Moderator Control Panel ]

1939 register

Share your thoughts with your fellow family historians – and the Who Do You Think You Are? Magazine team – here

Re: 1939 register

Postby AdrianB38 » Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:19 pm

Marriage indexes are not needed as the 1939 Register theoretically contains all married names from 1939 up to whatever date that they stopped updating it.

However, given the vast number of possibilities for breaking the chain or coming up with multiple answers, there is immense scope for leaving stuff closed that ought to be open.

The issue is that all the caveats come under the heading of detail, and very few Communications teams of ANY company are prepared to allow detail in their communications, because of the scope for misunderstanding.

Sent from my MotoG3
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 register

Postby Mick Loney » Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:09 am

FMP have certainly screwed things up, as the following two examples will illustrate:-

1. My parents and my sister all died between 1993-1996. However only my father and sister (with her correct married name) are shown ( albeit mis-transcribed as Soney) but my mother is redacted!

2. My grandparents and my uncle all died before 1986 and all are transcribed, but in the image, the entry for my uncle is redacted!

Moral - check both transcription AND image

Furthermore, FMP in their wisdom, have not implemented an easy way to report mistranscriptions, unlike other recordsets!


Sent from my iPad using WDYTYA Forum
Mick Loney
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:39 am

Re: 1939 register

Postby meekhcs » Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:57 am

Agree with your last point Mick.

I began correcting information in Family entries by adding comments.It was only after the 1st half dozen or so that I happened to scroll to the bottom of the page after adding the comment that I found there was another button to submit!!

I know, I should have read the full instructions 1st before attempting to correct. A common failing of mine!!
meekhcs
 
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:43 pm
Location: england

Re: 1939 register

Postby AdrianB38 » Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:04 am

Given the volume of data, I don't think there's evidence of major flaws but there are certainly issues with common themes. One of the earliest households that I looked at on Tuesday had, like I think Mick means, a mismatch between who was redacted in the transcript and who was redacted in the image.

Another oddity was a page where the redaction lines all had a chevron (or kink) in them in the middle of the page. I did wonder how FMP would cope if they couldn't flatten the paper and the image wasn't straight. Well, it looks like they can bend the redaction lines to match the image. Only these bends shouldn't have been there.

Sent from my MotoG3
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 register

Postby Mick Loney » Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:55 pm

What I also find confusing, is their (FMP's) searching methodolgy.

When searching for a married couple, searching for the husband may throw up no results, yet searching for the wife yields a result, which includes the husband, with exactly the same information about him as was used to search for him in the first place!

If he is there, unredacted, why is he not found on first search?


Sent from my iPad using WDYTYA Forum
Mick Loney
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:39 am

Re: 1939 register

Postby AdrianB38 » Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:38 pm

Interesting, Mick, because I thought I had an example of that but supposed my memory or keyboard skills were faulty. Maybe my impression was right, in which case searching by both names in succession is the thing to do. Good tip.

I can explain, but not excuse, those symptoms. What I suspect is that the husband's details are in the transcript (else you wouldn't see him). But those details are missing from the (separate) index, which is what is used to search by name on.

If FMP rebuild the indexes periodically, the issue will eventually disappear.

Sent from my MotoG3
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 register

Postby Mick Loney » Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:41 am

AdrianB38 wrote: I can explain, but not excuse, those symptoms. What I suspect is that the husband's details are in the transcript (else you wouldn't see him). But those details are missing from the (separate) index, which is what is used to search by name on.

If FMP rebuild the indexes periodically, the issue will eventually disappear.


There is an rule in database management that says you only store data once! Storing it the transcript AND the index is a recipe for disaster, but it would explain some of the weird results I've seeing -ho hum...


Sent from my iPad using WDYTYA Forum
Mick Loney
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:39 am

Re: 1939 register

Postby AdrianB38 » Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:58 am

All rules get broken, of course. It depends on what they are using for a database management system. Data warehousing, e.g , sacrifices non-duplication for speed of access but it's never supposed to be your main data repository, i.e. the whole warehouse is a duplicate.

I could be wrong, of course, but it's the simplest explanation.

Sent from my MotoG3
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 register

Postby Guy » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:53 pm

I knew I should never have married into my wife’s family; they have been nothing but trouble.

On the 1939 my wife’s Nan (born too late for the 1911 census) is not in her own home with her two year old son (my wife’s dad), not with her parents, in-laws but with her sister (No idea where her son is yet).
Not only that but her entry in the 1939 register has been changed from Ecott (transcribed as Elott) to York; her sisters married name.
From there that line gets worse apparently they are out and out east enders, except my research takes them through counties as far apart as Yorkshire and Cornwall through Bedfordshire, Gloucestershire and all points between.

My wife’s mum one the other hand is at home but with her sister (blanked out) and her mum & dad. Her family who were talked of as gypsies didn’t move around half as much staying mainly in Essex and Middlesex, but they are not without their own problems.

Cheers
Guy
As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.
Guy
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: 1939 register

Postby chipmunk1953 » Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:06 pm

The original post which started this thread concerned some properties not being listed in the Register, I recently came across a case of this which had been reported by a member of my local FH group on their Facebook page and decided to look into it.

At first sight he seemed to be correct, so I tried going backwards & forwards a few pages to see if the missing houses had been listed out of order, but no success. It seemed very much as if the enumerator (or whoever) had taken a particular route round the village, which wasn't necessarily up one side of a street and down the other - very much like the censuses were done. I did an address search but it brought only the same results. So I then tried another address search, this time using just the County and Borough, which brings up an alphabetical list of streets - and found that there were two entries for the street in question, one of them with the name mis-spelt. I clicked on that one, and hey presto, there were the missing houses! As suspected, they were listed with a completely different section of the village which is why they couldn't be found with the other side of the street.

Another thing I noticed when browsing through was that a few households had been added at the bottom of pages here and there, often quite a distance from the rest of their street, as if they were "late entries" that had been squeezed in wherever there was a free space. That's worth remembering if you can't find a household listed in the street where you expect it to be.
chipmunk1953
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:56 pm

Previous

Return to Genealogy chat


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest