The dreaded change of Ancestry

[mike175]

This is all I did:

[msr]

I tried it Lizzie, just Livermore, all collections, and came up with the same number as Mike.

Then adjusted to UK and that reduced to 69000+.  Filtered again to just census and it reduced to 23000+.

When I tried it the other day after your post I received different information.  Confusing?  Just a bit!

[BumbleB]

BUT - using your method and then restrict it further to 1851 Census - you will get all the other "alternatives" first, all 44 of them (Finnemore, Livermon, etc. etc.) before you get to Livermore. 

[mike175]

BUT . . .

If you look at the actual images you will see that they are actually Livermores, but the names have been mis-transcribed, or relate to other people on the same page as a Livermore 

[LizzieL]

But then exact isn't exact.
I want to be able to search Livermore (exact) first, then the common alternatives, not mistranscriptions necessarily, but the way it has been spelt in the past when people were less literate and spelling was more fluid: e.g Livermoor, Livermoore, Levermore etc.

If I haven't got what I expected, I would do a search on "sounds like" and similar" which it now seems I am getting if I select "exact"

But now I'm resigned to the fact that Elisha Livermore and his wife Sophia were abducted by aliens on census night 1851 and returned to earth later so that Sophia could appear on the 1861 census with her daughter and son in law in Newmarket and Elisha could die in Newmarket in early 1861, annoyingly not quite making it to census day.

[mike175]

I guess there's little point in debating it further because people have different expectations, but just to take the first result in the list I get from the 1851 census:

It is indexed as Thomas Finnimore but the image CLEARLY shows Thomas Livermore with his wife, Mary on the next line. Someone has gone to the trouble of submitting a correction, as I have done countless times, so the result is now correctly listed when you search for Livermore, but it will presumably also be found under Finnimore where other people will be justifiably annoyed that it is wrong

The error is in the transcript, not in the search.

Sorry I can't help with Sophia but for what it's worth she doesn't show on FindMyPast either, at least in a very brief search. But that is where the fun detective work starts I've had ancestors turn up in the census indexed under a completely different name - copied from the unrelated person on the line above 

[ThrelfallYorky]

My main moan - apart from the fact that as a fully-qualified luddite I dislike change for no good reason, is that the colours seem to make the screen so busy that my eyes tire more quickly.
I realise that it may seem more "user friendly" in jolly colours, and I've got gripes on the (rare, because I tend to input full place details) transportation of innocent ancestors, but somehow it does seem a bit dumbed down??
Really don't want / need "Historical facts / context" at all. Why bother?
I peeked at it when it first came available - swapped back. Tried again later - swapped back. Gritted my teeth and thought "I'll just have to live with it" on 14th. But I don't. But I probably will. And so will most of us. and the next time "they" change something, we'll say "Why? I liked it as it was".... won't we?

[davidft]

Really don't want / need "Historical facts / context" at all. Why bother?

You can turn them off. See replies 40/41 in this thread (also been answered in other threads)

[ThrelfallYorky]

Yes, I did turn it off, easy. But was annoyed to find I didn't seem to be able to type in any  "children" to couple I'd just provided a spouse for the female half of, when updating records, and it puzzled me.....