RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: lesleyhannah on Sunday 28 June 09 23:17 BST (UK)
-
I've done my fair share of moaning about ancestry in the past, but one facility they offer which I really appreciate is the opportunity to add corrections to their sometime bizarre transcriptions. Whenever I find a family member whose name has been mistranscribed I notify ancestry and my correction has always been added to the original - which means others researching the family will find them quicker than I did. I've also been grateful for other people whose corrections I've benefited from.
So when I came across an in-law ancestor, surnamed Greer/Grier who had been transcribed as Green in the 1911 census I automatically sent in my correction. However, I received a reply that my correction had been rejected as they believe their transcription is right. Heck, I've got the man's birth certificate. Believe me finding Irish relatives is hard enough even when they get the names right - but others trying to find Irish-Liverpool Greers will have that much more trouble now.
Am I just unlucky, or does the 1911 site often refuse user-submitted corrections? So, for once I think ancestry has got it right!
-
I sent a couple of corrections to 1911 site and they accepted them. I'd send them an e-mail telling them why you know the name is Greer not Green.
What I don't like about the Ancestry corrections is that they don't actually "correct" they just put a mark by the wrong name so you have to click that to find an alternative. I prefer the Findmypast way, if they agree with your correction to a mistranscription they actually change the transcription so that the correct name shows.
I had an instance with Ancestry where someone had "corrected" one of my ancestors names because they assumed she should have had the same name as her mother, when in fact her mother had re-married, and the original transcription was correct. I was unable to get that corrected so it remains wrong on Ancestry.
-
I actually prefer the ancestry way - if you do a search on a particular name you will get their transcriptions plus any corrections. If they just alter the original it could mean that people who made a well-meaning incorrect correction could get their suggestion accepted - so if ancestry had accepted the incorrect suggestion you quote it would mean you wouldn't find the person using her correct name. I'd just assumed 1911 would add my 'Greer' as an alternative - I was surprised when they just rejected it, on heaven knows what grounds.
Anyway, it's their loss - we do their work for them by sending in our corrections so I'm not going to pursue the matter.
-
What I don't like about the Ancestry corrections is that they don't actually "correct" they just put a mark by the wrong name so you have to click that to find an alternative. I prefer the Findmypast way, if they agree with your correction to a mistranscription they actually change the transcription so that the correct name shows.
I had an instance with Ancestry where someone had "corrected" one of my ancestors names because they assumed she should have had the same name as her mother, when in fact her mother had re-married, and the original transcription was correct. I was unable to get that corrected so it remains wrong on Ancestry.
I'm afraid your post doesn't make sense. What if your correction to FindMyPast was wrong, and they accept it ?
Ancestry don't make changes - they offer alternatives, which will turn up on searches, but the original transcript will stay the same. In the past I made suggested correction, which Ancestry accepted, and shortly afterwards I found out that my correction was wrong. I can't get it changed, but at least I know that the original transcription is still there.
-
I didn't say Findmypast just accept corrections without checking that the census has been mistranscribed, but they don't just give alternatives that are not shown on the census, just because someone, somewhere today, decides that a person on a census in the 1800s didn't know their own surname. ???
What I said was that Ancestry has put up an alternative name of an ancestor of mine that is totally wrong. The mother has a different surname from her 19 year old daughter, because she was widowed and then remarried, and the daughter kept her original surname, which is what most people of about 18 or 19 would do even today. The census is quite clear and correct, but someone - and I don't know who - decided that the census was wrong and gave Ancestry the alternative name for my ancestor which they accepted. Now that is misleading for anyone looking at Ancestry and not having the full history. Like you, I cannot get this altered, so there it is on Ancestry to confuse anyone in the future.
Lizzie
-
Yes, but surely it's better to have the alternative name as a suggestion, which people can ignore if they want (and I often have, when it has been impossible to prove), whereas you suggest that FindMyPast's method is better, which changes the transcription completely ? That's what's confusing me.
Ancestry is very shortly going to bring in a new feature where people can both suggest mistranscriptions on a census page, and make notes for others to read, so with this, people can give their reasons as well as their suggestions.
-
[What if your correction to FindMyPast was wrong, and they accept it ?
That's what I meant, Nick, but you put it much more clearly! I think ancestry's system is far better. I do understand Lizzie's frustration, knowing the wrong surname is attached to her relative, but in fact having both names searchable can be an advantage for people who don't know the family's history.
Anyway - anyone searching Liverpool Grier/Greer (of Irish descent) in 1911, try Green!!!
-
On Ancestry I found a Booth actually spelled Both
You can also add this as a correction - the family were clearly the right one, the enumertor had written it wrongly
Just mark as incorrect original
It might help someone else
Bob
-
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. ;D
Lizzie
-
Sorry, can't get the hang of inserting quotes....always gives me more than I want
As Nick29 said a few posts back, "Ancestry is very shortly going to bring in a new feature...."
Will this extend to alternative place names? I know - it could all very messy, full of chinese whispers if that were to happen - but it really gets on my nerves when ancestors born in Berwick-upon-Tweed Northumberland England are indexed as born Berwickshire, Scotland when the census page itself clearly shows them born Berwick-upon-Tweed.
-
I hope it does include places, because this is one area that local knowledge is invaluable. Quite a few relatives are shown as being born in places that don't seem to exist. Family historians are likely to have some idea of where they were actually born - and we are also likely to have BMDs which will point to birthplace etc. And all this will help others if we can share what we know.
But again I'd want any corrections to be shown as alternatives rather than alter the originals.
Lesley
-
All I know comes from a post in the Census and Resource Discussion forum which gives the following link.........
http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/06/25/coming-soon-enhancements-to-the-ancestrycom-image-page/
If you enlarge the image on the page it more or less explains all the new features.
-
Sorry, can't get the hang of inserting quotes....always gives me more than I want
Tweed.
PS to Tweed: Me too - I end up getting the entire message when I press 'insert quote', and then have to delete 99% of it!
Maybe someone can put us right!
Lesley
-
Surely the point of a transcript is that it should be exactly as the original, including original mistakes.
I submitted a correction to 1911, which was accepted because their transcript was clearly different from the scanned document, on close examination.
I have also submitted suggestions to Ancestry where the transcript may well have been accurate but I knew from other sources that the name had been entered incorrectly. In these cases the 'alternative name' note was more appropriate.
Maybe the ideal situation would be to combine both methods, using whichever is most appropriate for the particular case.
Mike.
-
But the advantage of being able to add Booth as an alternate name is that it will be able to be found by people looking for Booth.
The Both transcription will not
Bob
-
Hi,
I'll have to disagree too
Being a volunteer transcriber myself , the rules are pretty clear : You are supposed to transcribe exactly what is written on the original document.
If on the census image the person's name is "Green", the transcription should not say Greer, the transcription should be Green, whether you know she was Greer or not .
Exact Transcription of any document should be be that . It does not matter if you have the birth cert
If the original 1911 census return image definitely says Green - then Green should be transcribed whether it was her name, or the name she used or not - . This is why your 1911 correction was probably rejected.
]The names should only be altered if it has been mistranscribed , ie if the transcription of the document differs from the actual words/spelling on the orignal document.
Kind Regards:)
-
The only annoying thing on Ancestry is accepting corrections from people who don't leave their names (orange triangle) or at least being able to see their reasoning.
One case ( very clear and accurately transcribed) a daughter , who married ,had a son ,was widowed and went back to live with family.
On the census she is on one page as daughter, widowed.(married name) next page her son is correctly down as grandson . Correction was for grandsons surname to mothers maiden name.
Now was the reasoning that the person who made the correction, perhaps knew that the adult George actually used his Mothers maiden name.?
I'd love to know
Apart from that , I like the system
Spring
-
Sorry, can't get the hang of inserting quotes....always gives me more than I want
Slightly off topic. What you do is copy the part of the quote you want, then click on reply to open up the reply box. Paste the quote, highlight it and then click on the BBC Tag 2nd from the end on the bottom line. You can then just carry on with the rest of your message as usual.
Lizzie
-
BBC Tag 2nd from the end on the bottom line. You can then just carry on with the rest of your message as usual.
Thanks Lizzie - it does work - though I don't know what BBC means!
-
If on the census image the person's name is "Green", the transcription should not say Greer, the transcription should be Green, whether you know she was Greer or not .
Hi Cell -
I have to confess here - I haven't seen the original. I can only afford to view the transcriptions. As I said, I have no problem with 'Green' being left as the default transcription, but because I know from the address and family names that this person's name was actually Greer/Grier, I know it would help other researchers to have that added as a searchable alternative.
In this case I'm not criticising the transcribers - in some handwriting a small R can look very like an N. As Green is a more common name than Greer it's understandable the transcriber would opt for that alternative. I just feel that by not adding alternatives it is making things hard for researchers, who have to pay per view on 1911.
So despite all the daft alternatives added by some users on ancestry I still think it's a better system.
