RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Swampy on Thursday 04 September 08 10:57 BST (UK)
-
I received this via the SOG today, and thought it might be of general interest, which is why I opted to post it in the Common Room. I suppose it would be too much to hope that the LMA & Guildhall will monitor the quality of Ancestry's work, but hey, mustn't be churlish... 8)
Swampy
London, UK – 4 September, 2008 – The most comprehensive collection of
historical London records, covering 500 years of the city's history,
is to be made available online for the first time. Following a lengthy
tendering process, Ancestry has secured the exclusive online rights to
digitize and host key records from London Metropolitan Archives (LMA)
and Guildhall Library Manuscripts.
The first records will launch on Ancestry.ca [sic from my email] in
early 2009, with the following prioritised for launch in the coming
year:
· Parish records – records from more than 10,000 Greater London parish
registers of baptisms, marriages and burials dating from the 1530s to
the 20th Century
· Poor Law documents - relating to the administration of poor relief,
including workhouse registers from 1834 onwards
London school admissions – records from 843 individual London schools
dating from the early Victorian times through to 1911, providing
admission and personal details for millions of London students
[100 year closure]
Dr Deborah Jenkins, Assistant Director of the City of London's
Department of Libraries, Archives and Guildhall Art Library, comments:
"It has always been the City of London's goal to make these important
collections available to the wider public through digitisation and so
we are delighted to announce Ancestry as our official partner in
bringing 500 years of London's history online."
-
That's excellent news ! :)
-
what you say applies to all 'digitisation' .... Ancestry's transcribers are no better or worse than others - even the voluntary efforts of FreeBMD / REG / CEN have issues... and they are double checked by enthusiasts.
Personally pleased that London Parishes will come online and save the multiple trips ... the London Scholl admissions will help a few with brick walls too !
Onward and upward.
8)
-
I agree, it is excellent. I know we sometimes get a bit tetchy about Ancestry owning everything but where would we be, in this hobby, without it?
Luckily there are enough of us who subscribe, in some shape or form, to Ancestry and are able to help with queries from those who don't. can't etc.
I think Ancestry combined with Rootschatters makes a formidable resource and work-force! ;D
-
theres no 'thumbs-up' smilie :P
-
Hmmm it will be time to renew my ancestry sub then I guess ::)
Good news though because it will save trips to London.
Kerry
-
(http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/MSN_Emoticons/MSN-Emoticon-thums-up-059.gif)
-
;D ;D
8)
-
Thing is are these new records going to be included on your current (bumped up) price plan or are they excluded as the parish records now are?
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,323869.0/topicseen.html
Willow x
-
Newfster et al, I wasn't questioning the quality of Ancestry's digital imagery, but rather their transcription accuracy. I can't speak for anyone else, but it has been my experience that Ancestry's transcriptions are markedly inferior, and more error strewn than any other similar online resources I've come across - and that's most of them. I have no axe to grind, but am simply calling it as I see it. I acknowledge the fact that any large scale project involving the transcription of information into search indexes, is bound to be subject to numerous errors & omissions. However, that acceptance shouldn't be used to establish any kind of benchmark for future projects, which is why I hope both the LMA, and Guildhall - who are presumably using public funds to commission this work - don't shirk their responsibilities, and ensure a rigorous system of quality control is implemented.
That said, I agree it will be a welcome development, which should prove a very valuable resource for all genealogists. And that is why I said, "...mustn't be churlish." ;)
Swampy
-
I wasn't questioning the quality of Ancestry's digital imagery, but rather their transcription accuracy
Thats why I put digitisation in quotes. I also was talking about transcriptions.
I too, speak as I find. :)