Also if anyone has any information on the boycott of the 1911 census in Ireland by the Irish Suffragette/Suffragist movement it would be greatly apreciated! Thanks!

Anyway, I concur with the majority regarding the cost of viewing what was made available in the Beta version, although as an ‘old hand’ family historian (you know, the type who long before computerised Census records were available had to travel up to London - from South Wales - to scroll through page after page of 35mm filmed originals!) For me therefore, the ‘luxury’ of viewing any Census (especially the Beta 1911 version), in the comfort of my own home, without having to travel long distances, pay travel costs and for B+Bs, works out far cheaper on my pocket!

The (rather long) message I had posted on the 22 Dec was as follows;-

“Many thanks for allowing me access to the BETA 1911 census website, and for my being able to see how it is currently operating, as well as for the ability for me to provide feedback - all of which has been much appreciated.

Whilst I appreciate that few counties have been included, in many ways this is better, for at least it did allow me to look at both surnames only as well as at surnames and forenames without being inundated by thousands of results!

Taking the site from its homepage onwards, the ability to search for a person (or a place) is very useful, although the options provided (i.e. First names; Last name; Place of residence, and Year of birth could possibly be supplemented by variances on the surname, as well as on the year of birth, and the addition of a place of birth (two of which, to a certain degree, are actually available when searching from the http://dundee-a.1911census.co.uk/search/tnaform.aspx?4 form itself).

What I did find extremely useful (apart from the ease and speed of the website pages) was that when the search results were provided, it was possible to reduce the number of possible families to a more logical order, by clicking on any one of the headings, but most especially on that for “District/other”.

From a demographic angle, this same facility but using the heading of “County/other”, proved to be of great benefit for assessing the number of persons with the same surname who lived within the same County, whilst other similar headings allowed me (and I’m certain many other viewers) to see trends within surnames (e.g. number of children born within a specific period; number of elderly persons, etc).

If there was anything which I felt could help the viewer more, it was that although both the “District/other” and “County/other”, were provided for where the individual(s) was/were living, and whilst this was of benefit for those who had more than one first name (e.g. John Christopher), as it was easier to narrow down one’s ancestors where they had 2+ forenames, in the instances where the majority had just one first name, the inclusion of each person’s Place of Birth could have been a better option rather than either the “District/other” or “County/other” (this being based on the fact that researchers’ probably would have a better idea of where their pre-1901 ancestors had been born, even if by 1911 they had moved to pastures new).

What I did find rather confusing when I first used the site (until I worked it out for myself) was the wording which states;-

“Is one of these the household you were searching for?
You can now either view a transcript (new window) or
an original household page (new window). To do this
you will need to buy credits”

- the reason for the confusion being that the wording appears within an Information box, just under the box which contains the number of results found, and (without the reader being aware that s/he needs to scroll further down the page to see the actual results) suggests that one should click on the “view a transcript (new window) or an original household page (new window)” links to see either.

Of course, by clicking on either of those links, rather than taking the reader to what is expected (i.e. a transcript, or original, copy), one is taken to a page which shows the reader what to expect when viewing the relevant copy.

As I say, it took me a few tries before I managed to suss out that the results themselves were further down the page, so I would respectfully suggest that either the wording within the “view a transcript (new window) or an original household page (new window)” box should be changed to reflect that one would see an example of both (rather than the exact details) or that the page be redesigned (lay-out wise) so that at least part of the names and other details will appear within a normal 800×600 screen (the latter also being an ideal size for those of your readers who have varying degrees of sight disabilities)

The ‘my records’ facility was also very useful, and whilst I didn’t (on this occasion) have more than look at what was held, I can see that this will prove beneficial (both storage and cost-wise) when the full version of the census is up and running.

All in all therefore, I congratulate you on what has been undertaken and how it is being presented to date, and whilst for my own benefit I would recommend the abovementioned possible amendments, I feel that there are going to be many thousands of happy genealogists, local and family historians, demographists and many more statisticians who will welcome the first-class attention you have paid to scanning and presenting the 1911 Census data.”

Just one more thing I would add, and that is that as I understood the ‘offer’, the purpose of the Beta version was that those who were privleged to have a sneak preview, could test how information could be input and how data was presented (even though it did allow those who were lucky, to see ancestors in 1911). From the former point of view, early I/Os proved to be, in the main, beneficial, although I do look forward to seeing the finished site once all the glitches have been resolved.

John