Family Historian User Group

Hi Mike

No issues so far with the output, except that the searches don't yield what I want, but that's not your problem

One observation - if you can help with this. The result set generated in FH cannot be saved as a custom query, so I can't add the known parents to the output. Can this be fixed either by adding the parents to the standard query definition or fixing the problem whereby the query can be saved as a custom query? Preferably both if you are not too busy.

BR

David

On a technical point, the Result Set is produced by the Plugin and not by a Custom Query.

I could adapt the Plugin to add any of the columns from the Lookup Web Page to the Result Set.

You can also print/save the Result Set in various file formats.

What is your purpose for including the parents when they are already listed in the Lookup Web Page and included in the Search criteria for young single persons.

Hi Mike

I want to send the output to a professional researcher in MS Excel adding some notes where necessary to help her along.

David

Hi Mike

I have noticed that the result set includes individuals where the Baptism is known and has a precise date, but the birth date is calculated from the Baptism fact and well before 1837. I thought this was fixed in the first Plug-In adjustment you made?

See attached.

BR

David

Hi Mike

Re the Result set Query issue. The result set states it is a Standard Query, I wish to save it as Custom query if possible. For the reasons given.

David

The Birth/Baptism scenario requires the 1st Citation to be the same for both the Birth and Baptism event as established by AS. If both Citations were set up by AS, then I suspect that they are not the 1st Citations for both events.

Regarding the Result Set/Web Page columns, have you considered sending the HTML web page using the technique explained in the Help in FAQ for Can the Lookup Web Page be used at a library?

In FH V5 it used to say the Result Set was a Custom Query, but now in FH V6 it says it is a Standard Query (read only), and they are both misnomers because it is a Plugin Result Set. There are no Columns or Rows tab expressions. The Result Set is created directly from the Plugin and in many cases would be impossible with a Query. Perhaps that misnomer needs to be reported to Calico Pie?

However, I can see that adding the parent Columns would be useful and will add them in the next Plugin version.

Hi Mike

Solved the issue with the Baptism. There were two Birth Facts one based on the Death Cert which contradicted the Birth Date based on the Baptism. Sorry for this I should have checked further.

Re the HTML web page solution - that page does not have the possible birth place. Most Professional Researchers I use only have Resources in certain areas. IE, in the UK - Herefordshire or Gloucestershire. So it helps to provide the possible Birth/Baptism place. The Plug-In result set does this but the web page does not. That's why I was using the Excel sheet to add the parents to the output of the plug-in which already gave the possible place.

So stumped in both directions...

David

The HTML page does have the Event County & Country encoded in the ancestry/findmypast column search and if the search is invoked the details are visible, but admittedly it is a bit devious.

Anyway try attached Lookup Missing BMD Records Plugin Version 2.0.4 Date 16 Nov 2016.

It adds Life Dates, Mother & Father columns to Result Set and fixes a bug when Project File Root is undefined when Anyone via Select Records dialogue option is chosen.

[EDIT: Attachment deleted as Plugin is now in Plugin Store.]

Thank you Mike

You are a star and relentless is your pursuit for perfection and helping us FH users.

Creeping I know. But thank you seriously.

David

Updated Lookup Missing BMD Records Plugin Version 2.1 Date 22 Nov 2016 is now in the Plugin Store.

It adds a refinement I have just spotted when reviewing Death/Burial records to exclude Individuals with the Living Flag.

Just found a minor issue with this plugin.

The GRO data for an individual is for a more recent birth where they give not only the quarter, but also the month of registration so I have his birth as "May 1986". When I run the plugin it lists the person as missing birth source. If I temporarily change the birth date to "Q2 1986" it doesn't report it.

John, have you set the Quarter Date Source Type text?
That works in conjunction with BMD Events with a Quarter Date and matching GRO Citation to prevent them being listed.
See the Help page https://pluginstore.family-historian.co ... is_missing.

