Lost Cousins

[Lindad]

I've heard other people mention this relatively new site, but have just discovered it for myself. It looks good... Lost Cousins.

The idea is that you add your direct ancestors and blood relatives from the 1881 census. Lost Cousins will then run checks to see who else has listed the same ancestors and blood relatives... and you then find your lost cousins.

It's still quite new, so there may not be too many matches at this stage... but potentially it's a great idea.

Well worth taking a look - and having a go!

[ruthrrr]

I heard about this website on one of these forums. I don't know how much success I'm going to get at the moment but fingers crossed. You key in your ancestors using the 1881 census for England and for Scotland and the website works out whether you have any matches.

The front page says that it is free subscription until at least January 2005, however they are running a "competition" whereby if you key in 50 names you get free subscription for a year...my 51 are already in there :)


Ruth

[John]

The only downside I've found so far is that it has demoted my number one big sister to cousin:confused:

And, I can't see how you can hit 50 without having some very big families and lots of referals.

John

I would like to add though that I think this might end up as a very powerful tool especially as further census years are added. Making connections via lists, boards and on-line trees is always very hit and miss, with a high level of entries on this site, we could expect some interesting results.

John

[ruthrrr]

Basically you also list all blood relatives - and a couple of my great greats had large families. I suppose the thinking behind it is that if you do make a match you will have a common ancestor to work back from. I think on the whole though, if you are concentrating on just the one surname you could possibly hit problems, but I am doing both sides of both parents.

Ruth

[Lindad]

And, I can't see how you can hit 50 without having some very big families and lots of referals.
JohnActually it's very easy! With the size of families back in 1881, by the time you've found a few great greats and their offspring you're almost there...

[John]

Actually it's very easy! With the size of families back in 1881, by the time you've found a few great greats and their offspring you're almost there...Well maybe if you've managed to find all your great grandparents and all your great great grandparents, that gives you 24 heads or 12 families, you then have to find an average about 1.5 children for each couple. Maybe I picked the wrong family, my great grand parents were unmarried or newly married in 1881 with no off spring. Umpteen years of work have yielded me 12 direct ancestors and a whole 11 blood ancestors alive in 1881. Still, I keep plugging on :cool:

[Ladkyis]

and then there are the ancestors that managed to keep themselves off the 1881, like my actors. I have managed inspite of this :D
Ann

[Lindad]

Well maybe if you've managed to find all your great grandparents and all your great great grandparents, that gives you 24 heads or 12 families, you then have to find an average about 1.5 children for each couple. Maybe I picked the wrong family, my great grand parents were unmarried or newly married in 1881 with no off spring. Umpteen years of work have yielded me 12 direct ancestors and a whole 11 blood ancestors alive in 1881. Still, I keep plugging on :cool:
Hi John. Yes a few of my great grandparent were not yet married in 1881. But I know who became their spouses so have been able to track their pre-marriage families too.

What about your great great grandparents? Have you been able to find any of them on the 1881, along with your great grandparents siblings?

A few of mine had obviously just flown the nest and were living away from home as boarders, lodgers or apprentices. Some of those were quite hard to find, but I managed to find most of them in the end.

[ruthrrr]

and then there are the ancestors that managed to keep themselves off the 1881, like my actors. I have managed inspite of this :D
Ann

Hmm a couple of mine are determined census dodgers too! :)

[Londonwhay]

Hmm a couple of mine are determined census dodgers too! :)
Hmmm! I sense the start of a new thread here.... It's rare that I can find any of my ancestors on the 1881 census. I wonder just how thorough the transcribing was?

[Ladkyis]

the 1881 Census is a special case because it was organised and overseen by the Mormons but, and it is a big BUT, the transcribing was mostly done by FH societies. It took 10 years to complete and I would say that the transcription is probably fairly accurate. I get e teensy bit hot under the collar when the transcription is criticised because it was darned hard work! and while it might be imagined that local people would be able to transcribe the census for their local area it has to be remembered that, as in Gwent FHS, most of the members prepared to give their time and do the transcription are "incomers" and not natives of the area.
I know that no-one is "having a go" at the transcribers but still, even the implied criticism rubs me up the wrong way.
Look to the source is my advice.
Ann
feeling like a cat on a frosty evening (lets see a smillie for that then!)

[Londonwhay]

the 1881 Census is a special case because it was organised and overseen by the Mormons but, and it is a big BUT, the transcribing was mostly done by FH societies. It took 10 years to complete and I would say that the transcription is probably fairly accurate. I get e teensy bit hot under the collar when the transcription is criticised because it was darned hard work! and while it might be imagined that local people would be able to transcribe the census for their local area it has to be remembered that, as in Gwent FHS, most of the members prepared to give their time and do the transcription are "incomers" and not natives of the area.
I know that no-one is "having a go" at the transcribers but still, even the implied criticism rubs me up the wrong way.
Look to the source is my advice.
Ann
feeling like a cat on a frosty evening (lets see a smillie for that then!)
Sorry, didn't mean to rub you up the wrong way Ann. It's just that I have just spent an hour or so searching for a COLE ancestor born 1853 in Suffolk on the family search site and found zilch! Do i need a smiley showing me stroking a frosty cat?

Glenda

[Ladkyis]

Hee Hee, that just causes the static to get worse. I was trying to get an ancestor on the family search site last night and discovered that the more you leave out the more likely you are to get them. it seems that the county of birth or county of census are the difficult thing - perhaps becuase we don't know what they wrote. when I finally got it right ie took everything except the name and approx date of birth off then there was a list of possibles and my ancestor was listed twice! so you just can't win.
Ann
tail up and walking slowly towards the door :D

[John]

it seems that the county of birth or county of census are the difficult thing - perhaps becuase we don't know what they wrote :D
I believe that some information, such as county, was input automatically, thus absolving transcribers of any blame and also explaining why some of my ancestors suddenly became Scottish when Manchester was moved from Lancashire to Lanarkshire.

John

[Lindad]

Goodness! I didn't realise that such an innocent thread would create such heat!!

I have just spent an hour or so searching for a COLE ancestor born 1853 in Suffolk on the family search site and found zilch!
Glenda
Glenda, what is the name of your COLE ancestor... and you do have the names of their parents and/or siblings?

Maybe they were visiting elsewhere when the census was taken. It would be worth checking the entries for Norfolk, Essex and Huntingdonshire as well.

[ruthrrr]

Hmmm! I sense the start of a new thread here.... It's rare that I can find any of my ancestors on the 1881 census. I wonder just how thorough the transcribing was?
Don't know about the transcribing - they just seem determined to be missing! Have looked on the LDS website and also on microfilm at Family Records Centre...although they did slip up once |laugh1| so I know how old they were (and the fact they weren't where I'd expected them so a big thank you to Ancestry putting some 1871 census on the website).

[Terry Waters-Marsh]

the 1881 Census is a special case because it was organised and overseen by the Mormons but, and it is a big BUT, the transcribing was mostly done by FH societies. It took 10 years to complete and I would say that the transcription is probably fairly accurate. I get e teensy bit hot under the collar when the transcription is criticised because it was darned hard work! and while it might be imagined that local people would be able to transcribe the census for their local area it has to be remembered that, as in Gwent FHS, most of the members prepared to give their time and do the transcription are "incomers" and not natives of the area.
I know that no-one is "having a go" at the transcribers but still, even the implied criticism rubs me up the wrong way.Good onya Ann! I too get annoyed when I read negative comments about the 1881 transcription, mainly because I know how bloody hard it is to get volunteers to do the transcription work in the first place. The FreeCEN project cops a fair amount of criticism for slow progress but the biggest limiting factor is volunteers who, bless their hearts, are willing to give of their time and energy to painstakingly transcribe faded, illegible, unintelligible chicken scratchings that some enumerators produced for the census. If just 10% of the armchair critics of the 1881 census were to volunteer to transcribe, check or validate for the FreeCEN project, not only would we be much further along in the project, but we would have a lot less criticism of volunteers.
While I am on my soapbox, may I point out that the most accurate transcriptions have been those done by volunteers and NOT commercial organisations using cheap Asian labour? The error rate on both the LDS 1881 and the FreeCEN project are about 2-3%. Compare that with pay-per-view transcriptions!

Give the volunteers a go! Better still, give being a volunteer a go!!

[John]

While I am on my soapbox, may I point out that the most accurate transcriptions have been those done by volunteers and NOT commercial organisations using cheap Asian labour? The error rate on both the LDS 1881 and the FreeCEN project are about 2-3%. Compare that with pay-per-view transcriptions!

Give the volunteers a go! Better still, give being a volunteer a go!!
the point being that if you put commercial constraints on a transcription, it doesn't matter who's doing it, they just can't afford the time to spend on the ones that need a good looking at to decipher.
Without starting World War 3 Terry, where does the 2-3% figure come from with regard to the 1881 census transcription? My own experience would make that figure a lot higher. Then of course, 2-3% of what? Folios, pages, households, words?

John

[ruthrrr]

Have to say that I have found the transcriptions of the 1881 fantastic as far as I am concerned, maybe I am one of the lucky ones. I've then been able use the reference to go back to the "original" on microfiche. In all instances the transciption has been correct, and has even helped out on the slightly illegible handwriting. Just wish that one particular family hadn't kept dodging the ennumerator!

[John]

Have to say that I have found the transcriptions of the 1881 fantastic as far as I am concerned, maybe I am one of the lucky ones. I've then been able use the reference to go back to the "original" on microfiche. In all instances the transciption has been correct, and has even helped out on the slightly illegible handwriting. Just wish that one particular family hadn't kept dodging the ennumerator!
Don't get me wrong, I think the 1881 transcription is a fantastic resourse. Like any transcription it has it's flaws, keep that in mind and every thing is fine.

John

[Terry Waters-Marsh]

the point being that if you put commercial constraints on a transcription, it doesn't matter who's doing it, they just can't afford the time to spend on the ones that need a good looking at to decipher.
Without starting World War 3 Terry, where does the 2-3% figure come from with regard to the 1881 census transcription? My own experience would make that figure a lot higher. Then of course, 2-3% of what? Folios, pages, households, words?

John
John,

The figure of 2-3% is determined by other groups (like SOG, FHS, LDS) taking a sample across the index and testing with their own experts against the original images. For those familiar with statistical analysis and quality assurance processes, such a sampling process will produce an indicative figure - similar to the error factor in other sampling processes. The shortcoming of such statistical sampling techniques is that they test a representative sample of the whole population, not the whole population. Therefore, it is possible to find in the whole population, areas where the error rate is significantly larger than the indicative rate. What that boils down to is that even if the LDS and the FreeCEN projects have a low 2-3% (indicative) error rate, it will be possible to find instances within the whole population where the error rate is higher.

Bottom line is, as Ann stated and most competent family researchers know, always check the transcription against the original source for accuracy.

[John]

John,

The figure of 2-3% is determined by other groups (like SOG, FHS, LDS) taking a sample across the index and testing with their own experts against the original images.
Hi Terry, this is really going where I've been too many times before. Without knowing the parameters for the check, the results are pretty meaningless.
I heartily endorse your observation that any transcript should be viewed as an index and the results checked back.


John

[Lindad]

Hey, guys! This is a thread about Lost Cousins, a new site with lots of potential. If you all want to discuss the merits or otherwise of the 1881 census vs pay-per-view sites... please start another thread!

[John]

Hey, guys! This is a thread about Lost Cousins, a new site with lots of potential. If you all want to discuss the merits or otherwise of the 1881 census vs pay-per-view sites... please start another thread!
Well, yes, agreed, however, it does have some relevance to lost cousins, it reinforces the need to be accurate in the information added to the site and reminds that that information may be flawed.


John

[Lindad]

Nearly all of the information we have available is flawed... and we know that our ancestors lied, cheated and absconded when it came to giving information to the census enumerators - and that's before anyone even begins to try and transcribe what was written down. That's why all of the information we get has to be confirmed from other sources... and why most of us have either gone grey since we started this lark or have less hair altogether than when we began.

So, bearing all this in mind, why is everyone suddenly leaping up and down about the vagaries of information on the 1881?

And, no, you shouldn't feel that you have to answer that question!

If anyone new to genealogy is reading all this, I'd encourage you to give Lost Cousins AND the 1881 census a go. The latter is a fantastic resource (even if it isn't 100% perfect), and the former really does have lots of potential.

[John]

So, bearing all this in mind, why is everyone suddenly leaping up and down about the vagaries of information on the 1881?

And, no, you shouldn't feel that you have to answer that question!

.
But when has that ever stopped me :D

Though on the surface Terry and I might appear to be arguing, we are both saying exactly the same thing, the 1881 census transcription is a wonderful resource, but use it as an index to check the original and remember all the stages at which errors can creep in, right from the original householder giving false information.

