1911 census

[Koromo]

In 1901 the Marylebone Workhouse was not in the Christchurch sub-district — it was apparently in The Rectory sub-district. The districts will not necessarily be the same in 1911.

I have slightly modified my post above in the interests of fairness.

K.

[DudleyWinchurch]

"Institution" sounds so grim and forbidding, one tends to forget about hotels and the like.  (Not to mention royal palaces! )

I thought I read somewhere in all the details, that in 1911, anyone whose household could not fit on a single page schedule had to fill in an "institution" form instead.  So could just mean a large household.

[Mean_genie]

Large households could be issued with 'Large household' schedules for up to 40 or 100 names. It was up to the registrar to decide what was a large household and what was an institution, and where appropriate to appoint the head or resident officer as enumerator. The instructions are not very clear on the exact definition of a large household as opposed to an institution, so you can expect some variation.

Buckingham Palace is a case in point, where you could make a good argument either way. In 1911 it appears as an institution - but I don't suppose His Maj did the enumerating!

Mean_genie

[Sloe Gin]

Has anyone observed how quickly the transcription errors are being corrected?

Last Thursday, I reported 5  errors (involving 3 people) on one household transcript of 6 people. I received confirmation on Sunday that my corrections had been accepted and changes would be made. So far this hasn't happened. I realise that there must be masses of such errors to correct but would be interested in hearing from others about the speed of corrections.

Latest blog entry says that they will not correct the index if the transcription matches the original entry.

Our policy is to accept changes only if they match what is on the original page (i.e the household form). So if your ancestor made spelling mistakes on the original page, they will be carried through into the transcript. This is actually more common than you might think, so please be sure to check the original page before you assume that there is an error, rather than an accurate transcription of the original document.

Ancestry show contributed corrections, and add them to the index, while keeping the original, so that a search finds both versions.  Much more user-friendly.

[Nick29]

"Institution" sounds so grim and forbidding, one tends to forget about hotels and the like.  (Not to mention royal palaces! )

I thought I read somewhere in all the details, that in 1911, anyone whose household could not fit on a single page schedule had to fill in an "institution" form instead.  So could just mean a large household.

Interesting point - I must try to remember that 

[ankerdine]

Our policy is to accept changes only if they match what is on the original page (i.e the household form). So if your ancestor made spelling mistakes on the original page, they will be carried through into the transcript. This is actually more common than you might think, so please be sure to check the original page before you assume that there is an error, rather than an accurate transcription of the original document.

So FindMyPast wants us first  to check the original entry against the transcript before reporting an error? They must think we are made of money! I am sure my grandmother knew how to spell Stranraer. Surely she knew it wasn't Straumer, Scotland, as did her husband my grandfather. I have reported this error and had confirmation that they have received my indication. No change reported yet though.

Judy

[Sloe Gin]

But it seems they won't add the correct spelling to the index if it was misspelt on the form. 

I really cannot see how it compromises anything by including such corrections in the index.  An index is simply a finding aid, no more, no less.

[DEVIS]

RE: James William Flower 1911. Is this him?

Age:50. M. At: 345 Little Grove st, Lisson Grove, NW. St Marylebone.

Registered Lodging House.

Devis

[Keziahemm]

I sent corrections during the beta testing, had acknowledgement, to-date none have been corrected.

They were all transcription errors, one family the step daughter had been missed off the transcription (she's on the original) her brother was entered on transcription as step-daughter  .  In another family of eight, six of the christian names had been transcribed incorrectly, the handwriting was good.

Susan