The English census indexing splits any family spread over two pages, into 2 separate households
In the English census my families often appear with a portion of the family at the foot of one page and the rest of them at the top of the next page.
The English census is indexed in such a way that a family spread over two pages like that, is indexed as 2 separate families. I manage to work around that because I search separately for the people who are recorded on the disconnected page.
2 PROBLEMS ARISING from that are -
First problem - Occasionally I can't find the missing people no matter how I search.
It seems to me that that particular page of the census has been missed by the indexing volunteers because it was not put up in the indexing project.
Second problem - When I've attached the census as a source, it only displays those appearing on that particular page leaving anyone viewing it, to think that that is the extent of the family. That's the way I viewed it till I realized my mistake. EXPLANATIONS written by me, such as "See next page of census for the remainder of the children" are difficult to add in a suitable place within the attached source especially if it came in as a Record Hint.
I wonder if this problem be fixed by FamilySearch please.
Answers
-
This "problem" is one of design, rather than something that FamilySearch would consider needs rectifying.
If you look at the citations against a member of the family on one page and compare this with a family member on the next, you will see they differ - due to the different page references. Unfortunately, records are grouped according to their citation references, not family groups.
I attach these sources regularly to my family members and couldn't agree more about the confusion this issue can cause. The child on the following page is sometimes confusingly shown as the family "Head" and, from the preceding page, you could easily get the impression that the family is smaller than is the case.
It is even worse for me (from my public account), as I have no link to the (Find My Past) images, which confirm the true picture. Where possible, I use the FreeCEN website (which does record family units), but coverage there is very patchy. FreeCEN also appears to have had local volunteers doing the indexing, as the transcriptions are usually far more accurate than in FMP and Ancestry versions.
I will try to find some examples later and post screenshots that illustrate the problem.
As shown below, the different page numbers and/or Affiliate Image Identifier references appear to be the main reason why families are "split into two" in FamilySearch E&W census collections. At least (in this example) William is shown as the "Son" of the Head of Household, rather than (in other examples) as the "Head" himself:
0 -
Paul,
In regard to my problem of a family split over two census pages (British Census) being literally "split" when it comes to finding and attaching the census to each member of the family as a source -
You said -
"The "problem" is one of design, rather than something that FamilySearch would consider needs rectifying.
Ok, so if I understand you, you're telling me that it's the Affiliate Image Identifier references that are causing the problem. If that's the cause of the problem you're brilliant to work to have noticed that. Is there a solution?
When were the Affiliate Image Identifiers created? When the census was digitized or some other part of the process? Is it fixable?
Can anything make it easier for people to find both halves of a family in the census and join them together? I do it most of the time (I want to do it using FamilySearch records because that's what the "Source Linker" requires to complete the attachments) but there's a real problem when I can't find the other half of the census record containing of the rest of the family. Any suggestions to help me there?
Thanks for your insights. I appreciate the new insight.
If I can find you again on this thing, and if I can find one of my families where I cannot find both parts of the family in the census to connect them, I'll see if I can give you a specific on who, and what census.
You might know a method I can use. Gail Hellings Melbourne, Australia
1 -
Gail
As I also suggested, it could just be down to the different page numbers. As you can see in my example, John Harrison and the older children appear on folio 245 page 32, but the youngest three children on folio 245 page 33. I have found the family is always divided in a FamilySearch census record when they are spread over two pages.
Usually, it is then a case of once having found one record, to search on just the surname, using the Event place name shown in that record. However, for my example this did not work. I pasted in "Hamlet of Heigham, Norfolk, England" and got no results! Going back to the Search pages, I found the census place has been indexed as "Norfolk, England, United Kingdom", which (as you can see) if not the way it is shown in the record.
I thought my advice was going to be straightforward, but see it is not - though that might be due to recent changes in FamilySearch. The process is still not too difficult with an unusual surname - as even inputting "Norfolk, England, United Kingdom" alongside an uncommon surname and a "1851-1851" residence will produce only a small number of results from which the piece numbers can be compared. However, in this case, even when I filtered on the 1851 census collection, I got 839 results for individuals named Harrison who were resident in Norfolk!
So, I must admit there is no easy way to connect these "split" records in FamilySearch unless (as I have, in this case) found and printed copies of the original images (from Find My Past). Alternatively, you do have to know some detail about the whole family, so you can narrow your searches by using first names and ages.
If you have a subscription to Find My Past or Ancestry (which I don't) you really need to get to a public library (or Family History Centre) that does have free access because, yes, (without using FMP, Ancestry, or another program) the whole family can really be difficult to link together in such cases.
By all means, come back if you have specific examples of where you know / suspect a family has been indexed in "two halves" and I will try to help. But, to my knowledge, the exercise (purely within FamilySearch) will always be quite difficult if a common surname or large town / county is involved.
Sorry I can't offer any better advice, but you have indeed illustrated how beneficial it would be if FamilySearch could present its records on a whole-household basis, instead of their being split, due to having different references.
0 -
Gail
You might be a little more fortunate than in the example I have presented. I just found that many of the records actually have a location included in the placename (e.g. "Barford, Norfolk, England, United Kingdom"). Searching on this (with a "Harrison" last name inputted) gives me just 8 results. If your examples are similar, you should find it much easier to "reconnect" any families that have been divided by FamilySearch's indexing methods. Dependent on your knowing precisely where they lived and how (the format in which) FamilySearch has recorded the placename, of course!
0