RootsChat.Com

The process of opening up entries must be very slow as my great aunt is still blacked out and she would be 124 years old now.  She died in 1991.  Her daughter is blacked out and she died about 20 years ago.  My mother lived with them, but she would only be 102 later this year.

My guess would be an error or uncertainty in the birth year - either the source or the transcription.

I've seen a few cases where the redaction line is wobbly enough to see the birth year, which is either blank, indistinct, or amended.

So not knowing the year of birth presumably means the record wouldn't be automatically unredacted until 2039?

I thought, and as was earlier pointed out, that unredacting would occur after the person would have been 100 years old, automatically.  In my mother’s case, proof of death would have been needed up until her birthdate in 2023, as she died in Canada in the 1990’s.  For her cousin and aunt, both died many years ago, in England.  Why were they not unredacted when the 1939 was released?  In the same household my aunt’s husband and father were unredacted when it was released.

I think when they matched death records to redacted 1939 entries it was easier for males because their name at death would more likely be the same as their name in 1939.  Whereas married/widowed/divorced women wouldn't neccessarily have the same name at death as they did in 1939.  In that case an automated process would need to look at marriages as well to work out who the death record belonged to on the 1939 register.

I'd also think that process couldn't be very reliable, and so a significant %age of records of women who had died couldn't be matched to a 1939 entry with enough certainty to justify automatic unredaction.

And to throw a spanner in... both my mum and one of her sisters have been unredacted since the original launch, but both are very much alive and under 100.  Their other sister seems to be a still-redacted entry in the household (also still alive and under 100).  The only difference between them is the redacted sister married twice, whereas mum and the unredacted sister only married once - although that shouldn't be a factor in their redaction/unredaction.

Quote from: PatLac on Tuesday 05 August 25 15:17 BST (UK)

So... it's actually W. A. S Inspection (ENG) as you had posted before, JenB

I don't think you can assume much from the omission of a stop after the S .  I also tend to favour the W meaning War (it had been expected for some time) and the likelihood that ENG suggests engineering rather than England ?

Without the "inspection" I'd have suggested "War - Active Service" but that doesn't seem to fit.

I have seen other people with "WAS" (meaning 'previously') before some other occupation - such as "WAS Chief Bottle Washer".  I suppose the dots could have been added in error at some point in the process, but that's probably a bit of straw clutching.

News from the Suffolk Archives is that the records will go live on Ancestry on Thursday 14th August.

https://www.suffolkarchives.co.uk/latest-news-from-suffolk-archives/

Doesn't say which year. 

Those of us who have had our DNA tested have thousands of DNA matches that are nearly impossible to ID due to no trees and a user name that means zilch.

Having these useless DNA matches clogs up the system.

What is totally inconsiderate is for people to invoke the Privacy rubbish as their get out.

If you do not want to be Identified then make your Family Tree Private.

If you do not want your DNA results visible to others then make them Private.

Your Privacy concerns are then as good as it gets.

On the contrary - the information would only be 'private' up to the moment in time someone manages to breach Ancestry's security.  It isn't like a data breach of a company holding this kind of information hasn't happened before -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4grggw4n56o

And 'It can't happen to us' is so out of date.

The problem you have with excess matches could be resolved by having the filter tools to exclude results where there is no tree and/or a lack of contact information.  And/or defaulting accounts to private.  There's no need to risk breaching other people's privacy to achieve what you'd like.

If someone sets up an account without contact information and with a random username I'd take it as a strong hint they don't want you contacting them... and that if you did manage to make contact with them the contact wouldn't be very productive.