RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: spark on Monday 05 December 11 12:34 GMT (UK)
-
The "majority of England" to go live from 8 Dec 2011.
Just wait for the servers to melt with the rush.
Spark
-
whats the source of that info Spark?
Cant see owt on the Ancestry site, nor the .uk Blog ?
-
I had a monthly update from Ancestry.co.uk on 2 December giving that info :)
Di
-
Thanks Di :)
-
My source was the same as Di ;D ;D
-
We are not sure about the “majority of England” - the Ancestry report we received, advised that transcriptions of the following additional counties will be made available for searching from 08/12/2011
• Cheshire
• Cornwall
• Cumberland
• Derbyshire
• Devon
• Durham
• Lancashire
• Leicestershire
• Lincolnshire
• London
• Norfolk
• Northumberland
• Nottinghamshire
• Royal Navy
• Rutland
• Warwickshire
• Westmorland
• Worcestershire
• Yorkshire—East Riding
• Yorkshire—North Riding
• Yorkshire—West Riding
; being over half of the census, so there will still a number of counties to be released next year.
Al & Al
-
Well any is better then none... I can't wait. Was thinking of not renewing my sub but this I will now... This will keep me busy during our cold winter.. This is what the weatherman said. but fingers crossed he is wrong...
Cheers
Anne
canada
-
Why bother waiting? It's been complete on findmypast for well over a year and the transcription appears better.
-
http://www.ancestry.co.uk/updateddec2011ess#2
-
Tewin,
How can you say the transcription is better? Ancestry version is not released until 8 Dec - how come you got to see a preview!!
I have bought credits to FindMyPast for 1911, whilst I found some people I wanted, it was not all and I cannot afford 2 subs. Also for the mistranscriptions on FindMyPast there is no way of "improving" the database by submitting amendments. Ancestry to their credit, accept there will be mis-transcriptions and let you submit corrections.
Spark
-
Also for the mistranscriptions on FindMyPast there is no way of "improving" the database by submitting amendments. Ancestry to their credit, accept there will be mis-transcriptions and let you submit corrections.
I have submitted over 200 genuine transcription corrections to FindMyPast. All have been accepted and all have been corrected. When 1911 first came out on FindMyPast the standard of transcriptions was not that good. Ancestry do not correct transcription errors, you submit alternatives which are displayed alongide the originals. Personally I think if it has genuinely been an error in transcription, it should be changed as it is in error. Alternatives, where for instance a name has been written incorrectly by the enumerator, are very useful if applied sensibly and I have submitted many of these as well.
Simon
-
Tewin,
How can you say the transcription is better? Ancestry version is not released until 8 Dec - how come you got to see a preview!!
I think some areas are already available - Wales and the Channel Islands I believe.
-
I have also submitted transcription corrections to FindMyPast, the latest was yesterday.
I received an email to acknowledge receipt and another within the hour to say it had been reviewed and accepted, and the change been made.
I haven't yet checked the document concerned, but shall forthwith.
Susan
-
I submit corrections to FindMyPast every time I find an error.
These are invariably corrected within a day or two.
Personally I find the FindMyPast transcriptions more accurate then Ancestry.
-
Just checked the 1891 census and the corrections have been made to the transcription already.
I have found with Ancestry that a 'thankyou' is sent out listing the corrections submitted, but then I have to remind myself what they were, so long has passed since doing it.
S
-
Not good at the moment. After ages of it showing the "maintainace, try again later" page, I finally got through and search results didn't include London ones I KNOW are there (because I downloaded them from the original 1911census site.
Teething troubles I hope ::)
-
I have been trying to get on to the 1911 census and when I put my information in all I get is the census summary books not the census. It that happening to others?
Cheers
Anne
-
No :o
-
Why bother waiting? It's been complete on findmypast for well over a year and the transcription appears better.
FindMyPast don't do American, Canadian and Australian records.
-
I have been trying to get on to the 1911 census and when I put my information in all I get is the census summary books not the census. It that happening to others?
Cheers
Anne
For most of the day yes. But it has JUST started to behave like it should.
(I wonder if they opened it up to different levels of subs at different times to spread to initial hit?)
-
thanks for the replies, I have a world wide sub as I am researching in UK, where I was born, Canada for hubby's family and the U.S. So I am sure I should be able to use it. I am now going to try it again and fingers crossed it works. Will let you know.
