Silly census question

[ScouseBoy]

Several weeks after each main Census  a small sample "check" census is undertaken.   Probably a computer generates the addresses at random.

Not in 1911. The first comprehensive attempt to check the quality of the census results in Britain was made following the 1966 sample census. A rather less rigorous check was made following the 1971 Census but, in 1981, a full post-enumeration census was conducted.

Stan

    It is not  reasonable to compare the 1966 sample with the 1971 full census.
I contend that the follow up interviews conducted a certain time after the 1971 Census were rigorous. They were conducted  by experienced and professional staff.

One wonders how after Census analysis of the 2001 compares to after-Census analysis of the 2011. 

[Guy Etchells]

Several weeks after each main Census  a small sample "check" census is undertaken.   Probably a computer generates the addresses at random.

If you look at the 1871 census transcriptions I did in 2000 you will see the later additions in red.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01hfg/

This Bottesford part of the census was -
Transcribed by enumerator, Henry Norris, on  07 April 1871
Examined by Registrar, Charles Goodson, on 24 April 1871
Examined by Superintendent Registrar, R H Johnston, 16 May 1871
Revised by H Graves 22nd August 1871

Cheers
Guy

"The enumerator's books were supposed to be checked by the registrars and superintendent registrars before dispatch to the Census Office in London. In the Cesus Office the books were gone over again to sort out any problems or ambiguities in the data, reference no doubt being made to the household schedules."  "Making Sense of the Census Revisited" Edward Higgs.

Stan

Yes I have been in contact, through a series of emails, with Professor Edward Higgs, who looked at the 1871 census with a colleague.

As he notes many of the revisions seem to be those that the census clerks made to clarify which headings occupations should go in which category in the published tables (as also noted by Stan).
He also notes the examples I sent him (from the Bottesford census) showed examples of named information being inserted.
This is something he knew happened but had never seen in practice.

As he writes “it's nice to see evidence of one of the steps in the census process that is often ignored.”

It also raises the question whether the revision was based on the original schedules or whether the clerk (H Graves) returned to Bottesford and gathered additional information.
If it was based on the schedules why were the omissions missed by the checks by the registrar and superintendant registrar

This is also an example of why I caution people that good as it is, not everything is on the internet.
The internet companies, like transcribers before them have to make decisions about what to include and what to leave out. In this case much of the preamble to the census returns has been missed out. This can leave the researcher with questions.
In most cases this may be solved by the researcher using earlier sources such as microfilms or microfiche of the original source but in cases such as the 1939 National Registration where the original is out of reach and the Medal Index Cards which were going to be destroyed but were saved by the Western Front Association and others there is a fear that information may be lost or out of reach for ever.

Cheers
Guy

[coombs]

I have a similar problem with a Maud Mary Titshall, my 2xgreat aunty. Born in 1890 in Letheringham, Suffolk, and is missing in 1911, she wed in Dulwich, London in 1915. Maybe she is mistranscribed grossly or was part of the Suffragette movement.

I have come across census entries of families who just put England for birthplace and initials for firstnames, they obviously liked to keep a low profile.