Scotland 1881 search fault

Yes I agree, and checked again the arrow alongside the one that previous produced a 'zero match' error and it worked. Likely just an Ancestry self rectification, who knows?

 

I can see your reluctance to use the reference for a Head of Household who is unrelated to you. However, if the people are all living in a single household, I take the instructions to mean that you use the page where the Head of Household appears. I have several examples of this where my relative is a live-in servant, and clearly the Head is not a family member, but I've entered the Head as related by Employment, and used their page in the reference, even where my relative is on the next page.

 

Actually it was my bedtime crossword that suffered as I decided to respond online instead. But I do understand all about house moves being strenuous and energy sapping, so you are excused.

My response to Helen explains the point I thought I was making about the Head of Household not being a family member, so will let you pick up from there.

 

Yes that is factual and the 'rule' - and I have long expressed my feelings on rules -'RULES ARE MADE FOR THE GUIDANCE OF WISE MEN*, AND THE OBEDIENCE OF FOOLS' *(apologies for being non-pc, but I merely quote a well known saying)

I prefer the 'guidance' bit and cringe at 'fools', and would rather see some sort of caveat built in as ISASSC ASIMOV did when writing the Rules for Robots. Always obey Rule 1 unless it impacts on Rule 2 (and Rule 2 unless..and so on). There is and always will be a Rule 2, or put another way an alternative reason to divert or modify a rule. Sadly one only has think of the Covid Pandemic to understand that.

 

I have to disagree, Bob - there is no ambiguity in the instructions. The instructions relate to census data where the "household" is determined by the enumerator, not family relationships, and (usually) clearly defined on the paperwork. If you decide to ignore the instructions (not rules) you get into the "rubbish in, rubbish out" mode that computers are very adept at implementing

 

Lovely to hear from you Phil and may I say, for once, I understand the position you take and the reasons given. Unfortunately I view family relationships above all else and if this bias causes divergence from the Enumerator determined 'household' - my conscience is quite clear. The way the facts and details are recorded in Tribal Pages is my prime priority so that family can follow things without the complexities that surround genealogical research.

 

I think we can close by saying I note what you say but will, as always, interpret things in my own way. If this gels with LC standard practice -and mostly it does - good, if not the devil take the hindmost. I am not a person who reads instructions -as my wife knows only too well - and even when I do I tend to cherry pick those that make sense (to me of course) and those that do not.

In a way I am sorry I entered this discussion, and did so for the best reasons possible, to see if I could unravel the problem. I did not of course, but am pleased it has been fixed anyway. Along the way I identified a 'household' versus 'family' anomaly which made no sense to me, then or now. I now know everything hinges on the original LDS concept of Households which LC adopted so I thank my lucky stars households are merely items of interest in the way I record things, and families take precedence every time.

It may disappoint that LC matching plays far less a role in my way or working, although I have always saluted the concept (and its creator). I actively contributed in adding Ancestors which in time earned me Superstar although just as happy as a Member. I will continue to pay my subscription and love contributing in the Forum. When all is said and done I prefer to play by the rules, but never lose sight of the concept that they act as a guidance, and not just for blind obedience.

 

Oh I got the right end of the stick Peter, but -immortalising the words of Morecombe and Wise in their famous Andre Previn sketch - 'not necessarily in the right order'.

I freely admit that there have been occasions -very few I might add - when I chose not to enter the nominal 'Head of Household' although where I did then his/her census references would have been used throughout. But when omitted I would start with 'Head of Family' and use his or her census reference in lieu (which may of course been the same as Head of Household). I have also omitted 'sundry household others' (visitors/lodgers/borders) who I deemed of no interest. I see absolutely no reason to enter every Tom, Dick & Harry just because they are in the Household, so I doubt I will change practice, although I might think about the pros and cons first.

Whilst in the Confession box, I also admit to only occasional use of the arrow checking method. I do so if an entry is queried or if I think the census references I am using are vague or indistinct. I do agree however it is a useful 'back-up' tool to have.

So to sum up and bow out of this thread: if any of my actions (or inactions) have jeopardised matching, that is sad but one cannot miss what one never had, and that works on both sides. I have no complaints on the number of matches found over the years from a variety of genealogical sources (Ancestry & DNA related in particular) so any garnered via LC I regard as a bonus.

 

When I used Family Tree Analyser to add ancestors it added about 400 (at a guess) so checking every one of those was too daunting. Even more so when I have to look at an unfamiliar format (yes I mean the dreaded FMP) and sometimes at two pages. It takes me more than a few seconds!

I have not entered any ancestors to partake in the current competition because it is the wrong time of year. It's summer, spring growth was phenomenal this year so I have a garden to maintain as well as Christmas preparations to do.

 

I used FTA to add the 1911 censuses entries from my tree to Lost Cousins in November 2020. I thought I'd kept a track of the 1881 census entries and most 1841 entries but had added few, if any from the 1911. I now have 2670 1911 entries. I then had a message telling me to check some entries, which I've now finally worked through. However, having been told it is essential to make sure you add the information from the census as it is transcribed, it is upsetting to now discover that FTA uses the info in my tree not the census to add records. Indeed FTA adds people who were not even alive at the time of the census or indeed a part of the household. I now have over 2700 census entries to check. I am daunted by the amount of time and effort required to check each and every entry, which is why I've been putting it off. Firstly it takes over a minute watching that little wheel whirring round while the thing is checked and then I'm taken back to the top of the page before I can look at the next entry. I am very frustrated.

 

I also find this frustrating.
I haven't added anything for ages because it takes so long to do the checking.
However, when I used FTA it did not add people who weren't alive at the time of the census.

 

That looks like an unfinished sentence.

In response to some of the points:
I always use a computer.
I rarely print anything, especially not census records because I create a jpg of each one and attach it to the profile(s). I don't need heaps of paper records that will more than likely not even be looked at when somebody clears my deceased estate.

Using two tabs is second nature to me but right click does not procure a second tab.
I worked with computers for many years, two screens became the norm for those of us in IT positions (not technical for me) but that's not practical in a home situation.

I used FTA because I have the document 'A Guide to using Family Tree Analyzer and Lost Cousins'. It was an easy way of finding all the census records in my trees.
If FTA is not the way to go, what are you going to do to prevent LC members from using it?