New Post
Search
Help[Facts] Grain of salt on Guinness Book of Names lists for 1700 and 1800
in reply to a message by Anneza
Unfortunately there is a problem with these lists. If you will look at them closely, you will see that both the male and female lists contain EXACTLY the same 50 names, in different order, for both 1700 and 1800. Although name fashions didn't change as much back then as they do today, it really is impossible that the top 50 names for both sexes in 1700 and 1800 were exactly the same.
Through correspondence with Leslie Dunkling years ago, I discovered that the person who had originally collected the data for these lists did it in a very curious way. He counted up the total number of people with the names in his entire data set and created top 50s, and then he went back and ordered those 50 names in regard to their popularity in the separate years of 1700 and 1800. Dunkling did not know this until after the book was already published.
Probably the first 30 or so names on each of these lists are fairly accurate. But there probably are a lot of inaccuracies on the last half of the lists, and names which should be on them which are missing because of the odd way they were originally reported.
Through correspondence with Leslie Dunkling years ago, I discovered that the person who had originally collected the data for these lists did it in a very curious way. He counted up the total number of people with the names in his entire data set and created top 50s, and then he went back and ordered those 50 names in regard to their popularity in the separate years of 1700 and 1800. Dunkling did not know this until after the book was already published.
Probably the first 30 or so names on each of these lists are fairly accurate. But there probably are a lot of inaccuracies on the last half of the lists, and names which should be on them which are missing because of the odd way they were originally reported.
3