Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

41Re: [stooke] By hooke or by stooke, and PC gremlins

Expand Messages
  • beavis.history
    Feb 22, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      Welcome back online – fingers crossed and all that.
       
      A couple of things I should have added.  Firstly, having done a wildcard search, obviously look at the facsimile image to check the surname and confirm mistranscriptions; I’ve seen a few family trees that go adrift because the builder believed the wrong indexing without checking the image. 
       
      Secondly, if you cannot find the desired surname using Ancestry, try a free search using non-subscription access to findmypast.  That will not access the full record but the hitslist may provide useful information for re-searching on Ancestry.  Taking our hotel keeper as an example, search FMP for just William Stooke, and get 15 hits in the 1851 census, including:  STOOKE, William  1784  67   M  Clifton.  That confirms he was still alive and should be findable on Ancestry.  You can do the same for his wife Susan.  Then you can go back to Ancestry and search for William, no surname, born 1784, lived in Clifton, spouse = Susan, and will immediately find the mistranscribed William Hooke in 1851.  Spouse/child/sibling search has worked for me in a few difficult cases.
       
      Finally, Steve, about your Firefox problem.  I remember from one of your blogs that you use NoScript to reduce bandwidth.  So do I, but for added security, albeit it’s a bit of a nuisance to have to change Forbid to Allow on first-time visits to new websites.  I’m no computer expert but I’m wondering if your symptoms are consistent with a global resetting to Forbid.  I think there has been a recent auto-upload of a new version (currently v.2.6.8.14).  Also, you might try disabling any/all Firefox add-ons and re-enable one at a time.  Good luck!
       
      Regards – Martin Beavis
       
      Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 5:29 PM
      Subject: Re: [stooke] By hooke or by stooke
       
       

      On 20 Feb 2014 at 19:23, beavis.history wrote:

      > Yesterday I had a Boolean thought and tried searching Ancestry for Last Name =
      > [Stooke OR Hooke], and it worked, finding hits for both Stooke and Hooke.
      > With a little more testing I found that the usual Boolean OR was unnecessary,
      > getting the same hitslist for Last Name = [Stooke Hooke]. So Ancestry
      > effectively does a Boolean OR search on both sides of a gap in the Last Name
      > field. We have, of course, seen the same thing for a gap in the First and
      > Middle Name(s) field, where a search for [William Henry] [Stooke] will find
      > William Henry Stooke and Henry William Stooke and William Stooke and Henry
      > Stooke, and any other Stooke with middle name William or Henry, which can be
      > quite irritating.

      Thanks very much for those useful hints.

      Unfortunately, since my Internet access was restored earlier today, it seems
      that Firefox has gone kaput, and in several web sites clicking on things does
      nothing or takes one to the wrong place.

      One think I have found until recently was that my Stooke family was pretty
      consistent about the Stooke spelling.

      When I started my genealogial research 40 years ago, the books I read warned
      me to be prepared to varient spellings -- Stooke, Stooke, Stoke, Stokes,
      Stuke and the like. But on the whole, apart from index mistranscriptions, I
      never did find those variations.

      The exception was Edward Stooke (1779-1847), who was baptised in Ashton,
      Devon, lived briefly at Chudleigh, and then moved to Chaffcombe in Somerset.
      As the 19th century wore on, they began using the spelling "Stooks", while
      most other branches used Stooke.

      --
      Keep well,
      Steve Hayes
      Blog: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com
      Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/famhist1.htm
      E-mail: shayes@...

    • Show all 3 messages in this topic