1871 Census
My suggestion is to make the 1871 census available again, or at least explain on the collection page (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1538354) that it is only available to LDS members.
There lots of posts on the community pages, questions online and to support, and often they are responded to as if it is a user problem, rather than a technical/licensing issue.
For info:
The 1871 UK Census is not available unless you are signed in with an LDS account, even at index level or in the search. It seems, however, that once a record is attached to a person, it becomes available again.
According to Support, this is something to do with a new agreement between FamilySearch, FindMyPast and The National Archives.
Answers
-
As I am not member of the LDS Church (and most of my research is on English ancestry) I have also found this a great loss.
I agree, it could be made clearer (on the page for which you have provided the link) that this index is no longer available. It would be interesting to find the exact reasons behind its withdrawal, though it would appear this is mainly related to the contract with Find My Past. What is worrying is that this could be extended to apply to the other E&W census collections that appear on FamilySearch by courtesy of FMP, whereby those of us without LDS accounts would have to attend a FHC or Affiliate, or perhaps a public library that offers free access to FMP or Ancestry. Not so easy for many older individuals, or those with health conditions, or who live in rural areas.
Apparently, if FamilySearch had already compiled an index of its own, there would have been no problem in continuing to publish it on its website - no objection from the National Archives, I understand. I suppose it is understandable that - as long as there was the arrangement with FMP - there seemed no real need for another indexing project. Having said that, FamilySearch have duplicated efforts when it comes to the U.S. Census collections.
I feel it is rather unlikely that FamilySearch will be able to do anything about the issue, given the current contractual arrangements - particularly as they would probably not gain permission to index the 1871 collection themselves at this time.
Incidentally, it appears from the "Browse All Images" page that some (if not all) records can be viewed at a Family History Centre or affiliate library, but only via a link to one of the films that contain such material. (See https://www.familysearch.org/search/image/index?owc=waypoints.) I think it might be a difficult task to work out which of these films related to the particular, geographical area of interest, however!
As a result of previous discussions on this issue, an item is to be found at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/120003/england-and-wales-census-1871#latest, but one would not expect any FamilySearch employee to go any deeper in explaining the specific contract-related issues.
Another member of "Community, @A van Helsdingen, has made detailed inquiries on the matter and may wish to respond further.
1 -
Until November 2021, FamilySearch and TNA had a written contract that I caused to be made publicly available through the Freedom of Information Act. It gave FS the right to publish images of the UK censuses only to LDS members, at FHCs/Affiliate Libraries and volunteers of FamilySearch. This contract lapsed in November 2021.
In December 2021 I was told the following by TNA:
- If TNA and FamilySearch International (or a related entity) have put in place a new contract, I request a copy of this contract.
The National Archives and Family Search have not put a new contract in place. They will no longer publish our images online. They are allowed to present our images in their library reading rooms[which I assume to refer to FHCs and possibly Affiliate Libraries], which is in line with our general terms and conditions of use of copies of our records, as outlined in the attached document. This is the most recent version, but the principle has been in place for many years.
- Does TNA know of any arrangement or mechanism through which FamilySearch could publish indexes and/or images of the UK censuses and other historical documents, without there being a direct contractual relationship between them and TNA?
The National Archives has no rights in any indexes or transcriptions created by Family Search. That information is their IP and they are free to do as they wish with it.
The same is true of indexes and transcriptions created by other third parties, therefore it is technically possible that there are agreements in place which The National Archives are not privy to.
We only have rights in our images, and onward licensing of said images is not contractually allowed without our knowledge. We cannot find evidence of any third party having such an agreement in place with FamilySearch to publish our images.
1 -
So in December 2021, FMP had no contract with FamilySearch that allowed FS to publish images. Any access by Latter Day Saints should have only been "in their library reading rooms", which I take as a reference to FHCs and Affiliate Libraries.
It's possible that things have changed since then, so I have decided to make enquiry to TNA about this. If necessary, I will make another Freedom of Information Act request. I'll keep the community posted about any responses I receive.
2 -
Thanks @A van Helsdingen and @Paul W
What I find most bizarre about the situation is that it is being applied to indexes too.
If, as you've said, TNA only have rights regarding images and FS can use their index as they like, what's the problem?
If there is a contract change that prevents the indexed records being available to the public, then FS are in breach of that contract, because once an 1871 census is attached to a person's page (i.e. by someone with an LDS account), that indexed record then becomes visible again.
Working Example - https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KDZG-4HJ
Broken Example - https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KDZG-4HL
Either there are contractual agreements preventing the 1871 census index being available or there aren't.
It can't be both.
0 -
What I think is happening is that FamilySearch and FMP have a deal where FS agrees to not publish the index, since FS publishing the index for free hurts FMP and all other websites that have the index behind a paywall. But this is entirely speculative.
