RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: LeicsandWarksAncestors on Monday 28 September 15 22:33 BST (UK)
-
Should transcribers have local knowledge of documents that they are working on?
The more you use the census the more mistakes you find, this is especially true of Ancestry census transcriptions. If you purchase a cd from a local FHS, group etc then they tend to have a lower rate of mistakes.Bear in mind that if you are looking at a census transcription of an area that you do not know a mistake will not be obvious to you and could be the brick wall that you stuck on.
My question is, "Should transcribers be local or have local knowledge of the documents that they are working on?
-
I do think it would be useful if transcibers had a local knowledge of the documents, they would more be able to decipher place names etc. I suppose it is not always easy to do and some handwriting is so bad that it would be almost impossible.
If not local transcribers if the documents are checked before uploading then perhaps local adjudicators who have knowledge of the surroundings.
-
A local adjudicator is an excellent idea!
-
Dont forget though that transcribers are supposed to put what they see, not what they think it should be.
-
Dont forget though that transcribers are supposed to put what they see, not what they think it should be.
Absolutely, but speaking as a local transcriber, where writing is faded or indistinct it is easier to recognise a place name if you know the area.
Christine
-
Put what you think that you see? Really? that does surprise me. Local knowledge would help with street names and local areas and looking at other words and how they are written would help with silly workmistakes such as one i found yesterday.
Jessy, a girl was transcribed as Jerry a boy. It was quite clear but it was just sloppy work. More accuracy and less speed!
-
Jessy, a girl was transcribed as Jerry a boy. It was quite clear but it was just sloppy work. More accuracy and less speed!
Local knowledge wouldn't have helped with that one. :)
Yes, transcribers are supposed to write what they see not what they think a word should read. We know through many deciphering threads on rootschat, how subjective that can be - the variations in what people see can vary wildly.
-
Dont forget though that transcribers are supposed to put what they see, not what they think it should be.
Absolutely, but speaking as a local transcriber, where writing is faded or indistinct it is easier to recognise a place name if you know the area.
Christine
The downside of this is some local transcribers will guess at something that fits the locality rather than transcribing what they see.
The best transcribers could transcribe without being able to read or write (i.e. interpret what they see)
Cheers
Guy
PS street names often change over years so local knowledge does not always work
-
I think local knowledge is essential. That's why I declined to transcribe some FreeREG documents from areas of the country I hadn't ever even visited or knew where they were.
Within a local area you have particular names that crop up again and again that, elsewhere, are unusual and could easily be mistranscribed simply by the transcriber not knowing that this variation of a name exists.
Even more so with making sense of local placenames. Little idioms and "the way we always write it" etc.
Anybody could transcribe some sheets .... but a local will add that extra %age of accuracy from local knowledge that's essential.
I also think that, with local records, a transcriber's got more of a sense of "ownership", taking each line a little more personally as they can visualise the village/location as they're doing it. It's personalised to them. It's loved more. You go the extra mile for your own child.
-
....
The best transcribers could transcribe without being able to read or write (i.e. interpret what they see) .....
I disagree.
I have transcribed many family history documents that are handwritten. I have done so for decades. If I was not able to read and write, I would not be able to transcribe.
Most of these documents that I have transcribed are in the style of longhand that I was taught at primary school. It was taught in schools throughout the western division of NSW at least from the commencement of compulsory education (1870s in the far western townships).
It is a style that is no longer taught (ceased in the early 1960s). Most of these documents involve names of central western New South Wales localities, and yes, unless you had a working knowledge of those names (past and present) you would likely not succeed in your transcription.
As an aside, here's a thread from the Australia Board re a flawed transcription. http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=715385.msg5593782#msg5593782 The locality in my posts on that thread is in the Sydney region, and it is Neutral Harbour. I clearly read it as such, not just because I can read and write using that style of script, but also because I have local knowledge of the geography.
The transcriber has made a mishmash .... the index has it as Newtral.
Cheers, JM
-
Put what you think that you see? Really? that does surprise me.
