taken on 19th June, the date was changed from April, can’t remember the reason.

It was delayed because of strike action.

Craig

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

On 06/01/2022 at 20:24, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Cardiganshire.

(But it depends  on how the indexing has been done this  time. In the 1911 Censuses,  tens (hundreds?) of thousands  of people were indexed as living in the wrong county). This David Thomas Davies was however correctly indexed ss Cardiganshire, despite having a postal address that included Llanybydder which straddles the county line, but is generally deemed to be mostly in Carmarthenshire.

I have a feeling it's been done wrong again.

My pet gripe about 2011 was about Anglesey - a discrete island county, which was part of 3 registration districts -Anglesey (the westernmost half of the island), Bangor (the eastern quarter) and Caernarvon (the southern quarter). Bangor and Caernarvon are towns in Caernarvonshire. For some bizarre reason, the NA decided that the 20 or so Anglesey parishes in the Bangor district, and 10 or so Anglesey parishes in the Caernarvon district, would be indexed as being in Caernarvonshire. This probably affected some 10-15000 people , about a third of the island's population.

Now I haven't forked out any money on looking at transcriptions or real images for 1921, I intend looking for free at the National Library of Wales in the coming weeks, but.... I'm getting a very low hit rate at the moment on people who should be in my old home parish in Anglesey.

One person has a fairly distinctive name,  - Robert Percival Davies, b. abt. 1903-4.
He was in Penmynydd parish, Anglesey in 1911 as a 7 year old boy. The 1911  Census on Ancestry (but FMP) is the same has him indexed as:

Name	Robert Perwal Davies
Mother	Mary Elizabeth Davies
Father	Robert Davies
Sibling	John Thomas
Birth	abt 1904 Gaerwen, Anglesey, Wales
Residence	02 Apr 1911 Penmynydd, Caernarvonshire, Wales

(OK, Percival is spelt wrongly, but note his residence is stated nonsensically to be Penmynydd, Caernarvonshire. As nonsensical as having someone indexed as residing in Manchester, Yorkshire).

All attempts since my initial complaint to Ancestry back in 2010 have failed to correct the error. They seemed to imply the data came that way from the NA. Very much a 'Computer Says No!' syndrome. Contacting the NA directly led to a response from David Underdown who stated that the NA were aware of the problem, and implying the error would not occur again in 2021.

However, this is the information  for the same person this time round:

Robert Percival Davies b1903, Anglesey, Wales             Parish Residence: Llanffinan,Penmynydd,

Reg. Dist: Bangor                         County: Caernarvonshire, Anglesey

It seems to me it's all wrong again (Resident in Llanffinan parish as well as Penmynydd. County is both Caernarvonshire as well as Anglesey).....

This could apply to any area of the country where areas are in a registrarion district, whose name is of a town in another county. I'll have to browse the images to find what I need I think until I establish how the indexing works.

Edited 9 January , 2022 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[Matlock1418]

@Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Wales is a challenge for most us at the best of times.

Though not of the type you are having for Wales/Anglesey one of my gripes about the transcription errors was for a birth address that was clearly Thaxted, Essex, but turned into Haxted, Surrey! 

Now where did that, and especially Surrey, come from?  Has been reported for correction.

FMP seem to have unfortunately taken a leaf out of Ancestry's book when it comes to transcriptions!  They're not making it easy for us!!

M

Edit: If you happen to wish to know how the imaging and transcriptions were done then probably worth a look at this from FMP https://www.findmypast.co.uk/blog/family-records/bringing-1921-census-online It includes the following: "The digital images were split into three segments and sent to our transcription partner. We split the images in order to protect the security of the census data. Over 300 transcribers worked on the project. They typed every name, age, address, and occupation found in the documents" - I wonder who and where??? [FMP's bold]

Edited 9 January , 2022 by Matlock1418
edit

[Matlock1418]

Reporting a TRANSCRIPTION ERROR(s) seen on an image to FMP.

You cannot do this via the image page [image page only allows reporting of "Poor quality" or "Wrong image"]

This is what FMP suggest:

"It is not directly possible to report a transcription error from an image on-site, only the transcription however we appreciate you may see errors via an image that you have viewed. 

Transcription errors found without purchasing the transcript itself can be reported by emailing transcriptsupport@findmypast.com

Please include a link to the record and a brief description of the error, for example, the first name is recorded as Jo when the image shows it as John. Please use 1921 Census transcription update as the email subject line, this will allow us to correct errors quicker and more efficiently.

Further information can be found on the following page:
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/help/articles/4415870561041-how-was-the-1921-census-transcribed- "

Good luck.

M

[ss002d6252]

That mailbox is going to get very full.

