Census facts with no LostCousins fact?

I have just spent the last couple of days investigating 3 pages of Data Errors (3 pages because I had to print them out to analyse one by one), leaving just 9 line items which were caused by my use of such things as 'Civil Partnerships'; 'Out of Wedlock' 'Unknown Military fact' and the like which I choose to leave 'as is'. But on the whole it showed up Data errors which I was pleased to rectify.

I fairly regularly check out the 'missing' Lost Cousins Census data, and being more of less up to date on these (3 remaining to check) my attention was drawn to the statement in 'red' that I had 159 Census facts with no LostCousins fact. I saw that 3 applied to the items I had yet to process, leaving a mystery behind the other 156. Having clicked on the item and reviewed a good many of the 156 names, I am no wiser as to what facts are supposedly missing?

The List is headed: 'Lost cousins with no corresponding census entry' but with a check of some half dozen fairly major Direct & Blood relationship ancestors, I could find nothing amiss and certainly nothing to tell me what fact was missing.

So can I please ask Alexander to tell me how to use this particular section and how to find out the missing fact or facts from the information given. Data Errors were self evident with error descriptions relating to each item, but there are no such descriptions under this heading. Or am I missing something?

 

Thanks for your response Tim, and yes I am and have no quibbles with the first part of your statement.

No so the second point. The first person on the 'Lost Cousins with no corresponding census entry' list is my Grandfather (born 1885). He shows with a 1911 Census reference and with a '1911 Custom' LC fact. So that contradicts the point being made.

Taking someone further back my Gt Grandmother (born 1858) shows in 1881 & 1911, again both as Census facts and as LC facts. So again contradicts the statement .."you have no census ref recorded against the person"

With 156 names to check against I may well find those who meet the criteria, but two taken at random because they are major players should, by my reckoning, not be included. So any further thoughts?

 

I think that I have a similar situation under Lost Cousins tab, which I do not understand.

You have 1 Census facts with no LostCousins fact
Click the Lost Cousins website link to add them today.

The gedcom contains the following for the individual identified in the report from "Lost Cousins w/bad Census" button:

1 EVEN
2 TYPE Lost Cousins
2 DATE 1911
1 CENS
2 DATE 02 APR 1911
2 PAGE Class: RG14; Piece: 34993; SN: 9999;

BTW, independent to above, how should an LC fact be presented for the Canadian 1881 census to differentiate it from the E&W census?

 

I think Alexander allowed for the extra ; if present. It works fine in all other instances. I always put a final ; for all census references (manually).

 

Extract Gedcom as requested, applies to Grandfather and 1911 & associate LC reference

2 DATE 02 Apr 1911
2 PLAC Aston, Warwickshire, England
2 SOUR @S-862206432@
1 EVEN
2 TYPE Lost Cousins
2 DATE 1911
1 RESI
2 DATE 1891
2 PLAC Aston, Warwickshire, England
2 SOUR @S-862206430@
3 PAGE Class: RG12; Piece: 2407; Folio 14; Page 24; GSU roll: 6097517.
1 RESI 1911 Census
2 DATE 1911
Does it give any clue?

 

Immediate thoughts are:
1. There are : characters missing after Folio and Page. Perhaps FTA does not recognise that format.
2. Class RG12 pertains to the 1891 census, not 1911.

Try entering the Piece and SN details for 1911 and see if that helps.

 

The Gedcom is an Ancestry download from my Public Tree and I did as you suggested and reattached and could not find a "3 PAGE Class: RG14....." before or after re-attaching. RG12 & RG13 yes, but no RG14 which is strange as his personal page clearly shows the 1911 Census as a source just as it does 1891,1901. If I scroll down to his spouse the same applies, and indeed I now expect it to be why all those listed likely suffer from the same aberration.

I might try saving a Gedcom from FTM and see if that rectifies things although likely not as that is synced to Ancestry.

Have to leave it for now as due out but will return and repeat the exercise and check back to see if you or Bryman have any suggestions. I could of course just ignore the FTA report and clearly I am not likely to check out every reported default.

Incidentally one thing of interest, despite little activity between yesterdays gedcom download from Ancestry and today the number of FTA reported incidents (under the same heading) now numbers 194 instead of 156. Funny or what?

 

In true Monty Python style..'I have a theory'..(cough, cough) 'my theory, which is my own, is this' ....

When I add a Census fact in my Ancestry Tree, found by searching for same under a family member's name -let us say the Head - when satisfied it is the right family I click 'Save' (under the name of the Head) and then select each family member for the information to be added to their pages also. This appears to happen, but what if....(my theory coming up) only the Head gets the full Census references (I refer to RG, Piece, etc) ...whilst other family members just get the textural Residence information at the time of the Census?

If the Census year is 1841,1881,1911 (England and Wales) I add Custom LC Data to each. Perhaps, just perhaps, when I import the resultant saved Gedcom into FTA all -save the Head (as in this example) - are candidates for the 'Lost cousins with no corresponding census entry' listing? Does that make sense?

I will pursue Tim's idea as well, but with so many family members showing this might just account for it happening?

Here ends my theory

 

Yes will do this but may have to wait awhile as busy calendar coming up. Will report back in due course. Thanks Tim.

 

Seems there are a lot of busy calendars right now.

 

Pursuing successive Gedcom readouts for one person -my maternal grandfather GHA -has been revealing and no doubt would be even more revealing if I understood all the notations of GEDCOMS. (For the record I am happy to be an innocent abroad in this matter). However I do understand the Page Class requirement for RG14 to show for the 1911 Census. What is mysterious is how successive Ancestry Gedcom downloads vary even though contiguous.

Of the 3 Gedcoms I analysed (itemised as G8, G9 & G10) for GHA there was NO absolute consistency, and only one (G10) had any RG14 reference at all –see under. (I also show the subsequent APID line although not fully understanding if it relates)

3 PAGE Class: RG14; Piece: 18218
3 _APID 1, 2352::21483065


I was pretty sure the 3 Page line was incomplete (as per Tim & Bryman’s earlier comments) and this was verified in FTA by using the ‘Incomplete Census References’ (ICR) section. Sure enough for GHA it shows a missing Schedule as I thought. In fact it became clear glancing down some of the other ICR reports that this was partly the answer to my problems for other Census anomalies; that and the vagaries of varying Gedcom downloads which is an entirely different matter.

So now I come to the nitty-gritty WHY? I know if I care to check in FMP, or even revert back to using the Ancestry original image, I can discover the full reference information (for instance following the 18218 Piece, should have been shown 191 Schedule). But I have always added Census information into my Ancestry Tree via an Ancestry search. Once I find the Census record I assign it to the page of the chosen Ancestor, and then tick to add the same information to others in the family showing at that time. I am sure others do the same, so if data is incomplete and salient reference data is omitted, then that will of course cause FTA to report there is insufficient or conflicting data, which in turn will show in 'Lost cousins with bad Census'.

So my earlier theory is not too far off the mark except it would not appear to matter which family member gets the Census reference, all will fall short if Ancestry does not provide the information in the first place. (Note in some cases of course it provides full reference and all is well)

As I have no intention of changing the way I add Censuses to family pages –other than by manual entry where I cannot find the Census in Ancestry (and that happens) -it appears I have to avoid FTA analysis on this matter.

My next project is to see why subsequent Gedcom readouts can vary (without any additional entry input to cause this) and explain so many line anomalies and duplications. Perhaps WORD is to blame? Perhaps I need to transcribe using plain text? I feel another theory coming up.

 

It appears not to matter a wit how one reads a Gedcom in text, but I think Notepad wins hands down over Word or Excel. I have read Gedcom G10 (Ancestry) in detailed form for just the one individual (GHA) -also in isolated form via FTM which permits individual Gedcom export - and as you would expect as FTM is a clone of Ancestry - the 3 PAGE Class; RG14 just shows the Piece number 18218. So the old maxim "crap in-crap out" applies on this occasion at least.

I have experimented on my Ancestor's page with manually editing the 1911 Census reference, but this only shows as a textural piece of information even though I have tried to write it in Gedcom parlance. I doubt it will allow it to be picked up by FTA but will check it out later.

If anyone can say whether it is possible to override an Ancestry Census input to allow a missing data field to be added where it is not provided in the first place by Ancestry, I would be delighted to hear.

 

I should have said other than by manually adding to an existing Gedcom line (when viewed as text). I realise this can be done, so making the line (in my example)

3 PAGE Class: RG14; Piece: 18218; Schedule: 191

But this is after the horse has bolted and the Saved Ancestry Census citation still remains devoid of a Schedule number. A follow up question would be can the Gedcom be individually edited in FTM and then synced back to Ancestry?

What I would wish to do when I spot the Ancestry Source Citation is missing (say) the Schedule number -as it is prone to do on occasion (as I recall has been discussed in the Forum before) - to edit and add the Schedule number myself, before pressing the SAVE button and adding into family pages. I cannot see how this can be done?

I realise one can add Census information manually -as I do when I can only find such in FMP - but this only offers 3 headings; Date: Location: Description. So does one add the Source Citation information in Gedcom format within the Description box? And will it be recognised by FTA if I do?

Sorry so many questions and will continue to experiment myself just in case no one is able to help.

 

I thought others might be interested in Ancestry's response after reminding them of incomplete Source citations. Here is how they answered:

Thank you for contacting Ancestry in regard to incomplete source citations.

We appreciate your loyalty to Ancestry as well as your patience. As you know, we have been working hard to get the 1911 Census household schedules fully indexed and searchable. Once fully indexed, the complete source citation will be available.

Currently, indexing for the following counties is complete: Channel Islands, Cheshire, Cumberland, Derbyshire, Durham, Leicestershire, Northumberland, Royal Navy, Rutland, Warwickshire, Westmoreland, Yorkshire—East Riding, Yorkshire—North Riding, and Yorkshire—West Riding. The 1911 Census for the Isle of Man is also complete. The census for Wales is nearly complete with only a few missing districts. These will be added with a later update. In addition, the following counties are also near completion: London, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, and Nottinghamshire. The following counties are only partially indexed: Cornwall, Devon, Essex, Norfolk, and Worcestershire.

We have approximately 76% of the 1911 Census household schedules fully indexed and available for searching, and we hope to have everything completed in the near future. We have also had many questions about the release of the redacted infirmity information; we do not have an official release date for this yet. Again, we appreciate your patience and loyalty.

I have further taken them to task for including Warwickshire in the 'completed' list and gave a few examples of how some Source Citations still remain incomplete for this county. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the same thing applies to the other 'so called' completed counties they list.

I did not raise comments about 'redacted infirmity information' (shown in green), but have left it in as it may well ring a bell with others.