Not the original quote. The original quote by groom was; to put what they see, not what they think it should be. ..
A different meaning entirely, a good example of the subject in question.
-
Should transcribers have local knowledge of documents that they are working on?
The more you use the census the more mistakes you find, this is especially true of Ancestry census transcriptions. If you purchase a cd from a local FHS, group etc then they tend to have a lower rate of mistakes.Bear in mind that if you are looking at a census transcription of an area that you do not know a mistake will not be obvious to you and could be the brick wall that you stuck on.
My question is, "Should transcribers be local or have local knowledge of the documents that they are working on?
In a perfect world yes, I transcribe places that I know inside and out, but also transcribe places that I don't know but I am careful ( always!) and mistakes will always happen.
I think the problem is more to do with big commercial sites who have paid people/offshored to transcribe who really do not have clue and doubt they care very much.
If you notice the best for transcriptions are done by people who gave and give their time freely because they are interested in the subject and care, they tend to be more diligent.
Kind regards
-
....
The best transcribers could transcribe without being able to read or write (i.e. interpret what they see) .....
I disagree.
I have transcribed many family history documents that are handwritten. I have done so for decades. If I was not able to read and write, I would not be able to transcribe.
Really why not a transcription is only a copy of a shape one does not have to understand what the shape means.
Just look and the numbers of transcriptions of hieroglyphs that have been made to understand the theory.
Many transcribers think their job is to interpret or transpose the handwriting not so.
The job of a transcriber is to make a copy of what is seen not to transliterate what is seen.
Most of these documents that I have transcribed are in the style of longhand that I was taught at primary school. It was taught in schools throughout the western division of NSW at least from the commencement of compulsory education (1870s in the far western townships).
It is a style that is no longer taught (ceased in the early 1960s). Most of these documents involve names of central western New South Wales localities, and yes, unless you had a working knowledge of those names (past and present) you would likely not succeed in your transcription.
As an aside, here's a thread from the Australia Board re a flawed transcription. http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=715385.msg5593782#msg5593782 The locality in my posts on that thread is in the Sydney region, and it is Neutral Harbour. I clearly read it as such, not just because I can read and write using that style of script, but also because I have local knowledge of the geography.
The transcriber has made a mishmash .... the index has it as Newtral.
Cheers, JM
I have never been to Austalia let alone Sydney but the example you give clearly shows Neutral Harbour (the flourish clearly descends the side of the u) claiming that the error was due to a ditant transcriber just does not make sense, it was due to poor practice.
Incidentally I learnt to write by tracing parish registers as an infant an progressed to transcribing them before I could read and write properly.
If I can do it any idiot can.
Cheers
Guy
-
Many transcribers think their job is to interpret or transpose the handwriting not so.
The job of a transcriber is to make a copy of what is seen not to transliterate what is seen.
I think that is something that a lot of people who have never transcribed don't realise. Transcribers are told to put what they see, it is not up to the transcriber to put what they know it should be. Therefore it doesn't really matter where you are. As I understand it, if the word has been written incorrectly on the original document, you shouldn't change it to the correct spelling. Of course mistakes happen, and words that perhaps are obvious to others get copied incorrectly. Usually most sites offer a chance for others to submit the correct word. Without all the wonderful people who have given up their time over the years, many of the records we are now able to access through the Internet wouldn't be possible.
-
True, you shouldn't change it for what you think it is .... but people with local knowledge will see something that others don't. This something is more often likely to be a local name. They can "more easily" decipher a squiggle into an actual place, because they know the place, they've heard of the place.
You can only put what you see..... but what you see is different depending on your experience.
Wilton or Milton?
If I am local and know there's a hamlet of Milton just 1/2 a mile up the road, that's what I'll see.
If I am from elsewhere in the country I might see Wilton.
We've all seen local placenames mangled.
-
WhileI agree that transcribers are supposed to "write" what they see, but that often turns into the mysteries that get posted on RootsChat ;D Local knowledge may help to lessen those "mistakes".
