Choice of Layer 1 - census vs. the site that delivers the image

By ajbillig on Mon, 01/06/2025 - 12:10

Forums

Hello EE,

I've found the forum responses and quick lessons very helpful supplements to EE3 and EE4 - thank you.

I have been trying to better grasp the circumstances under which I would place an original census (or other) record in Layer 1 versus the database at which the image was accessed. Many of my records are from the UK and I began with EE4 7.48, which choses the latter approach for an image from the 1901 Wales census (p. 273) and the former for an image from the 1841 England census (p. 274). The point is made that for the latter, FindMyPast has a website structure that combines images from many different sources into a single database. In contrast, there is a "1901 Wales Census" database on Ancestry that is rather more specific. I could do with one more logical step being spelt out as to why those properties lend themselves to the citation methods chosen.

One reason I ask is because the Ancestry census examples for Canada (7.47 on p. 272), France (7.49 on p. 275), and Germany (7.50 on p. 276) have the census itself in Layer 1, even though these also seem to be specific databases. The other factor that I've seen discussed as a reason to cite the database in Layer 1 is if one cannot adequately establish the identity of the record or its archival arrangement from the image at Ancestry, as discussed for a marriage record case at https://www.evidenceexplained.com/node/2349. I don't think this applies for the above "1901 Wales Census" case (from EE4 7.48 p. 273) as the image in question (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7815/images/MONRG13_4942_4945-0255) does include the Public Record Office reference "RG13/4943". The EE example places this information in to Layer 3 as part of the "citing" element, but isn't it sufficient to allow the census record itself to find itself in Layer 1?

I have also considered Quick Lesson 26, which was very helpful, and appreciate from other posts that this might be a case of judgment being needed rather than there being a "right" or "wrong". Nonetheless, if you can shed any further light on the above it would help me hone my judgment!

With best wishes,

Alex

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 01/07/2025 - 09:50

Hello, Alex. Welcome.

The reality we deal with as historians is this:  Historical records were not created and organized according to a universal format from which no one could deviate. The archives that house those records today do not have one immutable pattern that’s followed worldwide—or even by every archive within one nation. The websites that are created to deliver those records online are not built on one sole architectural structure from which no IT engineer can deviate.

Within the records we use, there’s an infinite variety of situations. Therefore, there cannot be one rigid pattern that must be used for any category of records or any country. One rigid pattern is possible with published books and articles.  That is not possible with historical records, whether we use them as manuscripts, microfilm, or digital images online.

EE provides examples for handling the most common situations.  It cannot say: When Conditions 1, 2, or 3 exist at Site X, Y, or Z, then this is the exact formula to follow.  It cannot say “when using this census from this country, it must be done this way.” Any such dictate would be unworkable.

As researchers, we use manuals such as EE to inform ourselves about these original manuscript records and digital deliveries—along with their quirks and the way deviations might be handled.  Then we study each specific record we use and decide what approach works best for the record set we are using.

As a working example, how about this:

(1)

  • Choose an entry from the 1901 Wales census, as delivered by FindMyPast.
  • Construct two First Reference Note citations for this entry: one with the census in Layer 1 and one with the census in Layer 2.

(2)

  • Then do the same for the 1901 Wales census, as delivered by Ancestry.

That's the best way to see what works, what doesn't and why.  If you want to extend the experiment, try this:

  • Choose an entry from any two censuses, from two different countries, imaged at FamilySearch (where all our readers have free access).
  • Pick one census that is in a named database and one that is not.
  • Then construct two First Reference Note citations for each: one with the census in Layer 1 and one with the census in Layer 2.  

After this exercise, if you care to share the results with us, with your thoughts and additional questions, I suspect the further discussion would help all our readers.

Submitted byajbilligon Wed, 01/08/2025 - 04:51

Dear EE,

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In the following I have used an example from the England rather than Wales 1901 census, as it is more relevant to my current research. I've attached the relevant image from Ancestry and the direct links can be found later in the thread. Here are my initial efforts at First Reference Note citations:

FindMyPast - census in Layer 1

1901 census of England, Islington (Registration district), Highbury (Registration sub-district), folio 122 (stamped) recto, page 1 (printed), schedule 1, Cedric [Smith] in household of Sidney Smith; imaged, “1901 England, Wales & Scotland Census”, FindMyPast (https://search.findmypast.co.uk/search-world-records/1901-england-wales-and-scotland-census : accessed 8 January 2025), search terms Cedric Smith (Who), 1889 -/+ 2yrs (Birth year), Islington London Middlesex England Exact (Location in 1901), Sidney Smith (Other household member); citing The National Archives, RG13, piece 200.

