Scotland Census, 1901

LegacyUser

Colin Cameron said: Whenever I search the "Scotland Census, 1901" collection I get "No Results". I have no problems with 1841-1891.

Now I'm starting to find other users attaching 1901 records to people on my watchlist. But even when I follow the links within the attached record I cannot find anyone, not even the record that I started from.

Example: Robert Stein MSBL-X44 or his family.

Am I doing something stupid? (again)

LegacyUser

David Newton said: It's another collection which is like the 1939 Register it would appear. Only Mormons can see the index from what I can tell. If someone actually attaches a record you can see it, but otherwise the collection is useless and worthless.

Restricted images are one thing, annoying but understandable. Restricted indices, like the 1939 Register and it would appear the 1901 Scotland census are another thing entirely. They make the entire collection essentially worthless and useless. They result in questions like this. They result in miniscule source attachment rates (since very few of the Mormons using FSFT actually bother to attach sources in general, most just hoover up names for ordinance work without the slightest care about genealogical research). Consequently collections like this raise serious questions about why the effort of putting them online is worth it when the benefits of doing so are so small as to be essentially vanishing.

Limited resources being available for this system is a constant refrain. So why put those limited resources into collections such as this and the 1939 Register? If contract negotiations go down the route of restricting any index to just Mormons, just stop the negotiations and move on to record holders who are prepared to be more reasonable with their terms and conditions.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: No need for the anti-Latter Day Saint abuse.

But I agree with the central point- an LDS-only index with no images is of very little use. Since the Index is at FMP and Ancestry, which LDS get for free anyway, the only benefit of having the record collection is that LDS can more easily attach sources to the FSFT. That isn't worth the resources in my opinion.

And why would the 1901 census be restricted in this way, but not the earlier censuses? Makes no sense.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Scotland's People is the answer to that question. That website didn't exist when the 1891 census was released and microfilmed. However it did exist 10 years later when the 1901 census was released and not microfilmed but scanned. They have kept that, the 1911 census, the BMD records and a lot of other records locked up very tightly (and profitably). The 1921 census will almost certainly be the same when it's released in just over 2 years and I see no reason why the 1931 census won't be in just over a decade.

BTW it's not abuse about the source attachment rate, it's just a fact. If this website were used more by the general population it would be true of them as well: it's just a fact that most people are not diligent or careful when they undertake tasks like this.

LegacyUser

Paul said: David

Off-topic, of course, but I CAN see the 1939 National Register details when viewing my Sources sections from home. The problem is - not explained in the Wiki article - you have to attach these indexed records whilst at a Family History Centre. (Doesn't matter if you are LDS or not.) Whilst I was there, I also added the FMP images onto my memory stick, although I could have done this at my local public library.

(See https://www.familysearch.org/search/c... and "Learn more" link. Worked okay whilst at the FHC, but no use at home.)

LegacyUser

Paul said: (With apologies to Colin for "hijacking" his original topic discussion):

Screenshot of 1939 National Register source, as seen from the comfort of my home, but following necessary visit to a Family History Centre - where these sources are an "exclusive" to all visitors. Note - only the full address appears to be a missing item from the original record.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: The problem is also not explained on the search page for the database.

"This collection contains records from the 1939 National Register, taken in England and Wales on September 29, 1939. Details of around 40 million people were recorded in more than 65,000 transcript books, now held in record series RG 101. The register was used to issue identity cards, organize rationing and more. While the 1939 Register is not a census, it is arranged along similar lines and includes similar information. It does, however, show exact dates of birth, while census returns simply give a person’s age. Individuals’ records remain closed for 100 years from their date of birth or until proof of death is produced. Closed records will be blanked out in the search results The index was provided by Findmypast, and users will be directed to images on findmypast.com."

WHY DOES IT NOT SAY THE INDEX IS RESTRICTED IN THAT TEXT?

WHY DOES IT EVEN SHOW UP OUTSIDE OF THE PLACES IT CAN ACTUALLY BE USED?

I searched for smith in the 1939 register. I got ZERO hits. No indication that the index is restricted. Searching for smith on Ancestry produces 533,321 hits in that database. Searching for smith on Findmypast produces 536,299 hits in that database.

