SUFFOLK-L Archives

Archiver > SUFFOLK > 2002-09 > 1030877538


From: "Keith" <>
Subject: Re: 1901 Problem
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:52:18 +1200
References: <028b01c25124$83befe80$b83b70c2@oemcomputer> <000801c2519e$e36f4cc0$b20286d9@joydean>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher and Joy Dean" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: 1901 Problem


> But it shouldn't have to be this complicated!
> I searched for many people whose names and dates of birth I knew
accurately,
> but they could not be found.

What names are you looking for, and where ?

90% of the people I wanted to find are there. 80% had the correct spelling
and the age within a year or two of what I know to be the case. Of the other
10% I had to stretch my imagination somewhat.

At this stage I am mainly collecting FLINDERS for my One Name Study. I
searched also on

FLUIDER*, FLENDER*, LINDER*, SLINDER*, HINDER*, FLINDAR* to find those
incorrectly recorded.

The wildcard * was used picking up those who had an S or other extention at
the end of the name. Putting in the age plus/minus a couple of years helps.
Of the remaining 10% yet to get I can search on first name, with a close
range of age years and enter the place of birth. Here again using wildcards
can bring results if the place name is not recorded as the spelling should
be.

Not all errors can be attributed to the transcribers. Errors were written
down back in 1901 when the census was taken. Most of the information is only
as good as that given to the census enunerator at the time, and considering
the numerous dialects spoken in England it is easy to see how recordings can
be in error. Being an 1891 census transcriber I know first hand how bad the
writing can be. My current work is from a speed writer of the time who used
a cramped style. Letters i e u and s can look all the same. r and n are
identical and d can appear as an a because the upstroke is short or
missing.

The 1901 system is not perfect, but I am delighted at the way it can handle
search requests.

Interestingly the 1881 census index, transcribed mainly in the UK, has more
missing FLINDERS entries than does the 1901 index.

Keith

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keith Flinders
Wellington
New Zealand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





>
>
> The Latest statement from the PRO
> 30 August 2002: Update
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
> We are now in the preliminary stages of the next phase of testing. The
1901
> Census Online service has been available on the Internet as a test site
for
> a few days this week while modifications are being made. A number of
people
> have accessed the service and made successful searches.
> We hope that the modifications will shortly be completed and the website
> will then be officially released as a test site.
> While this test is running further modifications to the service can be
> expected, to improve the experience for all Internet users prior to making
a
> full Internet service available.
>
>
>
> Joy (near Salisbury, Wiltshire)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Kane" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 8:27 PM
> Subject: Re: 1901 Problem
>
>
> > Dear Kate,
> >
> > I see the problem - it also happens with Daniel O'KANE - no results. If
I
> > then specify Place Keyword 'Willington' up he pops. I wonder if its
> limited
> > to an index problem with O'... names.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > John Kane
> > Sapcote, Leicestershire.
> > [Suffolk, Southwold: Mary ?? c1787 married Joshua ALLUM]
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kate Martinson" <>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 8:04 PM
> > Subject: RE: 1901 Problem
> >
> >
> > > The point is that these people are there and they are in the index -
> > > they come up if I specify Northfleet, but if I leave the place blank
> > > they do not come up at all, when there should, at the very least, be
2.
> > > In fact the index would have me believe that there are no James
> > > O'Connells in England in 1901, which seems a bit unlikely. Unless
this
> > > is a *very* specific problem with this name, it will be effecting
> > > everybody. There is a problem in searching for a name nationally and
it
> > > needs to be sorted out.
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > >
> > > Kate Martinson
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 21/08/2002
> >
> > ______________________________
>
>
>
>

This thread: