1851 census, incorrect formatting of households
I know the indexing is sourced from the National Archives to whom enquiries should be made BUT I am not sure whether this problem arose before or after arriving at FamilySearch.
One household runs over two pages, but has been divided into two households.
Household one: head, wife, first child
Household two: three further children, brother (to the head)
The members of household two are described as being in the household of the second child (aged 5) although she is correctly described as "daughter".
The references are: HO107 2343/414 pages 24 and 25
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SPMQ-1XF
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SPMQ-1XV
Is it possible for someone to sort this out, or do I need to refer to the National Archives?
Sally
Best Answers
-
"I know the indexing is sourced from the National Archives..."
Actually no, this indexing originates with FindMyPast - if you look at the "Cite This Record" section, you will see
database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.);
Authority to show the images will come from The National Archives unless I'm very much mistaken.
When I look at that household in FindMyPast (and thanks for giving the full details) there is one "transcription" (indexes actually) that covers a household of all 7. So at least at first glance, it looks like FMP would have sent transcriptions that record a single household and the flaw lies on the FS side of the interface.
However, I'm not convinced it's as simple as that. Just how is FS supposed to decide that the last three lines on one image are in the same household as the first four lines on the next image? I know how I do it - look at the schedule numbers. The last household schedule on the first page is 95. The next page has no household number at the start and is therefore to be understood as carrying on schedule 95.
But does FS get schedule numbers? (It ought to) Does it use them? (It ought to). (And there are probably different ways to think about this).
So - good question. I think this sort of thing comes up quite often but I've never thought it through. I think this needs to be raised with the techie guys to see how FS does connect the two pages. @Maile L - is this one you can refer on, thanks???
2 -
Thank you for a succinct analysis!
What I had not said, to avoid complication, is that as a result, William (brother) had been made brother to the head of his half-household, his neice Emma. Some logic from other sources had then made him son of his brother George, head of the whole household. I detached this individual from George and merged him with his true identity from baptism and other census years, before I ventured to ask the question. Oh what a tangled web! I will try the techie experts, many thanks.
0 -
For those (including moderators and engineers) unfamiliar with this problem, the following screenshots illustrate the issue. The first shows Head / father John Harrison, his wife and three of their children. That takes us to the bottom of the page in the original records. Therefore, the other three children (William is at least shown as "Son", not as "Head", as I have found to be the case in other examples) are found at the top of the next page.
As you can see in the "small print" the Citation reference is different, leading to the one household "having" to be displayed in two, separate records. There are two problems here: firstly, the first impression (on finding John's record) would be that he only had three children. Secondly, it can be much more difficult to find that other record than you would think! In a large town, where there are lots of people of the same surname and there being no option to search on Page and Piece/Folio numbers, I have found it can take quite a long time to locate the other half of the household, using FamilySearch.
1 -
@Maile L - it's an important point about not being able to alter the record index but I would have thought that we are not attempting to alter the record index supplied by FindMyPast - rather we are wanting to alter the algorithm that FS has used to load that record index.
If (and it's a big "if") the household schedule number is on that record index supplied by FindMyPast, then FS can correct its reading of the record index.
As it is, the user is a bit stuck if they don't have access to the image.
I would suggest that someone ought to get the engineers to have a look and see if it is possible to stick the two half-households together from the data supplied by FMP. After all, the current situation is that FS is not reproducing the FMP index correctly, given that FS has two households where FMP has one.
1 -
Thank you for your example Paul. As AdrianBruce1 suggested, there are no schedule numbers, whereas FMP includes them and manages to display larger households more logically, it asks if you want to see some extra lines at the foot.
What is so unsatisfactory is that FS can create a spurious person. I first noticed it because the person-record of the head of household George had an extra, older child, apparently born 8 years before he was married. Fortunately I was not exploring this family from scratch, so I could easily find from my records that William b.1835 was someone I already knew, but it took me some time to understand how he had become his brother's son, via his niece. The logic fell over itself. It would be most perplexing to an ab initio.
--- Then it was suggested that there was a gap between the children, was there one missing?
0
Answers
-
When there are occasional queries, similar to this but relating to the US Census, I must admit a feel a little unsympathetic - in the knowledge this is the rule with England & Wales census collections on FamilySearch, rather than the exception!
It all seems down to the citation reference, which includes a page number. So, as Adrian suggests, Find My Past, Ancestry, etc., manage to be able to group these split households, whereas FamilySearch seems incapable of doing so (due to the two different citation references).
It's sometimes a heck of a job trying to find the record for the "other half" of the family (no images to consult, unless you have a FMP account open) and impossible to actually "join" the two parts of the family. I had given up on finding a solution to this issue many years ago, but just perhaps there might be one found in future.
I have sometimes found children (on the next page to their parents) where the first named has been classified "Head" of the family. Only once in my experience was this truly the case: where the children's parents were away from home (father at sea, mother in hospital) and the eldest child (about 12, I believe) had assumed the role of head of the household.
1 -
We will not be able to edit the record index itself as long as we do not have access to the image here in FamilySearch. IF the permissions change and we can see the images here, it is possible that the new "edit everything" feature could be applied to the collection and changes could be made.
Until then, the best option is to get in the habit of checking an image before and after, when you have access to the image, and attach the image or historical record to each family member so that the record shows in each person's sources. I would add a note to the source such as "the family was split across two pages, please see record https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SPMQ-1XV." I like to add as much info as possible in case the link has issues.
You can edit a source.
- Click Sources tab https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LRWB-KT3
- Open the source you want to edit by clicking anywhere in the title area.
- Click the blue EDIT link under the source date and scroll to the bottom of the popup box.
- Enter the information in Notes and click SAVE.
1 -
Useful advice, but the issue here is that other websites can find a way (with or without images - see FreeCEN, for example) of placing the whole household in just the one transcription, so is it beyond FamilySearch's capabilities to do this? One to escalate to the engineers, if possible, please.
(As mentioned elsewhere - and shown in the citations - these records come across from Find My Past, but their website certainly doesn't split the household in two, even though FMP must still have the same issue of the different references for each page.)
2
