RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: teragram31510 on Monday 19 December 22 19:58 GMT (UK)
-
Fiddling about on FindMyPast I thought I'd just see what the 1939 register looked like, never having had cause to look at it before. When was it released? I find some oddities.
I put in my grandmother's name Winifred Nation + year of birth 1890 and Somerset. 1 result for Winfred T Nation. Clicked on the image to find her correctly at Clayhill Farm Cannington Somerset, except that her second name was Frances and looks like a pretty clear F to me.
For some reason the transcription gives her occupation as "Chitlon Twictt Cottage" (Chilton Trivett Cottage is the preceding location!) Not really important but is such an occupation really very likely?
However, underneath her entry is one crossed through in red for Annie M Nation born clearly (in my opinion) on 6th November 1919 (transcribed as 5th Nov), who is single and a student. This was my mother (deceased 2008)....whose name only changed to Mead 3 years later in 1942 when she married ! (If you go to "See Page 16" it shows the same information except that the name Nation has been transcribed as Hatson.)
I think at the start of the line in the image is a date, 17/9/42? If so it looks like the register was "corrected" for single women just after they married, even several years later.
I checked my mother-in-law (once I eventually found her, and her parents, under Dorothy Berris when it looks fairly obviously like Burris to me) and the same thing is there, her married name added 3 years later.
Why was this done I wonder?
I also wonder how many folk are unable to find fairly recent information from this register ! I know it wasn't created for the likes of family research maniacs and I do understand that transcribers are supposed to transcribe what they see but .... (tongue in cheek: are they asked to take a sight test first and/or use their intelligence just a tiny bit??)
-
The 1939 Register was used by the NHS up intil 1981 and this is the annotation you are seeing - single names being updated with married names etc.
Also, when it was indexed to put online transcribers were only given columns of info to work with so that they didn't see the whole of someone's personal data which is still confidential until either death or 100 years of age.
Those columns of transcribed data weren't always put back together along the same line though and the data sometimes slipped a line.
Hope this explains some of the anomalies.
Pheno
-
It was created for the issue of Identity Cards and the Ration Books. Later it was used as a basis when the National Health started in 1948, they continued to make changes and add information up until the early 1990s. The later additions vary depending whether the information was provided.
Some of the transcriptions are erratic, for the sake of protecting people’s privacy they were done by vertical columns, so the transcriber ever saw a complete entry.
-
Pheno beat me to it :)
-
One thing that has always puzzled me - and so far nobody has drawn any attention to whether transcriber's were given a 'time limit'. If not, then those taking on the task are having more regard for their ego than the value of their accuracy in the final outcome.
I regard some mistaken/erroneous transcribing as sheer haste, and in the case of occupational errors, plain ignorance. eg: Sit back and look at what you have typed and take a moment to think is it logical!
In the past I have expressed similar concerns in regard to other poor transcribing - it wasn't long before that struck a particular nerve with those of an opposing view. But I feel volume of work is no excuse to be first-past-the-post come what may.
-
Sure the transcribers would have been in a hurry to get through the lists quickly. FindMyPast is a business and time is money. I don’t think it would’ve had anything to do with ego though. :-\
Some of the censuses were shipped out to be transcribed by either non English speakers or English as second language (unsure if one or both) - maybe check to see if that was the case with the 1939 register too. It might be an explanation for some errors.
In your example you know what the words and letters are, so that’s what you see. It may not be the case for anyone unfamiliar with the names or places. Admittedly there are can be some odd interpretations though. :)
-
I imagine all of the names in the OP were picked up by an Include Variants search so if you think of the transcribers' job as providing a finding aid to the original record then they've achieved the objective.
-
I imagine all of the names in the OP were picked up by an Include Variants search so if you think of the transcribers' job as providing a finding aid to the original record then they've achieved the objective.
Speaking as someone who is involved at present in a big transcribing project, I agree with that sentiment, if one can transcribe sufficiently that a variant search will find it, then that is good enough. Transcribers are not researchers, just people paid by some, or volunteers (like me) who just want to get the info out there. At the same time as doing our own research and living a life!
As to whether a T is an F or not, (as an example) a lot of that depends upon one’s exposure in life to varying handwriting styles and this varies.
As to your note re 5th & 6th of November. 5 & 6 are next to each other on the keyboard as well as potentially looking similar in handwriting. This is why searches should be done with allowance for variation and why people should always look at the original image and not rely on the transcript.
At least most sites offer the option to post a correction of a transcription, and you can do this when you find your family.
-
With so much yet to be transcribed, I suggest Copper1 volunteers to do some transcribing themself. Some Parish Records in particularly, are very difficult to read, as are many other documents.
It is easy to spot errors when one is familiar with a name or word, but it must have been particularly difficult for those for whom English was not their first language.
-
It is also worth remembering that transcribers are told to write what they see and not what they think the word might be.
-
We don't get to see the right hand pages of the register, which were used by the NHS and registration authorities. They have not been released into the public domain. But normally, the crossing through of an individual entry and annotation to "see page nn" means that the columns on the right hand page have all been filled, leaving no room for any additional entries, so the record for that individual is "moved" to the end of the register book and continued from there.
There's a lot of information on the National Archives website about the register, and the additional information and annotations that can be found in it.
-
I have done transcribing and was told to transcribe what I see. Just following orders from the top so it seems.
-
If I remember correctly, and don't quote me on this! When the 1939 register was being transcribed, the transcribers did not see the complete page - they were given a column, rather than an image of the whole page, to work with. I believe the reason was so that illegal copies of the Register could not be produced and so deprive FindMyPast, or whoever were the owners, of revenue.
-
If you read answer #2, it was for data protection, to prevent the transcriber from seeing the full entry of living people.
-
Oops - not my day today :-[
-
Just because I am an annoying pedantic old git:
1939 National Register was transcribed by BrightSolid, the owners of FindMyPast. ;)
-
Thank you all for your replies especially Pheno, Jebber, Copper1 for your explanations at the start of the thread.
Like so many things these days unfortunately, haste seems to have taken priority in some cases over accuracy and checking/rereading, either in the actual transcribing or in putting the information back together.
I understand the need to protect privacy - but, as in translation from one language to another (I speak as a former professional translator), context is paramount !
-
From personal experience, transcribing Irish documents for a very large Family research company, they overruled my decisions so many times, I stopped doing it.
With quite a bit more than a little familiarity with the Irish language and placename elements, it really annoyed me to be overruled by someone sitting in an office in Utah.
-
Example of a transcriber not transcribing what they see: in 1921 a relative of mine has shortened his birth county from Warwick to W'ck - this has been given as Wick, Caithness!
Nowhere on the entry is their anything that can be construed to read Caithness - and anyway there are several places in England called Wick.
-
Transcribing isn't easy. I've been looking at old docs for years and I struggle a lot. Sometimes I've put stuff on the "deciphering page" and it gets solved pretty quickly. Then of course, I find it easy to read what has been written!