1939 Census of England
edited September 28, 2020 in Suggest an Idea
Jordi Kloosterboer said: I can view the 1939 Census on Ancestry with the partner access subscription I have. However the indexs' images on FamilySearch are connected with the 1939 census image on FindMyPast which it says my partner access subscription is not good enough...? Only the starter package on FindMyPast does not include the 1939 census. So, is the partner access with FindMyPast only the starter one? If so, y'all should change the image for the 1939 census to route to Ancestry if possible. Then all members of the church can easily access it without searching for it again on Ancestry. Unless there is something wrong with my account on FindMyPast?
Adrian Bruce said: I presume that would require the index for the 1939 Register to be replaced with the one from Ancestry, because that would, I imagine, contain the links to the Ancestry images. Logically, not a dreadfully difficult issue (I assume) but one that would need to be factored in.
Swapping to the Ancestry stuff could have the minor effect that FS wouldn't get updates as frequently as it potentially could from FMP. Updates arise when entries no longer need to be redacted because the person in question is either documented to be dead or assumed to be dead because it's over 100y since their birth. (Don't quibble over the logic of that!)
FMP updates its own stuff fairly frequently - we think that Ancestry takes the updated images from FMP on an annual (roughly!) basis. FS would presumably have to wait even longer for Ancestry to rebuild its stuff. Then again, FS might not get the FMP updates very often now, so it might not matter. Just something to bear in mind.
By the way - it's actually the 1939 Register, not a 1939 Census - if it had been a census, it would have come under the Census Act and wouldn't have been released until 2039.0
A van Helsdingen said: Spare a thought for the 99.8% of the world who are not Latter Day Saints and must therefore pay subscriptions to use Ancestry and FMP- even if they have volunteered and donated to FS.0
David Newton said: Oh this is precious!
So not only do they massively restrict the very index of the thing, not only do they censor anyone who actually tries to put correct information about this on the wiki, but they actually link to images on a site where their own member freebie doesn't give access to the images whereas the freebie on a rival site does give access to those images!
So what happens if someone tries to put this information on the wiki? Let me guess: the censors will sweep in and they'll hide behind "contract terms" which don't actually bind the person doing the posting in the first place (due to contracts only binding actual parties to them)! Then they'll quote non-public (and therefore also non-binding) "rules" about only the "legal department" being able to post such information. Only the "legal department" DOES NOT POST on the wiki (at least so far as I am aware)!
It's stunning how well this sort of thing is handled isn't it.0
Paul said: Presumably, FamilySearch's contractual arrangements with Find My Past prevents it from "switching over" to using Ancestry's version. "Non-LDS", like me, who do not have subscriptions to either Ancestry or Find My Past, have to postpone our 1939 National Register searches until we can manage a visit to a FHC or Affiliate. If we want to add the FS (indexed) versions to our Family Tree Sources, we have to attend a Family History Center. Consider yourself spoiled! (Just joking.)0
Jordi Kloosterboer said: I see now that it is probably not a good idea to switch since there may be people who are spending out of pocket on FindMyPast to see the 1939 register. I'l just continue looking on Ancestry for the image. It's just kinda funny how I cannot see it on FindMyPast because it would seem that I should. Sorry if I offended anyone!0
Adrian Bruce said: Life is never simple when cash payments are involved!0
David Newton said: Certainly didn't offend me.0
Paul said: Nor me!0