FMP v Ancestry

I really like using FMP finding Ancestry harder to use, I know everyone has their own favourite and it is good to have different sites to compare information. I do however have a problem with FMP regarding missing information. When I started my research I used Ancestry, especially when they had free use weekends. I have recently needed to go back to a few ancestors to try to do more research and found that even though I have the census reference number from Ancestry, I get no results on FMP when I do a census reference search. I have contacted FMP regarding this and they have admitted that there seems to be some information missing on their site and they are trying to fix it. I have revisited these searches a few times and now from the four pages that I could not find , two have now been included. Has anyone else had a similar problem with FMP?

 

Thanks Peter for this useful information. The question I now have is which number is the book number? On the search page on FMP for searching by the census reference number, the info required is, the census year - a drop down box, with eg 1841 HO 107, then piece number, folio number and page number, which has to be typed in, no provision for a book number. The problem I have with my two missing pages they are from the 1851 census and FMP have told me that yes those pages are missing and have thanked me for informing them and as you have said, they say it may take some time befor they can fix the problem.

 

Although I much prefer FMP, I've had a problem with "missing" or misplaced records. In the 1901 census there is an area of south Durham which has been transcribed as North Yorkshire. This affects Middleton St George, Hurworth and Neasham as far as I can tell and in all cases the census document itself clearly states Durham. FMP's response was that these are all taken from the National Archives catalogue and they were passing my email to their data team to check with the catalogue. Nothing has happened since I reported it at the end of May. What if the National Archives catalogue has got it wrong?

 

Up until a few weeks ago I had never heard of Stansted Mountfitchet, but then I found a family of second cousins came from there and started to research the area. I then met up with another lost cousin who was visiting from the US, and we arranged to meet just down the road from Stansted Mountfitchet. Three mentions in as many weeks....

 

Thanks Peter but which one is the book number? On the search page on FMP for searching by the census reference number, the info required is, the census year - a drop down box, with eg 1841 HO 107, then piece number, folio number and page number, which has to be typed in, no provision for a book number.

 

I am intrigued to know which parts of the Darlington Registration District are or were in Yorkshire. In any case, surely the administrative county transcribed should be the same as that shown on the original census document.

 

Hi Marmor, the Genuki site lists the Darlington Registration Districts.
I have ancestors in Barton, North Yorkshire, but Darlington Registration District, which can cause problems.

Barton was left out of the FMP 1851 census until recently, so keep looking.
At least they now accept the problem, when I contacted FMP they told me they could not do my research for me!

 

Thanks for that Katie Bee but the GENUKI list only shows areas that are actually in North Yorkshire but came under Darlington for registration purposes. Middleton St George, Hurworth and Neasham are, and as far as I know, always have been in County Durham so to place them in North Yorkshire despite what is stated on the census document is a bit odd!

 

I had a missing entry. Luckily I had the entry on Ancestry so was able to give FMP the reference numbers. They located it for me and corrected it. I have found FMP very quick to fix problems but Ancestry seems reluctant to do so--most frustrating. I use both sites so that I can cross check things. Ancestry has more records but has an appalling search engine. I have reported this with examples each time they ask me to do a survey, but nothing has changed. I find it hard to recommend this site to others because of this.

 

Ancestry does not need recommendations; Ancestry is what it is, warts and all. It is a Colossus and like one of its stature it falters and stumbles quite often. I have absolutely no axe to grind (or association with the LDS church where its own roots began) but do have tremendous admiration for a site that claims 11 billion worldwide records, 40 million family trees and 2 million paying subscribers (source Ancestry Com. Inc Reports Q3 2012 Financial Results). This in addition to its many associated sites (like Rootsweb.com) and of course Family Tree Maker software which links to Ancestry, and lays claim to being the No. 1 Family History Software.

So Ancestry cannot be ignored and for those who use it to its full potential (and yes I do claim to be one of those) then it is irreplaceable. Does this mean I use it to the exclusion of other research sources? No certainly not. Its records need to be balanced with (and checked against) other equally invaluable records especially those provided by Find my Past (or its ‘Brightsolid’ partner Genes Reunited). Then there are the myriad of other genealogical data bases available online, including those provided from County & ecclesiastical sources.

As I said at the start, Ancestry does not need recommendations but equally to ignore it puts any researcher at an immediate loss. Sooner or later everyone discovers Ancestry and family history research takes on a new element.

 

I fully agree with you but sometimes FMP do read the question correctly and go that step further and find the missing item for you - this happened recently for me when trying to search the un-indexed Lincolnshire parish records. Some pages were out of order, they found them and pointed me in the right direction on more than one occasion.

 

To give some balance, not too long ago I contacted Ancestry about my dislike of the change to opening pages in Pedigree View rather than the dedicated family member page I had searched for and which hitherto had been the default.

They pointed out this change was actually in response to surveys which showed that a majority preferred a Pedigree View opening based around the last member researched (or as a new search). It was also possible now to switch to Family View by clicking the icon alongside. More importantly (which I think was the main reason) they said it now brought it into line with their Family Tree Maker software. They helpfully explained -although I had already sussed it for myself - that it was easy to switch to a dedicated page by moving my mouse over the family member's name, which would then auto underline and could be opened with a mouse click.

I knew it was a done deal even as I read their reply and to be fair it takes but a second to get where I want and not worth pursuing further. I offer the illustration to show Ancestry can respond in a civilised fashion, and on an even earlier communication (I had suggested a small viewing modification), I was told my suggestion 'was of interest' and would be passed to the appropriate review panel. Likely they would do no such thing, but at least they replied.