Craig

[Moonraker]

There have been letters of complaint published in the Daily Telegraph, with one suggestion that some of those involved in transcribing did not have English as their first language. Quite apart from the irritation to researchers who know that something is wrong, there's the danger that errors may be perpetuated in summaries of research by family historians. 

[ss002d6252]

To me it matters not who does it,  but it is the quality that is important. It appears that the quality in this case is severely variable.

I'm sure we'll soon start to see issues with information gleaned from the transcripts where people have saved money on the cheaper option.

Craig

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, Moonraker said:

there's the danger that errors may be perpetuated in summaries of research by family historians. 

2 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

I'm sure we'll soon start to see issues with information gleaned from the transcripts where people have saved money on the cheaper option.

That's surely the worry.

3 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

it is the quality that is important.

Agreed, but how it now gets fed into the existing is worryingly limited

:-/

M

[Matlock1418]

On 13/01/2022 at 13:29, ss002d6252 said:

That mailbox is going to get very full.

Took the bull by the horns and [again] reported, 13 Jan 2022, all the errors identified off the images by the e-mail route as FMP suggested = multiple e-mails

Today, 14 Jan 2022 got the following reply, individually to each/all of my multiple e-mails.

"Thank you for getting in touch. 
We have now reported the errors within the entries you have provided and these will be updated in due course. 
If you do have any further reports to send us please do submit a new email to transcriptsupport@findmypast.com with these details."

Each reply with the relevant details of the transcription error(s) & correction(s) attached.

The interesting thing will be what "updated in due course" translates to in time.  In hope it is not too long. ... !

And no idea what will ensue if they disagree with my suggested correction(s)

M

Edited 14 January , 2022 by Matlock1418
addit

[ss002d6252]

10 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

The interesting thing will be what "updated in due course" translates to in time.  In hope it is not too long. ... !

And no idea what will ensue if they disagree with my suggested correction(s)

Wait and see, I suppose.

Craig

[MaureenE]

Seen on another Forum dated  29 Jan 2022, 12:34 by AntonyM

"I was speaking to a few researchers who have visited Kew since the 1921 went live the other day, and all said they were plenty of PCs available with no queuing or restrictions. 

I was told that you can also get free access on your own laptop by using their dedicated 1921 wi-fi connection, so could do your research whilst sitting in the coffee shop if you wanted.

I'm planning a visit to do just that in the next week or two."

https://www.whowhenwheregenealogy.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3732#p3732

Maureen

[RussT]

I was at Manchester Central Library a week last Friday.

A doddle - took my own tablet, logged on to their WiFi, went to their website and clicked on their link to the FMP 1921 census.

Downloaded lots of records - no issues with connection, search speed or download speed.

Lovely place, loads of room, quite quiet, loads of terminals if you needed one, and lots of great places to eat/drink in Manchester before, during & afterwards !

And plenty of other places to visit and things to do too before & after - make a weekend of it !

Only "issue" - expensive parking if you choose a central location (like I did) - so perhaps park on a street some miles away and just get a tram to/from the centre

Regards

Russ

[Matlock1418]

On 14/01/2022 at 16:43, Matlock1418 said:

Took the bull by the horns and [again] reported, 13 Jan 2022, all the errors identified off the images by the e-mail route as FMP suggested = multiple e-mails

Today, 14 Jan 2022 got the following reply, individually to each/all of my multiple e-mails.

"Thank you for getting in touch. 
We have now reported the errors within the entries you have provided and these will be updated in due course. 
If you do have any further reports to send us please do submit a new email to transcriptsupport@findmypast.com with these details."

Each reply with the relevant details of the transcription error(s) & correction(s) attached.

The interesting thing will be what "updated in due course" translates to in time.  In hope it is not too long. ... !

An update on timing on corrections of transcriptions.

My first suggestion of an amendment of their dodgy transcriptions - by telephone on 6 Jan - appears to have been implemented, as of a couple of days ago - so appeared quite encouraging speed at first - But unfortunately the correction was rather 'half-hearted' as they only corrected one of two incorrect forenames for that man [!] and my further e-mail note on this matter has not resulted a reply [yet?]

My e-mailed corrections of 13 Jan have not yet been done - though I suspect they are now in a rather large pile of others also waiting for implementation [I hope] - I must be more patient it seems!  Time will tell.

M

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, MaureenE said:

Seen on another Forum dated  29 Jan 2022, 12:34 by AntonyM

"I was speaking to a few researchers who have visited Kew since the 1921 went live the other day, and all said they were plenty of PCs available with no queuing or restrictions. ...

55 minutes ago, RussT said:

I was at Manchester Central Library a week last Friday.