Familysearch record search produces zero hits. Two major genealogy site searches of exactly the same source material produce over 530,000 hits in each case. No indication as to why the Familysearch record source produces zero hits. I happen to know why that is, but it is awful site design and dreadful information dissemination to do what they have done and not write the information that they haven't written.

They MUST put HOW THE INDEX IS RESTRICTED into the search page information for the database. Otherwise legitimate contempt will continue to be shown towards databases like this.

I can access the information through either Ancestry or Findmypast. It's not a problem for me to get the information. It is a problem for others however, and it is also a problem when misunderstandings occur like the one with the 1901 Scottish census which started this thread.

LegacyUser

Colin Cameron said: Thanks. That basically confirms my assumption.

I would have expected/wanted something like a warning that the collection is restricted but apparently that’s asking too much.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: As I have said before, my experience as a Wiki editor suggests FS doesn't care much about accurate information about restrictions.

Many of the pages about individual collections state the restrictions that apply to that collection. Sometimes the information is accurate, often it is not. But when I have tried to edit this text, I have been sternly told that I must not- only FS's legal team can.

I've had particular issues with pages on Germany. Earlier this year I made a changes to the page "Germany Church Records" that explicitly mentioned that some records are LDS, FHC or Affiliate Library only. This was later deleted and replaced by text giving the impression that all records were unrestricted. When I used the "Talk" page to discuss this, the discussion was deleted and I was emailed privately and told it was "inappropriate" to include this content. The Wiki leaders partially backtracked later, but it is still apparently generally not allowed for editors who aren't FS employees to be making edits about record restrictions.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Colin

What am I missing, I do not understand why you and the others are having such a problem/issue with "seeing" the "1901, Census of Scotland" in "Family Tree" (and, "FamilySearch"), either, (1) in the "Result" of a "Search"; and/or, (2) when attached as a "Source".

'Yes', I am a Member of the Church; but, the "1901, Census of Scotland" ONLY recently became available to "see" in the "Result" of a "Search", to which I just attached to my "Maternal" Grandparents in August of this year; but, I still DO NOT "see" any "Image" of the record, only the "Index".

This morning, I just logged on at home, with 'Mozilla' "FireFox" (I normally use 'Google' "Chrome"), with my non-member Account, that I set up years ago for testing and training purposes; and, I can see the "1901, Census of Scotland" in "Family Tree" (and, "FamilySearch") in, both, (1) in the "Result" of a "Search"; and/or, (2) as attached as a "Source" to my "Maternal" Grandparents; but, ONLY as an "Index", I still DO NOT "see" any "Image" of the record.

As I said, what am I missing, in this post of yours.

Just curious.

Brett

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: Myself (Chrome, Windows 10) and 2 other non-Latter Day Saints participating in this thread have been unable to, on many occasions, to view the 1901 Scotland Census Index. If we search for any name, there are 0 results.

So it is unusual that your non-LDS account can view them. Is the non-LDS account perhaps somehow connected to your LDS account and thus getting LDS privileges?

It would be good if a FS Staff member could look into what is happening.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: And people wonder why I also consider their wiki policy to be disingenuous and deceitful when they require us to kow-tow to get editing rights.

If only the Familysearch legal team are allowed to edit that material then the Familysearch legal team also assumes responsibility for its accuracy: they are legally liable if it is wrong, especially if the inaccuracy comes directly from their edits. Disclaimers can only get you so far.

It is inappropriate for Familysearch staff or volunteers to peddle lies. Deliberately editing text into a form that they know or ought to know is incorrect in describing the restrictions on a collection is lying. That is precisely what was done in that situation. They then leaned on the person who originally did the editing to correct their incompetence: classical tyrannical and totalitarian behaviour.

Some Familysearch staff really need to take a step back and consider how this looks to outsiders. I'll give them a clue: it stinks to high heaven.

LegacyUser

Brett said: A van Helsdingen

'NO', my non-member Account is NOT in ANY "Linked" to my Account as a Member of the Church.

This why I wanted and set-up a non-member Account, years ago; so that, I could help and train non-members, see what they see, do what they do ...

