search

ShammyLevva / FTAnalyzer

Family Tree Analyzer - Finds hidden details in your family tree. Install at
http://www.ftanalyzer.com/install
Apache License 2.0
54 stars 22 forks source link

Census Reference Info flexibilty #323

Open EmmArrBee opened 6 months ago

EmmArrBee commented 6 months ago

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. On various reports I'm seeing some items with valid Piece, Folio & Page numbers but for others only a valid Piece and Folio numbers with "Page: Missing".

I'm sure we all format our census sources in various different ways and I know over time mine have evolved.

My entries with all three valid numbers are typically of the form (a) RG11, Piece 1234, Folio 999x, Page 99, PDF-Pg 999 where "x" after the folio number is either f (for Face) or r (for Reverse) or (b) RG11, Piece 1234, Folio 999x, Page 99 or the more explicit form (c) RG11, Piece 1234, Folio 999 xxxx, Page 99 where "xxxx" is either face or reverse.

More recently I've been using the format (d) RG11, Piece 1234, Folio 999 xxxx, Page 99, Schedule 999 and these entries seem to get reported as "Page: Missing" . For example, from GEDCOM 2 SOUR @S408@ 3 PAGE RG11, Piece 1208, Folio 60 face, Page 13, Schedule 71

Describe the solution you'd like Would it be possible to make the parsing of the Census Reference more flexible to cope?

Describe alternatives you've considered I'd prefer to stick with my current format and who knows how and when it might evolve further....

Additional context Happy to provide GEDCOM extracts if that would help.

ShammyLevva commented 6 months ago

There is a feature on the census tab to export unrecognised census references as a text file (bottom middle). That should create a text file of all unrecognised or part missing references. If you highlight examples of the text from that, which should be recognised as full references I can check the patterns to see why they aren’t being recognised and add a new pattern.

Ideally if there is a particular pattern that can be added that would then pickup dozens of examples that’s the ideal as suddenly the list of unrecognised will shrink significantly.

Nichotj commented 6 months ago

Just to add to this, on the full gedcom I sent you recently you can see many examples of:- Canadian 1921 census is not recognised. Canadian 1891 census is not recognised. Canadian 1931 census is not recognised. US 1950 census is not recognised. US 1850 census is not recognised. US 1860 census is not recognised. US 1870 census is not recognised.

EmmArrBee commented 5 months ago

Apologies for the delay in responding, the past couple of weeks have been a bit busy :-)

From the Lost Cousins tab, the 1881 E&W Census button shows 12 rows, of which the first two show a Census Reference with a seemingly valid page number. They are for the same individual (my ref I2131) but based on two discrete Family Id references.

The remaining ten entries are for six discrete people, four have two families references, so two rows each and the remaining two individuals two have just one row. The respective Census Reference column entries are

I then looked at the Unrecognised/Missing Census Refs as you suggested.

I have to admit, I'm a bit confused by what I'm finding and not finding and yes, I did take note of the disclaimer at the top of the export file. The file has 261 numbered rows and for the moment I'm just going to focus on the 1881 related entries of which I'm seeing just four entries.

155: Unknown Census Ref RG11 Pece 3102 Folio 8 face Page 7 SN 45 156: Unknown Census Ref RG11 Piece 1142 Folio ??r Page 24 PDF-Page 244 157: Unknown Census Ref RG11 Piece 1206 Piece reverse Page 12 SN 71 HoH not present Emily's relationship is given as "Wife" even though she is first person listed on the SN Hoh Not Present Emily's Relationship is Given as "Wife" Even Though She is First Person Listed on The SN 158: Unknown Census Ref RG11 Piece 2846 Folo 28 face Page 49 SN 229

The first one (155) is clearly a typo error I've made in the spelling of Piece and should be in this list. Likewise the last one (158) also has a typo in the spelling of Folio The second one (156) looks good, although it has ?? in place of the Folio number, none of the adjacent pages have a readable number. The third one (157) lack a Folio number.

BUT what's really confusing me is that none of these four entries seem to relate to the entries on the 1881 LC report.

Happy to share PDF print of the 1881 E&W LC report and /or the "Unrecognised & Missing Census References"with you privately.

In the mean time I'll correct my typos in the software I'm using ....

M