Cheers
Anne
-
I have been trying to get on to the 1911 census and when I put my information in all I get is the census summary books not the census. It that happening to others?
Cheers
Anne
That happened to me earlier today but now (circa 23.00 GMT) it seems OK. Can't say I'm impressed with the transcription though. I managed to find 11 mistakes on a household with 4 people!
-
My first search brought up 2 errors in transcription.
Games rather than James
Frederie rather than Frederic.
Was extremely good handwriting too - so no excuse there.
Speed in transcribing is obviously required by Ancestry, but surely not at the expense of accuracy.
-
I think price might come into it too ;)
-
Just found a Mary Jane down as a Hary Jane good luck if you were trying to find her. I suppose they are going to rely on those that pay subscriptions to them to find all the errors and let them know about them.
panda ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well, it has worked for all the other censuses - why not ? :)
-
Just to let you know.. I can finally see the census record. Have found my grandparents on their as young children. Going to do more searching tonight.
Cheers
Anne
-
Speed in transcribing is obviously required by Ancestry, but surely not at the expense of accuracy.
Looks more like an illiterate transcriber to me. For 3 of the 4 I have a "Farmor" a "Farmor Wife" and a "Form Labourer".
-
I thought they might have sorted one of the transcribers out - I've still come across a couple of windowers (widowers) in the 1911 census. How can anyone make that mistake!
Luckily my great grandfather whose first name is Dennis has been transcribed correctly this time - on a previous census he was Pennis - luckily he has two 'n's in his name! :D
-
I've made a complaint to Ancestry because every single incidence of a birthplace name with HAM in it has been shortened to HAM. So Beckenham, Chatham, Eltham, Lewisham, Peckham all are transcribed as HAM.
Whilst searching I also came across 'Dova' in Kent ::)
-
Well you learn something new each day all these years I thought I was born in Dover now I now it should have been "dova"
Thanks Nick made my day ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well you learn something new each day all these years I thought I was born in Dover now I now it should have been "dova"
I have just seen it as Over even though it is clearly Dover. I like Nicks spelling of it better though ;D
On the same page they have transcribed two of the places of birth as London United Kingdom when they are Islington, London and Holborn, London.
-
Well, apparently ILKESTON is transcribed as KESTON
ELTHAM is transcribed as HAM
DOVER is transcribed as OVER
Are we beginning to see a pattern here ? ::)
-
Hoxton is transcribed as Oxton.
Not very impressed with the transcriptions, I spend more time correcting than searching.
Simon
-
I spend more time correcting than searching.
Perhaps that's what they're hoping people will do.
-
I was actually pleasantly surprised by Ancestry's transcription of this census. They actually bothered to transcribe the occupations and complete address for everyone, which Ancestry has not done on any of the other censuses. So it is possible to search this one by address, which is a bonus. Though there are a lot of simple errors, I don't think on the whole it is any worse than FindMyPast's. At least with two transcriptions we now have twice the chance of finding someone.
-
I was actually pleasantly surprised by Ancestry's transcription of this census. They actually bothered to transcribe the occupations and complete address for everyone, which Ancestry has not done on any of the other censuses. So it is possible to search this one by address, which is a bonus. Though there are a lot of simple errors, I don't think on the whole it is any worse than FindMyPast's. At least with two transcriptions we now have twice the chance of finding someone.
Yes, if you're lucky enough to be able to pay for two subscriptions but how does someone with even half a brain manage to transcribe an address as "Gra At Marford Knalogord Cheshie" which is impossible to search on in the extreme. I'm beginning to think they've found some sort of software which attempts to read handwriting.
-
Yes, if you're lucky enough to be able to pay for two subscriptions but how does someone with even half a brain manage to transcribe an address as "Gra At Marford Knalogord Cheshie" which is impossible to search on in the extreme. I'm beginning to think they've found some sort of software which attempts to read handwriting.
Looking at the original census sheet that is roughly what it looks like :)
Stan
-
Yes, if you're lucky enough to be able to pay for two subscriptions but how does someone with even half a brain manage to transcribe an address as "Gra At Marford Knalogord Cheshie" which is impossible to search on in the extreme. I'm beginning to think they've found some sort of software which attempts to read handwriting.