However, as you say, that does not cater for recent GRO entries that are recorded Monthly instead of Quarterly.
Let me think about possible solutions.

Yes, I've set that (that's why it didn't report it when I changed it to Q2).

tatewise wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2023 21:16

Let me think about possible solutions.

No sweat. To enable me to exclude people I've already checked I've created a list "GRO Birth checked". When I run the plugin I use a query to select the records which excludes individuals in the list. Where the plugin isn't recognising the Month date I just add to the list.

Try the attached prototype Lookup Missing BMD Records plugin Version 2.6.1 Date 26 Jan 2023.

The option is now Enter GRO Index Source Type text but works in much the same way as before.
If the event date is any Quarter Date, or any Month in the year 1984 or later, and the Source Type matches, then that event is considered to not have its details missing.

This version has revised the countries provided and updated all the URL search links.
i.e.
Isle of Man, Jersey & Guernsey have given way to British Isles and Germany, Denmark, Norway & Sweden have been added.
FindAGrave.com has been added.

So it would be helpful if you could try as many combinations of new countries, BMD Records, and web sites.

John, does this updated plugin fix the problem you reported regarding Source Text when the Date is a Month & Year after 1984 instead of a Quarter Date?

Has anyone checked the revised URL searches for each of the online websites?

Sorry about the delay in replying, I've had a heap of other stuff to deal with.

I can confirm it has fixed the issue for the individual that prompted my report.

I've come across a funny case that it still reports. The GRO birth index is present (Q3 1910), but the individual also appears in the 1911 census as 9 months, so AS has updated the birth to "Jul 1910 (cal)". I don't think you can fix that as it would need checking that the birth matches the GRO entry - easy for a human, but as people may not be recording the citations in the same way, impossible for you. Solution: a named list, flag or custom attribute to note the records checked and exclude those using a query when selecting the individuals to check.

I'll carry on looking for other anomalies.

The anomaly you quoted is fixable with a small change to your data.

First, ensure that the 'GRO birth index' Source Citation has the Citation-specific entry Date set to the Quarter Date,
which is Q3 1910 in this case. Then the actual Birth Date can be any value.

Second, ensure that the 'GRO birth index' Source Citation is top of the list of Sources For the Birth.
I suspect that AS may have inserted a 1911 Census Source Citation above the 'GRO birth index' Source Citation.

tatewise wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2023 11:24

The anomaly you quoted is fixable with a small change to your data.

First, ensure that the 'GRO birth index' Source Citation has the Citation-specific entry Date set to the Quarter Date,
which is Q3 1910 in this case. Then the actual Birth Date can be any value.

Second, ensure that the 'GRO birth index' Source Citation is top of the list of Sources For the Birth.
I suspect that AS may have inserted a 1911 Census Source Citation above the 'GRO birth index' Source Citation.

I believe AS will add citations after any existing ones, so if AS is the first citation then it's likely AS created the birth fact and the GRO index citation was added afterwards.

I'm obviously not understanding something. I'm putting together a query to find individuals where the source for the GRO birth index is not first which I intend to use as a pre-process to running the plugin. On the basis of that I was expecting your plugin to list a particular individual - but it didn't. Could you explain why please?
The register and the census are both type "Census". The GRO Birth Index is type "Birth" which I've entered in Enter GRO Index Source Type text.

I've done some further testing.

It doesn't report the missing birth index source if the individual has an exact birth date and there is at least one source for birth such as a census.

Is this as intended?

As the source may be just a source for the birth place (ages on censuses are often inaccurate), I'd have expected it to be reported.

John, please check the plugin help and advice regarding the FAQ What factors determine that a BMD Record is missing?

The main rule for considering a BMD Record is missing is: "A relevant Event has an inexact Date or no Citation.
e.g. A Birth Event has an inexact Date.
The exception to that rule is the case of an inexact Quarter/Month Date and GRO Index Citation with a suitable Type.
The inexact Date would normally cause the BMD Record to be listed as missing but the exception prevents that.

