1939 Register on Ancestry

[Guy Etchells]

I've seen some notes that on that page that are connected with the war;  ARP Warden etc.

Yes the first column has some notes regarding the war and part of this first column right hand page is open.
The rest of the righthand page has medical information which is not revealed on the online image and would have to be requested through the NHS under a data protection request or a freedom of information request to the NHS if you are the person concerned or their representative.
Cheers
Guy

[nanny jan]

Thanks Guy; I learn something every day on Rootschat!

[Nick_Ips]

Ancestry's recent sluggishness and search engine malfunctions were around before the 1939 register was put on there so I dont think it is to blame for the issues.

I use both Ancestry and FindMyPast side-by-side in my local library and for census records Ancestry has always been my preferred choice until the changes over the last year or so, to the point I've given up using it for anything census related and mainly use FindMyPast instead. The recent free Ancestry weekend had me pulling my hair out. 

But after a weekend of looking at Ancestry's version of the 1939 Register I'm pleasantly surprised.

I prioritised finding people who were missing on the FindMyPast version, but known to be alive in 1939. The Ancestry search seems far more forgiving of errors in the data, coming up with results that even though they contained errors, were still better than the FindMyPast ones. The Ancestry transcriptions appear to be far more accurate than the original FindMyPast version.

As a result of my weekend I've now found around 70 families who were 'missing'. The common reasons were mistranscriptions of surnames and also the figure '9' in birth years being transcribed as '0', often (perhaps by coincidence/or because?) the line below was redacted and the tail of the '9' was obscured.

Finding the transcription book cover pages was a plus, but they didn't give details of the parish name, which I'd hoped they might. 

I was also surprised the free access ended within a minute or so of midnight.... in the past it seemed like people didn't get round to flipping the switch until the morning.    And it was noticeable that if you are not logged in the Ancestry results page is not much use in comparison to the FindMyPast one. For example it doesn't even give a birth year. I'd need to have a lot more confidence I'd found the right result if I was going to be tempted to renew my subscription on that basis.

[smudwhisk]

I was also surprised the free access ended within a minute or so of midnight.... in the past it seemed like people didn't get round to flipping the switch until the morning.   

I believe the free 1939 Register access was only through the UK site and not all of Ancestry's websites, hence if the free access ended in the morning it was probably to ensure that the subscribers in North America retained access.  If only on the UK site its not surprising it ended at midnight.

[Guy Etchells]

I use both Ancestry and FindMyPast side-by-side in my local library and for census records Ancestry has always been my preferred choice until the changes over the last year or so, to the point I've given up using it for anything census related and mainly use FindMyPast instead. The recent free Ancestry weekend had me pulling my hair out. 

But after a weekend of looking at Ancestry's version of the 1939 Register I'm pleasantly surprised.

I prioritised finding people who were missing on the FindMyPast version, but known to be alive in 1939. The Ancestry search seems far more forgiving of errors in the data, coming up with results that even though they contained errors, were still better than the FindMyPast ones. The Ancestry transcriptions appear to be far more accurate than the original FindMyPast version.

As a result of my weekend I've now found around 70 families who were 'missing'. The common reasons were mistranscriptions of surnames and also the figure '9' in birth years being transcribed as '0', often (perhaps by coincidence/or because?) the line below was redacted and the tail of the '9' was obscured.

Finding the transcription book cover pages was a plus, but they didn't give details of the parish name, which I'd hoped they might. 

I was also surprised the free access ended within a minute or so of midnight.... in the past it seemed like people didn't get round to flipping the switch until the morning.    And it was noticeable that if you are not logged in the Ancestry results page is not much use in comparison to the FindMyPast one. For example it doesn't even give a birth year. I'd need to have a lot more confidence I'd found the right result if I was going to be tempted to renew my subscription on that basis.

One additional point when using the Ancestry images is the filmstrip facility. If you click on the filmstrip icon you can scroll to the previous film or the later filmstrip which may be a continuation of the district.
Cheers
Guy

[Mart 'n' Al]

One piece of advice I had to Guy's comment above, is that scrolling to the previous or next page often shows you a street name that's written a little bit more clearer than the one on the page in which you are interested in. Many times I have had an illegible street name on one page, but one on or back and it has been much clearer.

Martin

[HughC]

I did quite well over the weekend, but it's hardly credible how much Ancestry manages to mistranscribe.  Do they think a computer can read handwriting as well as a human, or is it that their humans are as unintelligent as a computer?

[Mart 'n' Al]

Hugh, at one time I heard that prisoners were to be used for transcribing, but I never heard any more about that project.  After years in IT I am still amazed at how badly computers cope with recognising scanned printed text, even recent documents.  I can read mirror writing or upside down better.

Martin

[andrewalston]

They do use actual humans for the transcription task with handwritten records, but not necessarily English speakers, never mind native English speakers. Your local Family History Society is likely to produce the best transcription. They know the geography, the names of places and spellings of surnames.

When it comes to printed text, OCR can be pretty good. The professional versions are much better than the freebies included with other things like scanners. Often I am amazed how well it can interpret, say, an old newspaper, where the letters are so close together that the ink has actually joined them. A human can see the meaning immediately from the context, but zoom in and see how difficult it becomes.