GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2002-10 > 1033507800


From: (Steve James)
Subject: Re: !901 census search broken.
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:30 +0100 (BST)
References: <lKob+VAghMm9EwZg@twilight.demon.co.uk>


In article <lKob+>, (Phil Bradley) wrote:
> In article <an9uoo$fpv$1@paris.btinternet.com>, John Brown
> <> writes
>>Quite so Tim. I've noticed this several times when I've been
>>searching; with exactly the same search criteria I'll get 2 hits
>>one time, 15 another time, 10 another time. Sometimes it
>>will tell me that individuals don't exist when I've previously
>>found them and have their details in hard copy in front of me.
<snip>
>>A bit of creative thinking will actually
>>resolve most search problems.
<snip>
>The problem was NOT in finding material, but in the inconsistency
>of results. This is not going to be solved by 'creative thinking', or
>indeed by your patronising and ill thought out remarks.
Creative thinking is good, but why should we be forced to do this?
I used CT on the 1881 census and achieved results but unlike the
1901 census I was not restricted to the
'Your enquiry is taking too long or returning too many results.
Please narrow your search' block. And it is great block.
I can get the complete set of Hayballs by doing separate male and female
searches. There are others out there - I've seen some on the fiche as Kew.
I can do a search on Hayb*, again as separate searches and have found a
few more. But trying to search on Hay* hits a brick wall.
I certainly recommend searching on the name plus a space and then *.

Steve James http://www.steeljam.dircon.co.uk/
Researching: JAMES, ROOF, HAYWORTH and BAXTER(London);
HAYBALL (Somerset); ELLIOTT and MARSDEN(Lancs);
MORRISON (India and London); MUNDEN(Northampton);
TOMLIN and SITGRAVE(Leicester)

This thread: