7 January 2003

Online advisory panel

Present

Public Record Office (PRO):

QinetiQ:

1. Welcome and Apologies

1.1 Elizabeth Hallam Smith welcomed Panel members to the meeting. Matthew Woollard from UKDA, representing Kevin Schurer, and Jill Allbrooke the Family Records Centre Manager, were also welcomed to their first meeting.

1.2 Elizabeth Hallam Smith informed those present that an invitation to join the Panel had been sent to the University of Glasgow, and to Queen Mary College, University of London.

1.3 Apologies for absence were received from Richard Ratcliffe, Federation of Family History Societies (FFHS), Else Churchill, Society of Genealogists (SoG), Kevin Schurer, University of Essex, and Helen Campbell, Internet Marketing Manager (PRO).

2. Minutes of the Last Meeting (20 November 2002) Accuracy

2.1 The minutes were passed for accuracy.

3. Matters Arising

3.1 Item 3.3: Arranging Dates for Specialist Group Meetings with QinetiQ. James Kirby has scheduled the meeting date for 23 January 2003 at Kew.

3.2 Item 8.4: The "Moving Here" demonstration will now take place at the next scheduled meeting to be held on 2 April 2003.

4. 1901 Census Online - Update

4.1 James Kirby informed the Panel that the 1901 Census Online Service became available seven days a week, 24 hours a day, from the 21 November 2002. He thanked the Panel members for their valuable feedback and for sharing their expertise.

James Kirby told the Panel that to date, over 29 million services have been delivered to users, of which approx. 3 million were chargeable services. In terms of geographical spread, United Kingdom interest amounts to 89% of total use of the 1901 site; Australia 3%, Canada 2.8%, United States users 2.7%, with the remainder of users coming from other countries. He also informed the Panel that although demand for the service reduced during the first half of December, the number of users rose again during the Christmas period.

4.2 James Kirby updated the Panel on progress being made to Census Data Amendments (CDA's). In the period before Christmas, 2,255 changes were made, bringing the total number of changes to date to 4,868. James Kirby informed the Panel that of those CDA's received from individual users, there has been typically an accuracy rate of 95-98%, with a reject rate of 2-5%. Of the 1000 proposed CDA's received in bulk form at the last PRO Online Services Advisory Panel meeting, 800 had been thoroughly checked to date and 473 have been agreed and amended, with a higher reject rate of 40%. James Kirby explained that this was likely to be due to the fact that whereas individuals who submit a possible CDA are utilising the higher resolution Online images taken from first generation masters, those he had received in bulk form had been taken from lower resolution images (from CD's and fiche). James Kirby stated that there might be a need for there to be more rigorous criteria when accepting bulk CDA's and that care needed to be taken to try not to potentially introduce errors within any investigation process.

4.3 Maureen Bullows asked if checking suggested Census Data Amendments is a difficult process and if the work is undertaken in stages. James Kirby explained that as with any rigorous process, it can take time. He explained that an individual user on the 1901 Census site would see the latest version of the database as amended. Users wishing to view changes made can also elect to look at the history of any CDA by looking at the CDA page on the site, and therefore be able to obtain further information.

4.4 John Addis-Smith raised the issue of how an individual can submit a number of CDA's at the same time, and stated that he couldn't find clear email contact details for the Census Helpdesk displayed on the 1901 Census website. James Kirby replied that he would look into the "Contact Us" Web page to see if this was the case, and if so would look into making contact details clearer for users.
Action: JK to look into contact details on the 1901 site.

4.5 On the issue of Standardisation, James Kirby informed the Panel that he was currently considering a proposal that he has received from the University of Essex History Department. He also stated that this was one of the issues which would be explored at the Specialist Group meeting to be held on 23 January.

4.6 James Kirby advised the Panel that the Address Search was under development. There are approximately 7,000,000 unique addresses on the 1901 Census. If street numbers are omitted, then there are some 1,000,000 unique street addresses. He stated that the Address Search facility should be available during the first half of this year, and agreed that it would be a useful and welcome facility for users. Maureen Bullows asked how address searches would work. James Kirby explained that a positive hit would return details for residents living in a street or for a particular household.

4.7 Alison Webster informed that Panel that from the PRO's angle, the 1901 Census site has been working well with no particular instances of difficulties over the Christmas and New Year period.

5. 1901 Census Online - Comments from Panel

All comments and issues raised by the Panel were noted and would receive attention later if it was not possible to answer them at the time of the meeting.

5.1 Elizabeth Hallam Smith asked those present if they had any comments to share with the Panel.

5.2 John Addis-Smith stated that 1901 microfiche is now available at the Family Records Centre. Elizabeth Hallam Smith confirmed this and explained that both the Public Record Office at Kew and the Family Records Centre now hold a full fiche set for England and Wales. As demand for the fiche service at Kew had quietened over the past few months, the decision was made to respond positively to user feedback and provide the FRC with a set of fiche along with finding aids, alongside the Online service.

5.3 Maureen Bullows stated that fiche local to her continues to be well used. The Panel was informed by Elizabeth Hallam Smith that the National Library of Wales had been provided with a set for the whole of Wales and that would naturally reduce demand from Welsh users for the Kew or FRC-based sets if they were interested in researching their Welsh ancestors.

5.4 Paul Blake notified those present that he had recently seen an article in a family history magazine making claims that there are high number of errors on the 1901 Census site. James Kirby stated that some family historians, although well meaning, may well be distorting the number of actual errors as they could be working from data and images not taken from the 1901 site itself. Matthew Woollard stressed that only the Census itself should be used when looking into errors and proposing Census Data Amendments. Maureen Bullows stated that readers of such articles should be cautious as often the full story isn't presented and a situation or an issue can be misrepresented.

5.5 James Kirby informed the Panel that with regards to future plans for Standardisation some individuals use the term to include corrections to data, whereas other individuals use it to mean enhancing data without changing the original. He stressed that there may be scope for both elements and that future discussions on this and other enhancements will take place in the future.

5.6 Maureen Bullows asked James Kirby if there has been any progress on considering whether the Wildcard search could be used for the first two letters in a word. James Kirby explained that various enhancements can be made which could make the wildcard even more powerful. He stated that work on the Address Search was at present taking priority but agreed that enhancements are still important. He informed the Panel that at present there are some 200 ways to search the 1901 Census database making it a rich system already, and on top of which it could be further enhanced in the future.

5.7 John Addis-Smith enquired about the Place Keyword search and stated that it seems to not accept partial place names. James Kirby explained the Where Born search is particularly powerful compared with the Place Keyword search. He stated that this is a possible area for further enhancement in the future.

5.8 Alec Tritton asked about what happens to the revenue from the unspent amount left on part-used vouchers (the example 25p was cited). Alison Webster noted that any monies left over on a voucher can be transferred on to a new voucher and that no user should lose any monies due to the fact that a small amount of credit remains on a mostly used voucher. James Kirby confirmed that vouchers can be topped up with remaining credit from another part-used voucher and that if an individual has problems they should contact the Census Helpdesk for advice.

5.9 Alec Tritton enquired about what plans there were for the 1891 Census Pilot data. Elizabeth Hallam Smith replied that the future use of the 1891 Norfolk Census Pilot data was being considered.

5.10 John Addis-Smith commented that in his opinion it would be useful if the description pages for Institution/Vessel searches were free to access, as they are when one conducts other types of searches. James Kirby replied that he would consider this issue.

5.11 Paul Blake asked if there was an easy way of going back from a Census page to a free page. Alison Webster explained that by going to Place Search, users are then given a description of pages that outlines which are chargeable and non-chargeable. Paul Blake thanked Alison Webster for her advice.

6. NDAD Presentation

6.1 Elizabeth Hallam Smith thanked James Kirby and the Panel for their discussion and comments and welcomed Jeffrey Darlington from the PRO's Digital Preservation department.

6.2 Jeffrey Darlington explained that the PRO set up the National Digital Archive of Datasets (NDAD) in 1997, and that it is operated by the University of London's Computer Centre. The archive holds only structured datasets, typically representing the results of Government surveys with there being no family history data. The NDAD contract is now managed by the Digital Preservation Department of the PRO, which was set up in 2001 to be responsible for the future preservation of all "born digital" Government data. The Department is developing a new Digital Archive, complementary to NDAD, so that all types of data can be preserved.

6.3 James Kirby enquired about login procedures. Jeffrey Darlington explained that the service provided at http://www.ndad.ulcc.ac.uk/ is free and that users may register by providing some personal details. Subscription to the facility lasts for a year and then subscribers are invited to renew their registration on an annual basis.

6.4 Paul Blake asked about closure periods in relation to the electronic data received from other government departments. Jeffrey Darlington explained that normal 30-year closure periods still apply and that NDAD data is anonymised. He also did a demonstration of using the NDAD website and illustrated how users can search, sort and retrieve data to their own specifications.

6.5 The issue of acquisition policy was raised. Jeffrey Darlington stated that the same criteria are used for acquiring digital data, as are applied to paper based documents. Elizabeth Hallam Smith commented that working closely alongside colleagues from other government departments is vital so that important and historically valuable documents are recognised and preserved.

6.6 Elizabeth Hallam Smith thanked Jeffrey Darlington for his presentation and the Panel for their comments.

7. PROCAT Usability Survey

7.1 Jill Rush introduced herself to the Panel and explained the background to the PROCAT Usability Survey which is currently being undertaken. She pointed out that in line with corporate targets for 2002-03, the PRO's main electronic resources, principally PROCAT, DORIS (the PRO's internal Document Ordering and Requisition Information System), and PRO-Online, are being looked at to review any necessary improvements in response to user feedback.

7.2 Jill Rush explained that the surveys being undertaken were aimed at in-house and remote users, specific users, staff, and other user groups. The PROCAT Usability survey had been developed with specific questions and by capturing views and comments from all types of users, her team and other colleagues would be able to look at the electronic catalogue and analyse what improvements could be made. Jill Rush also pointed out that analysis of all feedback received would take place throughout February and March when the feasibility of suggestions, the level of demand, budgetary implications and other issues would all be considered.

7.3 Dominic Johnson pointed out that the questionnaire had a number of 'tick one box only' options and in some instances several boxes may be applicable to an individual. Jill Rush stated that there is flexibility and that those completing the questionnaire should feel free to give as much feedback as possible, even if this meant ticking more boxes if the individual felt that was applicable.

7.4 Jill Rush requested Panel members, if they had not already done so, to kindly return the questionnaires they had received by the end of the following week.

7.5 Elizabeth Hallam Smith informed the Panel that the aim of these questionnaires was to make PROCAT even more user-friendly so that its 9.3 million items could be accessed with greater ease.

8. PROCAT: Issues From Panel Members

8.1 Elizabeth Hallam Smith told the Panel that PROCAT that the 'Advanced Search' function was underused. Matthew Woollard suggested that it could be renamed as was more akin to a keyword search in essence.

8.2 Elizabeth Hallam Smith informed the Panel that PROCAT, which is an extremely sophisticated database, has been undergoing a two-year enhancement programme, which is continuing. Jill Rush reported that enhancements had been made to browsing and that users of the catalogue are able to restrict searches so as to exclude any irrelevant areas, document classes etc. She also explained that there had been a number of behind the scenes editorial changes.

8.3 Paul Blake mentioned the recent Catalogue Awareness Day that he had attended at the Public Record Office on 13 December 2002, and stated that he had gained a lot from attending. Alison Webster stated that this was the first of its kind at the PRO and that it had highlighted how a number of users were unaware of how sophisticated PROCAT can be.

8.4 Stephen Taylor reported that in his opinion the amount of detail now contained within PROCAT was excellent. He stated that there was always going to be room for improvement but essentially it contains a massive amount of vital material for users.

8.5 Paul Blake commented that paper catalogues can also be vital in certain circumstances but added that that electronic resources can also be invaluable, enabling one to cut down on time and obtain what one is looking for with tremendous speed.

8.6 Alec Tritton enquired about when the next Catalogue Awareness Day would be. Alison Webster explained that the aim was to hold it on an annual basis. She said that the next one would be advertised earlier and more broadly. Alec Tritton commented that holding a Catalogue Awareness Day on an annual basis may not be enough as a lot of interest and demand may be generated. Alison Webster stated that if this does prove to be the case, then the PRO would consider holding the event more frequently.

8.7 John Addis-Smith pointed out that such events could be advertised in the new PRO e-newsletter. Elizabeth Hallam Smith and Alison Webster felt this was a good idea and could be looked into.

8.8 Jill Rush informed the Panel that they are welcome to email any suggestions they have for PROCAT to PROcat@pro.gov.uk. Matthew Woollard enquired about the number of user responses her team were hoping to receive. Jill Rush said that her team would welcome as much feedback as possible.

8.9 Alison Webster stated that when providing feedback on the PROCAT Usability survey, suggestions shouldn't be excluded, as any ideas would be welcome and heard. She added that if there was an overwhelming need which emerged as a result of user feedback, then a corresponding business case could be made for further enhancements to PROCAT.

8.10 Elizabeth Hallam Smith thanked Jill Rush and the Panel for their useful comments.

9. Any Other Business

9.1 Alison Webster reminded the Panel that from April 2003 the Historical Manuscripts Commission (HMC) and the Public Record Office would be joining to become 'The National Archives'. Paul Blake enquired after the Manorial Documents Register, parts of which can currently be accessed through the HMC Website. The project is being completed on a county-by-county basis, with Yorkshire, Norfolk, the Isle of Wight and Wales completed so far. Elizabeth Hallam Smith agreed that the Manorial Documents Register was an excellent resource which would fit well and complement the PRO's current family of services.

9.2 Alison Webster stated that in April the Public Record Office and the Historical Manuscript Commission would share a joint gateway web page for the newly emerging National Archives. A 'What's New' link will be visible with links to both the PRO's and HMC's own websites. With time, the new organisation, The National Archives, would have a website in its own right.

9.3 Stephen Taylor enquired about the Court Service Review and was concerned over the disposition of records. Elizabeth Hallam Smith advised that he should feed through his views direct to the Court Service but that Steven Jones, the Head of Archive Inspection from the PRO's Records Management Department, could be contacted if he had any questions on the Court Service as a Place of Deposit for public records.

9.4 Alec Tritton asked how progress had been with the PRO's new Licensed Internet Associateship initiative, as announced at the last PRO Online Services Advisory Panel meeting. Alison Webster reported that some positive interest was being generated.

9.5 Alison Webster proposed the agenda for the next meeting of the Panel.

10. Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting which was scheduled for Wednesday 2 April 2003 at the Family Records Centre has unfortunately had to be cancelled.

The next meeting will be on Tuesday 8 July 2003 at the Public Record Office, Kew.