From the official statement by N Tychonievich:
" it might be worth your while (and money) to subscribe to findmypast.com where you can access the census records. We apologize for the confusion and are sad to have to withdraw access to popular census records from our website for the general public. But we also recognize the need that commercial websites have to make a profit and do not begrudge them that right."
1 -
TNA gave this response:
Thank you for your email. As per our previous correspondence, all National Archives images held by Family Search will be available to everyone at family history centres and affiliate libraries only, and Family Search has confirmed to us that this is the case. With regards to the index in question, and indeed all indexes held by Family Search or our commercial partners, we do not hold any IP in them and are not party to any agreements between the two, therefore we cannot comment on their availability.
1 -
The 2012 contract between FamilySearch and TNA gave them the right to index/transcribe the 1871 UK census. If they did exercise this right, then they must be voluntarily withholding non-LDS access to this index. If they did not, they would now have to purchase the publication rights to an index produced by another company.
1 -
Update:
Response from The National Archives - They have no IP in indexes so aren't the problem
Response from FindMyPast - They were unaware of any issues with accessing the 1871 index records.
Follow up from FindMyPast - They are happy with the 1871 census index being on FamilySearch
So I guess now it's just a matter of waiting for FamilySearch to put it back online.
@Paul W and @A van Helsdingen - How do we nudge FS to get this moving?
They don't seem too interested in the problem as it doesn't affect LDS members, so I can't see them implementing it any time soon.
2 -
A response from a FS Staff member on this forum would be a good start.
Perhaps, despite what FS has said before, FMP is not blocking the publication of the index. It could be Ancestry.com, MyHeritage or another website that has a contract with FS.
1 -
I view of Mark's comments / communications with Find My Past and the National Archives, we would be most grateful if you could re-examine the issue, following your previous advice at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/120003/england-and-wales-census-1871#latest.
It has always been my understanding that Find My Past was the partner website for providing the 1871 index (along with the other England & Wales census collections). If that was not the case, surely no commericially sensitive information would be revealed by you / FamilySearch in confirming it was another (unnamed) organisation (i.e., definitely not FMP) that withdrew permission for FamilySearch to publish this highly important collection?
2 -
@Paul W I am not in a position to know who FamilySearch had or has a contract with for any particular record set. All I do is let the engineers know when we seem to be having access problems. That was what actually got them to go look at the contract for the 1871 census. When they did they found a relatively recent change that no longer allowed public access to said census through our website. And that resulted in some clean-up work to be sure that the current contract was complied with. I have no ability to learn who we negotiated our contract with or the contents of said contract.
Perhaps @Mark McLemore or @Sam Sulser can give you a better response.
1 -
Thanks for your response. All I am asking for - and I appreciate you cannot personally provide this - is confirmation the contract was not with Find My Past. They are denying the problem lies with them, as you can read from the response to @MarkHumphrey1989.
1 -
@Paul W Yes, I understand your concern. Hopefully Mark or Sam will respond before too long. I have an opinion, but not facts and do not want to provide incorrect information.
2 -
Ok guys, I'm here to respond. In talking with the teams here at FamilySearch, I can tell you that they are aware that there is an issue and they are working to resolve it. They are currently investigating this. I will come back with an update as soon as I know more.
@MarkHumphrey1989 I feel bad that you concluded that we (FamilySearch) don't care unless something affects Church members. We care very much about our work and who it affects - no matter who that is. Please accept my apology if it seems otherwise. Unfortunately, most things take longer than anyone would like so it may appear that we don't care but I assure you that we do 🙂
Sam 😊
1 -
Thank you for your response.
I've spent a lot of time defending FamilySearch, encouraging others to use it, and generally arguing that FS is not just a tool for LDS members, but is a benefit to all interested in genealogy. I have an Ancestry account, but believe in using FamilySearch as a global tree. The aim of genealogy isn't just to collect names of ancestors, but to build a better picture of those before us. By working together on one tree, we can combine our own bits of knowledge, research and expertise, and help each other.
Over a year ago, I pointed out the FS that the 1871 census wasn't available and after a long conversation with support, they told me that they were aware of it, and were investigating.
I think what frustrates me most about this is how FS have dealt with it since then. Even now, if someone were to contact support to say they couldn't find the census index record, they would respond as if the user is making a mistake, directing them to the 1871 search and explaining the steps to find the record they wanted. There is no message or alert that this wouldn't be available to non-LDS members. In my own conversations by email and twitter, I am still being told that the 1871 census index is available... and after it's conceded that it isn't, I am referred to a community post that there are "contractual issues". There have been no updates or attempts to fix the problem, just to stop the users from complaining. The only way that I could see this being fixed is by doing it myself - And I am still trying to find out from anyone at FamilySearch, who the contract is with, and who is blocking access.
