I really cannot understand why anyone should have a problem in finding JOSEPH ROWCROFT or HOWCROFT at Findmypast in the 1851 census from the information given! Yes, the spelling may be debatable and, looking at the image, the initial letter of the surname may be a matter of interpretation. But it took me only a matter of seconds to find the correct entry from the information Norman gave. Either the census reference search leads you directly to it or you can get to it by using a wildcard, ie. "*CROFT*, the birth year 1771 plus or minus 2 years, and the birth place Offerton, details which Norman gave. In my experience Findmypast's census transcriptions are generally superior to Ancestry's, nor do I see why anyone has any difficulty at all in finding their way round their website. It seems perfectly clear to me, as do the directions, guidance and help. And, yes, before anyone raises it I may be biased because I do a "Famous family trees" blog for FMP and the people who run it are good friends of mine. But, really, I do wonder sometimes whether people really know what they are doing when they complain they can't find an entry. It's not rocket science to navigate one's way round a website. All it requires it a bit of common sense. - well, to a professional anyway, and I am always willing to help novices as I do quite a lot of the time. ALWAYS pay attention to the tips given, they are there to help you! -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

<<snipped>> nor do I see why anyone has any difficulty at all in finding their way round their website. It seems perfectly clear to me, as do the directions, guidance and help. <<snipped>> Unfortunately, it is clear to me that FMP have "previous" on their User Interface. Someone using the site often may get used to quirks. But for others... I remember a mail exchange on this List that went on for several days where someone was trying to find the image of a Cheshire Will. They could only find the transcript (which, of course, isn't a transcript at all, only an index entry). Now, on every(?) other screen in the Cheshire Collection, each line of the response to a search contains one link to the transcript and one link to the image. Not so the Wills, which only have a link to the transcript. You have to go to the transcript to find the link to the image. Now that route happens to exist on the others, but if you always went straight for the image on the others, you'd never know. So that pointless difference was the first issue. Then there was the link to the image from the "transcript".... The original enquirer simply couldn't see it. When we finally described it pixel by pixel almost, he was mortified not to have seen it. It isn't a button or text link, not even a recognisable icon. It looks like a decorative logo and clearly that's what the original poster had dismissed it as. Let's be clear about this - User Interface design is not easy but consistency is important - the Cheshire Wills issue shows the truth of the old adage, "There's nothing like consistency, and that's nothing like.." And before anyone starts - yes, Ancestry's User Interface can be as pig-headed as FMP's and don't get me started on FamilySearch's determination in the first few days of its revamped site not to have the words "Records" or "Search" on its front screen... But Roy is very right about one thing - if it doesn't work, read the manual! Adrian B