RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: CaroleW on Sunday 21 August 05 22:23 BST (UK)
-
Hi
It was the enumerators policy to put "do" short for ditto after surnames which were all the same.
I have recently discovered that Ancestry have transcribed the "do" as a surname SO and as a result, approx 1500 entries are mis-transcribed.
1861 - 106
1871 - 490
1891 - 561
1901 - 358
I have emailed them about the error but it may be the reason why some entries can't be found. The head of household is ok - it's other family members who are mis-transcribed
-
I have just received this reply from Ancestry
We appreciate your message.
Thank you for your input regarding our Census Images Online. We have already corrected many of these records that were transcribed as surname "Do". We have forwarded the information regarding the census transcriptions errors on to our programmers for further review. If you notice any other improvements that can be made to enhance your experience, please feel free to contact us again. If a fix is required on our website, please note that in order to resolve many of these issues it requires research, individual rescanning, and other time consuming processes. For this reason the resolution may take longer than that of other website errors. Thank you for your patience.
If there is anything else with which we might assist you, please let us know.
Shaun
Member Solutions
Ancestry.co.uk
http://ancestryuk.custhelp.com/
-
I've found lots of mistranscriptions on Ancestry, some of them quite serious, e.g. place of birth. And they're the sort of errors you only find by accident. Errors are inevitable, but some seem to arise because the transcribers are not au fait with English names and place names.
-
Hi
When you look at the writing on some of the images you can understand how errors occur. I have struggled many a time and even magnifying it doesn't always help. Also - a lot are very faint and almost unreadable. Those type of transcription errors I can excuse.
But it must take a pretty dumb sort of person to look at an image with around 25 entries on it and think that all the various wives and children are surname SO even though the husbands have a different surname.
-
ERROR
Ancestry.com 1901 England Census index has FARROW instead of FORROW.
The index on genesereunited (national archives) is OK.
Don't the companies co-operate in checking or even share the
job of transcribing ?
Paul Suret
-
Hi Carole,
Thanks for pointing that out. Like the others I have found some serious errors between the image and their transcription index, some VERY comical ;D
How would you suggest we go about finding those names missing on the transcription? Type in, first name, then 'Do'? & see what comes up? Or have you, or others, got a better idea?
Jane
-
Interesting theory about all these dittos. This is probably why I cannot find my great grandma Mary Ann Mann a widow on the 1901 census for Fulham. Iam now ploughing through the Fulham census to see if by chance she is there. I did find her son who does not come up on any list when you put in his name and I know I have the right chap--by job name and birth.
I have also come across many place names in the wrong county but as other people say it is because the transcribers dont know the U.K.
-
When I have been unable to find a surname I have tried First name and year and place of birth - sometimes it works - I found my Penduck's transcribed as Pinnock and a few others.
-
ERROR
Ancestry.com 1901 England Census index has FARROW instead of FORROW.
The index on genesereunited (national archives) is OK.
Don't the companies co-operate in checking or even share the
job of transcribing ?
Paul Suret
Perhaps we should be grateful that they don't co-operate or cross check, if they did both sites might have contained the same mistake ;)
It is a point worth remembering that because both 1901 indices were made independently of each other, that if you can't find grandfather's name in one it is often worth checking the other.
-
It is a point worth remembering that because both 1901 indices were made independently of each other, that if you can't find grandfather's name in one it is often worth checking the other.
Hi - the same applies to 1861 transcriptions on Ancestry and 1837online. If I had relied on 1837online for some of my ancestors, I don't think I'd ever have found them. However they do have some useful things on the search that Ancestry don't, like "other people in household" so it's worht checking both.
Cheers Veron :D
-
I hope everyone is aware that you can make a correction if you find out something has been mistranscribed on Ancestry
If you click on view record - to the right there is a section which lists comments and corrections. I've used it several times
Willow x
-
Hi
I thought this was only possible if a) you have a subscription rather than a pay-per-view and b) if it's a name you need to correct rather then anything else. I have a couple of entries where it's the age or the relationship that is wrong, and it wouldn't let me enter the corrections. If this has changed I'll be delighted but that was what happened to me last time I tried to do it. ???
Cheers Veron
-
Hiya Vernon
Yes it is only for incorrect names at the moment but they are hoping to update it for other fields soon - sorry if I was misleading everyone.
Willow x
-
Changing other mistranscribed stuff has been 'under review' for about three years now. I wouldn't hold your breath...
Pauline
-
As a follow up to my original message notifying this problem, Ancestry sent me another email asking me to use the "Comments & Corrections" procedure for each incorrect entry. I replied that as around 1,500 entries were affected, there were not enough hours in the day!!
