1851 census now on Scotlandspeople! .....

Information and Advice

Moderator: Global Moderators

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Re: Greenock records a problem? Re: Re 1851 now online

Post by DavidWW » Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:38 pm

Jack wrote:Hi Jenny,
I can see only one KNAGGS family in all Renfrewshire on the GWSFHS CD index (names only).
But maybe you have this, and it's others you can't find?
--
1851 cens 564-1 (435) Ed 25 p 11 (Greenock - Middle)
George KNAGGS 30
Christina 27
Mary A. 6
Helen 4
George 2
Marion abt 1
--
Later edit, and the only ones i can see in Glasgow (these you've found?)
--
1851 cens 644-2 (621) Ed 18 pp10-11 (Gorbals - Tradeston)
George KNAGGS 65
Christina 40
Daniel 15
--
Jack
In the online 1851 census at ScotlandsPeople the family have been indexed as "KNAGGE".

1851 KNAGGE GEORGE M 2 GREENOCK NEW OR MIDDLE /RENFREW 564/00 028/00 011 No Image

1851 KNAGGE GEORGE M 30 GREENOCK NEW OR MIDDLE /RENFREW 564/00 028/00 011 No Image

The bad news is that there's no image !

In other words the G&WFHS indexer clearly saw the record as "KNAGGS" but the GROS overseas sub-contractor read it as "KNAGGE".

David

Jack
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Paisley

Re: Greenock records a problem? Re: Re 1851 now online

Post by Jack » Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:36 pm

Hi Jenny,
After looking at words ending in 'e' and 's' by the same enumerator in 1851, i'm 99% sure it is Knaggs.
But a quick glance at the entry could give it either ending; here's the rest of the details.
--
1851 cens 564-1 (435) Ed 25 p 11 (Greenock - New / Middle)
40 Shaw Street.
George KNAGGS, head, marr, 30, quay porter, b Glasgow, LKS
Christina KNAGGS, wife, marr, 27, --------------b Glasgow, LKS
Mary Ann KNAGGS, daur, 6,--------------------b Greenock, RFW
Helen KNAGGS, daur, 4,-----------------------b Greenock, RFW
George KNAGGS, son, 2, ---------------------b Greenock, RFW
Marion KNAGGS, daur, 8mos, -------------------b Greenock, RFW
John McTAGGART, lodger, marr, 48, quay porter, b Greenock, RFW
--
Jack
ps, David, i notice you mention "...the GROS overseas sub-contractor...",
Do you know if a lot, or all? of the transcribing was done outwith Scotland?
Any particular census years?
Ta - Jack

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Re: Greenock records a problem? Re: Re 1851 now online

Post by DavidWW » Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:27 pm

Jack wrote:ps, David, i notice you mention "...the GROS overseas sub-contractor...",
Do you know if a lot, or all? of the transcribing was done outwith Scotland?
Any particular census years?
Ta - Jack
As far as I'm aware, apart from the 1891, all the others have been indexed by companies in either the Indian sub-continent, or Asia.

David

Jack
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Paisley

Re: Greenock records a problem? Re: Re 1851 now online

Post by Jack » Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:54 pm

Thanks David,
I can only presume the decision for that was to get the "best value for money".
(which can be counter-productive at times)
Just as well addresses didn't have to transcribed too...there are some odd named places in Scotland!
(that even folk in this country would have trouble with - i'm thinking me when i say this!)
Jack

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Re: Greenock records a problem? Re: Re 1851 now online

Post by DavidWW » Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:17 pm

Jack wrote:Thanks David,
I can only presume the decision for that was to get the "best value for money".
(which can be counter-productive at times)
They don't do too badly !

The market is highly competitive, so that a contractor who doesn't perform knows very well that there won't be repeat business, and that QA procedures will soon reduce or eliminate their profit margin - not only that, but word quickly gets round GROS/GRO/GRONI/and many other similar institutions as well as commercial companies regarding which contractors can be relied on and which can't, - there are many, many other organisations subcontracting data input to such companies where the data sources are equally problematic.

I am assured that they are given comprehensive training by experienced Scots (fancy a fee weeks in Sri Lanka or China :?: :wink: ), and have look up tables available for given names, surnames, and place names.

In addition, they work off the microfilms so don't have the advantage of "seeing past" the blue and red scores through the ages in the originals, but I'm told that they do brilliantly well !, certainly better than me :shock:

For a new contractor a particular area is first given to them and 100% checked by GROS. Thereafter, assuming phase one is satisfactory, only a certain proportion of the entries are checked, with a bias towards those aspects from phase one which came out worst.

I'm also assured that keying is genuinely independent inputting by two inputters, with any differences checked by a third, unlike some recent English databases where one inputter checks what was input by the first, which is not true double-keying ......

I have been told that GROS aim to achieve an error rate of 4% or less, across all fields. In other words, assuming equal error rates for the four fields (which doesn't happen!, there always be some bias to one field or another), that's 1% each or less for given name, surname, age, and district.

I'd be completely discombobulated if the combined error rate of the Heads of Household, and the enumerators was anything approaching that.

I was recently given the details of a situation in the West of Scotland where part of a street was double-enumerated, - i.e. two different enumerators covered the same households, but have not yet had the time to analyze it. I'll be pleasantly surprised if the serious difference frequency is anything much less than found by Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake in a similar situation in London, - in the range 5 to 9% depending on how "serious" is defined, - a whole 15% (fifteen) different overall when trivial differences such as Elizabeth and Elisabeth, and other such "minor" spelling differences were taken into account.

This situation is obviously a compromise between cost and accuracy. In other words to achieve 2% could easily cost double the contract amount, and so on. To achieve less than that :?: , wha kens :?: :!: :shock:
Jack wrote:Just as well addresses didn't have to transcribed too...there are some odd named places in Scotland!
(that even folk in this country would have trouble with - i'm thinking me when i say this!)
Jack
Neatly put, in the sense that if we can't achieve 100% ourselves, how can we expect others to? I've been told that an advantage of using such sub-contactors is that they come to the situation with no pre-conceptions.

Regardless of how accurate any transcribers are, there will always be an irreducible minimum of entries where the entry is open to interpretation...... in which context 4% can't be bad :!: \:D/ =D>

Nor is it possible to achieve total accuracy of what the Heads of Household themselves entered in the household returns, or told to the enumerator, due to the ear of the enumerator and his transcription from completed household returns .....

If this in any way sounds like an apologia for GROS it ain't!, - it's just a statement of the realities of the situation based on my experience and contacts.

Whatever might be our opinions about how much better the Scottish census indexes could be in terms of the information indexed, - the "thin" index now versus the "fatter" index later debate, - I still believe that we have to take a step back and congratulate GROS for their DIGROS initiative and the present situation regarding Scottish records and digitised images currently on line, and planned for the future, not only in terms of GROS sources, but also NAS sources, still to come ................

David

AnneH
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:04 pm

Post by AnneH » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:42 pm

AndrewP wrote: The 1851 census has been numbered in at least three different systems.
Thanks for your explanation Andrew.

And WHOOPEE! I've just found them online. The TARLTONs were under the name of FASTLAN. Having looked at the image, it is a bit unclear so I can understand how they got FASTLAN from it.

An interesting time was had using wildcards to narrow things down.

Thanks for everyones help.
Anne :D

jennyblain
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:17 pm
Location: Dundee

Re: Greenock records a problem? Re: Re 1851 now online

Post by jennyblain » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:26 pm

DavidWW wrote:
In the online 1851 census at ScotlandsPeople the family have been indexed as "KNAGGE".

1851 KNAGGE GEORGE M 2 GREENOCK NEW OR MIDDLE /RENFREW 564/00 028/00 011 No Image

1851 KNAGGE GEORGE M 30 GREENOCK NEW OR MIDDLE /RENFREW 564/00 028/00 011 No Image

The bad news is that there's no image !

In other words the G&WFHS indexer clearly saw the record as "KNAGGS" but the GROS overseas sub-contractor read it as "KNAGGE".

David
Thanks David, for clearing this up, and thanks Jack! I tried many versions but didn't do 'Knagg?' which I'll remember for future... I'm just back from a couple of meetings in the south and will get back to looking for the 'Blain' family in Greenock in the 1851 census. As there is no image for the Knaggs I won't bother with this further just now, especially as I do have quite a bit of information about this family at that time, unlike the Blains where I don't know who was in the household.

The transcription accuracy business is an issue, though. On the one hand, I've much praise for the GROS initiative and from talking to English friends I know how very much better off we are in terms of access to records. On the other, when the 1861 census came out I found Blain transcribed as Blair - when it was very clearly, from the image, an N not an R. So of course this time I've tried Blain, Blair, Blane, and spent numerous credits to get absolutely nowhere at all with this family... anybody got further suggestions for things to try..?

Jenny

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Re: Greenock records a problem? Re: Re 1851 now online

Post by DavidWW » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:51 pm

jennyblain wrote:
DavidWW wrote:
In the online 1851 census at ScotlandsPeople the family have been indexed as "KNAGGE".

1851 KNAGGE GEORGE M 2 GREENOCK NEW OR MIDDLE /RENFREW 564/00 028/00 011 No Image

1851 KNAGGE GEORGE M 30 GREENOCK NEW OR MIDDLE /RENFREW 564/00 028/00 011 No Image

The bad news is that there's no image !

In other words the G&WFHS indexer clearly saw the record as "KNAGGS" but the GROS overseas sub-contractor read it as "KNAGGE".

David
Thanks David, for clearing this up, and thanks Jack! I tried many versions but didn't do 'Knagg?' which I'll remember for future... I'm just back from a couple of meetings in the south and will get back to looking for the 'Blain' family in Greenock in the 1851 census. As there is no image for the Knaggs I won't bother with this further just now, especially as I do have quite a bit of information about this family at that time, unlike the Blains where I don't know who was in the household.

