Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Problems correcting Census Online

  • 19-12-2012 6:56pm
    #1
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭


    Since the 1901 and 1911 censuses went online I have submitted a number of corrections to the National Archive people and, while not receiving any reply, they were corrected. These were largely transcription errors. However, last year I submitted further corrections and these have not been corrected. Some of them were street/townland names etc. and the set-up online does not allow for those type of corrections. When you do finally find an email address to contact - not on the Census site - there is no response. I rang the National Archive today and felt that I was really talking to myself or it could have been the janitor. Anyway, in the heel of the hunt I have emailed the Organ Grinder aka Minister Jimmy Deenihan to see if he can get something sorted out. I should imagine that my experience is not unique and there must be a multitude of transcription errors that could be sorted out relatively easily if there was sufficient manpower. Given that Genealogical tourism could be the next big thing some joined-up thinking would be a good idea. Anybody else have any experience of reporting errors etc? :)


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Coolnabacky1873
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Coolnabacky1873


    John Grenham had an article about this a few weeks ago.


  • #3
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Interesting piece - I'm glad it wasn't just me being pedantic. :)


  • #4
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    It's one of my pet peeves - we had a thread on it here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75135835 se my post #7

    Given the approach of our political masters it is hard not to agree with Gabriel Byrne - thankfully the guy has enough money & clout to stick it to them when it is deserved!


  • #5
    Jellybaby1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,108 ✭✭✭Jellybaby1


    Mr Grenham has a wonderful turn of phrase! :D


  • #6
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    And two months since I contacted the Minister this is the solitary response. I shall no doubt be no further ahead by this time next year.

    CENSUS.PNG


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Any corrections I've submitted have come through. All were obvious transcription errors. You say yours were "largely" transcription errors - what were the others?


  • #8
    TOMP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 328 ✭✭TOMP


    A few months ago, I looked up 1901 census at National Archives website for some relatives in county westmeath, when I clicked the Household Return (Form A) link, I was taken to a form for a family in County Sligo! This mistake was not present when I looked up the same family a few years ago. I emailed the problem details to the National Archives at the time but the problem is still there as of today.


  • #9
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    MYOB wrote: »
    Any corrections I've submitted have come through. All were obvious transcription errors. You say yours were "largely" transcription errors - what were the others?

    Place names, street names etc.see my OP. The whole lack of response to queries etc. is utterly ridiculous and must be be down to insufficient manpower. If the government are serious about developing tourism - they aren't - they would want to start micro-managing key items like the census online. Draft in additional staff, improve the website so that incorrect townlands, street names etc. can be reported.....I forgot to mention that I never received an actual letter, just an email of the letter internally titled re: Spam!!

    I see that the 1926 census is not due to be released until 2027 http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/help/history.html - why? A huge research hole exists between 1911 (the last all-island British census) and 1926 (the first Free State census) - surely legislation could be put through allowing the 1926 census to be made available earlier?


  • #10
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    That's the existing legal position, but deenihan promised legislation to allow an early release. Its not microfilmed or transcribed though so that's another year or two delay after legislation...


  • #11
    shanew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,777 ✭✭✭shanew


    not directly related, but I think probably more important is looking into the missing streets and townlands on the online census - particularly the returns not filmed or missed out during the process. A list of the status of these townlands and streets would be very useful - i.e. missing, unreadable, available but not-filmed, omitted in error, under investigation etc.



    Shane


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    They still have not corrected one I submitted the day the Dublin 1911 was launched online in 2007. An obvious transcription error of putting one of the first names in the surname box.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • #13
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    By complete coincidence I received a further email from the Dept. this morning - as is typical when dealing with such bodies, they fail to address the points that I raised. I learnt in my first job, back in 1977, how to answer a letter containing questions - you circle or highlight each question and craft your reply accordingly answering each point. Whether it's CIE, Failte Ireland, The Heritage Council,Government Depts., or whatever, it's virtually impossible to get clear responses to questions. The two emails below are self explanatory.

    CENSUS+LET+TO+JDEENIHAN+1.PNG
    My email of Dec.19th, 2012

    census+feb+2013+2.PNG

    Latest response which fails to reply to the issues raised. I hope they are legible as a bit of juggling was required.


  • #14
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    Fascinating - thanks for sharing.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • #15
    jos28
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,204 ✭✭✭jos28


    I have submitted the same error 2 or 3 times and I have emailed the NAI but it still hasn't been amended. My Grandad Bartholomew Glover is listed on the 1901 as Bartholomen Horse :eek:


  • #16
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    I just checked to see if you were pulling our legs but sure enough you're bang on. They seem to be a lot of Horses in that 1901 Census - is there such a surname? I wonder whether the work of transcribing was outsourced to a Third World country such as India?


  • #17
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    A quick check online - in the Eircom phonebook - was futile as the only thing that comes up is Horse & Jockey. However, the name does appear to have been an old English name but looking at some of original enumerators sheets I suspect that some of the Horses were mis-transcriptions. I also had a flick through some old phonebooks that I still have and the nearest to Horse that I could find was a Robert Horsburgh - great name with the days we're living in. :D


  • #18
    Jellybaby1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,108 ✭✭✭Jellybaby1


    Locals should have done the transcriptions - they would recognise the names immediately. Any fool would have known that. If they saved money on the original deal they are now going to spend even more getting the corrections done. What a waste of money.


  • #19
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    There are not that many Horses –18 in the 1901 and 9 in the 1911. Many are from the same family/area, and it does appear to be correct See here and here - elsewhere one or two might be the surname ‘Honce’.
    There are eight Horse families in Griffiths here

    What is more annoying are stupid errors e.g. in the 1901 one Tipperary townland is incorrectly 'divided' into Ballykisteen and Ballyristeen, the latter daftly listed as “Houses in Ballyristeen (Ballykisteen, Tipperary)” Ballyristeen is in Co. Kerry, near Dingle.


  • #20
    jos28
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,204 ✭✭✭jos28


    Horse :confused: I mean where did they get that from Glover. He was living with his family who are all listed correctly. Someone must have had a late night the night before. I would quite happily take a job at the NAI correcting all the errors. Now, there's an idea !


  • #21
    Jellybaby1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,108 ✭✭✭Jellybaby1


    Would be nice to get a job again, but doing something I enjoy would be great. Can't remember what a payslip looks like.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    jos28
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,204 ✭✭✭jos28


    Jellybaby1 wrote: »
    Can't remember what a payslip looks like.

    Mine is a piece of paper with a moxy load of deductions and a small figure at the end:D


  • #23
    Coolnabacky1873
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Coolnabacky1873


    On the Irish Genealogy News blog genealogist Claire Bradley has a review of the Clare Roots Conference.

    One of the speakers was Catriona Crowe of the National Archives and she outlined that we can expect a rebuild of the census website to go live within a few weeks with most of the submitted corrections done!


  • #24
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Coolnabacky1873 wrote: »
    On the Irish Genealogy News blog genealogist Claire Bradley has a review of the Clare Roots Conference.

    One of the speakers was Catriona Crowe of the National Archives and she outlined that we can expect a rebuild of the census website to go live within a few weeks with most of the submitted corrections done!

    Except, of course, the huge number of corrections that cannot be submitted (e.g.townlands, street names..) due to the poorly designed website. :rolleyes:


  • #25
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    I just checked to see if you were pulling our legs but sure enough you're bang on. They seem to be a lot of Horses in that 1901 Census - is there such a surname? I wonder whether the work of transcribing was outsourced to a Third World country such as India?
    I cane across one entry which gave the place of Birth as just "Seeds". On looking at the original form, it is "Leeds Yorks". OK, the "L" is pretty stylish, but really, Seeds?

    Now, I think most Irish people would know of Leeds but there again, I could be wrong


  • #26
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    I think most people would know of Leeds, but since the transcribing was done in Canada and India, that's where the mistake was made.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • #27
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    One of my ancestors was a nun in a convent in Rathmines. On the 1911 Census return in the column Relation to head the first entry should read Prioress. It's rather ironic in light of recent events that it's been transcribed as Prison!

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • #28
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Clare Santry's blog reports that 12,600 errors have been fixed in a reindex, including the one that caused me to go down the garden path for a month due to finding my g-grandfather's identically named cousin...

    Looks to have been a long term backlog - my first batch were done while there was still indexing going on - when there was 1911 for a few counties only - so it seems that anything after that probably got held over till recently.


  • #29
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    There are not that many Horses –18 in the 1901 and 9 in the 1911. Many are from the same family/area, and it does appear to be correct See here and here - elsewhere one or two might be the surname ‘Honce’.
    There are eight Horse families in Griffiths here

    What is more annoying are stupid errors e.g. in the 1901 one Tipperary townland is incorrectly 'divided' into Ballykisteen and Ballyristeen, the latter daftly listed as “Houses in Ballyristeen (Ballykisteen, Tipperary)” Ballyristeen is in Co. Kerry, near Dingle.
    One has to look at the original form and as pedroeibar says, most of the entries do look like "Horse". Some less clear entries may also be "House".

    What the transcribers have tried to do is provide a complete name without any symbols indicating an illegible letter or group of letters (as used by the FreeBMD in England).

    However, when it is reasonably obvious, without too much deciphering, a mis-transcription "Hamey" is clearly Harney, and "Peny" may not have been to clear as the Head of family, his wife was clearly Perry on the form.

    Then I had
    Coonan which should be Cowman.
    Harle which should be Harte
    Braton which should be Bruton
    Bulter which should be Butler (the "t" was badly crossed)
    Cohelan which should be Whelan
    Mulcaly which should be Mulcahy
    Dunply which should be Dunphy
    Faley which should be Foley
    Mayes which should be Hayes
    Clany which should be Clancy (as the rest of the family)
    Lusan which was Susan
    Devid which was David

    However, the search facility does not work well when using * for a unknown letter or group of letters. Using the P* (for a first name), can give a "Too many results", while omitting P* altogether, provides a manageable number of results.


  • #30
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    The original transcription was done in India.

    For my money, the Indians did a fantastic job, given that they didn't know the place names and many of the forenames and surnames. It would be great to have a staff in the National Archives checking the corrections given and adding them when appropriate, but there just isn't the money at the moment.

    When/if the country gets back on its feet, Ireland's population is small enough - and the country is important enough as a source of emigration to the US, Canada, South America, Europe, Australia, etc - we could do much more.

    It would be absolutely possible, given the people to do it, to put the births, marriages and deaths online, and to link people with their children and spouses, and with emigration records. Crowdsourcing this to the extent that you could email in a correction (as with the censuses) would be possible.

    This would mean that we'd have an invaluable database of when and where people were born, who their parents were (and back into history), who they married and who their children were (and forward into history), and, if they took any of the liners to the US, we'd have ship records and Ellis Island records, linked to whole families, and US and Canadian army records, draft cards and so on.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    ...there just isn't the money at the moment...

    I wonder how many unemployed amateur genealogists there are in Ireland at present who would be glad to give their time towards a project like this. I know I would!

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • #32
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Hermy wrote: »
    I wonder how many unemployed amateur genealogists there are in Ireland at present who would be glad to give their time towards a project like this. I know I would!

    This would be great - the only problem being busybodies who would be dying to help (not suggesting this is you!) but who might add to the problems, for which a government agency would hold responsibility. But if they were professionally supervised it could work.


  • #33
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    This would be great - the only problem being busybodies who would be dying to help (not suggesting this is you!) but who might add to the problems, for which a government agency would hold responsibility. But if they were professionally supervised it could work.

    Yeah, I know it could just as easily add to the existing problems without the right checks and balances but it just seems a shame not to tap a resource like this.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • #34
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    I think it's nonsense to say that there's no money to carry out the work that needs doing - a complete cop-out in fact. If for no other reason the work should be done on purely commercial grounds - Ireland's genealogical tourist industry. In fact the 1926 census should be put online now and if the 100 year rule needs changing - change it! This time the work shouldn't be outsourced to anywhere. Did the actual paper census records get shipped to India and did any go astray?


  • #35
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The digitization was done from old microfilm transfers, not paper


  • #36
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    This would be great - the only problem being busybodies who would be dying to help (not suggesting this is you!) but who might add to the problems, for which a government agency would hold responsibility. But if they were professionally supervised it could work.
    The system as used by FreeBMD in England seems to work very well and all by volunteers. But it takes many years to do.

    I did over 10,000 transcriptions for FreeBMD. Unfortunately, some people using FreeBMD seem to think that as a transcriber, you may also know something about the people you transcribed. I never once came across anyone in my family tree while transcribing.

    When doing the transcription of the Irish census records, the transcribers (probably on instructions from higher up) seem to have tried to give a complete name irrespective of if it was correct or not. The FreeBMD use a system of a ? if one letter is doubtful or an * for a group of letters.
    Either way, if you are researching a name that is transcribed as incomplete in letters or incorrect it is always going to be a problem to find that person.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    I think it's nonsense to say that there's no money to carry out the work that needs doing - a complete cop-out in fact. If for no other reason the work should be done on purely commercial grounds - Ireland's genealogical tourist industry. In fact the 1926 census should be put online now and if the 100 year rule needs changing - change it! This time the work shouldn't be outsourced to anywhere. Did the actual paper census records get shipped to India and did any go astray?

    I mostly agree but as MYOB said, the earlier censuses were already microfilmed. 1926 is still just on paper, so there's more work to be done. On the positive side (in terms of work) there's 6 counties fewer to do. Unfortunately, the CSO have dug their heels in, and apparently the government is afraid to tell them what to do.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • #38
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    I think it's nonsense to say that there's no money to carry out the work that needs doing - a complete cop-out in fact. If for no other reason the work should be done on purely commercial grounds - Ireland's genealogical tourist industry. In fact the 1926 census should be put online now and if the 100 year rule needs changing - change it! This time the work shouldn't be outsourced to anywhere. Did the actual paper census records get shipped to India and did any go astray?

    I disagree absolutely with this. I'm really proud that Ireland has put the censuses online for free access, rather than selling them to a private company to hawk for profit like certain other records. Once you start saying that it's a commercial thing, you're on the road to everything being for profit.
    As for the work being outsourced to India, I'm perfectly happy with that - but the checking and correction should then be insourced to Ireland, and to people who know what they're doing.


  • #39
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    I’ve very mixed views on much of the foregoing and (tipping forelock to Pinky) other than for ‘help’ I’m very much against Crowdsourcing unless it is closely controlled or limited to minor items when seminal recording/correcting is involved. For example it is used to good effect on sites such as the Australian Govt’s ‘Trove’ newspaper site, where the original record is alongside in another panel and veracity can be checked at a glance. Allowing the average punter to create/change links in official records would be a recipe for disaster, a huge error, as anyone who has seen their family on most PPV geno sites would know. Far better to check in several places and then join the dots oneself, in the knowledge that all is correct and not the fairytale of some ham.

    Secondly, our records are a national asset, part of our history / heritage and they have been paid for by the people through taxation. They have a dual value – a historical worth and one as a potential income generator. Morally, the various government agencies should be seen as trustees, not owners, and the authority to dispose of them as seen fit is questionable. I have no issue with a joint venture project (PPP) , not everything can be free in this economic clime.

    Access and control should not be parted with lightly and there is a balance in what could and should be done. The technology is there to do the job properly, auto-scanning, script / image recognition technology, and suitable business models/templates are available (e.g. Scotland’s People). To achieve success any such project needs a knowledge of genealogy, access to the records and what other countries are doing/have done. Over and above all that is a need for decisive leadership, which has been notably lacking on almost all that has been done to date. Without a ‘firm hand’ to put down the bitchfest , the usual petty empire builders, minor functionaries and ‘experts’ would bemire the project forever.

    Outsourcing, its benefits, to whom and how is another topic!


  • #40
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Commercial transcriptions are not without their accuracy issues either, as anyone who has dealt with older indexes on Ancestry would know. I'd also say at their rates, the IFHF are commercial and again, the transcriptions there are often woeful.

    I would hate to see us copy exactly the ScotlandsPeople model, which seems to be a way of getting the many Americans (well, mostly) who are in to the concept of "clans" to fund the Scottish Government through the back door. Despite having solved the biggest mystery of all in my family (again - well, mostly - need to contact Glasgow Council about a burial still) I can't but resent the site for its extremely high charges and patchy information. Charging me for an index search is bad enough, but charging me to see a semi-result when I can't get the image because they've not bothered scanning it is horrendous.


  • #41
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    I disagree absolutely with this. I'm really proud that Ireland has put the censuses online for free access, rather than selling them to a private company to hawk for profit like certain other records. Once you start saying that it's a commercial thing, you're on the road to everything being for profit.
    As for the work being outsourced to India, I'm perfectly happy with that - but the checking and correction should then be insourced to Ireland, and to people who know what they're doing.

    I think we are at cross purposes here, I'm not suggesting that the census records should be commercialised but that because of the importance of genealogical tourism to Ireland all the stops should be pulled out to provide the best possible service. On a personal basis I'm driven demented trying to research family history in the USA where every click of a mouse requires a credit card and I am not suggesting we go down that road. However, I believe that at the stroke of a pen somebody in Government could sort this out and the pittance in additional funding found - will it happen....I won't hold my breath.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    I’m very much against Crowdsourcing unless it is closely controlled or limited to minor items when seminal recording/correcting is involved.

    Of course it would not be a question of random people being able to change national records! But crowdsourcing as the Census has done, and then having the corrections *checked* and if correct added would be really useful.

    (For instance, you can often find who a blurry name on the Census is by looking at findagrave, something that probably wouldn't occur to the academics.)
    Secondly, our records are a national asset, part of our history / heritage and they have been paid for by the people through taxation. They have a dual value – a historical worth and one as a potential income generator.

    I would be totally against this. I really hate the way that records - records of human life, of the whole human race - have been turned into a source of profit.


  • #43
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Secondly, our records are a national asset, part of our history / heritage and they have been paid for by the people through taxation. They have a dual value – a historical worth and one as a potential income generator.
    Qualitymark wrote: »
    I would be totally against this. I really hate the way that records - records of human life, of the whole human race - have been turned into a source of profit.

    That is a different argument and is a political one, not genealogical. Internationally almost all heritage places charge an entry – museums, art galleries,etc. Most archives are closed to those not conducting 'academic' research. Some ‘countries’ have visa fees and others e.g. Galapagos Islands even charge an entry fee (and Ireland has a ‘travel’ tax!)

    For records an ‘access payment’ is IMO acceptable if it is used maintain or make more records available and providing it is not unreasonable and ‘delivers’ what is promised. For example were the GRO to enter a PPP with the CLDS and they put up the images of the BMDs in a searchable format I would be quite happy to pay X for a cert view and 2X for a print. Most of us would save money in the long term and the PPP would have a nice earner to supplement its funding.

    Just look at the €70 million wasted on the debate over just ONE of the proposed Children’s Hospital sites ( I think the total amount is a multiple of that). Think of what that would have done for Irish genealogy!


  • #44
    Jellybaby1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,108 ✭✭✭Jellybaby1


    The BMD records only exist because the population, we and our forebears created them by being born, living, marrying and dying. They belong to the people, not the Government who should merely be guardians, as already stated here by another poster. If they make it too commercial they kill the goose that lays the golden egg, i.e. tourism. The tourists expect to find something when they come, but shouldn't be fleeced when they do, and of course, neither should we. I know, geese, eggs, fleece, but you get my drift! :)


  • #45
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    Jellybaby1 wrote: »
    The BMD records only exist because the population, we and our forebears created them by being born, living, marrying and dying. They belong to the people, not the Government who should merely be guardians, as already stated here by another poster. If they make it too commercial they kill the goose that lays the golden egg, i.e. tourism. The tourists expect to find something when they come, but shouldn't be fleeced when they do, and of course, neither should we. I know, geese, eggs, fleece, but you get my drift! :)

    The BMD records are already commercial! They charge search fees and individual cert fees. All the while having a digital database that is inaccessible to the public. If the cost of getting that database online increased the cost of each cert by a couple of euro, I would happily pay it.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • #46
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    odds_on wrote: »

    When doing the transcription of the Irish census records, the transcribers (probably on instructions from higher up) seem to have tried to give a complete name irrespective of if it was correct or not. The FreeBMD use a system of a ? if one letter is doubtful or an * for a group of letters.
    Either way, if you are researching a name that is transcribed as incomplete in letters or incorrect it is always going to be a problem to find that person.

    Why on earth did the 'authorities' not insist on BLOCK CAPITALS when filling in the form, bloody frustrating...:rolleyes:


  • #47
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    That is a different argument and is a political one, not genealogical. Internationally almost all heritage places charge an entry

    "Because the neighbours do it" was always barred in our family as an argument for doing anything.


  • #48
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    "Because the neighbours do it" was always barred in our family as an argument for doing anything.

    This is straying off-topic, but your family's criteria are not the way the real world should work. There is an economic cost for everything.

    As an example, I had never got around to ordering (possible only by fax/letter) a marriage cert from Australia. By chance I today discovered that since the beginning of this month the BMDs of Queensland, Australia are searchable and can now be ordered online – certs can be mailed or images can be downloaded in PDF format (cheaper at AUS$20). HERE

    I’ve just bought the 1870’s marriage cert of my g grandmother’s brother. A painless experience, immediate result – I input his name, his wife’s forename and a date range. It popped up immediately, clicked on the reference number and it walked me through the payment process.

    The details it contains are :-the status of the spouses, their birthplaces, occupations, ages, places of residence, names of parents (including their mothers’ maiden names!) parents’ occupations and witnesses.

    The cost was about €14, which is considerably less than the search, postage or fax costs that the old system would have incurred. I got all the above info in seconds, not weeks. Was it worth it? YES.


  • #49
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Was it worth it? YES.

    In my research for a book about various people during the 1870-1925 period I check the census records usually several times a week. Would it be worth it if I had to pay €15 each time? Maybe. Would I be able to do it? No. Would my research suffer? Yes.


  • #50
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    In my research for a book about various people during the 1870-1925 period I check the census records usually several times a week. Would it be worth it if I had to pay €15 each time? Maybe. Would I be able to do it? No. Would my research suffer? Yes.
    That argument does not stand up to the reality of everyday life. What you appear to want is free online access to information that has had value added. That is not a viable option anywhere. If the costs are fair and your research project is worthwhile, it will bear that cost.

    Any business must have a coherent business plan to survive - that presupposes giving value and taking payment. Consider the length of time, the hours, days, weeks and the travel involved in looking for an ancestor before the advent of the CLDS site and the internet. Card indexes, call numbers, queues, gone to lunch, the head-wrecking handwriting compounded by dodgy microfilm and even dodgier microfiche readers, the ‘Sorry, that’s out in Santry’. The ‘will I chance finishing this film roll (I’ve waited a day for it) and risk a parking ticket or had I better go now?’ Take as an example the Census records you quote – were it not online you would have to go to the NAI or NL or CSO or wherever they are stored, search for a DED, name, family, etc., obtain the various Return forms and then transcribe what you need – it would take days, if not weeks. The price of €4 for a copy cert is not a lot - most hobbies have a cost, that €4 is the price of a few photo prints, a good golfball or a few shotgun cartridges.

    Anything worthwhile in genealogy has an intrinsic cost which can be covered by government grant, sponsorship or a pay per view model. The Irish State has put up some records FOC and (generally) has a reasonable fee structure for other records: the CLDS provides ‘sponsorship’ because of its religious beliefs.

    The real argument should be about the price:quality ratio, the lack of many records, the grossly misleading claims by some on what is available and the internecine fighting among the various genealogical groups and organizations.


  • #51
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    That argument does not stand up to the reality of everyday life.

    Yes it does! The research I'm currently doing has been immeasurably helped by being able to check individuals' names in the 1911 census for free. I can only dream of how wonderful it will be when other records are available online.

    Not everything is about grinding a profit out.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement