Genealogy Chat

I have to say the Governmnet is completely bonkers on this. 1. They should make it far easier to search than the 18901 compare the interface of the UK governmnet with that of Ancestry. 2 They ought to massively reduce the cost of digitising it, by outsourcing to India as I presume Ancestry does. 3 Seeking to charge for the 1911 as with the 1901 is economic idiocy. It's the classic example of a public good, with a significant fixed cost of preparing the data but zero marginal cost of allowing people to use it once its done. 4 The Government is spending significant money promoting British heritage. Family History is an excellent way of creating good feeling and god will especially with our cousins who have emigrated to the US, Oz NZ, SA etc. Wade

Michael Maybe not just at the FRC and NA but local registry offices and maybe larger libraries? I'd have some serious problems if it was just in the FRC and NA cause i live in Scotland and am at the present time living on my student loan - Getting down to London/Kew would be a big problem money wise and knowing me i wouldnt be able to find who i wanted. I have to say though that having records and things online has been a big help. Especially since i found i have an English side to my family and also in Scotland where alot of the certs are available online. I do hope that they at least index the 1911, its not a big deal for me but i would still like to find out where my grt grt grt grandfathers siblings are and what they are doing. Mhairi

I think I've made this point before - if they make the census available at the NA or FRC, but not online, it will ensure that only people who are sufficiently dedicated to their research, and would thus, hopefully, be more sensitive and respectful about what they do with the data they find, will be bothered to get off their backsides and go and look for the information they're after, while the 'armchair researchers' will sit back, wait for it to appear on Ancestry, and be disappointed, thus lessening the likelihood of anything falling into the wrong hands. It probably wouldn't work out, but it's a thought.

I've said this before, but I really do feel very strongly that this is the type of project that the Lottery was set up to fund, being part of our heritage whose costs are difficult to justify either from taxation or as a commercial venture.

There seem to be a good set of arguements for and against the publishing of the 1911 census. However, I cannot condone the argument that it is too costly. They could always flog it off to ITV or whoever owns this site now. They did it with the 1901... Quote 'I can confirm that the £5 you paid was for the 1901 census. It will say Genes Reunited on your statement as we now the own the census. ' Extract of e-mail from Genes Connected, sorry Genes Reunited. Roger GC

If they can give millions of £s of lottery money and tax payers money to asylum seekers and criminals, its not asking too much for us to get the 1911.

Arrrrgh!!! Please please please - no more talk of petitions. I have a bee in my bonnet about the 'Petition' which is currently running on the Records Board. It has been running for SIXTEEN MONTHS now - and the Poster has made no attempt whatsoever to do anything with this Petition. I pointed this out on the thread - and people just went on signing!! Nell - I dare say that someone will eventually pick up the cost of this as a commercial venture, but as Twinkle says, they only have an obligation to make it available, which does not necessarily mean on line. In the 'old days' (pre Internet) if you wanted to look at a Census, you either went to London, or if you were lucky, the County Records Office would have SOME of it on film. And finally - Census Information is NOT Public property - it was never meant to be and it is fortunate we are indeed that previous censuses have been made available. Olde Crone

No, there is no obligation to transcribe or digitise anything. They don't even have to index it, and there's no way anyone can search through millions of bits of paper hoping to stumble across an ancestor. If anyone has ever been to a Record Office, then you will know that on occasion, documents are withdrawn because of their condition. If parts are really fragile, then you won't even be able to look at those bits in case they crumble into dust. TNA is funded from taxes, and therefore has a duty to spend money in the way that best benefits the whole of society, not just a relatively small group of genealogists. Would people be pleased if Royal Mail knowingly financed a project at a loss that made stamp collecting easier, but refused to spend cash on criminal background checks that could prevent thefts from the post? I'm not sure that's a great example, but it's the only one I can think of!

Karen They have to make it available. But this doesn't mean it will be easy to get at. They just need to let you have a look at it if you turn up at Kew. They don't need to digitise it. I suppose they are saying they won't recoup the cost (and as tax payers it will be our cost). But I would have thought that perhaps ancestry would be willing to share costs? I do understand that it is in a mess though, and instead of enumeration sheets with maybe half a dozen families on, each family is on a separate sheet, so collating them all into enumeration districts and so on is probably quite a task. nell

Am not surprised from what I have read previously. Never mind. I feel I am fortunate to have the available census to see online / on film. :-) Joy

Yes well, they do like to have their cake and eat it Michael! Lin xx

They managed it with 1901, so where's the difference? If, as they keep telling us, the 1911 is so badly damaged as to make large chunks of it useless, that should make their job easier, with fewer records to transcribe.

Sounds that way Helen, Like everything else in life these days, money raises it's ugly head yet again! I suppose, even if enough people pressed hard enough, we would still be made to pay over the odds as usual! Lin xx

'...the costs of digitising the original 1911 census returns, which occupy nearly two linear kilometres of shelving, are likely to be considerable. Secondly, the indexes and other search tools, whcih are absolutely essential if users are to find details about their ancestors from among the many thousands of census forms covering a total of over 36 million people, will be very labour-intensive to produce. Thirdly, the experience of other major family history websites indicates that, after very strong initial demand when the service is launched, the volume of transactions - and therefore the revenue which is generated - eventually settles at a significantly lower level. Finally the revenue raised will also depend on the current state of technology and pricing policy. For all these reasons the Government has concluded that it would not be sensible to estimate the revenue which the online 1911 service might genrate so far in advance of the release date'. Reading between the lines, I think this is saying its not worth making the 1911 accessible even when the 100 years is up.

Have just received further reply from my MP regarding 1911 census. Aside from the 100-year ruling which seems to be set in solid concrete, there was this ominous message from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Dept for Constitutional Affairs