-
If I am local and know there's a hamlet of Milton just 1/2 a mile up the road, that's what I'll see.
If I am from elsewhere in the country I might see Wilton.
But then, playing Devil's Advocate, are you then transcribing an historical document incorrectly just because you happen to know what the place name should be?
-
As a transcriber for a local website, the layout of our transcribed documentation allowed for the inclusion of amendments (for as written as against corrections).
All submitted transcriptions were double checked with another local transcriber.
As had been said earlier without local knowledge some information could be well and truly lost.
(Local place names are an example, and the inclusion of place name York doesn't imply the event happened in York but in the county of Yorkshire)
Having access to the original handwritten records comes as a bonus.
Brian
-
.....
I have never been to Austalia let alone Sydney but the example you give clearly shows Neutral Harbour (the flourish clearly descends the side of the u) claiming that the error was due to a ditant transcriber just does not make sense, it was due to poor practice.
Incidentally I learnt to write by tracing parish registers as an infant an progressed to transcribing them before I could read and write properly.
If I can do it any idiot can.
......
Guy,
Any local person transcribing the record would have read it as Neutral, not just because that is the written word, but also because they are familiar with the locality.
Yes, distant transcribers should have also transcribed it as Neutral, however they did not, and so they seem to have used the 'see the written word in isolation' approach to transcribing. Yes, that particular Ancestry transcriber's mistake can be attributed to poor practice.
I do not know your intent in using the word 'idiot' but in Australia it is often considered to suggest the person using it means it to refer to a person who is a bit of a dipstick, a dill, or a hoon. Here in Australia it is basically a derogatory word.
Cheers, JM
-
I have also transcribed oral histories.
It is my opinion, gained through personal experiences and in conversations with others over many years, that these are the most challenging. You need to be familiar with the spoken word, and with the social history and the accent of the speaker. It also helps if you were present when they were being interviewed, and can return to them to discuss your first draft etc.
Cheers, JM
-
Interesting subject which has thrown up many varied stances.
My view- yes I would think local transcribers do understand nuance and local patterns better. But I take Guys point about literal translation.
The other point would be '' who is the transcription for?'' If it is for civil records then literal transcription must occur. If it is for a general family name gatherer then ''literal with local knowledge'' would be ok
My g-grandparents death records state Claraville SA. I had never heard of it but knew it was in the Mt Gambier township so put Claraville Mt Gambier in my records.
Me sitting on the fence ;D
Why cant records reflect both? The literal with an addendum stating possible differences? The differences would still need checking by others - hmm double handling- but it could eliminate people searching Milton instead of Wilton
-
Hi there,
I am attaching a snip from an official record (one of hundreds of NSW historic maps) .....
I recognise the 'penmanship' as that of one of the drafters from the 1800s working in the NSW Surveyor General's department.
It is my firm belief that without a local transcriber's knowledge of the National Park's name we should not expect it be transcribed as Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park.
Cheers, JM
-
(Local place names are an example, and the inclusion of place name York doesn't imply the event happened in York but in the county of Yorkshire)
Funny you mentioned that one as just this week I was looking for someone on ancestry ( I had limited my search to UK records only as I have a world wide sub and didn't want search the world for this particular person in other countries as I know he never left the UK)
Anyway, in my search results was a person born in New York USA living in England - I was curious so had a look at it, the image clearly said York and not New York USA. More sloppy work by ancestry transcribers who seem to think everything is in America. ::) I submitted a correction of course with York exactly as it written. I love ancestry's transcriptions ;D
As a transcriber you are supposed to write exactly what is written and I do 99 per cent of time, but obviously when you are transcribing for databases I am certainly not going to type in Bristol Enland ( even if England is misspelled like that on the original document) I will type up Bristol England, or it will B8gger up the set.