Looking at the original census sheet that is roughly what it looks like :)
Stan
Maybe, but if all transcribers adopted that attitude where would be? The advantage of the human brain over the electronic one is that it can apply a modicum of logic and not simply write down whatever gibberish first comes to mind.
Interestingly, the adjoining properties are said to be "Brook Farm Great Marford" which is almost correct and "Goy Club Wilmslow" - a boring game spoiled!
-
If you look at the accepted rules for transcribing documents it is that it is generally good practice to not correct factual errors or mistakes of grammar or spelling in the original. The first and last rule for transcribing is well known. You transcribe what you read.
Stan
-
I totally agree, Stan. As a FreeBMD transcriber, that is exactly what I was told - you transcribe exactly what is written, and that's quite easy as most of the indices are printed or typed :) When it comes to hand-writing, well that is a completely different kettle of fish, but who are we to decide what was written all that time ago. And of course we must also remember that "he who never makes a mistake, never makes anything" :o :o
BumbleB
-
I think this is so bad of Ancestry >:( It is a multi million pound business that is suppose to be at the top of their game. Certainly someone is in charge of overseeing the transcription process that is the mainstay of their business. It looks like trying to find ancestors in 1911 is now being made even hard by whatever company or digital transcription process that was employed.
I had a quick look for some of mine. I know exactly where to find them but some people will not be as lucky. But honestly Fratel for Isabel? Please :-X
I think someone's head should roll - As Alan Sugar would say "Your Fired"
-
If you look at the accepted rules for transcribing documents it is that it is generally good practice to not correct factual errors or mistakes of grammar or spelling in the original. The first and last rule for transcribing is well known. You transcribe what you read.
Stan
I couldn't agree more, Stan, but.... what does this say, ELTHAM or HAM ?
-
Hi Nick,
It says HAM of course. It's just their bad writing...........same as this is ;)
-
You transcribe what you read.
Going by the general quality of the transcriptions I've seen so far, are we to assume that either peoples handwriting had deteriorated by 1911 or is it that the quality of transcription has worsened? I have no experience of FindMyPast transcription on the 1911 - is it any better or worse than Ancestry?
-
I think the handwriting has improved, but there are more transcription errors that seem inexplicable. The Eltham, Fulham typ of errors are not in isolation. In previous census years you could have had pages of almost illegible writing from a single enumerator but a remarkably successful transcription. These transcriptions do appear to have been done in haste, possibly automatically and probably by those unfamiliar with British names/nameplaces.
When the Findmypast 1911 census first came out, transcriptions were pretty poor as well but at least when a correction is accepted the transcription is changed. Ancestry's transcription errors remain with an alternative. Easier than correcting I suppose.
Simon
-
I don't think the Eltham=Ham, Fulham=Ham, Ilkeston=Keston, etc. is an error made on the part of the transcribers. Since it is so widespread, it looks more like to me an error when Ancestry compiled the database. Assuming the original data is correct and still exists, I would think it may be an easy thing to fix.
The 1911 census is particularly difficult for transcribers because each household is in a different hand. At least on previous censuses, as you transcribe a town or village, you can get used to the way the letters are formed and see trends. Can't do that on the 1911!
Really the transcription errors are no more appalling than those found on FindMyPast for this census. I don't quite understand why people seem to expect Ancestry to invest more time and money into producing a better transcription than other commercial sites? Poor Ancestry really can't win, no matter what they do. Either people are complaining why certain records are not available yet, or complaining that they did the work too quickly.
Besides, if everything was transcribed perfectly the first time, that would take half the fun out of our searches... :D
-
I don't think the Eltham=Ham, Fulham=Ham, Ilkeston=Keston, etc. is an error made on the part of the transcribers. Since it is so widespread, it looks more like to me an error when Ancestry compiled the database. Assuming the original data is correct and still exists, I would think it may be an easy thing to fix.
That was my first thought (hope!) when I saw it was the last three letters of a placename. But Wall for Cornwall and Wark for Southwark are the last four letters and how do you explain Woolwich=Wool, the first four letters, and Southampton=Ham, the middle letters?
I really can't agree that ordinary human errors in transcriptions can make it "fun" — understandable, yes, but absurd wholesale errors are unacceptable. What about the people who can only afford to buy the occasional credits which are used up very quickly by (avoidable) ridiculous transcriptions?
And by the way, Ancestry is not poor!
