RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: melba_schmelba on Saturday 22 April 17 17:06 BST (UK)
-
One implication of the fact we now have maiden names recorded for births back to 1837 that I realised (previously only I think back to 1911?), is the ability to search for children that died as infants and never appeared on censuses, especially useful with more common surnames.
I am not sure if it's a coincidence or not, but in London I have found particularly high infant mortality. In one family in Hackney in the 1870s, the last four out of five all died less than 2 years old, with the father dying shortly after the last was born. They were all buried in public graves in Abney Park Cemetery (free search http://www.devsys.co.uk/AP/ ). In another slightly better off family living in Bishopsgate in the 1850s & 60s, out of 12 children, 5 died under 14 years old.
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/default.asp
Deaths now also list age at death back to 1837 where it was previously only back to around mid 1860s, useful to narrow down which is the right one if there are multiple candidates.
-
The mortality rate for children was always much higher in the city than rural areas, the close proximity in which people lived, meant diseases spread more rapidly. Poor sanitation also had a significant effect.
-
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/default.asp
Deaths now also list age at death back to 1837 where it was previously only back to around mid 1860s, useful to narrow down which is the right one if there are multiple candidates.
Be aware that on that index some deaths of children showing as under 12 could be months not years
-
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/default.asp
Deaths now also list age at death back to 1837 where it was previously only back to around mid 1860s, useful to narrow down which is the right one if there are multiple candidates.
Be aware that on that index some deaths of children showing as under 12 could be months not years
And some are weeks or days.
-
The mortality rate for children was always much higher in the city than rural areas, the close proximity in which people lived, meant diseases spread more rapidly. Poor sanitation also had a significant effect.
Yes, I suppose pollution of varying sorts, sewerage, smoke, various hazardous chemicals and by- products being drained into streets & sewers etc. just added to the city being a terrible place to bring up children.
Be aware that on that index some deaths of children showing as under 12 could be months not years
Ah, that's no good ::)! I have noticed a few mistakes already which I sent corrections in for.
-
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/default.asp
Deaths now also list age at death back to 1837 where it was previously only back to around mid 1860s, useful to narrow down which is the right one if there are multiple candidates.
Be aware that on that index some deaths of children showing as under 12 could be months not years
And some are weeks or days.
Very true ;D ;D
-
Be aware that on that index some deaths of children showing as under 12 could be months not years
I've come across instances where the actual ages were up to 24 months, for which I have birth certificates, death certificates and/or burial records, so I now regard any age up to 24 in the GRO index as potentially iffy.
Surely the GRO must have recorded the time unit when they transcribed the records. If so, I really don't understand why they haven't got around to updating the display. Simply including the unit (y, m, w, d, h) would suffice.
-
They have been carrying out three separate delivery trials since they released the search so they haven't exactly been sitting on their hands.
I'm going to assume that they'll amend the format as part of the feedback generated
-
My gut feeling is that if they have the data it'd be a trivial change to include the unit on the death records.
At the absolute minimum they could at least correct the wording from 'Age at Death (in years)' so it's not misleading.
-
Surely the GRO must have recorded the time unit when they transcribed the records. If so, I really don't understand why they haven't got around to updating the display. Simply including the unit (y, m, w, d, h) would suffice.
Is that possibly being somewhat optimistic ::)? I can easily see it's a detail that might have been overlooked when the input databases were created or in the instruction of the transcribers i.e. if they weren't specifically told to translate weeks/months into 0-1-2 years then the data input will have just been wrong if the only input box was years.
-
it's quite handy to compare them to the freebmd death index - if that states 0 or 1 and the GRO states a number you can roughly work out if it's months/weeks due to the quarter they are registered in
I discovered that rather than my great grandmother being the eldest of 4, one of whom had died young (I found her baptism record - they only had 3 children baptised, all at the same time - they had already lost 3 children) she was actually the eldest of 11, 8 of which died under 13 months - her mother dying in childbirth with the youngest when she was 12
-
Another difficulty may be matching the birth and death records of infants. A g-g-uncle of mine died aged 5 days in 1842, both events registered immediately by his father. He was given a birth name, but was anonymous at death, I assume because he had not been baptised. There is no doubt of his identity, but the match is not self-evident. If his surname had been a common one, that might have been harder.
-
Another difficulty may be matching the birth and death records of infants. A g-g-uncle of mine died aged 5 days in 1842, both events registered immediately by his father. He was given a birth name, but was anonymous at death, I assume because he had not been baptised. There is no doubt of his identity, but the match is not self-evident. If his surname had been a common one, that might have been harder.
Good advise. I've also seen a couple of infant deaths where their deaths were recorded in the previous quarter to their births - so it looks like they died before they were born.
-
I discovered that rather than my great grandmother being the eldest of 4, one of whom had died young (I found her baptism record - they only had 3 children baptised, all at the same time - they had already lost 3 children) she was actually the eldest of 11, 8 of which died under 13 months - her mother dying in childbirth with the youngest when she was 12
It's incredibly sad isn't it, to consider the psychological effect it would have had on you as a parent, and as a sibling, that you'd actually expect one of you to die at any time....