Mjm - I can easily read the snip that you posted , except for the "ring" bit . I come from a family who write like that. I think I may even write like that myself ( my hubby can never read my writing - my 9 yr old can though easily enough, perhaps he should be doing some transcribing, can't be worse than some you get) :)
Kind regards:)
-
:) Yes, the 'ring' that my ancestor wrote is the one that tricks most people. :)
That National Park should be a "must visit" for anyone in the Sydney basin, whether residents or tourists.
http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/Kuringgai-Chase-National-Park
Cheers, JM
-
"Should transcribers be local or have local knowledge of the documents that they are working on?
Clearly there are differing views, but where Ancestry and the like are concerned to do so would perhaps increase the cost of subscriptions?
Imber
-
I have to say that I have used my local knowledge of Welsh places in Radnorshire to decipher possibilities and been wrong more often than correct.
Maybe it's me ;D
Mike
-
Well Mike, I would not get any of the ones anywhere in Wales, but I have a fair understanding of the New South Wales ones, particularly their various geographical names from about 1788 to WWI. Standard spelling was non existent and one of our Surveyor Generals was determined to save local Aboriginal names for the districts. But as far as I know, there's no towns in NSW with 51 (or is it 58) letters in it.
Cheers, JM
-
There is transcribing what you see and knowing what you are looking at.
There are loads of the name Fox transcribed as Fose in a set of records, the problem is not that it looks like se because it does and often looks like sc, that's what it's meant to look like, the problem is the transcriber didn't know what an x looked like.
They should at least know how the writing they are transcribed had its letters formed.
A person familiar with the names of a country would have at least questioned Fose and (hopefully) discovered how an x was written.
-
There is transcribing what you see and knowing what you are looking at.
That's it exactly ;D
Christine
-
snip
As a transcriber you are supposed to write exactly what is written and I do 99 per cent of time, but obviously when you are transcribing for databases I am certainly not going to type in Bristol Enland ( even if England is misspelled like that on the original document) I will type up Bristol England, or it will B8gger up the set.
snip
Kind regards:)
There you have given one of the main reasons for the errors on the Ancestry site.
It reminds me of the fiasco when the 1881 Census was transcribed in a joint effort between Family History Societies and the LDS.
Many errors were present in the 1881 Census (transcribed by members of UK family History societies, checked, before being sent to Salt Lake City to be keyed in by members of the LDS).
In this case the church members did not handle the actual census facsimiles, but a transcription in block capitals produced by UK volunteers.
The errors were introduced at the keying in stage as was proved by comparing the transcription with the final product.
There was also geographical confusion by those who keyed in the data which put Sunderland (N.E. England) into Scotland, because someone thought it must be Sutherland (NE Scotland).
This therefore supports the local transcriber theory, however on the National Burial Register [NBI] (1st edition) there were huge chunks of transcription errors produced by local volunteers in the UK.
I had previously transcribed the burial register for Bottesford, Leicestershire and had made it freely available online. When the NBI came out I was aghast at the differences between my transcripts and the NBI transcripts and dug out my fiche of the original records to check to see if I was in error.
Having re-assessed my transcripts I then asked a friend who was well versed in old handwriting to double check as I know that it is easy to read what you want a word to appear as. Sure enough she confirmed my transcripts were correct and the NBI was in error. (I should add the compilers of the NBI accepted my transcripts were correct and amended the Bottesford entries in the later version of the database.)
Cheers
Guy
PS Yes Majm that is the meaning of the word idiot. However I was using it in a self effacing way (banter) rather than in the derogatory sense.
-
One place I have an interest in is one that's pronounced unusually, locally .... and spelt in lots of ways in transcripts, by vicars, book writers and now FH sites.
It's hard to type the pronunciation, but locally it's pronounced with a "silent L": Co(L)-dee-cot.
Official modern day spelling is Caldecote.
Online/transcriptions and over time it's changed, I've seen: Caldicote, Caldecote, Caldicot, Caldicott, Coldicot, Caldcoat, Coldcoat .... and every other variation/combination you can think of.
