On 02/09/13 15:12, Chris Dickinson wrote: > Drat. So, to summarise: > > > The headline is: > > "Internet survey could replace census. ONS looks at alternative data > instead of once-a-decade questionnaire" > > A consultation by the ONS is to propose two options to replace the > census. This, unlike a previous report, won't keep the existing > arrangement. The two options are to be: an internet survey or a > collation of alternative sources. > > Objections are that these options may not provide the existing > richness of data ('granular data'), government may not be given > enough information to formulate policy, and vulnerable groups may be > most impacted. > > > So there you are. From my recollection of the questions in the 2011 census, the document would be of very little use to a twenty-second-century genealogist. So maybe no great loss. -- Dave

On 02/09/2013 17:48, dave wrote: > On 02/09/13 15:12, Chris Dickinson wrote: > >> Drat. So, to summarise: >> >> >> The headline is: >> >> "Internet survey could replace census. ONS looks at alternative data >> instead of once-a-decade questionnaire" >> >> A consultation by the ONS is to propose two options to replace the >> census. This, unlike a previous report, won't keep the existing >> arrangement. The two options are to be: an internet survey or a >> collation of alternative sources. >> >> Objections are that these options may not provide the existing >> richness of data ('granular data'), government may not be given >> enough information to formulate policy, and vulnerable groups may be >> most impacted. >> >> >> So there you are. > > > From my recollection of the questions in the 2011 census, the document > would be of very little use to a twenty-second-century genealogist. So > maybe no great loss. About as useful as any of the other censuses. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

In message <5224c16a$0$1168$5b6aafb4@news.zen.co.uk>, dave <dave@cyw.uklinux.net> writes: [] >From my recollection of the questions in the 2011 census, the document >would be of very little use to a twenty-second-century genealogist. So >maybe no great loss. I don't remember any of the matters that were in the 1841-1911 censuses _not_ being asked about; those have been of use to me, so I don't quite understand what you're saying. (Well, I don't _remember_ any mental health questions, but they might have been there - but those have never been of help only interest anyway, in use of old censuses.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "slowly, I caught the virus of uncertainty." (Fadia Faqir [1998], who came to Britain from Jordan, with clear views on what she would find - but has stayed.)

On 03/09/13 07:47, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <5224c16a$0$1168$5b6aafb4@news.zen.co.uk>, dave > <dave@cyw.uklinux.net> writes: > [] >> From my recollection of the questions in the 2011 census, the document >> would be of very little use to a twenty-second-century genealogist. So >> maybe no great loss. > > I don't remember any of the matters that were in the 1841-1911 censuses > _not_ being asked about; those have been of use to me, so I don't quite > understand what you're saying. (Well, I don't _remember_ any mental > health questions, but they might have been there - but those have never > been of help only interest anyway, in use of old censuses.) Hmmm. My recollection was that the relationships between individuals in the household were not captured, but looking the the form at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/the-2011-census/2011-census-questionnaire-content/2011-census-questionnaire-for-england.pdf it seems they were. What was not asked was the place of birth (ie town, not ethnic origin) which is very useful on the old censuses for linking families. -- Dave