Author Topic: 1921 census  (Read 20568 times)

Online BumbleB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,307
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1921 census
« Reply #270 on: Monday 10 January 22 12:53 GMT (UK) »
Well said, groom  ;D

I did finally find an entry I was searching for, with a mis-transcription - so I've put in a correction, plus a thank you for the census.

Transcriptions and NBI are merely finding aids.  They are NOT a substitute for original record entries.
Remember - "They'll be found when they want to be found" !!!
If you don't ask the question, you won't get an answer.
He/she who never made a mistake, never made anything.
Archbell - anywhere, any date
Kendall - WRY
Milner - WRY
Appleyard - WRY

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,658
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1921 census
« Reply #271 on: Monday 10 January 22 12:55 GMT (UK) »
This tells you how to report transcription errors without having purchased the transcript.

https://www.findmypast.co.uk/help/articles/4415870561041-how-was-the-1921-census-transcribed-
Very useful thanks.

Offline harrison

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: 1921 census
« Reply #272 on: Monday 10 January 22 13:23 GMT (UK) »
I agree with you BumbleB, any hobby costs money.

In order to do Family Research I save up so as to be able to pay for certificates & other records & to subscribe to my preferred geneology site.
For many years I would save up my loose change so as to be able to purchase the many BMD certificates, it's not difficult.

It would cost me a LOT of money to have to visit the various places to view the records, whereas thanks to those who make searching a LOT of records (at a cost I might add) much easier I can do my research in the comfort of my own home.

My other hobby is Crosstitching & I have spent much more money to enable me to do that than I have paying for BMD's etc.
Harrison,Spears,Stead,Garthwaite,Holiday/Holliday,Sharp/e,Smurthwaite,Hick/s,Bendelow,Foxton,Lund,Buttle,Longden,White......
Thirsk.Malton.Kirkbymoorside.York.Darlington,Home on Spalding Moor.Tockwith,Lincoln,Essex.

Offline PurdeyB

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1921 census
« Reply #273 on: Monday 10 January 22 13:48 GMT (UK) »
I agree the costs are fair considering the resources that has to go into making the census available. Two of my grandparents were children/young adults living at home at the time and it's definitely worth £3.50 to me to see the original records at home.

I always thought my grandad was the secondest youngest of his family but there were two younger sisters I knew nothing about.

One question - would it have been usual for the enumerator to complete the form? My great grandmother (a widow) is named as head and as the person signing the form but the writing looks identical to the enumerator's writing on the front page. I'm not sure if GG could read or write well but my grandad certainly could and was 16 so could have completed the form for her to sign but it does all look like the enumerator's writing. Or is it more likely that they both used a similar copperplate?
Boutflower/Boutflour - Northumberland & County Durham
Branfoot - N Yorkshire, Northumberland & County Durham
Horwell - York, E Yorkshire & Lincolnshire
Bettley - N & W Yorkshire


Online Jebber

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,385
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1921 census
« Reply #274 on: Monday 10 January 22 14:13 GMT (UK) »
I too am tired of people complaining about the cost of the 1921 Census. As has already been said, any hobby costs money.

How many of the complainers pay for a coffee or a beer when they go  out? Once consumed there is nothing left to show for it, with the census there is something tangible to be referred to as often as one wishes.
CHOULES All ,  COKER Harwich Essex & Rochester Kent 
COLE Gt. Oakley, & Lt. Oakley, Essex.
DUNCAN Kent
EVERITT Colchester,  Dovercourt & Harwich Essex
GULLIVER/GULLOFER Fifehead Magdalen Dorset
HORSCROFT Kent.
KING Sturminster Newton, Dorset. MONK Odiham Ham.
SCOTT Wrabness, Essex
WILKINS Stour Provost, Dorset.
WICKHAM All in North Essex.
WICKHAM Medway Towns, Kent from 1880
WICKHAM, Ipswich, Suffolk.

Offline phil57

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1921 census
« Reply #275 on: Monday 10 January 22 15:01 GMT (UK) »
To put the cost for a copy of a page from the 1921 census (which includes copies of other pages and documents listed under "Extra Materials") in context, I have today paid TNA a few pence short of £60 to make high quality copies of, and email me seven pages of a document in their collection. That doesn't include the initial fee of £8.50 I paid before Christmas for them to find the document and assess it's suitability for copying. I make that roughly £9.50 per page. Yes, viewing the documents would be free if I took time and trouble to visit TNA in person, neither of which I am inclined to do at present. If I had done so, I would have been able to sit in front of the document and take notes, but even if they allowed me to photograph it, my images would bear no comparison to the service I am paying for. I paid TNA quite a lot more than that a while ago for a copy of a will probated in the Shanghai Supreme Court.

Another example: transcripts of parish records held by Essex Record Office are held by Ancestry, and therefore free to subscribers. The images of the original documents however, are not. I can access them for free by visiting ERO in Chelmsford should I wish, but I choose for convenience to pay them £95 for an annual subscription to access them from the comfort of my own home. I also have an order currently pending with ERO for copies of documents in their possession which have not been digitised and are not otherwise available from them or anywhere else.

Last month I paid the Marine History Archive 40 Canadian Dollars to search an archive in their collection and confirm  (the absence of) an individual in a particular record on a specific date.

If I want to view and download or copy original documents, and sometimes even transcripts, I find that some may be available on FindMyPast and I need a subscription to view them, Others that are not on FindMyPast may be available at Ancestry. Ditto The Genealogist etc. I can also find many of those collections elsewhere without having to take out a subscription to any of those companies, but I still have to pay for many of them. Local family history societies will charge me for copies of CDs or USB pens containing the information which, by their agreements with FindMyPast or Ancestry, I could also obtain from those providers with a subscription. Others, which are often also on one of the major subscription sites, I can purchase from specialist genealogical database suppliers, per item or part thereof.

Why should anyone think they have an entitlement to free access to anything, just because they have paid a subscription to a third party whose agreement with the original repository, and conditions for copying, hosting and permitting access will all vary according to the repository or type of material concerned, and other arrangements? As TNA explain on their website, "As a government department, we are obliged to charge for some of our public services, including research and record copying. The prices we charge for some of our services are set out by the Fees Regulations under the Public Records Act (1958) and are based on recovering the costs of providing these services. Digitising paper records is costly, and normally involves additional cataloguing and transcription work to ensure that the records are searchable. When we decide to digitise a collection of records, we either work with commercial and academic publishing partners or we do the work ourselves and make digital copies available to download from our website through Discovery".

FindMyPast made a successful bid to digitise and transcribe the 1921 Census under the terms as described above. As a business, they will have a business model which takes account of how much their bid will have cost them and how much to charge for access to the collection to either recover or mitigate some of the cost of that process. They aren't a charity. If they or another commercial partner hadn't become involved in transcribing and digitising the census, we would be paying TNA directly for copies at a similar cost to that I have quoted above.

But if we want to view them for free, we can. Don't go through FindMyPast. Just visit TNA, the Manchester Library or the National Library of Wales ;)
Stokes - London and Essex
Hodges - Somerset
Murden - Notts
Humphries/Humphreys from Montgomeryshire

Offline Sloe Gin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,394
    • View Profile
Re: 1921 census
« Reply #276 on: Monday 10 January 22 19:14 GMT (UK) »
I don't have any complaints about the cost.  I don't really need to see anything urgently at the moment, I can wait until the price comes down. 

But it's disappointing to see this again:

"When transcription of the 1921 Census of England and Wales took place, each digital image had to be broken up into segments so that the person transcribing it could not see a whole record or household. This was to ensure we complied with security and data protection regulations but also why you might see various spellings of the same surname or street address on one record, because it has been transcribed by multiple people without the context of the whole record.>:(

https://www.findmypast.co.uk/help/articles/4415870561041-how-was-the-1921-census-transcribed-

No wonder the transcriptions are full of errors!  The more you can see of a person's handwriting, the better.  Comparing the way they form their letters makes it much easier to interpret unclear words and produce a more accurate transcription.  And if there is different handwriting on the same page, that can help too.  Preventing the transcriber from seeing the whole page is putting serious obstacles in the way of accuracy. 

Data protection!  ::) Does it really matter after all this time.
UK census content is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk  Transcriptions are my own.

Offline Pamela21

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: 1921 census
« Reply #277 on: Monday 10 January 22 19:23 GMT (UK) »
Well said Phil57. People seem to have no idea of the amount of work that goes into transcribing details of the whole population one page at a time. I have already posted this but will post again for anyone who missed it and I suggest they watch it all the way through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdkpePDervc

Offline Primrose11

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1921 census
« Reply #278 on: Tuesday 11 January 22 15:59 GMT (UK) »
I don't have any complaints about the cost.  I don't really need to see anything urgently at the moment, I can wait until the price comes down. 

But it's disappointing to see this again:

"When transcription of the 1921 Census of England and Wales took place, each digital image had to be broken up into segments so that the person transcribing it could not see a whole record or household. This was to ensure we complied with security and data protection regulations but also why you might see various spellings of the same surname or street address on one record, because it has been transcribed by multiple people without the context of the whole record.>:(

https://www.findmypast.co.uk/help/articles/4415870561041-how-was-the-1921-census-transcribed-

No wonder the transcriptions are full of errors!  The more you can see of a person's handwriting, the better.  Comparing the way they form their letters makes it much easier to interpret unclear words and produce a more accurate transcription.  And if there is different handwriting on the same page, that can help too.  Preventing the transcriber from seeing the whole page is putting serious obstacles in the way of accuracy. 

Data protection!  ::) Does it really matter after all this time.

I quite agree !!
I have only searched two of my ancestors and both are wrongly transcribed - Daniel is transcribed as David, and Selwyn as Evelyn, despite having the second Christian name Harold, which makes Evelyn an unlikely first name. Also his brother Randall Drury {surname} is transcribed as Randall Daisy.
P
BATE
CHILWELL
DRURY
McCOLL