Moderator Control Panel ]

1939 Register now on Ancestry

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

1939 Register now on Ancestry

Postby AdrianB38 » Tue May 08, 2018 3:30 pm

https://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=61596
This is Ancestry's attempt at the 1939.

The images have the same redaction, of course ...
Images have been redacted to protect the privacy of those still alive and we will be annually adding records for those with birth dates over 100 years or if a record of the death has been reported to The National Archives. Images will also be updated to reflect the opening of the record. All indexes have been created from redacted images as provided by The National Archives and as such, some indexes may not include all information as originally recorded, where it is obscured from view.


Note annually adding records...

I think that the indexes may be new. Or put it like this - my grandpa is indexed (incorrectly) as "Brice" instead of "Bruce". Now, I don't think that I had to correct FMP's index for his family, which would imply that the indexes are different - in which case Ancestry may have indexed the redacted images as a whole, not a column at a time, with improvements in the accuracy. Well, apart from getting my surname wrong. :(

(Thanks to Mike Morris on the Lancs Rootsweb list for the tip-off, where there's also a suggestion that you need to access it via the A-Z list or the direct URL at the moment. I've not checked how else I would expect to see it).
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register now on Ancestry

Postby junkers » Tue May 08, 2018 7:17 pm

I had a look at ancestry's version before and I found it different (some details are open). I wasn't aware that The National Archives had given ancestry a copy and I thought TNA had not redacted the images but Find My Past had.
junkers
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: 1939 Register now on Ancestry

Postby junkers » Tue May 08, 2018 7:26 pm

I have now had a chance of looking again at some entries, ancestry had listed names and dates of birth of people born less than 100 years ago (which would seem to be in breach of the Data Protection Act) and then have redacted the image!. Still no sign of my mother though.
junkers
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: 1939 Register now on Ancestry

Postby AdrianB38 » Tue May 08, 2018 8:27 pm

junkers wrote:... I wasn't aware that The National Archives had given ancestry a copy ...

No - me neither. FMP have had it on their main site now for ... 3y???? At some point, periods of exclusivity normally run out.

junkers wrote:... I thought TNA had not redacted the images but Find My Past had.

Same difference, I believe. TNA, as I recollect, acquired the 1939 as a digital source - presumably the paper books are somewhere, though. FMP acted as their contractor so would have done the imaging and the redaction, then provided the same to TNA. (I have accessed the 1939 while at Kew before it came onto the main FMP site but I can't remember how it was accessed there).

Given the sensitivity, rather than TNA license Ancestry to use the raw, unredacted images and trust Ancestry to redact them again, TNA appear to have licensed Ancestry to use the redacted images, as provided by TNA (Ancestry: "redacted images as provided by The National Archives").

Another Bruce family entry suggests Ancestry have indexed the redacted images themselves: For some strange reason, FMP made a right mess of Dad's Uncle Bob and his family. The index shows Uncle Bob, his wife (both correctly) and a son who is redacted. On the image, the redaction bar is 2 lines too high - Uncle Bob is redacted and his son, Rosslyn, is shown in clear. (This doesn't actually cause an issue - his son died a while ago but his death index is in the name Robert Rosslyn - which is probably why the match isn't close enough).

The Ancestry and FMP images are identical. The Ancestry index matches the image, not the FMP index.

I am quite sure that there are lots of new errors. In fact, I'm having serious difficulty with Ancestry's transcriptions of my family...
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register now on Ancestry

Postby phsvm » Tue May 08, 2018 9:10 pm

I've found my grandmother and 2 of her daughters with her but my mother, who I know is with them is redacted. She's dead but was born in 1920. Her name doesn't come up in the index.

On the FMP listing they have spelt the surname correctly - KIRBY - but Ancestry had listed it as KERBY.
phsvm
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:14 pm

Re: 1939 Register now on Ancestry

Postby Jethro Tull » Wed May 09, 2018 7:00 am

After reading your initial post Adrian I spent several hours last night searching for family. I've not got a subscription to FMP so I'm chuffed it's now on ancestry. Of the 15 or so families I searched for last night all except one have been found and with no errors. Already planning more hours tonight after work!!!

Dan.

Sent from my SM-G930F using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Jethro Tull
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:27 am

Re: 1939 Register now on Ancestry

Postby Guy » Wed May 09, 2018 6:48 pm

AdrianB38 wrote:
junkers wrote:... I wasn't aware that The National Archives had given ancestry a copy ...

No - me neither. FMP have had it on their main site now for ... 3y???? At some point, periods of exclusivity normally run out.

junkers wrote:... I thought TNA had not redacted the images but Find My Past had.

Same difference, I believe. TNA, as I recollect, acquired the 1939 as a digital source - presumably the paper books are somewhere, though. FMP acted as their contractor so would have done the imaging and the redaction, then provided the same to TNA. (I have accessed the 1939 while at Kew before it came onto the main FMP site but I can't remember how it was accessed there).

Given the sensitivity, rather than TNA license Ancestry to use the raw, unredacted images and trust Ancestry to redact them again, TNA appear to have licensed Ancestry to use the redacted images, as provided by TNA (Ancestry: "redacted images as provided by The National Archives").

Another Bruce family entry suggests Ancestry have indexed the redacted images themselves: For some strange reason, FMP made a right mess of Dad's Uncle Bob and his family. The index shows Uncle Bob, his wife (both correctly) and a son who is redacted. On the image, the redaction bar is 2 lines too high - Uncle Bob is redacted and his son, Rosslyn, is shown in clear. (This doesn't actually cause an issue - his son died a while ago but his death index is in the name Robert Rosslyn - which is probably why the match isn't close enough).

The Ancestry and FMP images are identical. The Ancestry index matches the image, not the FMP index.

I am quite sure that there are lots of new errors. In fact, I'm having serious difficulty with Ancestry's transcriptions of my family...


Word of warning
The Ancestry images are at least 1 year out of date see
http://www.anguline.co.uk/1939_Example.jpg which was downloaded in Feb 2016.

See image on Ancestry by searching
John Percy Guy born 1874 click on first entry of results
Cheers
Guy

Ancestry is still useful but is not as up to date as Findmypast
As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.
Guy
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:56 pm


Return to Genealogy chat


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron