Missing Census?

redted · Post by **redted** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:24 pm

What is the recommended action if you discover that a census record has been mis-indexed ?

I managed to find an Ayrshire/Loudon 1841 census on the FreeCen site but it is no where to be found on SP...I assume it has been indexed in error.

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:29 pm

Hi Redted

Well.....if you'd like to give me a name to search for I'd be happy to try and find what it is indexed under on SP. Usually if you use wildcards to assist in the searching you'll find it. Then by all means report the error via contact form to GROS. A correction will not be immediate by any means but eventually these will appear in the database as correct. If you've expended an enormous amount of credits in fruitless searches then it doesn't hurt to tell them about this too......

So if you'd like a hand in hunting for it just give the word. I'd be happy to have a go at it

Best wishes
Jean

PS...welcome to Talkingscot too!

redted · Post by **redted** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:17 pm

Thanks for the warm welcome.

I certainly haven't used the wildcard options very often so I will give it a bash.

The surname is normally a genealogist dream, Bittle or Bittles , unusual enough to find with ease.

John is the head of the family.

If it helps the info on the freecen site from the census is...

Piece: SCT1841/603 Place: Loudoun -Ayrshire Enumeration District: 11
Civil Parish: Loudoun Ecclesiastical Parish, Village or Island: Loudoun
Folio: 0 Page: 10

Thanks Alan

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:15 pm

Hi Alan,
Always good advice from Jean - wildcards are very useful at times.
Especially so on uncommon names - can't say i've come across any Bittles before!

I think you'll find the family under BETTLEY on SP.

Jack
ps, hope you don't mind Jean? 8-[

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:18 pm

Hi Alan

I used a wide search since I had a county and parish to limit it to and using John B*t* of any age in Loudon Ayrshire 1841 returned only 5 hits. Of these there are 2 indexed as Bettley....

1841 BETTLEY JOHN M 0 LOUDOUN /AYR 603/00 011/00 009
1841 BETTLEY JOHN P M 30 LOUDOUN /AYR 603/00 011/00 009

I think this is your family. See what a difference wildcards can make?? I wouldn't leave home without them

Best wishes
Jean

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:20 pm

Awh darnnit Jack....you beat me to it

(I'll let you win this one time

)

Best wishes
Jean

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:25 pm

Hi Jean,
That's awfy kind of you - i rarely win anything.
Glad we agreed on the name!
Cheers - Jack

ps, Ancestry has the name as Bettes

redted · Post by **redted** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:12 pm

Just Jean and Jack or should that be Jack and Just Jean...

Thanks to you both.

This is definitely my rellies record, as the youngest John is 6 months.

Interesting that the various sources have such a variety of interpretations on

the name ...If the writing is that poor I might not bother with the

manuscript copy...

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:32 pm

Hi Alan

Actually the writing is not poor at all.....and the whole family is there so worth a copy for your records I would think. Just an illustration of how indexing can sometimes lead you astray from the original record. A bit like the circle game where one person whispers something in the next person's ear and when it gets round the circle the end result is often hilarious

Best wishes
Jean

redted · Post by **redted** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:01 pm

Heard the funniest one ever today a young baby was registered as John Smith (for talkings sake ) but the parents had written "or Neil" after John on the forms and of course the wee boy is now officially John Orneil Smith.....

Interesting middlename or what!

I just had a brainwave and checked SP for Orneil births ....there are 3 poor souls out there with that as a surname

TalkingScot.com

Missing Census?

Missing Census?

Re Missing Census?

Re Missing Census?