1841 census on Ancestry? .....

Tom-W · Post by **Tom-W** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:50 pm

I just used ancestry to locate a James Brown living in Glasgow - almost impossible on SP without spending a fortune!

I found him listed in Parish Number 622, ED 22, Page 1

But I couldn't see a matching entry on SP. I searched for someone on the same page with a less common surname and found the entry listed on SP as 622/100 page 1 with no mention of 22. Looking at the header for this page it is enumeration district 22 (The 100 is listed next to the parish).

I thought it was worth warning others that Ancestry has opted for a different numbering system (at least they are different in this case!). It still let me find him using only 2 credits to check the right entry and next time I'll just take a chance if the parish number and page match.

Tom

Kathy · Post by **Kathy** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:56 am

I already had some information from 1841 found on SP, when I checked this information on Ancestry, I found Ancestry had transcription errors.

Kathy

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:42 pm

Kathy wrote:I already had some information from 1841 found on SP, when I checked this information on Ancestry, I found Ancestry had transcription errors.

Kathy

Kathy

Details would be of interest.

David

trish1 · Post by **trish1** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:27 pm

Hi Kathy

Ancestry is full of transcription errors in all its census data. Because you can search by given name only as well as birth place, if your folks come from a small village or alternatively have a less than common name, it is often relatively easy to find them - I do however, have a few Londoners that I fear I will never find. The worst transcription errors are when the first initial is incorrect - and I have had a few of them to cope with.

Trish

Caroline · Post by **Caroline** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:42 pm

Hi Kathy,

I've found my 3 x great gran, Jane Shean, on the 1841 census on Ancestry in Dunfermline.

She's transcribed as Bad Shien. Maybe this isn't an error though!

Thanks to Ancestry I've also found my 4 x great gran, Marjory Robertson,
who was born in 1761 on the census. She's down as Widow Robertson which explains why I couldn't find her before.

Caroline

Post by **HeatherH** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:13 pm

Having a blast on 1841.Still no sign of my elusive Haldane's(Holden,Holdan ,etc)As for transcription errors Ancestry as oodles. I have one for a family in Fivehead that was transcribed very rudely with another 4 letter "f" word.Not to mention spending ages looking for a gent who when found had been listed as Reb for a first name as apposed to Rev for his occupation.

Happy Hunting,
HeatherK

Kathy · Post by **Kathy** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:47 pm

DavidWW wrote:
Kathy wrote:I already had some information from 1841 found on SP, when I checked this information on Ancestry, I found Ancestry had transcription errors.

Kathy
Kathy

Details would be of interest.

David

I will search through my pile of, not filed in any particular order, paperwork, and locate the SP printout, and get back to you.

Kathy

sporran · Post by **sporran** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:47 am

Hello all,

it is possible for any organisation or person to buy films for the Scottish censuses, and they are about £40 per reel with thousands of reels for each census year. However, there are terms and conditions that apply, notably that the purchaser users them for private family research. We understand that GROS are considering this aspect.

The Tenth User Group meeting occurred before Ancestry's action. The minutes should be published soon and you will see that indexing was discussed, along with many issues about the future direction of ScotlandsPeople.

Minutes can be found on the SP site under "Help and other resources" > "User Group".

Regards,

John

scooter · Post by **scooter** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:53 am

sporran wrote:We understand that GROS are considering this aspect.

Hi John,

Does this mean they considering Ancestry's 'actions' from a legal point of view? Rather intriguing!

With so much availability for the English and Welsh census returns, it seems that the battle amongst all the 'southern' focused websites is who can produce the most accurate indexes! I saw one recently that made comparisons between them all, and of course put themselves on top.

Do you think this might happen with the Scottish returns?

Best,

Scott

sporran · Post by **sporran** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:09 pm

Hello Scott,

there was a flurry of e-mails among the User Group and GROS at the end of last week and over the weekend. My posting was an assessment of the position but was purely a personal observation.

The difference between the "southern" situation and Scotland is that GROS are in partnership (currently with ScotlandOnLine) to put records on the ScotlandsPeople site, and may wish to preserve this situation. GRO (covering England and Wales) do not have a partnership and allow companies to resell their indexes and census images. At present, GRO still controls the images of BMD records through the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

There are merits in both situations: the "monopoly" and the "market forces", with quality control and costs affecting the user.

Regards,

John

TalkingScot.com

1841 census on Ancestry? .....

Re: 1841 Census on Ancestry

Re: 1841 Census on Ancestry

Re: Ancestry and censuses