A doddle - took my own tablet, logged on to their WiFi, went to their website and clicked on their link to the FMP 1921 census. ...

Encouraging - if you can get into those places.  Sadly not easy for me.

M

 

[Rebecca R]

Hi all,

I have found my great grandfather in the 21 census records, and have bought the image etc. which is great. I know my great grandmother and their first child were over there with him also, do we know if they were recorded anywhere as well? or do we think they would have just been classed as living abroad? I tried searching both their names and was not getting any results back.

TIA

[MaureenE]

2 hours ago, Rebecca R said:

Hi all,

 I know my great grandmother and their first child were over there with him also, do we know if they were recorded anywhere as well? or do we think they would have just been classed as living abroad? I tried searching both their names and was not getting any results back.

TIA

If you are talking about family of a British Soldier "abroad" at the time of the Census, they would usually appear on the same return as the soldier, assuming they were wives who were designated "on the strength" and living in Army accomodation with the soldier. If they don't appear they were possibly not "on the strength", and living elsewhere and wouldn't be included. The other alternative is that they were possibly unwell and had gone elsewhere such as the mountains, to recover. If this was Army related they should have been included on another return, but may have been missed out.

Maureen

[Rebecca R]

10 hours ago, MaureenE said:

If you are talking about family of a British Soldier "abroad" at the time of the Census, they would usually appear on the same return as the soldier, assuming they were wives who were designated "on the strength" and living in Army accomodation with the soldier. If they don't appear they were possibly not "on the strength", and living elsewhere and wouldn't be included. The other alternative is that they were possibly unwell and had gone elsewhere such as the mountains, to recover. If this was Army related they should have been included on another return, but may have been missed out.

Maureen

Thanks Maureen, there is marked on the children section, a 1 in the appropriate column, but no mention of the wife and child other than that, the same for another solider on the page had a mark against the child column. I know they were there with him as I had them coming back on a ship. I guess that means they must have been missed. Thanks again for the response.

[Keith_history_buff]

Quote

I can't sleep and for some reason the 1921 census popped into my head.

Here are some links on what is known about it to date. Feel free to add to.

 

Here's a link to an online scan of the Monthly Army List for July 1921, located via the Army Lists.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=U25EAQAAIAAJ

The FIBIS article itself is a good read
https://wiki.fibis.org/w/Army_List_for_British_Army_online

I was surprised to see the following locations for these Irish regiments that were preparing to disband the following year

 

18	Royal Irish Regiment	1BN	Portsmouth
		2BN	Portsmouth
		Depot	Portsmouth
100	Leinster Regiment	1BN	Chatham
		2BN	Colchester
		Depot	Colchester

 

[Jervis]

On 03/09/2022 at 14:45, Keith_history_buff said:

 

Here's a link to an online scan of the Monthly Army List for July 1921, located via the Army Lists.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=U25EAQAAIAAJ

The FIBIS article itself is a good read
https://wiki.fibis.org/w/Army_List_for_British_Army_online

I was surprised to see the following locations for these Irish regiments that were preparing to disband the following year

 

18	Royal Irish Regiment	1BN	Portsmouth
		2BN	Portsmouth
		Depot	Portsmouth
100	Leinster Regiment	1BN	Chatham
		2BN	Colchester
		Depot	Colchester

 

Hi Keith. 

Thanks for sharing. I am not sure what the source of the information re: The Leinster Regiment in 1921 is?  However, it does not tally with the regimental history. According to the Regimental history the 1BN was stationed in India from 1919 to April 1922. The 2BN were in Colchester up to May 21, and subsequently sent Siliesia until March 1922 . The Leinsters Depot to my knowledge remained in Birr until Feb 22. So something is amiss on the locations. 
Jervis

[Keith_history_buff]

On 03/09/2022 at 14:45, Keith_history_buff said:

Here's a link to an online scan of the Monthly Army List for July 1921, located via the Army Lists...........

I was surprised to see the following locations for these Irish regiments that were preparing to disband the following year
 

18	Royal Irish Regiment	1BN	Portsmouth
		2BN	Portsmouth
		Depot	Portsmouth
100	Leinster Regiment	1BN	Chatham
		2BN	Colchester
		Depot	Colchester

 

  

5 hours ago, Jervis said:

Hi Keith. 

Thanks for sharing. I am not sure what the source of the information re: The Leinster Regiment in 1921 is?  However, it does not tally with the regimental history. 

I do not know why this is.

I also noted that Army Order 299 dated 9th July 1921 stated that the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Regiment were in the Occupation Forces on the Rhine, returning imminently to the UK which is likewise contradicted by what is stated in the Monthly Army List for July 1921.