-
I. These transcriptions do appear to have been done in haste, possibly automatically and probably by those unfamiliar with British names/nameplaces.
According to a registration statement filed by Ancestry.com Inc with the US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2009, in preparation for going public on the US Stock Market, the majority of Ancestry's data transcription was then done by a company called Formax, based in Beijing, China. Don't know if they are still using the services of Formax. Could explain the mistranscriptions.
Carmela
-
The 1911 census is particularly difficult for transcribers because each household is in a different hand. At least on previous censuses, as you transcribe a town or village, you can get used to the way the letters are formed and see trends. Can't do that on the 1911!
You could equally argue that the 1911 census should be the most accurate transcription of all, because it has only been transcribed once, and not twice, like the 1901 and previous censuses.
-
I. These transcriptions do appear to have been done in haste, possibly automatically and probably by those unfamiliar with British names/nameplaces.
According to a registration statement filed by Ancestry.com Inc with the US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2009, in preparation for going public on the US Stock Market, the majority of Ancestry's data transcription was then done by a company called Formax, based in Beijing, China. Don't know if they are still using the services of Formax. Could explain the mistranscriptions.
Carmela
Sorry, I disagree. As Stanmapstone has said, transcribers are required to type what they see, and sometimes local knowledge can be a hinderance in doing this. The two places Eltham and Elham in Kent have already been mentioned in this thread. I went to school in Eltham, but I'd never heard of Elham until I started researching my tree, and in the early days I frequently mis-read Elham as Eltham. If I'd been paid to do any transcribing at that time, I would have happily mis-transcribed Elham as Eltham, because of my 'local knowledge' :-\
Ancestry's continual mistranscriptions of very clear place names which contain the letters HAM are not the work of Chinese transcribers (whom, allegedly also transcribed BrightSolid's 1911 Census). I can accept Freckneale's suggestion that this was the work of those who compiled the database and indexing, and not the transcribers, who seemed to have little trouble transcribing other parts of the census.
-
I'm currently wondering what Consumer Direct/Trading Standards would make of this. It appears that we're all paying for something which isn't fit for purpose.
-
I don't think the Eltham=Ham, Fulham=Ham, Ilkeston=Keston, etc. is an error made on the part of the transcribers. Since it is so widespread, it looks more like to me an error when Ancestry compiled the database. Assuming the original data is correct and still exists, I would think it may be an easy thing to fix.
The 1911 census is particularly difficult for transcribers because each household is in a different hand. At least on previous censuses, as you transcribe a town or village, you can get used to the way the letters are formed and see trends. Can't do that on the 1911!
Really the transcription errors are no more appalling than those found on FindMyPast for this census. I don't quite understand why people seem to expect Ancestry to invest more time and money into producing a better transcription than other commercial sites? Poor Ancestry really can't win, no matter what they do. Either people are complaining why certain records are not available yet, or complaining that they did the work too quickly.
Besides, if everything was transcribed perfectly the first time, that would take half the fun out of our searches... :D
The Fulham=Ham type errors are the most laughable of the problems, but yes are probably down to some sort of glitch, so should be easily correctable. However, they are not the only errors. In the seven days since the transcriptions went online, I have submitted well over fifty corrections (excluding the Ham errors). It probably would have been more but unfortunately I have to work too ;). I think we all understand the writing issues, but in the vast majority of the errors I reported there was no problem with the writing. In fact it was virtually impossible to work out how they got to the words that appeared in the transcriptions!!!
My understanding of transcription projects (like FreeBMD, etc), is that everything is transcribed twice and the results compared, with differences flagged up. It would be interesting to know if this method was used for Ancestry's 1911. It certainly looks as though they got just one person to do it and used the results. If they did adopt the multiple pass approach, then they should be seriously looking at whether they got a good deal from their outsourcing company!!
-
Ancestry have replied again on the blog:
http://blogs.ancestry.com/uk/2011/12/08/1911-census-%E2%80%93-millions-more-searchable-records/#comments
Most of the specific issues reported have centred around problems with the birthplace field in a minority of the records. Some of you have already correctly identified that this has not been caused by a transcription error but a glitch in how our systems are presenting the data. While we know what the problem is, developing and implementing a solution is not always quick or easy but we assure you that we are working hard to fix it."
There is hope!
-
This topic is going round in circles a bit so I have locked it on that "hopeful" note. Thanks to all who contributed.
Andrea