1871 Census - watch out! .....

[sporran]

Hello Alison,


SP was keen to make the 1871 census available even though testing threw up some problems. Records for Dunfermline and for Shipping Returns are not currently available, but they will be on the forthcoming combined site. In addition, the combined site will have a much cleaner look, i.e. a selection of a year will offer only districts particular to a county for that census year and will therefore avoid the year in brackets.

If you feel that you bought credits without being able to use them probably, then contact SP, who should be sympathetic. Although the decision to make 1871 available for Easter weekend does appear to have been a late decision, a warning about Dunfermline would have spared some ill-feeling, and will be mentioned to SP.


Regards,

John

[Alison Plenderleith]

Hi Catriona,

Yes, they are the family and I had tried all the names of those who were born before the 1871 census, but used Lilias as an example as it's not such a common name. The baby Mary died after census time but having read Sporran's reply I now know why I can't find them.

The reason I wanted to find them on the 1871 census is because I am hoping there may be a chance, albeit a very slim one that Robert Finnick's birth county may be on it. I know he was born in England and I know his parents names but any more than that I don't.

Many thanks for taking the time over this. I'll just have to be patient

All the best,

Alison

[Alison Plenderleith]

Hi John,

Thanks for that. Now I know that at least I'll be able to find them in the future (she says confidently )

I would have bought credits anyway, so I shan't bother SP with it but will appeciate you mentioning the fact that it would have been helpful if they had mentioned there were no records for Dunfermline.

All the best,

Alison

[JayPee]

Hello Alison,


SP was keen to make the 1871 census available even though testing threw up some problems. Records for Dunfermline and for Shipping Returns are not currently available, but they will be on the forthcoming combined site.

Hi John ... do you know if there are records from other areas that "threw up some problems"?

- JayPee

[sporran]

Hello JayPee,


Dunfermline and Shipping are the only two areas that SP have told us are missing, and I have no reason to suspect that any other areas are missing.

My testing brought up a few mis-indexing examples of McCardie and McCurdie (mentioned by Andy), and I have a couple of families where I can not find people who were in Scotland before and shortly after the census (3x Dorrance in Old Cumnock and 2x Angus Lamont in Edinburgh). Of course, they may have missed being enumerated for valid reasons, but their absence still nags me.

I noted your earlier response about the McQueens perhaps being missing from Ross and Cromarty. Do you have examples of who you believe should be there, from vital records or evidence that they were never likely to leave the area? I suggest that you e-mail me with examples, but make it quick, since I travel on Saturday ready for Tuesday's meeting.


Regards,

John

[JayPee]

Hello John ... the information I have on my (wife's) MacQueen branch is sketchy and (in some cases) second-hand, with no proof; that's part of what I was hoping to learn/verify with the 1871 census. I definitely do not have "evidence that they were never likely to leave the area"; just strong suspicion. (But ... suspicion does not count for too much in genealogy.) Will mail you the details I have; don't spend too much time on it.
Thanks for any light you might be able to shed; I might just have to widen the area of my search for that branch.

- JayPee

[bobj-kirk]

Hello Everyone,

Just a note to follow up on the indexing problem I reported earlier on the 1871 census.

Scotland's People got back to me today and gave me 5 more credits. They suggested that I try the next page which I did and found the the record I wanted with a page number of 8 on the image, but with a page number of 9 on the lower right of the screen.

Apart from suggesting I take the next page, they did not say anything about correcting the indexing of the page. I reiterated that I thought there was an indexing problem and thanked them for their help.

So, they helped me out, but I am not sure if they will fix the problem before others run into it.

-Bob

[DavidWW]

Hello Everyone,

Just a note to follow up on the indexing problem I reported earlier on the 1871 census.

Scotland's People got back to me today and gave me 5 more credits. They suggested that I try the next page which I did and found the the record I wanted with a page number of 8 on the image, but with a page number of 9 on the lower right of the screen.

Apart from suggesting I take the next page, they did not say anything about correcting the indexing of the page. I reiterated that I thought there was an indexing problem and thanked them for their help.

So, they helped me out, but I am not sure if they will fix the problem before others run into it.

-Bob

Bob

Just had a look and can confirm what you said.

Also had a look at a good number of 1871 images that I've looked at in my capacity as a member of the SP User Group just in case there was something I was missing, but it's as I thought, - altho' the reference is correct in the index, there's a glitch here in that the page 8 tag takes you to page 7. In every other image I checked, the page number on the viewer screen (bottom right) matched the index entry and the ED book page number.

Davie

[DavidWW]

....much snipped........... Question for the SP insiders: If the name of a person was recorded on a census as "Mac Queen", would the '*' between the 'c' and 'q' in "M*c*q*n" match the name I'm seeking? Are blanks significant in searches? (I think I searched with an explicit space and still found nothing, but will have to verify that the next time I drop a few pounds.)

- JayPee

Any variant with an e on the end........

M*cq*n* and even "M*n* might produce too many hits, but M*cq*n? and even M*n? could be worth a go.

I don't think *q* would work, - it might appear to but I believe that there need to be 2 letters for a search to work, and even then if it leads to a search that takes over a certain period of time, I believe that system will abort it.

As regards the treatment of spaces such as you mention, I don't believe that this makes a difference, but I've asked the question.

Davie

[JayPee]

Any variant with an e on the end........

M*cq*n* and even "M*n* might produce too many hits, but M*cq*n? and even M*n? could be worth a go.

Ahhh! I hadn't even considered a trailing "e". Thanks for that, Davie; will check into that.
- JayPee