Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Nick_Ips

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 72
1
The Common Room / Re: Poor transcriptions
« on: Saturday 08 March 25 14:28 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: HughC on Saturday 08 March 25 08:10 GMT (UK)
...
Given that that was not done, corrections submitted by relatives should be accepted.
Ancestry's handling of the 1921 census is a disgrace.

as far as I know user submitted 'corrections' are accepted and become searchable, albeit as alternates rather than replacing the original entry.

I don't see this being a particular problem, provided the search algorithm does pick up on user generated alternatives.  If we treat the transcriptions as a finding aid (and having spent days and days at the FRC winding forward and back through microfims I'm delighted to have whatever help we can get) then it isn't critical what the transcription says, so long as the right record can be found.

I have to say, rather than finding it a 'disgrace', I think Ancestry's approach to the 1921 census has been pretty good. Yes, it would be nice if they had retranscribed the whole lot, but just having an alternative means of searching the same data has been valuable to me.

I've found many 1921 households since the Ancestry launch that I'd spent hours looking for on FindMyPast with no joy - in particular by searching Ancestry for a different recordset for an individual (e.g. 1901 or 1911 census) and then seeing what gets listed in the 'suggested' records for the 1921 census.

Ancestry's approach to fuzzy searching - in my view - is delivering better results than FindMyPast.  If that is a byproduct of Ancestry having an awareness of inaccuracies in their data and developing a search algorithm to compensate then I'd say that was more than fine with me.  :)  Getting a result from a finding aid is as important (more so IMV) than every record being transcribed with 100% accuracy... because, let's face it, the original data captured in 1921 was far from perfect.

2
The Lighter Side / Re: Senior moment
« on: Saturday 16 November 24 15:56 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: mumjo on Friday 15 November 24 13:22 GMT (UK)
Thank very much for all you replies, it looks as though I can get the information I need from the library copy, which will save me subscribing. I’ve just got to make a list of exactly what I need.
Thanks again for everyone's help
Jo

Just to confirm the version you can access via a library has exactly the same information for the 1921 census as the regular online version.

The only thing you (probably) can't do is to access the site while logged in to your own personal account, unless you are using your own device.

3
The Common Room / Re: FindMyPast - partial free access for Remembrance Day. Includes 1921 census
« on: Thursday 07 November 24 09:37 GMT (UK)  »
This free weekend - including the 1921 census records - appears to have started already.

4
The Common Room / Re: FindMyPast - partial free access for Remembrance Day
« on: Friday 01 November 24 09:20 GMT (UK)  »

The 1939 register free access period has now started.

5
The Common Room / Re: FindMyPast - partial free access for Remembrance Day
« on: Sunday 20 October 24 09:56 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Chris Doran on Sunday 20 October 24 02:28 BST (UK)
Just a caution: I can't see a closing time stated, but last year it was 10am rather than 1 minute to midnight as other sites tend to be, so don't have a lie in on Monday assuming you have all day.

I agree Chris, the last time there was a FindMyPast free period the access was cut at 10am Monday morning while I was in the middle of doing something, even though the marketing implied the access was free Friday through Monday.

Treat anything after 10am Monday as a bonus, but aim to be finished before then.

6
The Common Room / FindMyPast - partial free access for Remembrance Day
« on: Saturday 19 October 24 13:11 BST (UK)  »

Can't see it mentioned yet, but FindMyPast have started free access to certain records in the lead up to 11th November.

Currently -
-All civil birth, marriage and death records
-All First World War military records and medal rolls and honours
-The 1911 Census of England and Wales


Not entirely clear what, but the email suggests there may be free access on multiple weekends, not just this one -
"More wartime resources will be free to access every weekend in the lead-up to Remembrance Day"

7
The Common Room / Re: Free Access to MyHeritage French Census Records until July 16th
« on: Monday 15 July 24 14:18 BST (UK)  »

I often don't see your posts until it is too late, or sometimes the free ofer isn't relevant to me, but can I just say 'thanks' for regularly flagging up these freebies Chris - it is much appreciated.

Nick

8
The Common Room / Re: HS2 and Cemeteries
« on: Monday 15 April 24 21:01 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Redroger on Sunday 14 April 24 21:28 BST (UK)
Quote from: Lensmeister on Sunday 14 April 24 21:16 BST (UK)
Beeching was the scapegoat.

It was Ernest Marples behind the axing of the railways.
Ernest Marples ... road builder ... hmm makes you think
Could be argued that Marples was the scapegoat since ultimately it was a cabinet decision. It got Beeching a peerage £380 a day now approx, and cost Marples his seat also same price + minister's salary.
Some things haven't altered in 100 years.

Both Beeching and Marples were scapegoats.  Beeching was appointed to BTC in March 1961.  The length of route miles closed in 1961, 62, 63 and 1964 were 150, 780, 324 and 1058 miles respectively (total = 2312 miles)

Wilson's government promised to halt the closures when they came to power in October 1964.  The route miles closed in 1965, 66, 67 and 1968 were 600, 750, 300 and 400 respectively (total = 2050 miles).  Barbara Castle wasn't a road builder in the way Marples was, but Wilson's government were almost as good at closing railways.

For completeness, Marples took office as Transport Minister in 1959. Between 1950 and 1958 there were 1650 route miles closed: Marples wasn't the first Transport Minister to oversee extensive closures.

The truth is somewhere around the fact the UK had a post-war clapped-out* railway network which was far more extensive than needed.  The network had developed as a result of capitalist speculation, rather than a proper plan.  (*overused and under maintained through the war years)

Someone needed to cut the network down to size and orientate it towards what was needed.  Beeching and Marples were the lucky ones who got the job and forevermore will have the role of panto villian.

On the positive side, the closures meant we gained an extensive system of heritage railways so people today can enjoy historic trains in the way they were designed to be used.  And Beeching's support for freight containerisation (something he is rarely credited for) has led to us having a rail network where freight container movements have grown to the level where we need to look at projects like HS2 to create additional capacity.

9
The Common Room / Re: Early release of 1951 census - petition
« on: Thursday 11 April 24 13:12 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Jon_ni on Tuesday 09 April 24 15:32 BST (UK)
Guy himself though indicated it was NOT as clear-cut as above https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=804050.0 he favoured an 80 year but thought GDPR (2018) would be an issue with a reduction. So perhaps got not one but two Acts of Parliament that need debated and changed.

One Parliament cannot bind another, so Parliament today could amend the legislation to disapply it to the 1951 census.  One Bill/Act can amend or repeal many Acts (or sections of Acts) so the legislative process is not all that complicated, provided time can be found for it.

Given the state of public finances, opening up more records could create an opportunity for new income streams.

In terms of whether the 1951 census should be made public earlier, the approach adopted for the 1939 Register made sense and didn't cause widespread outrage at people's information being made public before their death or the elapse of 100 years.  The US have published their 1950 census in full.  I don't believe the majority of the population would be opposed to (say) an 80-year threshold for the publication of redacted 1951 census records.

In fact the only strong argument I can see for keeping the 100 year 'promise' is that people may be reluctant to give information in the 2031 census if they fear it will be published within their lifetime.  But since the more recent censuses have been questionable in their accuracy/relevance, and there are mutterings about whether the 2031 census should actually go ahead, it has to be asked 'Does that really matter?'

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 72