Limiting a one place study by date

[vivdunstan]

I'm currently doing a one place study of Coldingham in Berwickshire, focusing in particular on the pre census era. I'm considering developing a second one place study, for Melrose in Roxburghshire. I'd definitely want to restrict this one by date from the outset. I have limited time and energy due to serious illness, and doubt that I can contribute much new by indexing the already well transcribed and indexed census returns. Also Melrose parish was a very sizeable community, especially later in time. But I do have significant new 17th century court records already indexed at my disposal, and would also be interested in reconstituting the rich 18th century parish registers. I have my own copy of a transcribed published version of the pre 1820 Melrose parish registers.

How do other members of this forum feel about explicitly restricting a study by date like this? Is it frowned upon, or is it ok so long as you are clear about it? And what about skipping more commonly analysed OPS resources like 19th century census returns? I plan to build a more detailed website for my Coldingham study, and if I started one for Melrose I'd have a proper website for that from the word go, clearly setting out its aims and any limitations.

Thanks in advance.

[Alex]

I wouldn't be frowning! Obviously it would be nice to have the intention of looking at all dates, no matter how long it takes us to actually get there , but if there are reasons why you know that's never going to happen then stating that at the outset seems sensible. Perhaps you could put together a single page for the website listing the resources that you are aware of for the later period so that people know what survives and where they can find it? That in itself obviously wouldn't make a one place study but would be useful as a supplement to the main work or as a placeholder for future work.

You may also get someone who comes along who is also interested in Melrose and is keen to work on periods and records that aren't your priority? Some of the OPS sites I have listed have a local history group behind them rather than just one person, which always sounded pretty luxurious to me! Perhaps in your aims you could indicate whether you are interested in working collaboratively, each focusing on their own timeframe?

I think you've raised an interesting point about the census though. The accessibility of the census has changed so much over the last five years that simply transcribing it isn't where we add value, it's in the accuracy of those transcriptions and, depending on how you make your data available, emphasizing the context of an entry amongst its neighbours or linking it to other pieces of information - a different experience than just searching for a name in a census database and having it spit out the results. Focusing on other less-accessible records from the non-Victorian era, especially if that's a more interesting period to you, is probably contributing more to the field of family history at this point in time.

[vivdunstan]

Thanks Alex for your reply. Some very good points raised there. For example having a web page listing later resources (easy to do), and also saying if I'm keen to work with collaborators (would be), etc.

Also I agree with you about the census. I've seen for example Lesley's excellent work researching the Whitsome population in the census, and adding much valued information to the core data from one census return. But I'm not keen to do that for Melrose, mainly because I'm interested in the earlier period, but also - and this is the real killer for me - Melrose is so much huger than Whitsome that it would be a gargantuan task, and not one I can take on practically.

Will be interested to hear other people's views. Thanks again.

[LesleyR]

I think that my attack on census data is only really practical with a tiny target area! It does turn up useful family links, but i wouldn't try it in a big village, let alone a town. whitsome is around 35 houses pluse a dozen or so fermtouns.

I don't know any two OPS studies with identical formats - everyone starts at a different point. mine was a single house, like Topsy, it growed. As long as the front page defines your parameters, moone can complain.
Viv, given a choice in todays's situation, the pre-census stuff is far more valuable I'm currnently doing battle with the Hilton burial ground and it's taking ages to find and correlate 17th and 18th century data.

[vivdunstan]

Thanks Lesley for the feedback. I appreciate that. Whitsome's smaller than I remembered. I've just done a quick count on Melrose parish, from my 1881 transcript. There are nearly 1000 households. Eek! It's no wonder I'm seriously terrified by anything census like. And I like it when it was a bit smaller population-wise

[TessaKeough]

I am thrilled that this site is such a good resource for my loose (at this point) one place study. I would also point out that I thought the census for Newfoundland had been transcribed when I first started my project - and it had, or actually half the sheet had been transcribed - there was more information when I actually saw the censuses - I guess that is a beginner mistake! Now I always read the notes of the transcriber and go back to the document source. This is a long way of saying that oftentimes you can add value to what is on the internet (and of course the internet is only the tip of the iceberg as far as records go). Very interesting discussions and I really like the idea of working with others who might express interest in the area you are researching - all that "many hands making light work" idea.