* Another Findmypast 1921 census discount

[LornaCraig]

Findmypast are offering a 50% discount on access to the 1921 England and Wales census for another short period.
The offer ends at 23.59 BST on Monday 29th August.

[Mark1834]

Thanks Lorna, always welcome. My approach for the 1921 Census is to buy images for direct ancestors and create specific sources, but for the rest I have a single lumped source with about 70 outline citations that I will flesh out when their “first to market” premium ends.

I can’t remember how long it was before the 1939 Register was included in regular FMP subscriptions, but it took over 2 years to become available on Ancestry. No reason to think the 1921 census contract is the same, but I suspect we’ll have to carry on paying for a while yet.

[ColeValleyGirl]

The LostCousins newsletter has just pointed out that each household in the 1921 census is likely to be viewed a handful of times, if that, because it's so recent. So the cost to be recovered per image is higher, and it might be a while before it's included in a subscription.

[jimlad68]

I have not looked at the details that closely but how come the 1950 USA census is provided FREE to all, even by the likes of Ancestry, scanned and OCRed so transcription will not be as good, but will improve. A quick search gives https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1950

I mostly blame the UK-GRO for trying to "over monetise" OUR DATA, resulting in a monopoly for 1 company that does not even offer a subscription, just the insidious pay per view.
e.g. Why do we have to pay so much for UK- GRO BMD certs when the likes of Ancestry/FMP could easily offer then with a subscription. It is ironic that many of the Marriage details they sell at exorbitant prices are included with Ancestry/FMP and completely free via the likes of "Online Parish Clerks"
I understand that the situation is much worse in Scotland.

[Mark1834]

Do you really expect the taxpayer to subsidise your hobby? That's what you are asking for, as somebody has to pay to convert millions of paper sheets to an online database.

[AdrianBruce]

... how come the 1950 USA census is provided FREE to all, ...

Probably because the Church of Latter Day Saints gets in there first. If they weren't going to do it but leaving it to the commercial web-sites, I doubt that the rest of the stuff would be as cheap. And remember please that the LDS aren't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts but to populate their Church in the Afterlife - or so they see it. (What's the phrase? If something is for free, then you are the product... In this case, you're working for the LDS)

And who's paying the poor so-and-sos who write the software for these so-called free sites? (Yes, I did work in IT)

[jimlad68]

Mark, I don't expect the taxpayer to subsidise my hobby, but I don't think the GRO should make us pay over the odds for OUR Data. How can the likes of Ancestry/FMP offer all those equivalent parish record marriages as part of the subscription when the GRO charges £7 (or thereabouts) for each marriage PDF. I was making the comparison with the 1950 USA census which is available to all for free. Whilst the government, or someone else, may have paid for the scanning, they seem to have a much more efficient way of doing it OR they are not "Over monetising" it.

[AdrianBruce]

But "our data" is available for free if we go down to Kew. So we're not paying over the odds for that. What we are paying for is the ability to do that at any time from our armchair. We're paying for people like me 13y ago to work on software for the site. Because funnily enough I liked being paid. (No, I didn't work on those sites, I'm just illustrating).

Yes, there are free sites that do genealogy - perhaps most notable is Irishgenealogy.ie, the government site. But I'd ask if you've ever tried to use it for the more sophisticated questions like - find births to X and Y?

I would suggest that payment for "our data" is just the smallest part - it's the rest of the package that drives everything. And one of those aspects is the security and confidentiality of "our data" - it appears that all the rules around that aspect of the 1921 for England and Wales are responsible for a large part of the costs. And the quality. That's not a commercial thing. Nor is it anyone monetising anything. Security and Confidentiality is generally regarded as "a good thing", in opposition to considerations of filthy lucre. Except we seem to have ended up paying for that as well, ironically.

[BillH]

Probably because the Church of Latter Day Saints gets in there first. If they weren't going to do it but leaving it to the commercial web-sites, I doubt that the rest of the stuff would be as cheap.

Just as clarification Ancestry.com isn't now and has never been owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I wasn't sure what you meant by the sentence.

Bill

[AdrianBruce]

... Just as clarification Ancestry.com isn't now and has never been owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ...

Absolutely - in fact it's usually me that makes that clarification in other places!

What I was trying to convey was that if FamilySearch commits to scanning, indexing and publishing the 1950 for free as far as the US Government is concerned, then this sets constraints on what a commercial operation (such as Ancestry or MyHeritage or...?) is going to be able to do. They're unlikely to get far, e.g., with charging Washington to digitise the 1950. Equally, such an offering sets expectations for consumers like us - what will we spend this week if it'll all be free next year? Depends how "interesting" it is...