Lesley
-
Paste the quote, highlight it and then click on the BBC Tag 2nd from the end on the bottom line
dont mind me just trying
perth ;D ;D
-
a collapsible source panel so that you can quickly view the source citation
This I like too.
I almost always, when finding something in the index, go straight to the original image and bypass the transcription. Unfortunately the source citation is on the transcription page, and you cannot always extrapolate it from the original image, because not every page shows the folio number. So this is very useful.
And I vastly prefer Ancestry's policy of adding alternative readings to the index. Yes, I know the rules about transcribing, but adding something to the index does not compromise the transcription. The index is purely a finding aid, and it's no use at all if you can't find someone because a mistake was made on the form. We have the opportunity to make our own judgements by viewing the original - but only if we can find it.
-
In searching the National Archives for information on relatives I found that two records had been indexed as Green rather than Greer, I forwarded them this information along with my proof of the error and they were quite happy to correct the errors. Maybe this is the way to get errors corrected.
Regards Colin
-
I have some Booth ancestors
On 1841 Census the name is actually written 'Both' on one site
What I like about Ancestry's correction system is that you can enter corrections as 'incorrect original'
So you are not saying the original is wrong but nonetheless the record can be found by later researchers
-
What I like about Ancestry's correction system is that you can enter corrections as 'incorrect original'
So you are not saying the original is wrong but nonetheless the record can be found by later researchers
That's exactly what I don't like about Ancestry, they leave the "wrong" name as the default and only give the correcton underneath, so if the "wrong" name is totally wrong, you have no chance of finding it, which has happened to me and I had to search on a common Christian name and plough through too many pages before finding my ancestor. Now if I can't find an ancestor I just go to FindMyPast.
Lizzie
-
What I like about Ancestry's correction system is that you can enter corrections as 'incorrect original'
So you are not saying the original is wrong but nonetheless the record can be found by later researchers
That's exactly what I don't like about Ancestry, they leave the "wrong" name as the default and only give the correcton underneath.....
Yes, but whether it's right or wrong is often only a matter of opinion, so the original transcription should always stand. (As has been stated before), transcribers have to write only what they see. Quite often with the benefit of information gained elsewhere you can see that the name was actually written incorrectly by the enumerator, but that does not mean that it should be changed. If FindMyPast alter transcriptions based on suggestions made by their subscribers, this is wrong and very un-professional.
-
It seems to me the two systems are actually very different. FindMyPast about correcting errors on the face of the document. They make it quite clear that they will only correct if it is a mistranscription and that any other mistakes etc made by the enumerator or others will not be altered. On the other hand FindMyPast does enable you to search on alternatives so spelling mistakes of names are not necessarily as important as they are on Ancestry.
Ancestry corrections is far wider and is more about alternatives. Of course the most usual error is one of transcription but they have various other reasons for name variation. It is about enabling other researchers to find people. A married woman on the census is correctly going to be entered with her husband's surname but I have been helped immeasurably by other researchers who have entered the maiden name as an alternative, particularly when it is the first census since a woman married.
Unless it is a clear mistranscription I usually always try to give my reasons including very basic access to BMD records or past census records where appropriate. If you disagree with an alternative you can always offer another and give reasons for you disagreement. None of this as far as I can see is available on FindMyPast.
On the whole I personally prefer the ancestry system but I can quite understand the logic and integrity behind the FindMyPast one.
Regards Sarenid.
-
Interesting thoughts from previous posters. It is clear that different posters have different expectations of transcriptions. I'm a FindMyPast subscriber though without 1911.
If FindMyPast alter transcriptions based on suggestions made by their subscribers, this is wrong and very un-professional.
I would agree, but I don't think that is what happens. My experience has been that alterations are made if the original transcription is clearly wrong or can be seen to be a mis-reading.
An example: I've recently been following a family where some of the children were born in Warrington (then Lancashire, now Cheshire). I found that on more than one census the image had "Warrington"(no county being written), but the transcription had "Warrington, Buckinghamshire". I submitted this as an error and they have now removed the county which matches the image. I assume this error had arisen from some automated software which matched Warrington with Buckinghamshire unless over-ridden - ie a transcriber error.
I only submit for alteration if the transcription does not match my reading of the image and have generally had these altered. I do not submit if the transcription matches the image but does not tally with my knowledge of either the people or place - I would not expect FindMyPast to alter in these circumstances. I can see the benefit of being able to add as additional information corrections for fact, but would not expect these to over-ride the actual transcription.