more accurate? 1901 or 1911?
Moderator: efinn
more accurate? 1901 or 1911?
Anyone have any idea which census data would be more accurate? From what I have learned here about the unimportance of birth dates, I would assume that the 1901 census would be a little more accurrate as the same people listed in the 1911 census were obviously ten years younger in 1901, therefore their age "guesses" would have been a little closer to their real ages. As years passed, I would imagine the "guesses" became a little more off-the-mark. Any thoughts?
-
Tom Coughlan
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:42 am
- Location: Dublin
Mark,
another factor you need to take into account is that the government were introducing an old age pension in and around the 1911 period (can't remember the exact year), so it might have suited individuals to add a few years to their ages on the 1911 census. On the other hand, many of the ages stated in 1901 are wildly inaccurate anyway, so to an extent the 'ageing process' adopted for 1911 balanced things out. My experience, by and large, is that 1911 is closer to being accurate than 1901, but that for either, for anybody born prior to the start of civil registration in 1864, a large degree of latitude must be allowed. It all adds to the fun.
Tom
another factor you need to take into account is that the government were introducing an old age pension in and around the 1911 period (can't remember the exact year), so it might have suited individuals to add a few years to their ages on the 1911 census. On the other hand, many of the ages stated in 1901 are wildly inaccurate anyway, so to an extent the 'ageing process' adopted for 1911 balanced things out. My experience, by and large, is that 1911 is closer to being accurate than 1901, but that for either, for anybody born prior to the start of civil registration in 1864, a large degree of latitude must be allowed. It all adds to the fun.
Tom