1881 UK Ancestry Census differs from FMP

I have a family of 6 and used Ancestry, there are 3 missing in the FMP record.
Reference is 583/100/18
In Ancestry there is:
Charles
Emma
Laura
Alice
Henry
George
Last name is Maynard

In FMP there is
Charles
Emma
Laura
I cannot view the transcript in FMP as I do not have a sub.

Any suggestions as to why these three people are missing?

As an aside I am finding the visible transcriptions in FMP are often inaccurate.

 

Sorry "at home in NZ" not sure what you are asking here, the whole family are there on Ancestry and FMP.

 

I see the family is split over 2 pages in the census. Alice, Henry and George are listed at ref. 583/100/19 on FMP but at 583/100/18 on Ancestry. Maybe this is why they aren't showing up in your FMP search.

 

They don't show up in FMP for me, I am checking my Ancestors using the arrows and only the first three names are in the result.

Thanks very much Helen7, I would never have found that out because I cannot see the full record in FMP.
Although this is probably not a frequent occurrence it's a drawback for those of us who do not subscribe to both sites.
I'll change the ref in My Ancestors page.
EDIT: I did that for Alice and the arrow couldn't find her so I've changed it back. It makes it look like there is a flaw in FMP.

 

As I understand it, everyone in a household should be entered on our My Ancestors page using the reference of the head of the household.

I believe this is how the 1881 census index was done initially, which is why there is sometimes a difference between Ancestry & FMP - Ancestry are still using the original index whereas FMP have updated theirs.

 

Apologies, it's 583/101/19 on FMP (sorry, misread it in my earlier post).

But Pauline is quite right that everyone in a household should be entered on the My Ancestors page using the reference of the head of the household. So you need to use ref. 583/100/18 for all of the family.

 

True, but if you click on the check arrow for a household member on the next page, they won't appear in the FMP results list if they've been assigned a different reference. I've found this to be the case with my 'split page' households. I haven't generally entered the name of the head of household where my relative is a lodger, but I have entered the reference for the head of household as per instructions (even though my relative isn't shown on clicking the check arrow).

 

Well yes, and it works for families, but in cases where I've only entered the lodger who is my relative, I can't remember the name of the head of household to display the whole household without looking up my original records. My fault, I should really have entered the head of household as 'landlord' I suppose!

 

I agree it's quick where you can rapidly identify the head of household. I'm talking about cases where I can't do so without looking up my original census record (admittedly not too difficult to look up from my family tree but takes more than a couple of seconds).

 

I have done, but it takes more than 2 seconds. If I click on my relative, their surname is not listed in the FMP results. I then have to look up that census in my family tree (in FTM or Ancestry) to find out the name of the head of household so I can then go back to the FMP list and click on it to see the whole household.

 

Before I started this discussion I had clicked on an icon and was presented with the usual request to pay to see it. Having another attempt now, I can see the full list of people but I cannot view the image, perhaps I had used the wrong button for my first attempt.

It does not if you have several trees and cannot immediately identify which tree your ancestor is in.
I have discovered you do not need to select the head of the household in order to see the transcript, it is working for me on all visible members of the family I raised this discussion for.

 

I sometimes find an unexpected result if I have clicked on a child which is not on the same page as the Head of Household. Now I make sure that I always click on the Head of Household to avoid such errors.

 

Same subject as the title but a different 'issue' Tracing relatives in Derbyshire have found the images for the father's family and his son's the wrong way around on Ancestry although the references are correct. The reference for the son takes you to his father's page and you have to step back one (although from the reference it should have been plus one.