Flaws in layout of record pages for England & Wales census
The design of the record page relating to the England & Wales census renders it not fit for purpose. I challenge the FamilySearch engineers (or any FS user) to visit any other website and find a layout which is less helpful in displaying a household.
There is one specific flaw that is causing me a lot of inconvenience. It entails having to switch to another individual in the household in order to see the birthplace of the individual on whom ones search is based. As illustrated below, no birthplace is shown for John Reay until I switch my focus to another household member.
Compare this layout to the one on the FreeCEN website and you will see the problem appears to be related to the fact that the name of the focus person is not included in the household group. As was illustrated in a recent post, this makes it impossible to copy / paste the whole family into a spreadsheet.
A final problem relates to a family being split over two pages in the original document. Whilst this is understandable in the sense that there are two citation references at play, the impression given is that a young child is head of the household. Every other website I use seems to manage in getting around this problem - i.e., in being able to group the whole family unit together.
In summary, this whole page is in need of a thorough redesign, as its standard falls well short of reasonable expectations of the presentation of these important records.
No birthplace shown for (focus person) John Reay...
...unless one switches to another member of the household - whose own birthplace then vanishes.
See https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2WM-NGQQ to see the FamilySearch page record display, compared to the example at https://www.freecen.org.uk/search_records/5902b4dde9379091b109d713/william-reay-1861-cumberland-high-longtown-1833-?locale=en, where the subject of my search (William Reay) helpfully is not separated from the other household members.
Comments
-
@Paul W It's not just the census for England & Wales that now shows the design flaw. The same confounding display is evident in the US census. Example: the 1900 census for my GGP and their children. Members of the household were born in Ireland, New York, and New Jersey.
With my GGF, born in Ireland, as the focus person:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M9JJ-N38
And don't get me started on what happens if you try to print that "record."
2 -
Birth place has been omitted from census records. This is vital info and should be put back in. This website is not going forward, only backwards.
0 -
Paul W recently posted about basically the same problem: the birthplace isn't shown on the focus person, only on the family members.
2 -
Yes, the birthplace is shown, but you just have to switch to another person in the record to see it - as shown below. As Julia suggests, I noticed this recently and reported it as part of the generally unsatisfactory way that FamilySearch is presenting census records at present.
By picking Alfred (instead of Benjamin) to be the focus person, Benjamin's birthplace is now revealed - but Alfred's birthplace now "disappears"!
2 -
Here is a screen clip of the original. Hope this helps for now.
0 -
Unfortunately, you appear to have chosen the incorrect original record / Benjamin Freeman in the screenshot provided.
1 -
Whilst my unhappiness about the general layout of these census record pages, I am pleased to see that my specific issue with the birthplace details of the prime person being omitted now appears to have been addressed. As shown below, the birthplace of John Reay is now visible, without having to switch the focus person to another individual in the household. Thank you, FamilySearch engineers, for giving this matter your prompt attention:
Compare the screenshot below to the one I provided with my initial post:
0 -
I assume the issue has be addressed in relation to other census collections, too - e.g., as in the case of the US one you illustrated above.
1 -
1
