1881 Census- LDS Disks .....

[grannysrock]

Hello
Thankyou for setting up this board - I missed the old SP one .
There were a lot of interesting discussions there
and looks like the same is happening here.

Do the 1881 census disks have census images on them( as opposed to just indices* ?) If the former can you browse by parish ? Also are the indices and the possibilities for searching them the same as on the SP site ?

*Is it indices or indexes by the way ?

cheers
Sally

[Jack]

Hello Sally,

Glad to see you've found TS! Below is my GG-GF as copied & pasted from the 1881 LDS census CD.
--
Dwelling: 24 George St
Census Place: Paisley High Church, Renfrew, Scotland
Source: FHL Film 0203581 GRO Ref Volume 573 EnumDist 9 Page 2
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
John JAMIESON W 72 M Paisley, Renfrew, Scotland
Rel: Head
Occ: Woolen Weaver
Janet JAMIESON U 28 F Paisley, Renfrew, Scotland
Rel: Daur
Occ: Thread Mill Worker
Elizabeth JAMIESON U 28 F Paisley, Renfrew, Scotland
Rel: Daur
Occ: Thread Mill Worker
--
That is how it appears - not an image, just a transcription. As far a i'm aware SP don't have images for 1881 either - it's the same as above. Maybe someone who has downloaded a family on the 1881 from SP will be able to correct me if i'm wrong.

But the BIG difference is in searches. The LDS has that great feature "Neighbours - Advance Query". You can, for eg, search for a particular birthplace, address, occupation etc. In fact, ANY key word, words, numbers that you want. Even an age without a name on the individual search. Can't do all that with SP.
You can of course do a normal search by forename & surname - and a forename by itself too (nor that with SP). Also the Parish where born and what Parish likely to be - or all Counties; the choice is yours.

There are errors - any transcription makes for them, but if something isn't just right you can always look at the original page if you have a local LDS Family History Centre where you could order that particular film.
Another wee glitch is on the "Mc" names. Sometimes you have to leave a gap - eg McKAY may be as Mc KAY. But as long as you're aware of this there's no problem.

I've said this before - the CDs were the best £30 i've spent in many a year. Well worth saving up for. Or start dropping hints near your birthday.

Jack
----
ps - i always say indexes as i was taught indices, although not wrong, was usually applied to mathematics.
pps - i don't know why GROS won't allow the LDS to have Scotland on the "British" census. Seems pretty mean to me.

[grannysrock]

Thanks Jack for the speedy reply.

It sounds a worthwhile investment. Searching by first name and occupation sound really interesting.

There are definitely not images of the 1881 census at SP. Just the transcriptions, and since an "Upgrade" in summer 2003 you can't copy the text of the transcription any more. That's another advantage of the disks I suppose.

Thanks again

Sally


PS Drat - just missed my birthday though - perhaps they take M&S vouchers ?


PPS Perhaps it's because I studied maths that "indices" has stuck in my mind. Although the maths itself hasn't ..... (experimenting with smiley's now - another first for me . why does it say oops ? )

[AndrewP]

I believe the 1881 census images will eventually appear online at ScotlandsPeople. But they are at the end of the agenda, as the earlier censuses have been prioritised, as there is nothing there for them at all yet. The SP "schedule" is online at link to SP schedule, but take the dates given as an indication only as each stage so far has taken longer than planned.

All the best,

Andrew Paterson

[Jack]

Hi Folks,

Could GROS be using the LDS transcription for their 1881 census index? The reason i ask is this. I've two 1C2R who were both born in Paisley -

Robert NIXON, b 10 May 1858.
Hugh NIXON, b 15 Mar 1867.

Their ages on the GROS index are 43 & 44 and both at Shettleston.
And as you can see, on the LDS Cd they are also 43 & 44 at Shettleston.

With both their ages being wrong it took me a wee while to find them - and that was by pure chance. The informant on the 1881 DC of their 16yr old brother William in Paisley was Robert - with his Shettleston address.
Anyhow, i looked at the original census page and the ages were definitely 23 & 14. A bit difficult to see perhaps because of a black line, but clear enough with a good look at them.
--
1881
Dwelling: 1 Mc Nair Row
Census Place: Shettleston, Lanark, Scotland
Source: FHL Film 0203614 GRO Ref Volume 622-2 EnumDist 9 Page 30
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
Robert NIXON U 43 M Paisley, Renfrew, Scotland
Rel: Head
Occ: Iron Turner At Works
Hugh NIXON 44 M Paisley, Renfrew, Scotland
Rel: Brother
--
So, are GROS using the LDS index? and not one made from their own records?
If yes, then this means that any transcription errors in the LDS version will be replicated on SP at the moment.