The main rule for considering a BMD Record is NOT missing is: "A relevant Event has an exact Date and a Citation.

jelv wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2023 17:18

The register and the census are both type "Census". The GRO Birth Index is type "Birth" which I've entered in Enter GRO Index Source Type text.

That example fits the main rule for considering a BMD Record is NOT missing, i.e. exact Date and Citations.
The exact Date & Place are presumably derived from the 1939 Register, so what better source are you hoping to find online?
The GRO Birth Index has no role to play in this case because the Birth Date is exact and there are other Citations.

jelv wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2023 21:25

It doesn't report the missing birth index source if the individual has an exact birth date and there is at least one source for birth such as a census.

Is this as intended?

As the source may be just a source for the birth place (ages on censuses are often inaccurate), I'd have expected it to be reported.

Yes, that is intended because it fits the main rule for considering a BMD Record is NOT missing.
In the example, the Birth Event has an exact Date and a Citation, so the plugin assumes the Date is derived from the Citation.
But you say the source only confirms the Birth Place as ages are inaccurate, so where does the exact Date come from?
IMO this example is unrealistic.

The dates will have been ones recorded before I got fully in to how data should be recorded and the importance of recording sources. Some will be where the day and month are almost certainly correct as they will be from a relatives birthday diary, but there is doubt over the year. Others may be from Probate records where they state the birth date, but I'd want to verify that by finding the birth registration.

I've seen some 1939 register entries where I know the date is wrong. My grandmothers baptism was a month before the birth date she and everyone believed until the day she died, other baptisms on the same page confirm the baptism date (and the actual date of birth which was recorded as well) is correct. If they had given the correct birth date when it was registered they would have been fined for a late registration, so I suspect that is why they added a month. Because of the way the 1939 register was compiled there's a chance of recording errors, or the date is difficult to read (e.g. annotations over the top). So although the date in the 1939 register is probably correct I'd want some corroboration.

I've seen many cases where the same person in a succession of census, the age doesn't go up in steps of 10, so they can't be relied upon to give the correct year.

One thing that doesn't change is when the birth was registered, or recorded as being registered so that gives absolute proof that the person must have been born that quarter or earlier. So my plan was to try to find everyone's birth registration. Having learnt the error of my early days of family history research, I look for the registration of everyone I add now.

Writing a query to list everyone with a missing registration is easy, but that doesn't do the magic bit you do and generate all the clickable links to initiate the searches. You also do the magic of excluding those probably born overseas.

Would it possible to have a check box to check for the specified source type only?

Remembered overnight there's another reason why I have exact dates which need verification. Very early on, when I had no idea what a source or citation was, I was given a Gedcom by a fairly close family member (1C1R). That had lots of dates in it but no sources whatsoever. I thought they knew what they were doing (they certainly knew more than I did at that time). As time has gone on I've found more and more errors (place and address usage is a particular issue). I'm gradually working though verifying the data and this plugin is one of the tools I intend to use. If I find census records before BMD I will add them.

The point is, yes you are absolutely right, if there is an exact date there should be a source and if there's a source it's not unreasonable to assume it's for the date*. But that is not where I am and may not be where other people are.

*If the only sources are for UK census (not including 1939 Register) that is not a valid assumption.

OK, now I understand your scenario but that does not help with my plugin design.
I suspect a great many of your BMD events have exact Dates.
So what criteria differentiate the BMD events you want to treat as missing records from those with suitable citations already?

The BMD events without citations are already considered as missing records, so the criteria must focus on citations.
Can you suggest what those criteria might be please?

You suggested an option to check for a specified source type only, but I don't understand how that would work.
If the BMD event has any citation of that type is that considered missing records or not?

Maybe you could create a Query that illustrates the criteria to be tested, then the plugin could use similar filters.