I suggested they did the same as me - on the home page, ask for a search for the surname SO and it will throw up everyone within each census year. They can then work through them.
Let's hope the "Do" and "So" issue has been addressed with their transcribers so we don't have the same problem when the 1851 goes online.
-
I have recently discovered that Ancestry have transcribed the "do" as a surname SO and as a result, approx 1500 entries are mis-transcribed.
Good for you for spotting this Carole! Compounding the transcription error of "do" as Surname SO is surname SO being used to replace actual ditto marks! I have found families (for eg ISHERWOOD in Little Bolton, Lancashire in 1891) where wife and children have " to indicate ditto for the head of house surname -- but have been recorded as having surname SO.
In the case of the Isherwood family, all the children (and their mother) had " in place of their surnames, but only 3 of the 7 had the surname SO assigned to them by the indexer.
It's a wake up call for all of us to be sure to use wildcards when possible in search engines and be very creative and flexible in our search tactics. There's a tutorial on using Ancestry's search engines at the GenHelp site at http://www.genhelp.org/?p=84
-
Other suggestions
Try 'stupid' vowel combination at the start of the surnames. C, S, H, F all seem to be commonly transcribed as L
Hence (all in 1901)
Mary Ltanley (Stanley)
John Llanaghan (Flanaghan)
Emily Llancy (Clancy)
Fanny M Llaslett (Haslett)?
Pauline
-
Hi
Since discovering the "So" problem, I have found 2 families for other people who were previously untraceable. The surname of the head of house had been mis-transcribed in each case and then the wife and children transcribed as "So".
Nationally - there are 1515 "So" entries from 1861-1901 - none in 1881. This figure includes 182 for Lancashire
The figures are exactly the same now as they were a month ago when I first reported the problem to Ancestry so they haven't even started on correcting it.
-
Here's another variation:
The surname "Wife" exists, but in some cases I've found the enumerator has slipped up and entered something along the lines of:
Henry Smith Head
Alice Wife Wife
Jane " Dau
In this case, it seems to be enumerator error, which has then been transcribed "as is".
Rambler
-
This is our old bugbear isn't it Carole? How many times have we got a result from only a first name, age and birthplace, but it doesn't do to just send one entry in does it, it needs the complete overhaul and check that you've suggested.
For anybody to report each individual error as they expect is doing their job for them, not only that but we PAY for these errors. I think each of us should send an email via the customer help page you listed earlier http://ancestryuk.custhelp.com where there is a tab for emailing Ancestry Support.
We need correct census returns and since we are paying for it, we should expect as accurate transcriptions as they are able to provide. If we can read what is written, they should certainly be able to and it is sheer laziness and a lack of attention to detail which produces such shoddy offerings and I can't say it often enough, that we are PAYING FOR.
-
Have just been reading this thread so thought I would try some of the ways folk have been saying.
Yippee finally found my Combe family - under the name Anscombe would you believe. ???
Looking at the census image I can well see how all the errors happened. The writing on the page is atrocious. I know I have the right family as it had Roavt Anscombe b 1834 Scotland occupation Book-keeper. Had the enumerator been writing legibly it should have read Robert Combe b 1834 Scotland Book-keeper. ::)
Just goes to show, thanks to all you good people one can finally find those elusive ancestors. :) :) I hadn't realised you could search without a surname. Now for some of my other elusives.
Jean
-
Just reading through this thread. Ancestry seems to have got worse.
I am still trying to find my Taylor family in 1861, having spent ages looking for them in 1891 I found them under PEYTON.
How's that for a mistranscription?
Honeybun
-
Amazing Honeybun.
On the subject of mistranscriptions, and very slightly off topic (hope all of you don't mind), I've "lost" a TROW ancestor in the 1881.
Now if the name TROW was written in that old fashioned, swirly script, how do you think a transcriber might read it?
I have tried the obvious - Trew, Traw, Frow, Frew etc but would appreciate other alternatives.
Thank you
Jan
-
have you tried Throw, ;D
-
Tronn? Troun? Srow? ??? ???
Rambler
-
Jiam? ;D
-
Not long ago, in my final year of professional activities before retirement, I was offered a well-paid full-time job as a technical writer with an international electronics company in nearby Grenoble. After three days, I discovered that this company was getting its computer programming work done in a shoddy fashion by sending it to a firm in a developing nation. I was shocked (for reasons that I do not intend to explain here) by this so-called "offshore" approach, and I immediately resigned.
