1921 census talk

[paulr1949]

On Saturday I attended a zoom meeting where a presentation was given by Mary McKee of FMP on the work leading up to the release of the census. It was very interesting, and had some useful tips on searching to get better results. This may have been mentioned already, but apparently TNA/the government insisted that access was to be pay per view so that nobody had to have a subscription.
At the end, she said that FMP are offering a 21% discount on pro subs (possibly only in the uk) whilst the “roadshow “ was on, which is until mid February. The promotion code was Roadshow.

[Mick Loney]

And how exectly is that going to help searching the 1921 census? Even with a pro-subscription, one has to pay!

[Thunder]

We have to pay for FMP's errors!. As I have said to FMP they should reduce the cost until they get the transcriptions correct.

[paulr1949]

It was not intended as help for searching the census, merely that there may be some people who would take up that sort of an offer. Who knows how long it might be before the census is included in subscriptions.

[Guy]

We have to pay for FMP's errors!. As I have said to FMP they should reduce the cost until they get the transcriptions correct.

I prefer it the way it is now, in around 3 years at the most it will be part of the subscription, I don't mind paying for the images I desperately want now and waiting for the rest, still cheaper than a birth certificate.
FindMyPast have done an excellent job considering all the hurdles put in their way and I am 100% sure none of the detractors could have produced something similar on time.
Cheers
Guy

[Thunder]

We have to pay for FMP's errors!. As I have said to FMP they should reduce the cost until they get the transcriptions correct.

I prefer it the way it is now, in around 3 years at the most it will be part of the subscription, I don't mind paying for the images I desperately want now and waiting for the rest, still cheaper than a birth certificate.
FindMyPast have done an excellent job considering all the hurdles put in their way and I am 100% sure none of the detractors could have produced something similar on time.
Cheers
Guy

I am sure that if the work had been given to family historians to do the work under a confidential undertaking it would have been a far better result. The result should have been accuracy, FMP were supposed to be aiming for 97.5% accuracy not something like 27.5%, and not just making a lot of money out of researchers. It should not be forgotten that it is not just family historians that are looking at the Census but social historians and one-name studies.

[AdrianBruce]

... FMP were supposed to be aiming for 97.5% accuracy not something like 27.5%, ...

So, I take it that you have spent sufficient money to statistically justify 27.5%? As far as I'm concerned it's 100% accurate but I know full well that I don't have a statistically valid sample. The issue is not your percentage of errors - the issue is knowing that you have a big enough sample to extrapolate to the full dataset.

[Guy]

I am sure that if the work had been given to family historians to do the work under a confidential undertaking it would have been a far better result. The result should have been accuracy, FMP were supposed to be aiming for 97.5% accuracy not something like 27.5%, and not just making a lot of money out of researchers. It should not be forgotten that it is not just family historians that are looking at the Census but social historians and one-name studies.

You mean like the 1881 census transcribed by family historians at their leisure yet still contained hundreds of errors, names, places etc., though admittedly not as many as the 1901 census.
It is virtually impossible to transcribe large datasets without there being many errors in the transcription, but most are corrected over time.
Cheers
Guy

[Chiddicks]

Just a quick question, there is probably an obvious answer and if anybody will know it’s someone on here.

We have to wait 100 years for a census release here in the UK due to privacy issues yet in the USA they are about to launch the 1950 census, is it simply different legislation in different countries or is there another reason?

[AdrianBruce]

Different legislation - if the US limit is indeed enshrined in legislation, rather than Custom & Practice.

Bear in mind that there are countries who destroy their censuses, which makes a 100y wait sound good!