Publicising Lost Cousins

Just to clarify - I am no longer wholly reliant on paper records, nor have I been since the mid 1990s. Once internet enabled, I bought a family tree program and started designing my own genealogy website. I entered everyone in my tree into both, but while census details and references were uploaded to my website, it wasn't so easy back then to enter it into the family tree program, so I didn't.

Although my family tree program has been through numerous updates since the mid 90s (and is now almost in the latest version), as mentioned previously, it has never been my primary record. My main record keeping is done with research notes, once pencilled onto A4 sheets and now typed into my computer, and on my website.

I guess it works for me though I wouldn't be surprised if more organised folks are tearing their hair out over my methods! But the thought of spending hours and hours entering everything I have noted elsewhere into my family tree program fills me with dread - I'd rather be researching.

 

Alexander

FTA updated to 7.3.2.0 today so I loaded a GEDCOM to "have a play". Despite some errors (see below) LC was updated successfully with 12 new entries from the 25 without LC flags and my data updated accordingly.

There were a few errors reported, mostly of my making but three were of concern:
1. "0 @SI46@ INDI" had the "I" replaced with two characters - either 0 or O followed by I or 1, the sans font prevented identification but I suspect "01"
2. "0 @SI84@ INDI" was changed and was reported as the same person as "0 @SI184@ INDI"
3. "0 @SI3594@ INDI" and "0 @SI4298@ INDI" were reported as the same person

I have since made the Id references four digits, eg SI0046, and am now getting three errors before stopping at "Calculating Relationships..." because the root person is being reported as "child not found" . There is also a "child not found" for the root persons family where the parents are "unknown". As a result, there are three "lone individuals". The root family does not have a "S" or "M" prefix.

The letters "S", "M", "F", "I" are linked to my "filing" system.

Phil

 

Where in FTM does one enter census records? Just under person notes? Or under Web links - and if so, just how much of the web link?

 

To follow Alexanders advice make sure you are in Person mode and not Tree mode or you won't find the +

 

Is anyone checking each individual record added to My Ancestors page by the new facility of FTA 7.3?

I have found several duplicates added by my tests using the beta versions which will need to be deleted in due course. They do not appear to be duplicates by the LC checks performed so have been added erroneously. I believe this has come about where there were 'errors' on the original census forms/transcriptions so they differ slightly from the details on the generated GEDCOM file used by FTA, ie name spellings and DoB. I do not know if similar duplicates may still be added using the latest versions of FTA.

 

In the census references, what do you enter for Schedule Number if there isn't one on the census sheet? I have several in the 1911 census where the person (in one case a whole family) is in the Army or an institution where there is no SN. FTA comes back with 'incomplete reference' for these, and Lost Cousins won't accept a blank in the SN field.

 

These errors were on the loading screen but, as you comment, FTA updated this morning and everything seems to be working. They were, also, the only three without a "M" or "S" prefix! Much appreciate your efforts

Phil

 

Yes updating to FTA 7.3.2.2 and following through with an Update to Lost Cousins, it seems to have added duplicates which LC reports as 18 records need to be checked. Some of these are the same duplicates as found when using an earlier beta copy, each of which was dutifully checked and corrected for some slight variance (mostly middle names or initial as I recall). So will have to do the same again. Perhaps Alexander will comment.

Edit: it seems FTA adds in again something previously corrected in LC and presumably this will reoccur. I had expected the 'already present' would prevent this but seemingly not as the middle names or initial variances still determines the person is different to the one shown in LC?

 

I also have some instances where there are full duplicates appearing on My Ancestors page! They probably have different IDs so FTA tries to update LC but the ID does not get passed to LC so why are duplicates appearing when viewed in Household sort order. I will investigate further in the morning.

 

Yes, I know you have to view the Schedule Number on the sheet as Ancestry usually doesn't include it in the reference. The situation I'm talking about is where there is no SN on the original image, because it's from an institution or military barracks.

 

The problem with duplicates is probably the requirements for the name entered:
- 1841 and 1911 - as on transcript
- 1881 - as on image
whereas the GEDCOM will have "what I believe is the correct name" based on evidence available (Certs etc); excluding those who "randomly" add names to people

Due to the way I store "raw" data, every census sub-record ("1 CENS" in the GEDCOM) has the reference data and the name from the image as interpreted by me (I have time to look at the handwriting in detail, unlike the transcribers).

Anyway, the simple test I have done is now responding as expected with the raw census data set to generate the necessary LC flags in the future.

Phil