I have had a few more interesting revelations in discoveries of some of the lost children in my tree, in the fact they have surnames in their forenames. One of which I know is a grandmother's maiden name, and the other after a bit of digging I realised is an uncle's first name, indicating that they were presumably close. I'd definitely recommend checking your own trees as these clues may be very useful in tracing further back.
-
Surely the GRO must have recorded the time unit when they transcribed the records. If so, I really don't understand why they haven't got around to updating the display. Simply including the unit (y, m, w, d, h) would suffice.
Sadly I understand that the data wasn't captured properly during transcription. The transcriptions were done some time ago as part of an abandoned previous project and were outsourced through the IT systems provider involved at the time, and the quality isn't that great - but it is better than we had before !
GRO advice is to use the "report" function for any entry you think is wrong and they will check against the register entry and update the index if appropriate.
The release of the indexes and the trials of the pdf delivery options went live at the same time, but aren't directly connected.
-
Surely the GRO must have recorded the time unit when they transcribed the records. If so, I really don't understand why they haven't got around to updating the display. Simply including the unit (y, m, w, d, h) would suffice.
Sadly I understand that the data wasn't captured properly during transcription.
It looks like melba is correct and that I'm too optimistic then. I just find it hard to understand how the GRO could have allowed the project to inaccurately transcribe the death ages, which is what has happened if they haven't recorded the time unit. A bit of clarification from the GRO would be nice.
For the post-1865 (?) death records the FreeBMD transcripts could be used to identify the GRO transcripts that need review. But that would require the GRO and FreeBMD working together and the GRO to be willing to review the (10s/100s of thousands) records, which all seems unlikely.
I realise I'm sounding quite negative here but I'm really not. The GRO indexes have been a great help to me personally and I just wanted to warn people to be a bit cautious with the death ages.
-
Just a minute, cuffie81 - FreeBMD death transcriptions are taken from the GRO indices, and neither indicate whether it is days, weeks, months or years :-\ :-\ The only people who have access to records to verify d, w, m or y is GRO themselves.
-
BumbleB,
I think you misunderstood me but I've probably haven't explained myself well.
What I was suggesting was that as the FreeBMD death ages are in years, for any corresponding GRO index record where the age doesn't match the FreeBMD value, and the FreeBMD age is zero or one, it flags up a potentially inaccurate GRO index record (where the age is likely in days, weeks or months, rather than years). Any FreeBMD record where the age is 2 or greater can be treated as years and thus shouldn't be at issue in the GRO index, and could be ignored.
For example:
FreeBMD record:
1876 Q4 Blanche Elizabeth J Shaw; age 1; Portsea; 2b; 270
GRO record:
1876 Q4 Blanche Elizabeth Jane Shaw; age 15; Portsea Island; 02b; 270
Blanche was 15 months old when she died. So in this example comparing the ages would flag up the (actual) issue in the GRO record.
As an aside, death ages in hours don't appear to have the issue in the GRO index, and in the examples I have, the ages have been recorded as zero.
-
OK - but I don't understand why you are involving FreeBMD at all, they ONLY have access to the printed GRO indices, which were produced at the time.
The attached is the only information that is available to FreeBMD and their transcribers. GRO is the ONLY organisation which has access to the full information, so they are the only ones who can make the alteration.
-
It looks like melba is correct and that I'm too optimistic then. I just find it hard to understand how the GRO could have allowed the project to inaccurately transcribe the death ages, which is what has happened if they haven't recorded the time unit. A bit of clarification from the GRO would be nice.
I don't suppose any project is 'allowed' to transcribe inaccurately, but due to human error it happens, right from 1837 when official Registration started. I wonder how you imagine all those reams of transcription might be supervised (and who by) to ensure total correctness?
-
OK - but I don't understand why you are involving FreeBMD at all, they ONLY have access to the printed GRO indices, which were produced at the time.
The attached is the only information that is available to FreeBMD and their transcribers. GRO is the ONLY organisation which has access to the full information, so they are the only ones who can make the alteration.
I'm not suggesting FreeBMD make any alterations. I'm just suggesting the FreeBMD data could be used in comparison with the GRO data, thereby identifying any potential records at issue in the GRO data.
Quite who could or would do the data comparison is another matter but it'd be a fairly trivial task for someone who had access to both datasets. So if FreeBMD were to offer their dataset to the GRO then the GRO could do it. Comparing the datasets doesn't require access to original indices or the GRO scans.
Edit:
The reason I suggested using the FreeBMD dataset was because it is widely regarded as being both comprehensive and accurate, and is probably the best dataset around for the death indexes. And FreeBMD *may* be open to the idea, whereas other (commercial) organisations may not (at at least not for free).
