Robertsons Galore .....

elisabeth · Post by **elisabeth** » Sun May 21, 2006 3:00 pm

When I scanned the 1861 Smailholm microfilm on a visit to Central Library on Saturday, I found 3 Robertsons but not the ones I was looking for. I am willing to concede that I may have missed a few but Smailholm had only about 600 people in 1861. I'm looking for James Robertson(age about 50) and son Peter(age about 12) because I need to verify if they were born in Logie. Scotlandspeople has matches for both of them, but I'm having trouble with the search results for Robertsons in Smailholm and don't want to buy another 30 credits to view the results until someone else checks my search results and tells me if I'm doolally or not. When I search SP for all Robertsons in Smailholm in 1861 I get 73 altogether- a tenth of the population. I couldn't have missed that many on Saturday. Freecen has 7 Robertsons in Smailholm, Roxburghshire in 1851. SP has 70 for 1851. What am I doing wrong?
Elisabeth

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sun May 21, 2006 5:11 pm

Hi Elizabeth
I also found 73 matches on SP for Robertson in Smailholm in 1861. I'm not familiar enough with that area to know if that is reasonable or not. It certainly does seem odd that you were not seeing them on a census film. I guess the only way to find out if any of it makes sense is maybe to view the three pages of results? Before you do that though - you said you had found likely candidates for James and Peter - if the ref. nos. for your James and Peter are the same then this would verify that they are on the same page, so probably in the same household (I say probably, because this sort of logical conclusion does not work with the surname Ross in Easter Ross parishes where over 40% of the populaion have that surname!)

best wishes
Lesley

IanS · Post by **IanS** » Sun May 21, 2006 5:35 pm

I had one wee lonely credit left, so I keeked at the first page and they are all from nearby Kelso!

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sun May 21, 2006 9:32 pm

Hi Elizabeth & Ian
So, if you specifically choose Roxburgh, Smailholm and instead you are getting Roxburgh, Kelso, it would seem to me that a contact form to SP may be in order here to point out the problem.

Best wishes
Lesley

IanS · Post by **IanS** » Sun May 21, 2006 10:22 pm

Hi Lesley, I specifically chose Roxburgh, Smailholm and the results are all Kelso for the first page.

Have copied and pasted search criteria and results into a word document in case it suddenly disappears and there is any dispute with S.P.

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sun May 21, 2006 10:30 pm

Hi Ian & Elizabeth
Ian - good thinking!
Elizabeth - you need to send a contact form to SP (from the SP web site) explaining the problem, as you have done here. If you have already wasted credits because of this specific problem they might refund you some.

...don't want to buy another 30 credits to view the results until someone else checks my search results and tells me if I'm doolally or not.

The good news is, it appears you are not "doolally"

Best wishes
Lesley

elisabeth · Post by **elisabeth** » Mon May 22, 2006 6:19 am

Well, not doolally this time, anyway! I haven't used any credits as I had none left to look at the results of the 70 plus matches. It means my trip to the library to find James and Peter in Smailholm was a waste of time, as I take it they're in Kelso and probably nothing to do with another Peter(89 years old) who died in Smailholm in 1869. Do you want to report it so you can get your credit back, Ian?
Elisabeth

IanS · Post by **IanS** » Mon May 22, 2006 9:13 am

Hi Elizabeth and Lesley, Have reported it and received an acknowledgement e-mail. Will let you know their reply when it comes.

elisabeth · Post by **elisabeth** » Mon May 22, 2006 11:04 am

OK-thanks, Ian

Elisabeth

IanS · Post by **IanS** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:59 pm

A reply arrived this morning. Mmmmm!

''Good morning

You will see among the search results, that there are records also for
Smailholm. This was because due to boundary changes, when these were
indexed
Kelso & Smailholm were included for eiither search in order to give a
full
result because they were recorded under both at the time.

You will see if you do the same search but use Kelso rather than
Smailholm,
you get exactly the same 3 pages of results.

This is not an error - it is to reflect the way the census was
recorded.

Regards

Alison

ScotlandsPeople''