This Page is [ARCHIVED CONTENT] and shows what the site page http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Place:Bethnal_Green_Registration_District,_1841_Census_Street_Index_P-S looked like on 21 Feb 2013 at 23:32:17
This Page is [ARCHIVED CONTENT] and shows what the site page http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Place:Bethnal_Green_Registration_District,_1851_Census_Street_Index_P-S looked like on 21 Feb 2013 at 23:32:17
Create an account for free with Findmypast to discover your family history and build a family tree. Search birth records, census data, death records and more.
Create an account for free with Findmypast to discover your family history and build a family tree. Search birth records, census data, death records and more.
I started to type Scott Street in the filter box. It came up, I selected it, it appeared under the box. I typed Bethnal in the parish box, chose the only one that came up, it appeared under the box and then I pressed search and as you didn't specify a name, just chose one of the images at random. Same on both 1841 and 1851 pages except that I went back a page to get to No.7 on 1851.
Using the 1871 census search form from the A-Z of Record sets, how would you find all people born at Todmorden? These are not oddities, Caroline. These failures are more the norm within these record sets. Occasionally it works but more often than not, it doesn't.
I thought I had found a problem, early on in the move, with address searching on the 1911. I knew the address, it was an unusual surname so it would be easy to use it to check the system wouldn't it!! First problem was not being able to force the name of the road to stick when I searched. Having tried that for ages, swore at the new system that was clearly rubbish and settled down to scroll through the images ... I just put in the name of the parish and pressed search. Right at the top of the page was a long list of people with no first or last name. The dates looked familiar as did one of the first names at the bottom of the list, so I clicked on the image. As soon as I saw the image I remembered - this was my family but their page was so badly damaged as to be 99% illegible over the names. It was so long ago that I had originally tracked them down, that I had forgotten that it took me forever to find them before - they didn't actually appear at all on the listings then either for person or address and I had had to go through the images one by one until I found them.
My point is that yes, there are problems/oddities/anomalies/wonky programming/mistakes, or whatever you would like to call them, which are being reported and sorted and clearly taking rather longer then we would like, but how many users used what they had already found to test the system and assumed that they would immediately find it again whereas they had forgotten it was something they had difficulty finding before too because of mis-transcription etc.
My point is that I cannot understand how people in your position can readily recommend the use of a system that does not work consistently or reliably. It would be more appropriate for you to explain the definciencies to your members instead of directing them to a very hit and miss section. If and when you are certain that what you are recommending does actually work, all of the time, after having checked it out thoroughly, then it would be fine and helpful. Anything else could be described as irresponsible.
My point is that I cannot understand how people in your position can readily recommend the use of a system that does not work consistently or reliably. It would be more appropriate for you to explain the definciencies to your members instead of directing them to a very hit and miss section. If and when you are certain that what you are recommending does actually work, all of the time, after having checked it out thoroughly, then it would be fine and helpful. Anything else could be described as irresponsible.
If our members ask for help with a particular site or situation, they will be given help for that. As you saw at the top of this thread, a question was asked, a search undertaken and the results posted. Had there been none that would have been posted instead. The links were to respond to a specific question. They may or may not prove helpful to the member.
We are not here to act as agents for or against any site or to bang any particular drum for a point of view. In fact that would be against our Terms and Conditions, as I am sure you will have noticed when you joined us yesterday:
"Family Tree Forum respects what other forums and websites have to offer. Do not try to degrade or discredit other forums, their administrators and moderators, or their members. This includes slander and other offensive comments."
Scott Street still exists in Tower Hamlets (covers E1 which was Bethnal Green in the past)
London A-Z would have it - can't find ours at the moment!
How old this street is, is another matter - I think Bethnal Green was heavily bombed in WW2 and many people from the East End were re-housed in Carshalton, Surrey on the St. Helier estate (pretty sure there isn't a Scott Street there but not 100%)
Re Reply #15
You have read far more into what I said than what I actually did say. I was not trying to do, or suggesting that anyone else should do, any of the things that you have pointed out would be in breach of your terms and conditions. I was referring only to the means of searching for a place of birth that you had detailed in your earlier answer. It does not work consistently and my point was that you should have said so instead of implying, in your answer, that it was the way to do it and that it worked better if the box for Birth Town was used. In some cases you are right but in many, if not more, others you are wrong. I believe that anyone who sets themselves up in a position to give advice to others has a responsibility to ensure that the advice given is entirely correct and reliable. In this instance you should have added some qualifications to your answer to make it clear that it was by no means a foolproof method, assuming that you did know that before you gave the answer, having previously checked it out thoroughly. That was the point that I was making - nothing to do with other websites or forums.
Re Reply #15
You have read far more into what I said than what I actually did say. I was not trying to do, or suggesting that anyone else should do, any of the things that you have pointed out would be in breach of your terms and conditions. I was referring only to the means of searching for a place of birth that you had detailed in your earlier answer. It does not work consistently and my point was that you should have said so instead of implying, in your answer, that it was the way to do it and that it worked better if the box for Birth Town was used. In some cases you are right but in many, if not more, others you are wrong. I believe that anyone who sets themselves up in a position to give advice to others has a responsibility to ensure that the advice given is entirely correct and reliable. In this instance you should have added some qualifications to your answer to make it clear that it was by no means a foolproof method, assuming that you did know that before you gave the answer, having previously checked it out thoroughly. That was the point that I was making - nothing to do with other websites or forums.
Perhaps you missed this bit? "ignoring Birth Place and using Birth Town works best." Since I had no idea what Val wanted looking up then what more was there to say? It worked for me ....
If you feel that you can offer better help to the original question about where the place of birth is on a census page, please feel free to do just that. That is what we are all here for isn't it?
Anyone can post a question and anyone can offer help/point them in the right direction or in this case show them the page - we are not here to do the research for them, although if somebody is stuck then we will hunt things down for them.
Comment