[AdrianBruce]

The LostCousins newsletter has just pointed out that each household in the 1921 census is likely to be viewed a handful of times, if that, because it's so recent. So the cost to be recovered per image is higher, and it might be a while before it's included in a subscription.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure I agree. Certainly for me personally, it's true - I'm seeing great-aunts and great-uncles, e.g., who I knew personally, so the discovery angle is not high. But it's still 100y old and everyone rushed to the 1901, e.g., when it first came out in 2002, so much so that, IIRC, the site crashed and had to be taken down for months.

Maybe, however, two things... Firstly in 2002 I was just starting out in genealogy as were lots of others, I suspect. These days I already have most of the 20th century stuff that I really need and also maybe that new influx is no longer there.

And the other thing is that the 1939 Register, aside from infamous quality issues, has fixed the later data - I have many of my older relatives in the 1939 in the houses where I knew them, so there's less incentive to check the 1921, given it is - for me - often just gap filling.

[Gowermick]

One thing that I found different and extremely useful with this census, is that if you have Irish ancestors, their place of birth is more specific. Up until 1911 census, my great grandmother’s birthplace varied between Ireland and Cork, Ireland. The 1921 census narrowed it down to Skibbereen Parish, Cork, Ireland!

[BillH]

What I was trying to convey was that if FamilySearch commits to scanning, indexing and publishing the 1950 for free as far as the US Government is concerned, then this sets constraints on what a commercial operation (such as Ancestry or MyHeritage or...?) is going to be able to do. They're unlikely to get far, e.g., with charging Washington to digitise the 1950. Equally, such an offering sets expectations for consumers like us - what will we spend this week if it'll all be free next year? Depends how "interesting" it is...

Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense.

Bill

[fhtess65]

Have you any idea how much FMP spent on the conservation work alone, not to mention the digitizing? Have you ever done that kind of work? Well, I have, so please be aware that it it cost a LOT of money and I'm glad they paid the archival experts the money they deserved to do the work. Scanning on this level isn't like what we do at home - trust me. I've been involved with a major digitization project. As others have pointed out, should all taxpayers contribute to something only a fraction will use?

No-one actually LIKES paying for records, but after whinging myself in the past, I now understand that at times it's necessary and just suck it up and pay.

Teresa

I mostly blame the UK-GRO for trying to "over monetise" OUR DATA, resulting in a monopoly for 1 company that does not even offer a subscription, just the insidious pay per view.
e.g. Why do we have to pay so much for UK- GRO BMD certs when the likes of Ancestry/FMP could easily offer then with a subscription. It is ironic that many of the Marriage details they sell at exorbitant prices are included with Ancestry/FMP and completely free via the likes of "Online Parish Clerks"
I understand that the situation is much worse in Scotland.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Let us also mention that the amount of experience that the commercial organisations in the UK have doing/managing digitization is orders of magnitude larger that the Civil Service.... And it shows.

DOVE, anyone?

[AdrianBruce]

I've seen it said that part of the reason for the cost, was the need to work under the security and confidentiality rules imposed by the 1920(?) Census Act. Only at the very end, when the 100y was up and those arrangements no longer applied, was FMP able to view and check the whole thing in a sensible manner.

I have no idea how long FMP worked under those rules but I wonder if genealogists would have accepted a delay of "several" months in order to reduce or eliminate working in those more expensive conditions? This assumes, of course, that the delay would have resulted in reduced costs to FMP and therefore reduced prices to us. Big assumption, perhaps.

We might make comparisons with the Scottish 1921 where it will be delayed, though the extent to which this has been due to COVID and other aspects is debatable. I'd have been happy with a delay but that's my personal view.

[jimlad68]

Many thanks for all your observations. It is what it is, whether I like it or not, and I am fortunate that I can afford my genealogy, but I am still careful with costs. And also my apologies for extending the topic by "lighting the blue touch paper", I'm not sure how relevant it is to FH.

- It would be interesting to see the contract with FMP, how the finances were agreed both for GRO and how long they would have a monopoly, monetisation conditions (e.g. Pay per view/ Subscription), and what the GRO copyright etc was worth, why for instance they got it instead of say Ancestry/MyHeritage, did they just offer a better financial deal, better archival etc. For all I know the likes of Ancestry might have thought let FMP do all the dirty work and we will access the scans in a few years.