The transcription accuracy business is an issue, though. On the one hand, I've much praise for the GROS initiative and from talking to English friends I know how very much better off we are in terms of access to records. On the other, when the 1861 census came out I found Blain transcribed as Blair - when it was very clearly, from the image, an N not an R. So of course this time I've tried Blain, Blair, Blane, and spent numerous credits to get absolutely nowhere at all with this family... anybody got further suggestions for things to try..?

Jenny
Jenny

Don't use KNAGG? as that won't find plain KNAGG, - I'd suggest KNAGG*, as the "*" can mean any number of characters or no character, whereas with "?" there must be a character; or even KNAG* .......

Getting really complicated and catering for a missing, leading "K", you might at some point have to use *NAGG* ......................

TalkingScot is an unusual site in that a leading wildcard is allowed.

For BLAIR etc., I'd probably start with BLA*, setting limits in terms of ages and/or locations if there are too many hits; with the back up search term of BLA??, which will only produce hits with 2 letters after the "BLA", but that search term wouldn't find BLAINE....... :cry: , ... so that a quick whirl with BLA??? could be worth a try ................

It really helps to have a twisted logical mind :!: :shock:

I've tried on several occasions to write a comprehensive guide to using wildcards, but have always given up because so much depends on the particular name involved.

The key is to persist in playing about with wildcards until the number of hits becomes reasonable and/or the record is found.

The really fun bit is that the lack of success can simply be because the record doesn't exist, or, worse, the name was mis-heard and/or mis-transcribed in such extreme ways so that even the most expert wildcard search won't ever find it.

"Worse" in the sense that it's one thing if an event was never recorded, or took place outside Scotland, but if you are 100% certain that the record should be in the Scottish records, then it's plain frustration !

But remember always that it might have been the case that auld Uncle Wullie was furth of Auld Scotia for the first time in his life, visiting relatives, close or distant, or his childhood friend, when he had a heart attack and popped his clogs ...... If that happened abroad, then, in theory there could be a consular record in Scotland, but, as I found out some years ago when registering my aunt's death in Portugal, and wanted to have the record in the UK records as well, the phrase "an arm and a leg" comes to mind in terms of the cost :?

Which is a way of introducing the need, in the case of "flying saucer" records to have a lateral think in terms of, for example, what collateral lines have moved outside Scotland? It's far from uncommon for older people to move in with kids, not just elsewhere in the UK, but also in N America, or Australasia, - I can quote you examples.

Or for kids to be parked/informally adopted not just with relatives a few streets away, but many 1,000 miles away .................

95 times out of a 100 the record will be somewhere in Scotland, but in those other 5 more unusual cases, you may well have to consider unusual solutions not just in terms of spelling but just where the person concerned may have ended up ........

David

LesleyB
Posts: 8184
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Scotland

Post by LesleyB » Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:30 pm

It's far from uncommon for older people to move in with kids, not just elsewhere in the UK, but also in N America, or Australasia
Just had an experience of that...
A lady last seen in the 1881 aged 73 living with her sister, both unmarried school teachers. Her sister died in 1889, but the lady in question was not the death informant but you'd still think it should be easy enough to find her death.....well, its only taken me about a year and totally amazed me when I found it! She left for Canada :shock: following the death of her sister - aged 81!!!!! She went off to live with her half sisters and died there - obituary was in local Canadian press:
"The deceased was born in Kettle, Fifeshire, Scotland and came to Galt Nov. 1899, where she resided with her sisters, Margaret and Agnes, 58 Oak Street, until the time of her death."

Just shows ya! I would never have believed it had the obituary left no doubt that it was the same person...

Best wishes
Lesley
Researching:
Midlothian & Fife - Goalen, Lawrie, Ewart, Nimmo, Jamieson, Dick, Ballingall.
Dunbartonshire- Mcnicol, Davy, Guy, McCunn, McKenzie.
Ayrshire- Lyon, Parker, Mitchell, Fraser.
Easter Ross- McCulloch, Smith, Ross, Duff, Rose.

jennyblain
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:17 pm
Location: Dundee

Re: Greenock records a problem? Re: Re 1851 now online

Post by jennyblain » Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:05 pm

DavidWW wrote:
Jenny

Don't use KNAGG? as that won't find plain KNAGG,
Ah. Had aready tried KNAGG, Nagg, Naggs, Nags, Knags, Nagges, Knagges and most other possibilities, just not a wildcard for the end as that had not come up before and because the name, in Scotland, is so unusual that the possibilities for it seemed to be all testable, and clear in other census or marriage, etc. records ... however I could have typed either ? or * into the post I made earlier this evening, but decided ? was more clear for readers :)

The 'Blain' one does baffle me. Have done various 'Bla*' things. which on the whole produce more people than I want to know about or can explore without breaking the bank. But I'll persist...

Jenny

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests