England and Wales Census 1871 Problems
Further to my earlier query.
I tried the proposed resolutions with no success.
To illustrate the probelm further, I have found a person in the tree who already has the 1871 Census record attached.
John Readhead 1802-1871 MLT3-RQX
He has 1871 Census attached:
"England and Wales Census, 1871", database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VB8K-RHF : 12 July 2021), John Readhead, 1871.
But if you search the England and Wales Census 1871 for John Readhead born 1802 Burringham, Lincolnshire, England, he cannot now be found - see above image.
Hope you can answer.
Thanks
John
Best Answer
-
@JohnB1952 The error with the 1871 census not finding John Readhead born 1802 in Burringham, Lincolnshire, is not one of permissions or Church membership. He has indeed disappeared from the index. We've seen some of this sort of thing in various record collections when someone edits the name of a household member and then all the rest of the household suddenly disappears from the index. Perhaps that is what has happened here.
We can forward this issue to a team of specialists to investigate and correct the problem. Thank you VERY MUCH for including the URL of the indexed record that search can no longer find. That is extremely helpful to us.
It is possible that you will be contacted by a member of the specialty team if they need additional information about the issue.
1
Answers
-
Hello John,
I have put in the same information and it brings John Readhead up on the census for me. I would try and clear your cookies first from FamilySearch, then if that doesn't work, clear them from your browser. The following article explains how to do this. You can also try a different browser (search engine).
How Do I delete Cookies and Cache?
Hopefully that will fix your issue as it seems to be limited to your computer, but if not, please reply to this post and we can try to suggest further actions.
0 -
I recreated the search for John Readhead and got zero results. (https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?q.givenName=John&q.surname=Readhead&q.birthLikePlace=Burringham%2C%20Lincolnshire%2C%20England&q.birthLikeDate.from=1802&q.birthLikeDate.to=1802&f.collectionId=1538354&count=100&offset=0&m.defaultFacets=on&m.queryRequireDefault=on&m.facetNestCollectionInCategory=on)
I wonder if it's related to whether someone has an LDS or non-LDS account?
1 -
As with your fellow moderators (who responded on John's other thread), you have not illustrated your efforts with a screenshot or URL, to illustrate the success of your search.
Like Julia (and John, of course) I am unable to find a result relating to the 1871 census. Please illustrate what you are seeing - but we can't - preferably with the type of screenshot John has added above.
0 -
I didn't realise that John had a previous thread, but as you suggested, I have attached my screenshots. The first is the information I typed in my search, the second is the results page. I have now been able to do this on two different computers. However, I will look into this further to see why this is happening for some of you.
1 -
Thank you, @LGPreston
As Julia has suggested, maybe this does relate to the type of account on which one is signed-in.
I don't know about John, but Julia and I don't have LDS accounts, so it can only be assumed this is another of the recently restricted groups of indexed records that we can no longer view. This issue only previously applied to images, so this is a further disappointing move for many FamilySearch users, who are not members of the LDS Church.
1 -
I just reread the contract between TNA, the record custodian of the UK Censuses, and FamilySearch. I received this through the Freedom of Information Act in 2019. I have been told that this contract will expire this November and may be replaced by a new contract that makes no distinction between Latter Day Saints and members of other religions.
I didn't see any mention that the Indexes and Images are subject to different restrictions. The contract is clear that Images should only be available to Latter Day Saints, patrons of FHCs (and possibly Affiliate Libraries), volunteers of FS and a few other groups.So if I didn't miss anything, then FS making the Indexes available to general users of FS was a violation of the contract. Another thing that TNA told me is that they do not object to FamilySearch imposing restrictions that are more stringent than those in the contract (e.g. indexers and volunteers have never been granted free access to the images). Such restrictions can result from contracts between FamilySearch and Ancestry/FindMyPast/MyHeritage etc As contracts between private organizations these are not public.2 -
Without any explanation from FamilySearch it just seems strange that these 1871 census indexes have suddenly become unavailable.
There might simply be a bug, of course. Time will probably tell.
BTW - there doesn't appear to be a problem in viewing the 1871 E&W census sources already attached to IDs.
0 -
Interesting - I've just performed a search on all John Readhead entries for "England" in the 1871 census, As illustrated (from a public account) four results, for other counties, have been found / displayed.
Not directly relevant, but there are anomalies when it comes to the census records for different counties in England and Wales. For example, in the 1851 indexed records some counties have the place name shown on the results page, but others just the name of the county.
In this case, finding results for individuals of the same name does seem to relate to the county of residence - or perhaps other factors - not a new blanket restriction, after all.
0 -
@JohnB1952 Having looked further into this, it is restricted due to the contract. It is made available in our family history centres though so I would recommend as they are starting to reopen, perhaps you could visit there to access this particular census record.
0 -
Thanks for your response LGPreston,
If the records I am seeking on the England & Wales 1871 are restricted, then why am I am able to access other records on the same collection eg:
"England and Wales Census, 1871", database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VB8J-VBF : 19 February 2021), Elizabeth W Burgess in entry for Thomas Burgess, 1871.
John
1 -
Are we speaking at cross-purposes here? Sure I would not expect to see the 1871 census images from home, but there has never been a problem with the index. As illustrated, nor is there one now for certain records.
If restriction of viewing the index is the factor, why is the problem affecting all records?
I believe this is an issue that needs to be escalated for deeper investigation.
0 -
Illustrated another way, this shows how (from a public account) indexed 1871 census records relating to Lincolnshire can be viewed at home. However, I still can't manage to get to the record for John Readhead, which was the original point of discussion.
2 -
There definitely seem to be current problems relating to inconsistencies with Search results. I am finding inputs that would have produced results in the past are not showing as "No results". This appears to be due to a programming change, but the whole problem (with examples provided) needs to be escalated to the engineers / developers for attention.
Coincidentally (or otherwise) there are also problems with the "Find" routine, although I believe a report on this has been escalated.
0 -
The mystery remains of how @LGPreston was able to find the indexed record just four days ago, using his LDS account. (See his screenshot, above.)
0 -
@Paul W Sorry, I have no answer for you as to how LGPreston was able to find it. The 1871 census index has no restrictions that would enable a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to find information that the public cannot find. The only obvious difference in the search terms is the absence of a comma after Burringham and the absence of the country.
0 -
I am also having trouble accessing 1871 England & Wales census this past week on several different people. here's an example https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/GCYJ-D8Yhttps://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/GCYJ-D8Y and here's the screen shot of the error message. would appreciate if access checked. i have cleared cookies, tried different devices and browsers.
Thank you
0 -
I have had the same issue and posted a question, but cannot actually find the question I posted now.
Others have been able to find people for me on 1871 England and Wales census, but I cannot find them
It is so weird, could someone from the support missionaries ask escalate the issues to an engineer to see if this is supposed to be happening.
I have not had any issue in the past but have noticed that when I go to search the 1871 there are only 406,475 records where as othe r census records number over 1 million, and some over 2 million
Thank you
0 -
This problem (as explained by @N Tychonievich) is not limited to the England and Wales 1871 census.
I have a similar issue with the "Philippines Marriages" index. I have a source linked to an entry from that index, and I can follow the link from the source and see the transcribed information from the index, but if I turn around and search directly in the index for the same target person, they are not found.
I am using an LDS account from home.
Should I include screenshots and links here, or should I open a separate question?
Thank you
1 -
@ JohnB1952 Want to keep folks up to date on this issue, since many seem interested in it. We have reported the search result discrepancies to our engineers. They have acknowledged that is it odd. They found that the permissions for some of the DGS (film) numbers within this collection are showing differently than others--which is not what we would expect. They are checking with those who manage permissions and contracts with record custodians to see what they can discover. We will update you when we learn more.
0 -
Thank you very much for reporting the issue.
1 -
@ David Peterson Please start a new post here in Community about the Philippines marriages index. To give the engineers the best chance of tracking down this elusive issue, here is the kind of info that is helpful:
- The name of the record collection or microfilm number you are searching.