John

[Patrisia]

May I endorse Genes Reunited too.
It is a very small fee to pay for potential results. It is possible to post an entire gedcom but even with a condensed version of my tree, I have been contacted by two direct *cousins* and two more married-ins, and that, in just under a year.
Just a small point, some of these contacts had never been on any Lists, just posted/searched on county surname boards etc
So anything that brings all the twigs together, is worth it IMHO. The only thing to watch out for, is those places that are over-priced or downright rip-offs.
Patrisia

[Peter Goodey]

Before anyone gives money to genes reunited, they would be well advised to register first (free) and trawl very critically through the recorded names. It's pretty easy to assess whether there's someone else with an overlapping interest and also - just as important - whether the person on the other end is a serious researcher. You have to bear in mind the pedigree of genes reunited (an offshoot of friendsreunited) which means that it is not exclusively populated by genuine genealogical researchers.

Lost cousins, on the other hand, has its own built-in filtering mechanism whereby you can be pretty sure that any contacts are genuine enough to have at least got as far back as 1881. I'm convinced that lostcousins has more potential for us but it remains to be seen how things pan out - being better doesn't guarantee long-term success!

[Londonwhay]

Goodness! I didn't realise that such an innocent thread would create such heat!!

Glenda, what is the name of your COLE ancestor... and you do have the names of their parents and/or siblings?

Maybe they were visiting elsewhere when the census was taken. It would be worth checking the entries for Norfolk, Essex and Huntingdonshire as well.
Hi Lindad,

I was looking for Christopher COLE, born in Haverhill 1853. By the time of the 1881 census his parents were dead and he was unmarried. He was living in West Ham in the 1871 census. I have tried a bare bones search of Cole, all counties, 1853 +/- 2 and still not found him.

Glenda

[ruthrrr]

Speaking of which, I recently looked at Genes reunited. It has a small annual registration fee :( but it does give one the opportunity to hang branches of their family out there to see if anyone else is trying to shake the same branch. Just another possible for readers to consider.

Can I just say that, after being initially dubious, I am now a big fan of this site. |woohoo| I have made contact with someone who shares the same GGG Grandparents after searching the site and finding that they listed several of the same names. I have been able to give her some info that she did not know whilst have received info back.

[Peggy]

Thanks to Lindad, I wandered off to the Lost Cousins pages and had a go. I couldn't find any information on the competition, but being competitive by nature and constantly urged to enter more people, I kept adding them.

I'm in the USA. I have one direct ancestress on the 1881. (Her daughter, my G-GM, left in the 1860s.) I've found 1 other daughter and 1 grandchild. That's 3. But the direct ancestress had aunts and uncles who had children, and siblings who had children. There were also a few cousins from an Anglo-Irish line in England by then. I made it to 49 before I had to resort to a half 4th cousin twice removed. <g> I wouldn't have believed that I could find 50 blood relatives on the 1881. But if I can do it, with only the one line that goes to 19th century England. . . !

I did have people I just couldn't find. But nowhere near as many as are missing on the 1880 US census!

[Peggy]

I can report that the system works. My distant cousin in Kent signed on and entered our connecting ancestor, and we were both promptly notified of a match.

[John]

I can report that the system works. My distant cousin in Kent signed on and entered our connecting ancestor, and we were both promptly notified of a match.
It certainly does work, but my sister is now my cousin:confused:

john

[Peggy]

[QUOTE=John]It certainly does work, but my sister is now my cousin:confused:

<G> Maybe they should call it Lost Relatives. I entered marriages, so could even get a few Lost In-Laws. There is the problem that we aren't likely to find any unknown relatives until some people not already scouring the internet in pursuit of the family tree come along. For now, those who sign up are likely to be the usual suspects, and already Found.

[John]

For now, those who sign up are likely to be the usual suspects, and already Found.Peggy, I can't entirely agree with you there. For example, I know the main lines that a lot of my familiars are researching, I don't know all the minor lines. It is quite possible that there are connections that have just not been spotted.

John

[Peggy]

[QUOTE=John]Peggy, I can't entirely agree with you there. For example, I know the main lines that a lot of my familiars are researching, I don't know all the minor lines. It is quite possible that there are connections that have just not been spotted.

John, I stand corrected. You are quite right. I think that this is an advantage of the Lost Cousins site. People are encouraged to trace the siblings of ancestors, and not concentrate only on direct lines. Doing just that, as well as looking at the in-laws, has often led me back to finding information about my direct lines. I'm still trying to pin down a "cousin" living with my widowed ancestress in 1891. I suspect that she is related only to the late husband, but she might turn out to be from my side of the family.