'Newport' discrepancy and confusion
Finding a lot of confusion between Newport, Isle of Wight, England vs. Newport, Wales. On the Results page a number of relatives show as born in Newport, Isle of Wight, but when selected they are shown as Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales (the latter being the correct birth place). Wonder why there is this discrepancy/confusion? Thanks in advance.
Answers
-
Can you post some examples?
1 -
Just confirmed / replicated - see https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&q.birthLikeDate.from=1854&q.birthLikeDate.to=1914&q.birthLikePlace=Newport%2C%20Isle%20of%20Wight%2C%20England%2C%20United%20Kingdom&q.birthLikePlace.exact=on&q.givenName=john&q.givenName.exact=on&q.surname=smith&q.surname.exact=on
The examples I checked from the above results all relate to Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales - although the records show "England": a long, historical story attached to that!
The birth registrations definitely relate to Newport, Monmouthshire, since there has never been a Newport, Isle of Wight registration district. (See FreeBMD website)
2 -
This appears to be the infamous "Search Results do not match the Historical Record" problem.
Search Results say "Newport, Isle of Wight" and the actual Historical Record says "Newport, Monmouthshire".
The first time I reported this - years ago on a previous community platform - I found difficulty in convincing the techies that it was a problem. The basic response was - If the Historical Records were correct, what did it matter? Well, if you're looking for a birth in Monmouthshire, you're going to discard all the Search Results that refer to the Isle of Wight without going further...
@N Tychonievich - I think this is the same sort of thing that we've previously reported for "Search Results do not match the Historical Record" problem.
3 -
After revisiting this thread I thought I'd see what was produced by using the same search criteria for name and time period, but this time using Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales as the place of birth. See https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&q.birthLikeDate.from=1854&q.birthLikeDate.to=1914&q.birthLikePlace=Newport%2C%20Monmouthshire%2C%20Wales%2C%20United%20Kingdom&q.birthLikePlace.exact=on&q.givenName=john&q.givenName.exact=on&q.surname=smith&q.surname.exact=on
Some interesting results! Firstly, I found this record: I used another member of John Smith's household - as I knew, with a much rarer name, I would be able to identify him. Alfred Bevister was indeed born in Newport, Monmouthshire (Malpas Road is still a street in that town), but as can be seen, the "Event Place" has been added as Newport, Gloucestershire - a tiny village some 30 miles from Malpas Road! I assume the now-missing "clue" of a field, in such records, that used to show us the "Event Place Original" actually did reference Newport, Monmouthshire.
Also found in the Results list for the search on Newport, Monmouthshire was this:
And this (see https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QLRT-9LB2)
How grateful I am that I have not found any of my relatives that have been born in any of the "Newports" - in the U.K., U.S.A., or elsewhere! However, the same problem applies where our relatives were born in any town / city which is the name of multiple locations.
Incidentally, I tried using a wildcard in this example - i.e., Newport* - but "the system" immediately "unchecked" by attempt to make an "Exact" search on Newport* and I was given 545,770 results!
3 -
What I find disturbing, @Paul W , is the extent to which FamilySearch appears to have thrown away perfectly valid geographical data in its auto-standardisation process.
I assume that the index used for the 1901 England & Wales comes from FindMyPast - it does, after all, cite "1901 England, Scotland and Wales census," database and images, findmypast. On the corresponding record in FMP I see
- House number 114
- Street Malpas Road
- Parish Newport
- County Monmouthshire
- Country Wales
This appears to make up the key as that concatenation is also present at the top of the FMP index. If the last three elements made up Event Place (Original) (which we can't see any more, as you say, and we don't even know if it still exists), then surely the auto-standardisation would have an input of "Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales" and therefore surely the output would be "Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales, United Kingdom" - that is a standardised place. Yet it came out with "Newport, Gloucestershire, England, United Kingdom". So it threw away the "Monmouthshire, Wales"... That's weird...
Look - I know that deciding which things to use as placename parts in FMP indexes can sometimes be tricky - but when I try to make enquiries of the FS Standard placename database for (say) "Newport, United Kingdom", the place in Gloucestershire is 5th in the list. Top of the list is... "Newport, Wales, United Kingdom" - although that's actually a county borough. So I'm puzzled and disturbed and can't reverse engineer the logic, therefore I find it difficult to give advice that means more than "You got it wrong".
4 -
@Gordon Collett Gordon. Paul W has shown similar examples in this thread - hope that helps?
Adrian Bruce 1 also has comments on this - seems it's an issue that has been raised before under "Search Results do not match the Historical Record", but seemingly not resolved.
Looks like I'll have to live with it 😒
0 -
@Howard470 Adrian tagged N Tychonievich who will escalate the issue for an eventual fix. Unfortunately, the problem is extremely widespread; the repair team is small; and the eventual repair may be long in coming.
4 -
@Howard470 et al--thanks for all the details. I've reported the problems.
4