If I were to learn that such-and-such a genealogical company is making profits by hiring low-quality and low-priced workers in a developing nation to transcribe UK census data, I would be morally shocked (for reasons that I do not intend to explain here) and I would not use the services of such a company.
-
I am grateful for this thread. I knew, obviously, that such things as transcription errors existed, but I had no idea how bad things were. Now I know why I am having such difficulties tracing people. :(
Will have a look at the tips on how to search...and try again. Robert the Bruce had nothing on me ;D :o
-
Seems the majority are farming the work out to developing nations even our own government ???
The only ones you can be sure are not, are the ones that use volunteers to transcribe the census for the free sites.
-
Other suggestions
Try 'stupid' vowel combination at the start of the surnames. C, S, H, F all seem to be commonly transcribed as L
Hence (all in 1901)
Mary Ltanley (Stanley)
John Llanaghan (Flanaghan)
Emily Llancy (Clancy)
Fanny M Llaslett (Haslett)?
Pauline
You can perhaps add
Louisa Sligginson (should be Higginson) to this list.
Perhaps they have corrected this by now; I haven't been back to check recently.
-
As well as mistranscribing the ditto mark as a surname (either "Do" or "So"), they sometimes make the opposite error. That is they misread a surname as a ditto mark, and transcribe it as whatever was above it, usually something completely unlike its true reading.
The surname I've seen this happen to is "Cox", transcribed as "Blackman". Seeing the latter name in the index, it's very difficult to identify its true value.
Regards,
Stovepipe
-
Hello
the county boundaries were altered in the 20th century and this has caused confusion although Genuki do try to give the old and new equivalents
Interesting theory about all these dittos. This is probably why I cannot find my great grandma Mary Ann Mann a widow on the 1901 census for Fulham. Iam now ploughing through the Fulham census to see if by chance she is there. I did find her son who does not come up on any list when you put in his name and I know I have the right chap--by job name and birth.
I have also come across many place names in the wrong county but as other people say it is because the transcribers dont know the U.K.
-
I've just found in the 1861 census on Ancestry, records for people living in Norwich where the birthplace has been given as Norway.
The original image shows the enumerator has used an abbreviation which looks like 'Norw'
There's 1136 of them.... :o
Adrian
-
Insert Quote
I've just found in the 1861 census on Ancestry, records for people living in Norwich where the birthplace has been given as Norway.
The original image shows the enumerator has used an abbreviation which looks like 'Norw'
There's 1136 of them....
Adrian
Dear Adrian
That is an amazing amount of inaccuracies.
If this happened for Norwich, how many OTHER towns and villages are misrecorded?
I wonder if we, on rootschat, could compile a list of possible alternative names to look for so that we might then look for relatives under the WRONG addresses?
Just a thought
Best wishes
IMISON
-
I think that's a good thought. Where could we store them for reference?
-
Easy - choose your place, probably on the Forum for "Census Lookups" or "Census and Resource Discussion" would be best, start the thread with a proper introduction and then ask the moderator to sticky it to the top but allow people to add to it.
Mary
-
Easy - choose your place, probably on the Forum for "Census Lookups" or "Census and Resource Discussion" would be best, start the thread with a proper introduction and then ask the moderator to sticky it to the top but allow people to add to it.
Forum for "Census Lookups" /Census and Resource Discussion
Mary
Dear Mary - what a genius of an idea you have created!
Could you please pass this on to the moderator as it is your fantastic idea.
Many thanks again
Imison
-
I think that's a good thought. Where could we store them for reference?
Dear loo
Thank you for your support of the idea. It looks like Mary has a solution. What does everyone else think?
Best wishes
Imsion
-
8)
I wonder if we, on rootschat, could compile a list of possible alternative names to look for so that we might then look for relatives under the WRONG addresses?
I have put this to another forum and had some favourable response from a couple of people, one of whom suggested contacting the moderator to set up such a forum.
Do you have any suggestions as to whether this would be useful?
best wishes
Imison
-
Well I don't have any to start off with, I think maybe avj or Carole should start the thread in the correct place with the details of the mistranscriptions they have found. Then just dropping the moderator a pm should do the trick.
Mary
-
Dear Mary
I have written a quick posting on the General site and mentioned this forum and said that a couple of people had replied positively to the suggestion of getting a list of alternative names and addresses for census transcriptions which may be wrongly indexed.
Thank you very much for your suggestion - you know what to ask for, and I am very much an ingenue.
I would be most grateful if you could pass on my request to the correct person/people for analysis.
