Can FamilySearch find a way of grouping whole households in the England & Wales Census Collections?
Firstly, I understand that their different (page) references seems to be currently preventing "split households" appearing in FamilySearch versions of the England & Wales census collections in the same record. However, this "dividing factor" does not stop the whole family being found together on Find My Past, Ancestry, FreeCEN and other websites - all of which show record transcriptions for the whole household, even when they do not appear on the same page of the original document.
I must say I get a little upset when FS patrons make strong complaints about their families very occasionally being divided in the US census records, due to them appearing on successive pages of the original documents: knowing that for those with an interest in the England & Wales collections this is the situation all the time!
If individuals can be grouped by household in the versions of these collections on other websites (and there appears to be a "workaround" when it comes to the FamilySearch US collections - which surely must have different references for successive pages, too), surely there is some way FamilySearch can make it easier for us find "missing" members of a household?
The situation typically occurs with larger families, whereby two or three younger members have not been able to be squeezed on the same page as their parents and siblings. It can be really difficult to even find the "other half" of the household in using FamilySearch, let alone ever getting them to appear together as a family.
Surely, getting family members linked together is what FamilySearch is supposed to be all about, but their present method in producing / displaying these records is completely failing in achieving that aim.
Answers
-
@Paul W It would probably be useful to include some specific examples if you have them handy. If a mod escalates, the Engineers can use the specific examples to help them see what is needed.
0 -
If there is some way to search for information contained in the Reason field of events, then I have added DATA ERROR and an explanation to many such census records.
My biggest gripe is not that family groups are split across pages, which is annoying but understandable given the way that indexing jobs can be done, rather it is that some family groups mainly in the 1851 census, are split into separate records for each person in the family. That is extremely difficult to resolve.
1 -
Have been tied-up with other matters today, but will try to find some examples asap. The problem is not so bad in finding the remainder of the family if an unusual surname and/or a small town is involved, but finding the other part of a SMITH family in a big city can be quite a task!
1 -
I do understand that @Paul W!
At least the 1851 E&W does have family information. The US censuses before 1880 did not record relationships among members of a household.
0 -
Got One: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SGYQ-J8Q
Family group should be:
Thomas Catterall Head 55 Great Eccleston, Lancashire
Alice Catterall Wife 55 Treals, Lancashire
John Catterall Son 26 Kirkham, Lancashire
Alice Catterall Daughter 21 Kirkham, Lancashire
Sarah Catterall Daughter 18 Kirkham, Lancashire
Ellen Catterall Daughter 16 Kirkham, Lancashire
Jane Catterall Daughter 14 Kirkham, LancashireThis is one that I didn't mark with DATA ERROR ! I must've been running late.
0 -
Here is an example from the 1881 census. Arthur Tungate, wife Louisa and children Louisa, Arthur and Walter appear on page 19, but son Ernest at the top of page 20. Through having different references, they do not appear in a family group. However,the record transcript in Find My Past does show them as one unit.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q278-49K7
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q278-4S47
The latter also includes a Louisa Read, who was also a member of this household.
The Find My Past transcript is found at https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBC%2F1881%2F0008980411&expand=true&tab=this - although I believe you need to have membership access to view the page directly. (Free FMP viewing this weekend, so I can use the links directly myself!)
The issue reported by @Re Searching is slightly different, inasmuch as indexing on an individual basis appears to be quite common with the 1851 set of census records. Nevertheless, I am again producing the Find My Past page where the family is shown as a whole.
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBC%2F1851%2F0002820183&expand=true&tab=this
There seems even less reason not to have them all on the same FamilySearch record, as they all appear on the same page in the original document, so should share the same reference.
Incidentally, the England & Wales census collections do appear on FamilySearch courtesy of Find My Past, but I see no reason why it is FMP that places these viewing restrictions. When there were problems with millions of records disappearing from the FamilySearch 1871 collection a couple of years ago it was suggested this was down to action by FMP. However, when someone from FamilySearch finally liaised with FMP (after they had denied they were the source of the problem) the millions of missing records suddenly reappeared!
I believe with a little more liaison between the two organisations the problems reported here could be resolved, too. After all, a reciprocal arrangement means a huge number of "Courtesy of FamliySearch Intl." records are to be found on the Find My Pat website. For some reason, even by signing in (without having a paid account) I can see thousands of these records for free on FMP - even though they are not available on the FamilySearch website! (And I'm talking about record transcripts here - not images.)
1 -
Found one that I did mark in the reason field in the event for the person, and I'd added a link to the other half of the family group. In some others, I've added links forward and backward to be able to find the family members when they are all individuals (LoB, Cleese et al)
0
