Scotland 1881 search fault

I would check it out if you could provide some examples to work with.

 

As it ever worked? I say this mainly because I only ever search by name, birth and location which -if successful - yields the 'district' numbers. Here is an example

I agree that even when the 'district' number is known a search yields 'zero' returns, but I thought 'sundry' searching was always a bit of a non starter with Ancestry, unlike FMP using their advance searching method.

 

I hadn't realised you meant the arrows on Lost Cousins, so my comments related solely to Ancestry searching in general (mainly England & Wales as I use Scotlands People for Scotland searches) for anything other than name, date, place.

 

To understand the point you are making better, and as I have not ever entered a Scottish ancestor before in LC (mainly because those I have are distant, convoluted marriage connections) I chose a Head of household, a widow named Ann Thomson, born 1805 and in 1881 living in Alloa, Clackmannonshire, Scotland. Easily found with a name search and the Census page did reveal the Registration No. 465 and the ED 2. But no page number despite that being required and the LC FAQ stating : you'll find the Enumeration District (ED) and page number there, and on the entry page the page number is 'red' asterisked to show it is essential.

Clearly without the page number LC will not accept the entry, so after trying the household schedule number and line number to see if they would work (I didn't expect them to but I clearly had to add something) I had an 'arrow' to check the posting, which of course returned a zero match.

I note the LC FAQ advises using Scotland People - and that would be the way I would tackle it although I have not yet tried it yet. But even if I manage to locate a page number I am not sure the Ancestry 1881 will verify entry anyway. I will try via Scotland People just to make sure but at least I now see the point you make about Ancestry not validating entries as normally happens with English and other Censuses.

 

I did the Scotland People search and sure enough even without using a subscription credit the 1881 Census search revealed the reference 465/2/7 with the '7' providing the page number. So with this duly added, I clicked the arrow and Ancestry came up with a zero match. Which is as I suspected and so it would seem that if it did once allow verification, it no longer does - and I personally think the problem lies with the 'page number', but this could just be red herring.

 

Those arrows on the Lost Cousin site were working last week. I added 3 families on December 12 and clicking those arrows took me to the correct place on Ancestry. Now it is goes to an error that reads "Your Search returned zero good matches"
Hope this helps narrow down the time frame. No idea what the error could be, that's way above my pay grade.

 

Yes I did overlook this but switching to Source is something I rarely do, but accept in so doing the line number is revealed.

I have a follow-on another query which does not resolve the arrow problem but I would like answered please. On the 'Add an Ancestor' page it states..."Always use the census references for the head of household for all members of that household, even when the household is split between two pages. In the one off incidence used to check on 'arrow' confirmation I chose the Head of Household Ann Thomson where her page number is 7. Yet the remainder of family living there and related to Ann Thomson -and members of her household - are all named Mackie, and their page numbers are 8.

Clearly the census references do NOT relate exactly to the Head of Household, even if only by page difference, so the instruction "Always use the census references for the head of household" is ambiguous and perhaps should be further qualified. For what it is worth the arrows gave a zero return whichever line number was used.

 

One thing I’ve observed quite often with Ancestry is that when they make changes, something else unintentionally goes amiss. Often this will be sorted within days or a week or two, although this presumably depends on someone reporting the problem.

Has it been reported? I’m wondering if this recent search deficiency may be an unintentional thing.

 

Almost sure to be an unintentional side effect, with Ancestry they almost always are. I thought Peter would report the matter but out of idle curiosity I thought it would do no harm to report as well. I should have known better. Ancestry 'round robin' responses to any kind of error will ALWAYS lead you up the path with their old chestnuts. Everyone knows them: clear your cache and cookies, use a recommended browser - for Windows Chrome or Firefox - and of course disable browser extensions and disable security software. There is always a grain of truth in some of these precautionary steps but for the most part merely smoke screens, to keep you away from the technical person needed to get to the root of the problem. I have done this with Microsoft problems many times (albeit with a few smoke screens along the way) but I do not know how to get to base with Ancestry, so I hope Peter (or whoever) has better luck.

Incidentally I also endorse your thoughts that it will right itself eventually but until the Ancestry Mountain is aware of the matter, best if 'Mohammed' (figuratively speaking of course) goes to him.

 

I found your response to my perfectly clear query about ambiguous LC Ancestry Census advice so irritating, I booted up my PC when about to retire in order to reply. I say again, and as Pauline has actually posted an 'agree' I say to both of you, if the census references for the head of house differ from other household members ONE CANNOT USE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD CENSUS REFERENCES for ALL household members. You avoid commenting on the varying page numbers (7 for Head and 8 for the remainder of the family) so to claim they 'are borne out by example' is clearly wrong.

So even if I am the first to use the word ambiguous, so be it; someone has to be first. I don't care if 99 times out of 100 the census references for the Head align with other members, in the example quoted, they did not and as the advice does not cover this anomaly, then it clearly fall short and is by definition ambiguous*.

*Oxford dictionary: Ambiguous. open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning.

 

Sorry, Bob, but I agree with Peter and Pauline on this one. The instructions are unambiguous: if the household straddles two pages, you use the page number of the Head of Household for everyone in that household. I have numerous examples of this in my LC entries.

 

Sorry if my ‘agree’ disrupted your sleep. I was going to write something, but having just moved house, time and energy are in short supply.

However, I don’t see this particular instruction as being ambiguous, and am unsure in what way you do see it as such. It seems to me quite straightforward, though possibly unintuitive. Yes, some members of a household may have a different reference because they are on the next page, and if I was listing the household in my own records, I would include that information. But for the purpose of entering people at LC, the only reference we need to worry about is that of the head of the household - even if we are not actually entering that person.

If I remember rightly, the 1881 census index was originally done like this, and I would guess it must make matching simpler at LC - assuming everyone follows the instructions!

 

I don't have any Scottish ancestors, but my 2GGF's brother married a Scots woman and moved to Dumfries in the 1870s, thus I have one household in the Scotland 1881 census on LC. In response to this thread, I tried the blue arrow on this household on Saturday and it didn't work. Neither did a direct search in Ancestry on reg. district and ED. But, lo and behold, I tried it again this morning and it worked! So whatever was wrong has apparently been fixed.

 

Thanks Helen and I cannot blame you for agreeing, but what you (they) fail to understand -but I thought obvious - is what if the Head of Household is NOT a family member? In the example I quoted I have no idea if the Ann Thomson is family. The likelihood is she may be the mother of the widow of the Mackie family in which I have interest; but perhaps not as I have not come across her before. So I would ignore the household straddling two pages -quite deliberately - and enter only the Mackie family who have the same page numbers but NOT the same as 'Head of Household'. Should I chose to enter the Head of Household (and possible mark her as Unknown, Landlord, 'Whatever') then he/she would be entered with their own stand alone references.

However, should any of the Mackie household straddle a different page number then logic would tell me to enter the same page number as the senior family member to keep them together. In other words 'circumstances alter cases' and as the instructions do not cater for Head of Household NOT being family, then telling me to record the same census reference as the Head is wrong or inadequate advice.