And, it does not matter what "Computer" I am on, I have even tried it on computers that were not even accessed by Members of the Church (ie. certainly NOT at FHCs; or, my own).

Interesting.

Brett

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: A FS staff member's help would be very much appreciated. Something is clearly not right when one person can access records and the others cannot.

The only other thing I can think of is a geographical restriction. But why would the National Records of Scotland and FMP object to New Zealand users accessing the index but not Australians?

LegacyUser

Paul said: Oh dear, earlier today I had applied for Wiki editing rights, specifically to note the position on availability of the FamilySearch version of the 1939 National Register. (i.e. Family History Centres only.) After reading the comments above I don't feel very confident I'll be allowed to clarify the situation!

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Interesting to see what happens won't it.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: The page for the 1939 Register (https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/...) has a section "What is in this collection", and beneath that there should be (but isn't) a sub-section called "Image Visibility". That is where restrictions are mentioned. The "Image Visibility" was the section I was explicitly told, in October, was to be edited only by the legal team.

To avoid getting into trouble with senior editors so early on, I suggest starting the "Talk" page for that article, and asking that someone authorised to do so makes the needed edits about the viewing restrictions.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Indeed. Either it's a Wiki or not. If it's not, it must be updated by FS staff. No excuses.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: In August this year, a senior editor on the Wiki described the situation to me as follows:
"The FamilySearch Research Wiki is not set up like Wikipedia or other Wikis. It has a Governance Council that is tasked with solving debates over correct content. It also is maintained by the FamilySearch Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as such, content decisions are governed by both of those bodies. There are also projects organized with specific protocols and formats designed to maintain consistency throughout the Wiki. Your claim that "A Wiki by definition is supposed to be a collaborative project that anyone/many people can edit." is not true in this case. This Wiki is not as open to free editing privileges as other wikis you may have experienced."

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Well that's interesting (and a load of utter cobblers to boot).

Let's see, Wikipedia has the Wikimedia Foundation which very much governs it and the other Wikimedia properties. Wikipedia has a massive amount more bureaucracy associated with it than the Familysearch wiki. It has a formal arbitration process to solve edit wars (now what does that sound like I wonder?). It is a 501(c)(3) organisation in exactly the same way as Familysearch is.

Wikipedia also has these wonderful things called Wikiprojects, they "projects organized with specific protocols and formats designed to maintain consistency throughout the wiki". Now what does that sound like again? Oh yes I just legitimately used that direct quote to describe the wikiprojects which exist on every Wikimedia property.

A wiki when it is a public website is indeed supposed to be a collaborative project that many people can edit. Otherwise there's no point having it as a wiki, it should just be run by a coventional CMS like Wordpress or Drupal. Given that FSFT itself is functionally a wiki it is even more ironic that their actual wiki is restricted, stale and progressively getting less and less useful as the years go by.

That "senior editor" needs to take the blinkers off and stop being an impediment to the proper running of the site they are a "senior" editor of.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: As a non LDS member, in Australia, I tried to find in Historical records, a database called Scotland Census 1901. I could not. This was by searching in "Find a Collection" (Search term Scotland) on the link https://www.familysearch.org/search/

There were databases for Scotland Census 1841-1891 (six separate databases), but nothing for 1901.

Could those who can see the database Scotland Census 1901, please show the URL for the collection.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I can't see any evidence that a 1901 census of Scotland exists - it's not a collection under Scotland's "Indexed Historical Records", nor accessible via the Catalogue for suitable places in Scotland like Dundee.

That, of course, makes perfect sense - if I can't see indexes (or images) I should not be able to be told about it.

However, if I go to my Scottish relatives, someone has attached a 1901 Scottish census record to members of that family (in August 2019). I can see the full household (index only, of course) when looking at the attached sources, and I can go to the attached source record. From there I can go to the 1901 Scotland collection's URL and enquiry screen.

If I enter details for an enquiry, it gives no results (as we would expect). Apparently, there was no-one with the surname Bruce in Scotland at the time of the 1901 census. This, of course, is complete garbage. It should say "Search facility not avaliable to you" or some such.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "I can't see any evidence that a 1901 census of Scotland exists - it's not a collection under Scotland's "Indexed Historical Records", nor accessible via the Catalogue for suitable places in Scotland like Dundee"

Correction - I can see the 1901 census of Scotland in the Catalogue and access the search form - I just have to search for it under Scotland (as a whole) - whereas if I search under Dundee, I don't see it.