FindMyPast - database in Layer 1

“1901 England, Wales & Scotland Census,” database with images, FindMyPast (https://search.findmypast.co.uk/search-world-records/1901-england-wales-and-scotland-census : accessed 8 January 2025), search terms Cedric Smith (Who), 1889 -/+ 2yrs (Birth year), Islington London Middlesex England Exact (Location in 1901), Sidney Smith (Other household member): folio 122 (stamped) recto, page 1 (printed), schedule 1, Cedric [Smith] in household of Sidney Smith; citing The National Archives, RG13, piece 200.

Ancestry - census in Layer 1

1901 census of England, Islington (registration district), Highbury (registration sub-district), folio 122 (stamped) recto, page 1 (printed), schedule 1, Cedric [Smith] in household of Sidney Smith; imaged, "1901 England Census", Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/7814 : accessed 8 January 2025) > London > Islington > Highbury > District 28 > image 2 of 56; citing The National Archives, RG13, piece 200.

Ancestry - database in Layer 1

"1901 England Census," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/7814 : accessed 8 January 2025) > London > Islington > Highbury > District 28 > image 2 of 56: folio 122 (stamped) recto, page 1 (printed), schedule 1, Cedric [Smith] in household of Sidney Smith; citing The National Archives, RG13, piece 200.

Comments and questions

  1. In both FindMyPast and Ancestry I could fully determine the nature of the record and how it is archived from the image series (including by browsing to an earlier image of folio 119 recto to determine the Registration and Sub-registration districts). As a result I felt comfortable putting the census itself in Layer 1.

  2. In all cases I have provided the link to the database/record set, not just the site (FindMyPast or Ancestry), c.f. EE4 p.274, 7.48 “Online Images (FindMyPast)” example. I have added search terms (FindMyPast) or wayfinders (Ancestry). It would have been more concise to link to the specific record (https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record/browse?id=GBC/1901/0200-0201/0249 for FindMyPast or https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/21400065:7814 for Ancestry) but I don’t know whether either site claim that these are permanent (although perhaps the same can be said of the database / record set).

  3. To determine the shortest form of the specific record link in FindMyPast I hovered over adjacent images in the thumbnail list.

  4. The FindMyPast record set is of a different kind to the Ancestry database in that it cannot be drilled into, level by level.

  5. In combining the nations of Great Britain, FindMyPast’s record set name is quite distant from the more standard  “1901 census of England”, which doesn’t end up getting a mention in the citation version in which I place the database in Layer 1.

  6. In that same citation version I used a colon rather than comma before the details of the record of interest, as I am already using commas to separate search terms. In both the FindMyPast citations I omitted commas and brackets that appear in particular search fields or values on the site, as I am already using those punctuation marks to separate search terms or to state the search field.

  7. I have used editorial square brackets around Cedric's surname, which does not appear directly in the image but can be inferred by the use of "Do" i.e. ditto. Perhaps a different bracket type would be more appropriate.

  8. I wasn’t entirely clear in which layer or layers to include folio, or how to choose between including folio and page, or both. I appreciate their difference in the context of England census records, and note that the folio number would not have been added until the records reached the authority that took custody of them.

  9. In looking at EE examples to handle folio and page I found an apparent typo in the example on p.274 for 7.48, both in the first reference note and the source list entry. These say that  FindMyPast is incorrectly citing HO107/733/3/12/18, when it is in fact correctly citing HO107/732/10/44/20. Or maybe FindMyPast was indeed wrong in October 2023 when the EE citation was put together.

  10. I have put the series RG13 and piece 200 in the “citing” layer in all cases, although these appear in the images themselves. Could/should they belong earlier in the citation? Or does the fact that they appear in the images simply mean I should be comfortable not putting them in quotation marks in the “citing" layer?

As this is already a long post I will save your proposed follow-up experiment with FamilySearch images for a later comment!

With many thanks, Alex

Upload a document
Household of Sidney Smith in 1901 census of England (Ancestry)