Using free surname search on SP to search for Mc Murray (with space between Mc and Murray) turns up five OPR marriage records. However. searching on SP for these five turns up no results. Does this mean they are lumped together with the much more common McMurrays (no space) and no distinction is made between the two?
Somewhat different thing occurs in 1881 Census records. Free surname search lists 816 "spaced out" Mc Murrays and only one McMurray (no space). Searching on SP turns up the same 822 results searching either way.
Were there any set procedures for dealing with these situations?
Southpaw
Spaced Out Mc Murrays
Moderator: Global Moderators
-
Southpaw
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 8:58 pm
- Location: Montreal
Spaced Out Mc Murrays
Searching for McMurray, Pollock, McLean, Shearer, Jamieson, Plumpton.
-
sheilajim
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:42 pm
- Location: san clemente california
-
SarahND
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5647
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:47 am
- Location: France
Hello Southpaw,
Wow... you are onto something here. Strange things are indeed going on.
I tried another name and a similar thing happened:
mc farlane
Census 1851 6
Census 1881 9445
Old Parish Records Births & Christenings 1553 - 1854 259
Old Parish Records Banns & Marriages 1553 - 1854 235
mcfarlane
Census 1841 6792
Census 1851 7602
Census 1861 8304
Census 1871 8709
Census 1881 79
Census 1891 10022
Census 1901 9747
Old Parish Records Births & Christenings 1553-1854 10749
Old Parish Records Banns & Marriages 1553 - 1854 7331
Statutory Register Births 1855 - 1906 15179
Statutory Register Marriages 1855 - 1931 9929
Statutory Register Deaths 1855 - 1956 21283
Wills & Testaments 1513 - 1901 414
The 1881 census is just the reverse of the others I look forward to hearing from someone who has an idea what is going on here...
Regards,
Sarah
Wow... you are onto something here. Strange things are indeed going on.
I tried another name and a similar thing happened:mc farlane
Census 1851 6
Census 1881 9445
Old Parish Records Births & Christenings 1553 - 1854 259
Old Parish Records Banns & Marriages 1553 - 1854 235
mcfarlane
Census 1841 6792
Census 1851 7602
Census 1861 8304
Census 1871 8709
Census 1881 79
Census 1891 10022
Census 1901 9747
Old Parish Records Births & Christenings 1553-1854 10749
Old Parish Records Banns & Marriages 1553 - 1854 7331
Statutory Register Births 1855 - 1906 15179
Statutory Register Marriages 1855 - 1931 9929
Statutory Register Deaths 1855 - 1956 21283
Wills & Testaments 1513 - 1901 414
The 1881 census is just the reverse of the others
I look forward to hearing from someone who has an idea what is going on here...Regards,
Sarah
-
AndrewP
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6189
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:36 am
- Location: Edinburgh
The 1881 census on SP seems to use a printed (typed?) version of the LDS transcriptions and maybe their index too, rather than an index of GROS or SP's making. The LDS seem to favour using the Mc farlane format.SarahND wrote:The 1881 census is just the reverse of the others
I believe it is on SP's long-term agenda to put the 1881 census images online, presumably with an index of their own making. Then I suspect the name search results will look more like the rest ot them.
All the best,
AndrewP
-
Southpaw
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 8:58 pm
- Location: Montreal
Thanks all for your replies.
Andrew: I was aware of the 1881 census discrepancies between space and no space. My real problem was with similar discrepancies in the OPR banns/marriages and what these meant.
Sheila: yes, I have tried this and it doesn't seem to help. Nice to hear from another original Montrealer. I am also an original and still here.
Sarah: you seem to have discovered some othe record discrepancies. As you say: what is going on here.
Southpaw
Andrew: I was aware of the 1881 census discrepancies between space and no space. My real problem was with similar discrepancies in the OPR banns/marriages and what these meant.
Sheila: yes, I have tried this and it doesn't seem to help. Nice to hear from another original Montrealer. I am also an original and still here.
Sarah: you seem to have discovered some othe record discrepancies. As you say: what is going on here.
Southpaw
Searching for McMurray, Pollock, McLean, Shearer, Jamieson, Plumpton.
-
DavidWW
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm
Note: When I write "Mc", that should be taken to mean "Mac", "M'" and any other variants.
The basic problem here is that it's quite common in the OPRs to find a distinct gap between the "Mc" and the rest of the name, e.g. "Mc Millan" instead of "McMillan". (Common also in at least the early decades of the statutory BMD records from 1855 onwards.)
The LDS/GSU guidelines on transcription are very strict that records must be transcribed exactly as they appear. i.e. no interpretation is allowed.
In this case, that can lead "Mc Millan" to be indexed under "Millan". I write "can" as the situation can often be marginal as to how the individual transcriber sees the situation from record to record, i.e. just what is regarded as a significant gap.
As far as I'm aware the GROS OPR indexes do not include that many instances where, for example, "Mc Millan" is indexed under "Millan". That written, it's sensible to check!, or search using a leading wildcard, - possible on ScotlandsPeople, - e.g. in the above example to search on *Mill?n (the "?" to handle the possibily of an "e" or an "a"; or even *Mil*n to take into account that and a single or double "l".).
David
The basic problem here is that it's quite common in the OPRs to find a distinct gap between the "Mc" and the rest of the name, e.g. "Mc Millan" instead of "McMillan". (Common also in at least the early decades of the statutory BMD records from 1855 onwards.)
The LDS/GSU guidelines on transcription are very strict that records must be transcribed exactly as they appear. i.e. no interpretation is allowed.
In this case, that can lead "Mc Millan" to be indexed under "Millan". I write "can" as the situation can often be marginal as to how the individual transcriber sees the situation from record to record, i.e. just what is regarded as a significant gap.
As far as I'm aware the GROS OPR indexes do not include that many instances where, for example, "Mc Millan" is indexed under "Millan". That written, it's sensible to check!, or search using a leading wildcard, - possible on ScotlandsPeople, - e.g. in the above example to search on *Mill?n (the "?" to handle the possibily of an "e" or an "a"; or even *Mil*n to take into account that and a single or double "l".).
David
Last edited by DavidWW on Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
DavidWW
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm
I would recommend against holding your breath in terms of 1881 images on ScotlandsPeopleAndrewP wrote:I believe it is on SP's long-term agenda to put the 1881 census images online, presumably with an index of their own making. Then I suspect the name search results will look more like the rest ot them.
All the best,
AndrewP
David