1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  3. This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  4. Coronavirus Corner - a place to share your hopes, dreams, and frustrations.
  5. Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

What do you do When Ancestry and FMP are different?

Discussion in 'Digital records' started by Tim, Apr 8, 2017.

  1. Tim

    Tim Moderator Staff Member

    The story starts with a red exclamation mark next to an ancestor on the Lost Cousins site. I was quite excited because I was thinking I was getting close to a match with someone.

    So I checked Ancestry to make sure I'd added the data correctly, and it looked good. A match with the data at Lost Cousins.
    upload_2017-4-8_17-45-40.png

    So I thought I'd take advantage of Peter's little arrow (click here to check against census), and pressed it.
    Nothing, no results found, So started removing each number one by one to see if I could find something. Eventually I got a match.
    upload_2017-4-8_17-48-43.png
    So a bit weird. But I just thought, ok, maybe the other person has used FMP and I used Ancestry.
    So I changed one of the family to 13 and searched. But no matches. It must have been a ghost!

    In this scenario Peter, would you expect the system to use the ! ? I don't know if there are many entries which are different between Ancestry and FMP.

    I've submitted a correction so hopefully this one will be fixed. And this batch of records that needed checking have gone.
     
  2. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Megastar

    Sometimes, as in this case, Ancestry has the wrong folio number in 1841. I often find it easier to enter the information from Ancestry, but then use the little arrow to check at FMP. If there's a difference then I double check the image to see which is correct - usually it's FMP.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Bryman

    Bryman LostCousins Megastar

    I have encountered several instances of such differences and have queried these with Peter (until he gets quite 'annoyed' with me, although he is too polite to say so). I have now given up with confirming that my entry is correct as that often makes the ! disappear without any clue or explanation. I now prefer to cancel after checking so that the ! remains. That way I keep a note that there may be a potential match at that point. I often wish that the colour could be changed to black/grey when confirmation does not result in a match.

    If all members of a family match and just one is marked with the ! indicator then it cannot be the reference that differs and follow-up with the member who is matched for the others usually gets things sorted.

    I think that I currently have 9 such unresolved instances on My Ancestors page.
     
  4. Rhian

    Rhian LostCousins Member

    I have often noticed several variations between different sites, most often with transcription of names, places and occupations. The Genealogist seem to be the most accurate with transcriptions although they do not cite source pages correctly, just the piece number and their image number. The only reliable way to check data is to use several data sites and get the original image.

    Currently I have a problem with my 4X Great Grandmother, Tamar Hunter born about 1782 in Northumberland. I did once find her as a widow in 1851 in Tynemouth, a widow of Alexander White, I even had her address at Toll Bar and the reference HO107 Piece 2409 Folio 567 Page 28, this was years ago and I forgot to copy the page. I need to see the image again to check her place of birth. The Genealogist site has no record of her and searching the address shows several other families, FMP finds her and shows the transcription but the image will not load, FMP have been a week trying to find out why. Familysearch gives a transcription but claims there is no image. As has been normal for the last 6 months I cannot get any page at ancestry to open and their support have run out of ideas.
     
    • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
  5. PhilGee

    PhilGee LostCousins Member

    It is sometime since I had a similar problem with Ancestry, with an occasional exceedingly slow page load. The eventual solution was a new modem/router, found by using a "spare" supplied by my ISP, though the actual cause was not identified.

    Phil
     
  6. Tim

    Tim Moderator Staff Member

    Have you tried removing the cookies for Ancestry? I would probably try a different web browser. Which one are you using?
     
  7. Rhian

    Rhian LostCousins Member

    I am not to concerned that ancestry does not work, I find it a terrible site and only try to use it when cousins try to share trees., although I did try to use it in this case as no other site has the image available.

    Thanks for the suggestions, I have been through all of them and more with ancestry (lack of) support. Tried with vivaldi, chrome, opera and firefox, tried on three different computers and an android tablet, I even built a new one and tried with a clean install of OS. It is probably connected with the long ping time due to only having satellite internet.
     
  8. Tim

    Tim Moderator Staff Member

    That is strange but possible.
     
  9. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    Around half of the folio numbers shown by Ancestry in 1841 are wrong (they don't seem to understand what a folio number is). Always remember that for this census we use the data from the image when the transcription is wrong.

    The 'near match' process cannot compensate for incorrect references - that's why checking entries with the grey arrow is essential. Once you know how to read the 1841 references yourself it's better to ignore the transcriptions altogether.
     
  10. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    Using Findmypast doesn't guarantee you will have the right references - unless the person you searched for was the head of household. The problem arises when a household is split over two pages.
     
  11. Gillian

    Gillian LostCousins Star

    I'm sorry you have such trouble with Ancestry. I found your Tamara White on the 1851 census there instantly. Here's the link
     
  12. Rhian

    Rhian LostCousins Member

    Many thanks to all the members who sent me details of Tamar, I still cannot view the Ancestry page but I have solved the problem of the incorrect transcription of her birth place, it was Friarside not Freeside, I have now got her baptism and her parents details, birth, Marriage and deaths. This is like Peter wrote in the last newsletter, we all like solving problems, even if not in our own direct family.

    Once again thanks to all those that helped.
     
    • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
  13. Gillian

    Gillian LostCousins Star

    The interesting thing for me about the search was the name Tamar. I'd never it heard before. But then the very same day (yesterday!) that I searched for your Tamar, a person of the same name popped up in my tree (on Ancestry!). Had I not found yours first, I'm sure I would have doubted the name.
     
  14. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Megastar

    I have the name Tamar in my tree, and it occurs in several generations of the same family. One of my Tamars also seems to have been known as Thomasine - see previous discussion here
     
  15. Gillian

    Gillian LostCousins Star

    Thank you, Pauline, particularly for the link to the previous discussion. Very interesting.
     
  16. Rhian

    Rhian LostCousins Member

    Tamar had a daughter named Tamer, I need to find some original documents to prove the spelling, it could be dialect differences as Tamar came from Durham, Tamer was born in Scotland and they lived later in Newcastle on Tyne so lots of room for missunderstanding.

    Another odd name I came across was Tysick, I assumed it was a transcription error at first until I found two unrelated people with the name but also found it occasionally transcribed as Tysack, from original documents I confirmed my man was Tysick.
     

Share This Page