LegacyUser

Brett said: MaureenE

I AM a Member of the Church, in Australia.

But, I was using MY non-member Account, which is in no way connect to my Member Account, in Australia.

Brett

LegacyUser

Paul said: Maureen

The URL is https://www.familysearch.org/search/c.... However, as with the 1939 National Register collection, any search from that page will produce "No Results".

As with the other collection, the Wiki page (accessed via the "Learn more" link) contains no suggestion of limited accessibility.

I wonder, can results only be viewed / sources attached whilst at a Family History Centre?

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: Thanks Paul

Adrian has now pointed out December 07, 23:44 in his correction, that the database Scotland Census 1901 can be accessed from the Catalogue.

This raises the following points

Firstly, why are the catalogue and Historical records Search not consistent?

Secondly, given the link from the Catalogue, why is FamilySearch not willing to be upfront and state that the database is only available to logged in Church Members (although Brett says he can access it as a non church member, but he seems to be the only one)

Thirdly, on the Wiki page, why is FamilySearch not willing to be upfront and state that the database is only available to logged in Church Members.
The comments by A van Helsdingen December 07, 23:17 are very interesting
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
"In August this year, a senior editor on the Wiki described the situation to me as follows:
"The FamilySearch Research Wiki is not set up like Wikipedia or other Wikis."
"This Wiki is not as open to free editing privileges as other wikis you may have experienced."

All the more reason why the Wiki page should be completely accurate, as it is maintained by FamilySearch.
Really, why is it necessary for FamilySearch to hide information?

Fourthly, why is the index database from findmypast such that it needs to be restricted to logged in Church Members. I have the impression that there are other indexes from findmypast that are generally available.

LegacyUser

Paul said: I hope Brett will confirm whether he accessed results from home, or was at a FHC at the time.

As I have illustrated above, it is possible for anybody to access the 1939 N.R. collection whilst at a FHC - and be able to see any sources attached to Family Tree when they get home - and I'm fairly convinced the same applies with this 1901 census collection.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Home

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: "Thirdly, on the Wiki page, why is FamilySearch not willing to be upfront and state that the database is only available to logged in Church Members."

This is a definite trend across 2019 on FamilySearch. The Wiki fails to mention restrictions on records and edits to this information aren't allowed. The wiki leaders/senior editors were particularly sensitive about this in their communications to me when the records were LDS only or more accessible to Latter Day Saints than the general population. Only since February 2019 have I been experiencing these issues as an editor.

And since October/November the messages that come up when trying to view restricted images no longer mention how LDS and non-LDS get different level of access. The message "You may be able to view this image by visiting one of our partners' sites or the legal record custodian (fees may apply)" now indicates that a set of images is LDS-only.

And now in December when an index is LDS-only, non-LDS are not told and left confused when searching for common surnames give 0 results.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Re "why is the index database from findmypast such that it needs to be restricted to logged in Church Members. I have the impression that there are other indexes from findmypast that are generally available"

I can't quite get my head around possible detailed reasons but intuitively believe that it has everything to do with ScotlandsPeople. This is effectively an arm of the Scottish state and the controller of most of the Scottish records. They are very, very loth to grant any access to their data other than through their own site. That site used to be run for them by BrightSolid, the company behind FindMyPast but now something else. Whereas most other bodies are reasonably happy with granting access elsewhere to partial indexes, SP is not.

If I recall correctly, somewhere earlier, David Newton pointed out the dates that were involved and the 1901 Scotland census came out after agreements must have been established for the earlier ones - hence the difference. SP must have clamped down on any new access. (No other UK body has this degree of control - not even Kew who license access by others rather than control it for their own benefit)

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Actually technically Kew has even more control: the head of the National Archives is dual-hatted as the Queen's Printer and head of the Office of Public Sector Information. That means the person in charge at Kew is also the person formally delegated control of Crown copyright as a whole.

However Kew is much more reasonable about exercising that authority than National Archives of Scotland is about Scotland's People.