Jack

ps - pity you missed your birthday chance Sally - and it's a long wait for Xmas.... Sell the M&S vouchers? i could use an "oops" smiley too.

[DavidWW]

Hi Folks,

Could GROS be using the LDS transcription for their 1881 census index? The reason i ask is this. I've two 1C2R who were both born in Paisley -

So are GROS using the LDS index? and not one made from their own records?

If yes, then this means that any transcription errors in the LDS version will be replicated on SP at the moment

....various bits snipped.....

Jack

Jack

Thought everyone realised! The 1881 census project was carried out by GSU (i.e. LDS) together with FHSs all over the UK, and GRO in London and GROS in Embra, as the Registrars General had to give their permission.

Part of the deal was that GROS then had free access to the resultant transcripts for Scotland, so, yes, any transcription errors on the CDs are perpetuated in what's currently available on the SP site, as they are essentially the same thing.

After 1871 next week (fingers crossed), next will come 1861, 1851, 1841, and only then a new index and digitised images for 1841............ And before anyone asks, Ah ain't predicting when. [-(

Davie

[Jack]

Hi Davie,

I knew you'd know all about it! Will GROS / SP be using the old index when the images come online? As the years have passed GROS must surely by now know that there are very many transcription errors.
So in fairness to paying clients i do hope they start from scratch and weed out the mistakes. Or am i just being naive in this? Probably.

Do you know why GROS won't allow Scotland on the LDS "British" census? GRO in London have clearly allowed their records. Is this a "money" thingy? Rather mean of them if it is after all the work done by the LDS.

I have to say that i am looking forward to the 1871 next week - i've been saving up for it.

My thanks for explaining - us novices are always learning something on TS.

Jack

[DavidWW]

Hi Davie,

I knew you'd know all about it! Will GROS / SP be using the old index when the images come online? As the years have passed GROS must surely by now know that there are very many transcription errors.
So in fairness to paying clients i do hope they start from scratch and weed out the mistakes. Or am i just being naive in this? Probably.

As far as I know, - I'll have to check it, - the info is, maybe already has, been rekeyed.

Do you know why GROS won't allow Scotland on the LDS "British" census? GRO in London have clearly allowed their records. Is this a "money" thingy? Rather mean of them if it is after all the work done by the LDS.

Relations between GROS and GSU (Genealogical Society of Utah) tend to go through good patches and less than good patches. As far as I'm aware the original agreement between GSU and GROS only allowed GSU to publish the Scottish data on the CDs.

There is now, however, I understand, an updated agreement in force that now gives GSU the right to include the Scottish 1881 data on www.familysearch.org; but it remains to be seen if GSU take this up
BTW, most of the transcription work was done not by GSU but by Scottish FHS volunteers working together with GSU Where GSU came into the situation in terms of their major input was the checking, re-checking, and keying in of the transcribed data. GSU were advised by UK FHSs that they should use checkers and inputters with at least some knowledge of UK geography, but they chose to ignore this advice, which is why all Sutherland locations initially appeared under Sunderland, Co. Durham. This was very quickly corrected!! Only recently I came across several Leith records under Middlesex

I have to say that i am looking forward to the 1871 next week - i've been saving up for it.

Better late than never, and we should still give GROS credit for the fact that part, but part only of the delay, is their desire to get the quality right, - the initial quality control checks showed up some significant problems.

My thanks for explaining - us novices are always learning something on TS.Jack

Nae prob As long as it's realised that I don't always have the info !!, and that sometimes it takes a number of iterations before I'm able to get at the "truth", if such there be !

Davie

[grannysrock]

Hi Jack, David, Andrew

Thanks for the explanations - I always wondered why all my "transcripts" of SP mentioned FHL !

I will save up for the disks ... if I don't spend all my pocket money on the eagerly awaited 1871 census...

Thanks again

Sally

[StewL]

Davie

So I take it your not going to make any predictions on when the other census data comes online at SP

Or do you think it would be more forthcoming if you spent a few quid on a spooky wifey to get the word of when those censuses "might" appear

I suppose if you saw the spooky wifey, you could also ask aboot yer long deid Uncle Tam, who mysteriously disappeared during an alien abduction in the 1700 or 1800's Two for the price of one