I run a One-Place-Study: A research project on a couple of small villages in England. My aim was to ensure that every person from the area had a profile, with attached records. I chose FamilySearch because the whole point is about sharing information and helping others with their research. The biggest blocker hasn't been the research, but FamilySearch itself. You cannot look at the next index record without an LDS account, even if you have the image of the record from another source (e.g. Ancestry/FMP), the search on those criteria only works if you have an LDS account, and even some records are unavailable, even at index level without an LDS account. What is to stop any of the work I put in becoming LDS only access in the future?
I would much rather spend my time contributing than chasing FamilySearch for a response.
Thanks,
Mark
3 -
Perhaps a little soon in chasing for a further response from Sam? It's only five days since she reported she was working to get something positive on the issue.
That said, I share your upset, of course. I work on many unrelated families and have already attached most of the previously available 1871 records to my close relatives / ancestors, so my current feelings are due to a disappointment in not being able to apply my efforts to help users other than myself.
As you will be aware, all I am expecting is that someone from FamilySearch can liaise with their "opposite number" at Find My Past and it can be confirmed who is getting the story right. That is, your email from FMP suggests this is not down to their actions, whereas I was sure FMP was the FS "partner" in providing these records (whether indexes or images).
Following this, if we can please be told (assuming we do not get the desired result - of getting these records reinstated on public accounts) that FamilySearch had an agreement with some institution other than FMP, which has now expired. It shouldn't be a confidential matter (most records that have not been indexed by FS do have a "courtesy of..." citation), but it's okay with me if they choose not to name the "other" organisation that is placing restrictions on the publication on the FS website.
But, as I suggest, let's be fair on Sam and give her a reasonable amount of time before chasing for the response that we should surely get, in due course. I'd sooner get a "definitive answer" than one that is not quite so reassuring.
1 -
@Paul W - 100%
My comments were not aimed at @Sam Sulser, but generally venting some frustration at the lack of transparency and action from FS, given that they told me that they were aware of the issue and working on it over a year ago.
Completely understand that these things don't happen overnight and I look forward to seeing what happens next.
Sam may way become my favourite person sometime soon!
1 -
Your pleas have been heard! The index to the 1871 census is now available to everyone who is logged in and the 1841 census is available as well. I signed in with a public account and I can see the index. So yeah! I am really sorry this took so long to resolve.
Sam ☺️
2 -
Brilliant News!
I can also confirm that it is now working.
Thank you @Sam Sulser, @Paul W, @N Tychonievich , @A van Helsdingen and everyone behind the scenes. 😀 😀 😀
1 -
Yes, many thanks to @Sam Sulser (can't express my gratitude enough), but also to @A van Helsdingen for his extensive work on this issue. And to @MarkHumphrey1989, of course!
3 -
Not sure how long since this happened but the discrepancy between what a member and a non-member can see on the 1871 census has resurfaced.
For a member
For a non-member
0 -
I can't bring myself to click "Like" your comment, Graham. Acknowledging I've read it will have to suffice.
And the count for me, non-member, from Browse All Collections, has yet a 3rd figure :
1 -
I'm almost disappointed to confirm that I agree with the numbers from @Áine Ní Donnghaile ...
0 -
😢
0 -
I can confirm that I am also seeing the same as @Áine Ní Donnghaile from my public account.
Whilst @A van Helsdingen has made excellent efforts to get to the bottom of how these inconsistencies / restrictions between Church and Public accounts have been implemented (and @N Tychonievich and @Sam Sulser have worked hard on the issue, too) I am still baffled about the arbitrary nature at which these records continue to be presented to us (according to what account is being used).
I have been reluctant to make too much fuss in case they disappeared from FamilySearch (just public accounts maybe) altogether. However, the way they come across from Find My Past (1871 or otherwise) has always been baffling. For example, the format for a good deal of the records for 1851 shows the residence place including town/city, but for many counties we can only search on the County itself, as (whilst the finer detail does appear in the "second layer" of the record) this cannot be included in a search!
But, to get back to the main issue of the 1871 collection - yes, it's great that at least 12 million of these records are available through public accounts, but fascinating to speculate about why the other 10 million can only be seen on Church accounts!
1 -
Ok ya'll, I'm looking into this. Seriously not sure what is up but I'll see what I can find out. I also verified what is being reported. The counts for all the other censuses matched so it's something specific with the 1871. Hang tight....
Sam ☺️
1 -
@Sam Sulser Any news yet please?
2 -
@Graham Buckell I'm afraid I must beg forgiveness. I started investigating this and got to needing to create an engineering ticket and dropped the ball. I'm so sorry!!! I am working on this again and created a ticket. I'll keep you posted. Thanks for checking up!! Sam 😔
0 -
I have been told this has been fixed. Thanks for your patience.
1 -
Yes, I checked the other day and found that the record record is now the same for members and non-members.
0