-
I don't suppose any project is 'allowed' to transcribe inaccurately, but due to human error it happens, right from 1837 when official Registration started. I wonder how you imagine all those reams of transcription might be supervised (and who by) to ensure total correctness?
It's not that I believe the transcriptions are inaccurate (at least not the numbers). But rather that I find it hard to believe those in charge of the project would have allowed any transcriptions to be done without ensuring the transcribers had the means to record the time unit. If those in charge did allow this then they were at fault, as its resulted in inaccurate records (albeit the numbers are correct), and not fault of the transcribers.
It would be such an oversight in the project that I'm hopeful that the data does actually exist but simply hasn't (yet?) been exposed to us via the website.
Maybe if the GRO were more open re. the process and data we wouldn't be left guessing...
-
cuffie81 - FreeBMD have access to NO OTHER dataset information than that published by GRO. Never have had, and never will have. Please get your head round this.
-
I think cuffie is saying that the ages on the old GRO death indexes post-1866 were correct, insofar as infant deaths were only shown in years, ie 0 or 1. And that these are the indexes that FreeBMD have used.
Whereas the errors have crept in on the recently issued revised GRO indexes.
This does look to be the case. I've just looked at a DC for a child who died in 1916 aged four months.
FreeBMD says he's 0 years old.
New GRO index says he's 4. ("age at death in years").
-
cuffie81 - FreeBMD have access to NO OTHER dataset information than that published by GRO. Never have had, and never will have. Please get your head round this.
I haven't said they do.
I was merely floating the idea that, in theory, it would be possible to identify inaccurate records in the GRO dataset by comparing it to an accurate dataset (eg FreeBMD). This would be possible, despite the fact that the GRO dataset death ages are in days, weeks, months or years and the other (accurate) dataset death ages are in years. This would only be possible for post-1865 records.
I seem to be winding people up here, which was never my intention, so I'll leave it at that.
-
Just to add I found Cuffie's suggestion perfectly easy to understand and Bumble has maybe caused a bit of winding up.
Thinking about it, data matching between the original quarterly indices and the new ones might throw up corrections of other types, not just these age at death issues.
This is from the GRO site ( https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_data_quality_error_reporting.asp ):
How is the age at death for infant deaths (i.e. died within 12 months of birth) recorded in the indexes?
Generally, age at death for 'infant deaths' will be shown as 0, in line with the microfiche index. However we are aware of a number of records where the age at death is showing a different value e.g. 9. If this is the case, it is likely that the information held in the online index relates to the age in minutes, hours, days, weeks, or months (recorded this way on the original death registration) rather than in years. It is not possible to identify which records maybe affected but we will continue to correct any errors that we do become aware of, or those reported to us.
-
I've just realised that it may be my references to comparing datasets that is causing the confusion. By this I mean comparing the datasets programmatically and not by a person visually comparing one scan to another, thus only access to the data would be required and not any scans.
-
I'm confused about what's causing the confusion ???
Two organisations have two separately indexed databases for the same set of data. They could be compared (if either party made their databases available to the other) and those with a difference in ages noted.
Quite what either of them does with that information is a different matter
-
If in doubt purchase a certificate, that would solve all problems
Louisa Maud
-
If in doubt purchase a certificate, that would solve all problems
... or raise new ones ... :D
-
I'm confused about what's causing the confusion ???
Two organisations have two separately indexed databases for the same set of data. They could be compared (if either party made their databases available to the other) and those with a difference in ages noted.
Quite what either of them does with that information is a different matter
But only for the deaths after 1866.
Before that, FreeBMD does not show ages as these were not given on the old GRO indexes that were available.
-
But only for the deaths after 1866.
Before that, FreeBMD does not show ages as these were not given on the old GRO indexes that were available.
Yes, that's the problem, there is no source other than the new GRO death index for pre 1866 death ages. I just checked five different infant deaths in the new GRO index pre and post 1866, and the figure in all cases must be days, weeks or months not years as stated, but no way of telling which other than getting the certificate.
-
But only for the deaths after 1866.
Before that, FreeBMD does not show ages as these were not given on the old GRO indexes that were available.
Yes, that's the problem, there is no source other than the new GRO death index for pre 1866 death ages. I just checked five different infant deaths in the new GRO index pre and post 1866, and the figure in all cases must be days, weeks or months not years as stated, but no way of telling which other than getting the certificate.
If you know were they were living, burial records invariably give the ages of children, and sometimes ages of adults too.
-
If you know were they were living, burial records invariably give the ages of children, and sometimes ages of adults too.
Yes, true! Lot's now online on ancestry and findmypast. Obviously usually won't give cause of death, informant present at death etc.
-
If you know were they were living, burial records invariably give the ages of children, and sometimes ages of adults too.
Yes, true! Lot's now online on ancestry and findmypast. Obviously usually won't give cause of death, informant present at death etc.
Sorry, but that's where it now comes to the crunch and you will have to actually pay for the information for each of the individuals from the ultimate source - GRO certificates :'( :'(