Best wishes
Imison
-
Hi Imison
It is my experience and i know some other Rootchatters would agree that when doing a look up for a poster and the person they are looking for cannot be found by the name supplied , then most often its pretty pointless looking for something that rhymes with the name or even a phonetic name because its due mainly to hard to read original images or transcriber error,take your name Imison , the I could easily be mistaken for l then you get lmison now that would be a challenge
Sorry to rabbit on
Joe
-
Hello Joe
Yes, I do see what you mean.
I had better explain myself better - it was a forum about censuses and the enumerators' handwriting and the way people who transcribe the names and addresses therein have from time to time put the wrong name either for the PLACE [address] or for the person's NAME [either surname or their given name].
I hope this explains what we were trying to do - really to set up a searchable index of POTENTIAL alternative names and places [addresses] where the indexes of the censuses may themselves be mis-transcribed. Thus, if someone finds that there is a problem with, say, IMISON, on a census, and finds JANTON [as indeed I have] then a searchable database could be put here so that when we try using the census databases we might have an educated guess as to where our ancestors might be found hiding!
I am aware that this would be potentially difficult to set up, but it could be extremely useful.
Best wishes
Imison
-
Sorry Imison
Now that Sarah has merged the two topics I get the gyst of it now LOL and yep I think its a good idea and hope it takes off, If it does Trystan will be closing down to update us with an even bigger server LOL
Joe
-
Dear Joe
No, it is me who is thanking YOU for helping me to clarify the idea. Many thanks.
Best wishes
Imison
-
Re: Indexes BEWARE!!!!!!!
Just seen this on another part of the CENSUS forum board. Could this also be linked together please, Carole?
Many thanks
Imison
-
Re: Difficult to interpret ... what to do ??
also could this be linked to the forum too, as it gives more description of difficulties in transcription
[from the 1901 lookups]
-
Hi i am tring a free 14 day trial with ancestery and it has been good and bad
a lot of mistakes in transcribbing and i am at a loss to understand how some of it is so wrong and i am an aussie and dont know england at all but i could read a lot of the forms well
classic was trying to find my ggm sythe brownless
found her on the 1871 cenus with CUMMINS as i knew that was her mothers maiden name
as.........TYTHE KEOWNLEP ye i could read it plainly have had alot of difficulty find relations because of misstranslations
but townsend to townend or towenend etc
shoebridge to sheebrige i am raving now you cant find a lot in two weeks and i wont be signing up as i am very very dissapointed and will have to look at another
any recommondentations now i cant spell
regards jenn
-
Hi,
I was interested to read about the Do/So transcriptions as surnames, and thought I'd add my two pen'th.
There are also names transcribed the wrong way round. Try putting the first name into the surname box and visa versa.
E.g. Instead of George England try England George!!!!
(If any one finds him on the 1871 census age approx 10 born st. pancras by the way I'd be eternally grateful) ;D
Seriously though, there are an unbelieveable amount of "bad" transcriptions............ and the 1851 seems to be the worst of the lot!
Linda
-
I totally agree about the 1851 being the worst, about 50% of the names I've looked up on it have been wrong :-\
Sharon
-
I agree with the comments
I too have had reversed named
Archibald Douglas recorded as Douglas Archibald
Alice Holmes was missing from her family in one census
I couldn't fin her anywhere
Then I noticed she was next door but one, transcribed as Ellice Holines
Bob
-
It could be that the names were written "the wrong way round" on the enumerator's returns.
The majority of returns are written Forename Surname but sometimes this is changed to Surname Forename even when other schedules in the same district follow the general rule.
Cheers
Guy
-
Insert Quote
Dear Adrian
That is an amazing amount of inaccuracies.
If this happened for Norwich, how many OTHER towns and villages are misrecorded?
I wonder if we, on rootschat, could compile a list of possible alternative names to look for so that we might then look for relatives under the WRONG addresses?
Just a thought
Best wishes
IMISON
How about SOM?? Should be SOMERSET,
Ancestry has transcribed it as .....SOMALIA
It's for ALL the reasons mentioned that I absolutely REFUSE to purchase a subscription to Ancestry - even though it may delay my finding my ancestors. I absolutely detest the idea of paying for shoddy work.
Burrow Digger
-
In 1881 there is a census reference to a Coal Hawker, aged 20, living in Stanhope Street Middlesex [London] and his birthplace was ST PANCRAS.
I can find nothing for 1870 but if you have his precise birth certificate it might explain things - maybe he was not yet born on the date or else he was unnamed as a babe in arms. Just a thought.
Happy New Year
Imison
-
Not strictly relevant to this thread, but my all-time favourite mis-transcription from the 1881 census is the Head of Household shown as having the given name of "Head" when his given name is known to have been different ................... :-\
ibi
-
HO,HO,HO!
