Family Historian User Group

Hi Forum

I used this Plugin today (version 2) to successfully locate the baptism for an Ancestor. I used AS to enter the data into FH. This created a Birth record and a Baptism record. All Good Stuff.

Problem is; if I run the Plugin again the same individual appears apparently still missing BMD information? The Baptism data is precise 26 Feb 1831, so I can only think it is the Birth record where only the Month and Year is available and estimated (est). How can I suppress this individual from appearing in the result set as there is no better info to be found second to the Baptism which is from 1831?

BR

David

Your analysis is correct, and I will investigate possible solutions.
Currently, I think the only way to exclude that case is to remove the Birth Date, but I don't advise that.

I am considering the following adjustment to the criteria.

If a Birth event has an inexact Date and 1st Citation then the Baptism and Christening events are checked for the same 1st Citation and an exact Date. If found, then that Birth/Baptism event is excluded from the lookup search.

An identical check is performed for Death and Burial and Cremation events, regarding Death/Burial lookup.

It appears to work well for pre-1837 UK cases, but for post-1837 UK cases may exclude lookup for a GRO Index if a Baptism/Christening record has been found, but if that is the case surely the GRO Index would have been found at the same time.

It should work OK for other countries, I think.

Hi Mike

That sounds logical to me. One thought though - how to handle the fact that GRO references only started September Quarter 1837? So perhaps that should be the break point.

Or we just accept there could be extra 'hits' in the result set if we just take 1837 as a complete year.

BR

David

Hi Mike

Also what if the Birth Citation (Baptism), is not the 1st Citation? FH does not sort Citations by date as you know.

I have examples where Census Citations are also supporting the Birth information. And if not ordered correctly they can come before the Baptism.

BR

David

I was not proposing special criteria for post-1837 in UK, as it is more straightforward to use same criteria everywhere.
I am trying to avoid making the UK a special case.

I am simply making the point that a Birth with inexact Date & Baptism with exact Date and both citing the same 1st Source will be excluded from the lookup regardless of the year, and so in UK post-Sept-1837 will prevent a GRO Birth Index being discovered via the Plugin. But same is true for Plugin V2.0 if a post-Sept-1837 Baptism Source provides an exact Birth Date, i.e. Birth event with exact Date and a Baptism Source Citation is excluded from search.

The rule that may need emphasising in this Plugin is that only the 1st Citation is examined when checking the criteria.
In V2.0 it only matters for the Quarter Date Source Type check intended for GRO Index exclusion.
In V2.1 it will also matter for these rare Birth/Baptism and also Death/Burial scenarios, but will err on the side of including the lookup search if the matching Citations are not both first. Hopefully the user will spot that and correct the order. Conversely, keeping the 'wrong' order will retain the search for an elusive GRO Index.

Unfortunately, the lookup criteria for this Plugin are far from exact, so some extra or missing searches can be expected.
c.f. The Internet Data Matches 'hints' that are imperfect.
By comparison, Lookup Missing Census Facts has an easier task as only missing Census Events for specific Dates matter.

Hi Mike

Okay - Thanks for the detailed explanation of the intended logic. Not that I fully follow it all.

David

Try attached Lookup Missing BMD Records Version 2.0.1 Date 09 Nov 2016 that implements the discussed criteria.

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

Will do Mike

Thanks

David

Hi Mike

That new version has solved the original problem reported - Thank You.

A new observation if I may, and sorry for only mentioning it now.. The result set for Births and Deaths includes single named individuals. EG, Susan // therefore no surname or /Adams/ no first name.

This sort of makes the web search success questionable as you cannot pin-point the individual in the web search 'hits'. Should this criteria also be applied to suppress single names? Or at least have that as an option setting?

I can understand it being relevant for Marriages to a degree because worst case is you would/should know at least one individual fully so both first and surname would be known, but births and deaths I'm not so sure. What do you think?

BR

David

I am not sure, because if the Name is unusual, and the Date range narrow, and the Place name unusual, and perhaps Parents included, it may still be a worthwhile search.

Anyway, there is no compulsion to actually perform any online search, whatever is listed in the Web Search Page, and if such a search yields too many possibilities, then it can simply be abandoned. Both Ancestry and FMP initial searches are free.

Also by using Named Lists, etc, and Plugin option to selective choose any Individuals, they can be eliminated by user.

Hi Mike

Yes - I take your point, thanks for the reply.

And thanks again for the new plug-in. It whittled my search list for Births/Baptisms down from 190 records to 92.

BR

David

Hi Mike

Having had time to think on the single name issue. Can I respectfully put forward an opposing argument in that most of my ancestors are of Welsh origin and have very common names such as Evan Evans and Robert Roberts, many have surnames of Davies or Jones. So with the logic as it is the 'hit' rate and possible success of finding the correct record would be quite low, despite Date and Place being used as supporting evidence.

Could I therefore request that the inclusion of single First names or single Surnames be an option setting.

BR

David

What about my observation that there is no compulsion to actually perform any online search, whatever is listed in the Web Search Page, so why not simply ignore those Individuals listed with common single names?

A similar argument could be put forward for common names such as John SMITH, so where to draw the line?

If an option along the lines you request were included, what about multiple forenames with no surname, or double-barrelled surnames with no forenames?
In other words, exactly what is your definition of a single forename and a single surname?
Be aware that you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because despite most names being very common, using such an option will exclude uncommon single names too.

Okay - I can see this isn't going anywhere...

My point was that it was then a User Choice to see these types of names in the Result. And can be turned on or off.

I'll stand down from this one.

BR

David

Sorry - forgot to mention I do not fully understand how complex this could become as you say - handling double barrelled names etc.


David

I am not totally opposed to the idea, but I like to discuss the finer points, to ensure I have understood your criteria before committing to writing Plugin code, only to discover I had misunderstood. There are similar ramifications for the Lookup Missing Census Facts Plugin that I plan to update with several of the concepts introduced by this BMD Plugin.

So I am looking for your clarification of exactly what consitututes your stated "single First names or single Surnames"?

Feedback from anyone else would also be welcome.

Thank you Mike

I'll put together my thoughts.. And some examples.

David

To keep things moving I have a prototype Lookup Missing BMD Records Plugin Version 2.0.2 Date 11 Nov 2016 with a too few Name parts option.

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

The rules for testing too few Name parts are as follows:

• Any Name parts enclosed in [square brackets] are removed, as this is a common convention for recording the Husband's Surname for married women whose Maiden Name is unknown, and also allows for other unknown names to be ignored.
• Punctuation marks such as - in hyphenated names, or ? used for unknown names, are replaced by space characters.
• The resulting Name is split into non-blank space separated components.
• If there are fewer than 2 components then the person is excluded from the Result Set lookup search page.

Hi Mike

Thank you very much. Sorry I have not come back with any criteria - just a bit busy with work issues right now.

BR

David

Hi Mike

That works a treat. Exactly what I was after. Thanks so much.

BR

David

That is good.
It evens copes with a scenario not considered until I started coding the changes.
If a married woman only has a single Forename and no Surname, she would normally be excluded by the new option.
BUT for Death/Burial events she gains her husband's Surname and so is included.

Hi Mike

Very nice. Smart thinking. I hadn't got that far in my scenarios.

Br

David

Try attached Lookup Missing BMD Records Plugin Version 2.0.3 Date 13 Nov 2016.
It has altered Result Set for Individual names to match Lookup Web Page for Individual's Names plus a few minor changes to the wording of the Exclude each person ... tick options.

Try attached Lookup Missing Census Facts Plugin Version 4.0.2 Date 13 Nov 2016.
This has adopted many of the new features in the BMD records Plugin, such as correcting the EstimatedBirthDate, excluding short Names, improved Result Set columns, using all Given Names in FMP searches, etc.

Let me know if you find any problems or discover any benefits with the new Plugins.

[EDIT: Attachments deleted as both Plugins are now updated in Plugin Store.]

Thank you Mike

I will take a look today and come back with any findings.

BR

David