Even the online sites' auto-correct/'pick a place' offers varying choices of spelling and sometimes you're unsure whether choosing this place is correct at all because ... it's also a place name that's got a lot of alternate locations too - so by choosing it from a list you could be declaring you're after an entirely different place with the same name. There's another place of the same name just 10 miles away - and 5-6 others dotted around.
I think this is a less-common situation of what should be typed if you KNOW the spelling, but neither the original person who said where they lived, nor the transcriber, knew how it was spelt. If somebody from a small village moves 100 miles away and the census-taker says "where are you from?", they could spend ages on the doorstep with the householder saying it again in their strong accent and the census-taker saying "go again.... er, and again....slower...." Clearly it should be typed as it was written down, then transcribed, but I like the way the "A" site enables users to submit alternative spellings etc which would help to sort these out (when discovered).
-
Interesting discussion.
I transcribe for an OPC (online parish clerk) website. We transcribe what we see - this is easy to say but not always easy to do!! Sometimes you can look at a word that's difficult to read several times and see it differently each time!
I think that local knowledge can sometimes help as long as long as this supports - but does not replace - "transcribe what you see". As previously highlighted, having knowledge of old handwriting styles is really useful.
We don't correct mistakes, spelling errors etc. or make assumptions about what the minister intended to say - and for many names in the past there were no standard or correct spellings. However, to help users of the OPC website, I have the option, for example, to:-
- insert [sic] after a word (e.g. I would use this if a word was clearly written but looked odd)
- insert ? after a word to show that I wasn't certain what was written
- insert an explanatory note (e.g. surname not recorded, abode name covered by ink blot & unreadable)
Regards
Malcolm
-
Yes they should,but in the race to get the next census online first the big companies use non local people,the 1911 census was farmed out to India,now they may well have a knowledge of the language but to transcribe a census was crazy,I would not dare to transcribe a New Zealand one with place names with all those R's in the names the same with other countries I might share the language but local knowledge is whats needed
-
One place I have an interest in is one that's pronounced unusually, locally .... and spelt in lots of ways in transcripts, by vicars, book writers and now FH sites.
It's hard to type the pronunciation, but locally it's pronounced with a "silent L": Co(L)-dee-cot.
Official modern day spelling is Caldecote.
If you mean the Upper and Lower C straddling A1 just north of Biggleswade, I've heard it pronounced Cordicot, so as not to confuse with Codicote south of Hitchin, I suppose.
Not so far away, ones that have given me grief, Chishill (prononced like the woodworking tool) sometimes spelt Chishall, but not to be confused with the nearby village of Chrishall.
I have found that the further away a person is living from village of birth, not only more likely to mis-spell, but more likely to put nearest largest town instead. This could be because enumerator had never heard of it and neither party could spell it, so the enumerator asked "where's it near?" and when told a town he recognised was happy to record that instead of having a long conversation about a small obscure village.
-
As i transcriber i am told to type what i see. There is a notes column where suspect things can be mentioned e.g putting male and the person is in fact female that is found occasionally on a baptism entry on the original entry. You are told to check other sources but i always put a note. The main problem is when they give a baptism date before the birth date on the original record. The software system will not allow the entry to put in that way round so you either have to put the dates in the other way round or you can put *.Problem is unless you get a year in somewhere that entry may be difficult to find. Its very useful to do some transcribing as you learn more about problems with data in respect to your own research. I prefer to areas i'm interested in and can get to check the original myself because you transcribe from different media cd, transcripts, photo register images for example.
-
One of my relatives that I have been searching for for a long time turned up this morning. He was born in Bury Sussex, but the census record said Berry (and had been transcribed as Berry). Perhaps a local transcriber might have picked this up. His surname was mis-spelt, but obviously the transcriber wouldn't have known this. His age should have been 62, but it looked like a blob of water had been spilt on the 6, so all that could be seen was a number with curves. One site transcribed it as 82 and another as 32. But the age had been originally been put in the female column in error and crossed out. The 6 was visible under the crossing out, so that should have given the transcriber a clue.