- Many have mentioned the cost of scanning etc, why should it be any more than previous censuses, or the USA censuses, are we just being more "archival" aware, were they in a very bad state, other than the time element how could the Census act add to the cost.

- My main gripe was with the GRO, and no one has responded to my point "Why do we have to pay so much for UK- GRO BMD certs when the likes of Ancestry/FMP could easily offer then with a subscription. It is ironic that many of the Marriage details they sell at exorbitant prices (£7+ a time) are included with original sources by Ancestry/FMP and completely free via the likes of "Online Parish Clerks" (fair enough the latter use free labour, but presumably willing).

[fhtess65]

- Many have mentioned the cost of scanning etc, why should it be any more than previous censuses, or the USA censuses, are we just being more "archival" aware, were they in a very bad state, other than the time element how could the Census act add to the cost.

As others have said, it seems the stringency of the 1920 census law required strict privacy, which could have had implications for those people doing the scanning - did they need security clearance? That would cost money. I'm just speculating, but having worked for the Canadian Federal Government, I'm familiar with the various levels of security clearance and the admin that goes along with it.

Also, as I said, it's not a matter of slapping the document down and hitting scan - there's a lot that goes into doing archival quality scans, especially with books that have sat for 100+ years. The 1950 census returns, for instance, are 30 years younger. And the US is a different country.

As for the GRO and certs, perhaps it doesn't want to "do a deal" with either Ancestry or FMP, preferring to maintain full control. I've no idea. But again, it is what it is and I'm just happy I can get pdf scans when I absolutely require them - I save money and then splurge every few months.

[Mark1834]

My main gripe was with the GRO, and no one has responded to my point "Why do we have to pay so much for UK- GRO BMD certs when the likes of Ancestry/FMP could easily offer then with a subscription.

OK - I'll have a go

You are not comparing apples with apples. GRO can give you information on all events (bar one or two exceptional cases, I believe). I don't know what fraction of Parish Marriage Registers have been scanned and indexed, but it is far from all of them. So the commercial sites can offer some Parish Marriages as part of their subscription service, and nobody needs to buy the GRO Certificate if the image of the original Parish Register is available.

Secondly, UK law does not permit it. Information in the GRO Registers can only be given in the form of a certified copy, and I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with commercial sites issuing these. There may well be a case for releasing older registers that are probably only used for academic or personal research (rather than legal processes) to the subscription sites, but that would require primary legislation to permit it and it has never been a Government priority. Maybe you should start a Parliamentary petition, or lobby your MP for support....?

[AdrianBruce]

...
- It would be interesting to see the contract with FMP, how the finances were agreed both for GRO and how long they would have a monopoly, monetisation conditions (e.g. Pay per view/ Subscription), and what the GRO copyright etc was worth, why for instance they got it instead of say Ancestry/MyHeritage, did they just offer a better financial deal, better archival etc. For all I know the likes of Ancestry might have thought let FMP do all the dirty work and we will access the scans in a few years.
...

While it might well be interesting to see the contract, I suspect that the chances are zero. That goes across the board for all contracts, in all spheres, inside genealogy and outside. Those are procurement rules designed to protect ... someone.

Re length of exclusive access - there is a standard time-period, but I've forgotten what it is. Five years? Maybe more...

Monetisation conditions re PPV or subs? Will be absolutely nothing to do with TNA (not GRO, by the way...). There's an idea that some people have (and I'm not suggesting that you think this, Jim) that TNA have an obligation to put stuff onto the Internet - I very much doubt any such obligation exists - if it did then TNA would be paying their contractor, which doesn't happen - unless any of you know different! (I know some university professors got all exercised about paying PPV for access. Yeah. Welcome to the real world....)

Why FMP got it? Commercial considerations, again not to be divulged, I suspect.

"For all I know the likes of Ancestry might have thought let FMP do all the dirty work and we will access the scans in a few years..." Well, yes. If they could see the confidentiality workload, they might have taken one step back. But FMP probably could not be told that - standard procurement rules.

...
- Many have mentioned the cost of scanning etc, why should it be any more than previous censuses, or the USA censuses, are we just being more "archival" aware, were they in a very bad state, other than the time element how could the Census act add to the cost.
...

I think we all seem to be implying that the cost is more than the last time. IIRC, the WDYTYA Facebook site quoted the price of the 1911 when it first appeared and there was little difference. I could be wrong there and I suspect that the 1911 bundled the transcript in with the image price, but frankly I have zero idea why people want the transcript if they have the image.

As for the US censuses, without the security and confidentiality rules that we have, you can't compare costs.

...
- My main gripe was with the GRO, and no one has responded to my point "Why do we have to pay so much for UK- GRO BMD certs when the likes of Ancestry/FMP could easily offer then with a subscription. It is ironic that many of the Marriage details they sell at exorbitant prices (£7+ a time) are included with original sources by Ancestry/FMP and completely free via the likes of "Online Parish Clerks" (fair enough the latter use free labour, but presumably willing).

I've ignored it because the deal for the census is with TNA, not the GRO, who have handed the whole thing over. Availability of GRO certificates is a whole different ball game - GRO follow utterly their own interpretation of the rules and their interpretation is paramount. Remember, they won't even let the indexes out online beyond a certain date because they believe that they have no authority to do so. They won't allow anyone outside GRO and local Superintendent RO staff to access the certificates, so the big suppliers will never be allowed to offer them in the forseeable. This isn't about commerce, this is about confidentiality. And if you think that the situation in England & Wales is bad, see what it's like in the USA. Some states have employees who want to shut down all genealogical access to BMD certificates, even when the state laws are clear that access should be allowed - see the various campaigns of Reclaim the Records. And in other states, certificates over a certain age are online in Ancestry (e.g. Montana).

The US situation is not helped by politicians who have just read Day of the Jackal, think they understand identity theft, and want to get their reputation by stopping access to BMDs. It's zero to do with confidentiality and all to do with their political reputation. (Last I heard, no identity theft had been proven through genealogical access to BMD certificates and a lot of the measures are actually counter-productive because people can't check if supposed claimants are still alive or not.) I'm just waiting for these ideas to cross the Atlantic into our "Blob" of "clever" people who want to protect us from ourselves.

As Helen mentioned earlier, the GRO had intended the DOVE digitisation of England & Wales BMDs to provide similar access to GRO certificates as GRO (Scotland) do in ScotlandsPeople. Unfortunately, GRO's DOVE crashed and burned, so don't hold your breath.

[ColeValleyGirl]

As Helen mentioned earlier, the GRO had intended the DOVE digitisation of England & Wales BMDs to provide similar access to GRO certificates as GRO (Scotland) do in ScotlandsPeople. Unfortunately, GRO's DOVE crashed and burned, so don't hold your breath.

IIRC, the B & D PDFs we can order are the only output from the DOVE project (which was canned before they got to marriages). And the back end process for providing them may be completely manual, because the infrastructure for serving them over the 'net was never designed or built.

[RS3100]

Why FMP got it? Commercial considerations, again not to be divulged, I suspect.

I recall reading, around the time that the 1921 census was being released, that TNA invited tenders for the contract, setting out their requirements for the transcription and digitising of the census, and inviting bids from interested parties. The contract was not simply awarded to the lowest bidder. FMP were apparently chosen in part because of their handling of previous similar TNA contracts.

But I assume that FMP, along with other interested parties, would have carried out a full business assessment to include what they were prepared to pay and an estimation of how, when and to what extent they could recover their outlay under their business model, balanced against a need to make their bid attractive.

I recall it being a long article. It may have been on the TNA website or linked in a Lost Cousins newsletter. I can't remember now.

[mjashby]

For the original Tender process see https://www.government-online.net/tende ... licensing/

But:

"To demonstrate eligibility to be considered for this tender, potential Suppliers must demonstrate:
a) Experience of managing and completing large scale digitisation projects of heritage material
b) Online publication of heritage material specifically for use by the Family History Market
c) Viable commercial models that return an income stream to licensor partners
The National Archives intends to shortlist a maximum of five potential suppliers to be invited to tender, subsequent to the evaluation of the Standard Selection Questionnaires received."

[jimlad68]

I was not intending to carry on with this topic and hope not to any more other than in a more "relevant" environment.

For the original Tender process see .....
....
c) Viable commercial models that return an income stream to licensor partners

So it does look like The National Archives (TNA) was purposely looking to make money from the "Family History Market", presumably more than there other "less marketable" items. So every time you purchase a 1921 census item you may be happy that you are subsidising other collections!

I also noticed this link regarding Freedom of information (FOI)
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/abo ... licensing/
Very enlightening in its lack of enlightenment. A secret contract with no idea of the future for any other potential providers or customers.