- How are you getting to the search? Clicking Search and then Records? Clicking Search and then Catalog? Clicking Search and then Records and then a place on the world map? Some other way?
- The exact search terms you used. Have you tried more than one set of search terms? If so, give us all of the things you've tried.
- The URL of the search results page is really helpful. It shows us your search terms and that the system didn't find what you expected to find.
- When you have evidence that supports the fact that you should have been able to find the record, a URL showing us that is very useful.
- Details about your computer: what operating system? what browser? mobile device or web interface? For the browser, have you made sure it is an up-to-date, supported browser? Have you tried basic computer housekeeping tasks--clearing cache and cookies?
0 -
While trying various combinations of search parameters, I discovered that the problem with the Philippines Marriages is that the record is improperly indexed. (During indexing, it appears that the first name and last name were both entered in the first name field. When searching, if you enter the names in the correct search fields, you get no results.) This just serves as further illustration of how problematic searching can be without proper indexing (as done by indexers and/or as orgainized internally by the programmers) and how difficult and time-consuming it is to find errors. My goal was to find other marriages for this particular family, but now I have no idea if the lack of results means that no records exist or whether they are just not indexed correctly!
0 -
Here we are at the end of September and still this problem persists. The screenshot clearly shows over half the 1871 indexed records are still unavailable - at least from my public account. (Compare the figures with the other available census collections, listed above and below).
Is there any update of the issue, please?
0 -
I just found other posts had been raised on this, including one at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/272322#Comment_272322, where I'd forgotten I'd added a similar screenshot - the stats remain the same.
0 -
You wrote on 5 August:
"Want to keep folks up to date on this issue, since many seem interested in it. We have reported the search result discrepancies to our engineers. They have acknowledged that is it odd. They found that the permissions for some of the DGS (film) numbers within this collection are showing differently than others--which is not what we would expect. They are checking with those who manage permissions and contracts with record custodians to see what they can discover. We will update you when we learn more."
Over four months have now passed, so I wonder if you could possibly see if there is any update on the issue - especially as there have been further queries in other posts in Community?
Thanks,
Paul
1 -
@Paul W Sorry to be slow responding. Your follow-up question got lost in the shuffle. Yes, I have heard back on the 1871 England and Wales Census. There was an error in setting the viewing rights for the images that has been corrected to be consistent across the collection. (I have not had a chance to test it for consistency) Because of a contract change, users of FamilySearch need to visit a Family History Center or affiliate library to view the census images. The index can be searched from FamilySearch at home.
1 -
Thank you for your response. The page at https://www.familysearch.org/search/location/united-kingdom-and-ireland/england (click on "Show all 101") is still showing the same figure as before, but I'm sure users will submit further reports if they still cannot access records by the means you describe!
I only usually access the images from my local, public library, so it is just the amount of indexed images available that affects me when researching from home. Personally, I haven't noted anything missing that relates to my research - it was just the comparatively low number for the 1871 collection that really stands out when you look at the above page. However, other users had been having difficulties in finding records for certain areas (in England & Wales).
I'll try later to test the FamilySearch index for records that might still be missing.
Thanks again for your help with the problem.
1 -
Thanks for the response.
The problem does not yet seem to have been resolved.
I refer you to the original post of mine at the top of this list.
If you search, as a non member, the England and Wales Census 1871 for John Readhead born 1802 Burringham, Lincolnshire, England, he still cannot now be found.
I have re- checked a few others that I have not been able to find in the past, and they are still not found.
0 -
@JohnB1952 When you look at the citation for the 1871 England and Wales Census on FamilySearch, you see that the database (i.e. the index) and the images both come from findmypast.com. If one were to find the record on findmypast, but not on FamilySearch, it would be reasonable to assume that there were some issue on the FamilySearch side.
I am not able to find John Readhead born 1802 in Burringham, Lincolnshire, England in the 1871 census on FamilySearch. I did that same search in the 1871 census on findmypast.com and got no results there either. So, the issue would not appear to be on FamilySearch's side.
In order for me to reopen the engineering ticket, I need exact search terms that work differently on FamilySearch.org than they do on findmypast.com. This particular example does not meet that need.
0