But on a serious note, if we could COLLATE all these we could have the basis of a DATABASE, so let's keep recording and posting ALL such duff leads, so that we can act as a corrective balance to the records.
I think there is definitely a problem with the visibility and legibility of some of the records which makes them difficult to transcribe.
Add to that the cultural difficulties of taking oneself out of the 21st GLOBAL VILLAGE whereby we can talk and mix freely with over 6 billion people, that is possibly why SOM is seen to be SOMALIA rather than Somerset.
I think it might be useful to check the names of the counties with names of COUNTRIES so that we can give ALTERNATIVE suggestions.
I don't blame the transcribers as they are just making educated guesses - whilst Ancestry might one day make a different transcription, meanwhile we have to try and make sense of the massive database they currently have.
We can - and probably do - email Ancestry to let them know of the mistakes and give chapter and verse.
I am grateful to them because without them I would not have had access to the original transcripts.
It is just that WE could help them by providing a meaningful KEY to mistranscriptions.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE
IMISON
-
I think there is a need to be aware of the change in country names - Ceylon has been transcribed as Sri Lanka, so a search for both should be made.
I agree this thread could prove to be extremely useful. Unfortunately there are still a number of messages which make oblique references to other postings which can't be found. Could any poster referring to another thread, please paste the link to that thread in their message so that these can also be used for reference.
Lets make this thread truly useful by collecting this information into one place, as was the intention.
Mary
-
What amazes me is that when eventually found often the names are exactly what they are supposed to be, in my instance Rebecca is clearly written on the 1861 census but has been transcribed as Richard, looks nothing like Richard to me, plus it is shown as "wife", how many Richards do you know who is a "wife", beats me.
I often just put in a Christine name, year of birth plus or minus a year or so and place of birth and 9 times out of 10 they are found.
Happy new year to everyone and happy hunting
LM
-
The worst mistakes seem to be the most simple.....
Could not find grt grt grt grandmother in 1851 under either married name..
Should have been Martha -transcibed Marth that threw everything out- daughter should be Martha Cooper -transcribed Martha Cosper, all fully readable.So far 36 mis transcribed rellies and I onlny joined on Boxing Day.
This could take a while! >:(
Tazzie
-
I often just put in a Christine name, year of birth plus or minus a year or so and place of birth and 9 times out of 10 they are found.
Ah, but it's the tenth one that is so frustrating.
I'd been looking for ages for a Ggg-Aunt, Elizabeth M Thomas, born Samoa (British Subject). I'd even tried putting in just BS/Br/Brit/Sub/Subj in the keyword box, with nothing else entered at all.
I found her today. Elizabeth McHomes, born Somerset.
The image clearly said Samoa, (British Subject).
Grrrrrr!
:D :D :D
K.
-
Koromo - at least you found her :), still looking for my John Stiff in 51 - tried everything...including trawling through a lot of Johns ??? only a couple of 100k to go...ho hum :( ??? ;D
-
My bugaboo for the 1851 census is North'd [Northumberland] being transcribed as North Dakota. So there all these people born Newcastle North Dakota. (North Dakota was not even a state in the United States in 1851.)
born in North Atlantic is also sometimes North Dakota too.
Janis
-
I have also run into problems with my TRICKER surname. I have found it as TUCKER/TRECKER/FRICKER, etc. The most frustrating aspect is when you do find a mistake and submit a correction for one person in the household it doesn't apply to all members. You have to go back and enter a correction for each member. Sometimes it does feel as if Ancestry could care less about quality and service after all, while not the only game in town, they are the largest! :P
-
The worst problem is when Ancestry get the first letter wrong, it makes it so hard to find.
Not a major part of my tree, but I was trying to Find Alice Kench's family, ther is one lot trascribed Rench, and another as Kinch.
Bob
-
It took me ages to find my Grandma Moss
on the 1901 - no wonder she had suddenly
become a Moos!
I wasn't aware that the latter of these names
was so popular, until I typed it into Ancestry for
curiosity. Lo and behold - lots of them, all looking
suspiciously like Moss to me!!
Pels :o
-
I can't use Ancestry. It makes my blood pressure go up. Why do they keep estimating the birth year? So often they have it wrong, and why must the names be in alphabetical order? Why can't we have it like it is on the census form?
And WHY did my great grandfather William come from Hobberaam when it was Hubberston?
The LDS can get it right, why not Ancestry?
I had a months free trial with my Family Tree Maker, but gave up after two weeks from sheer frustration. Silly, I know, but that's me, a silly old bird. :)
-
I am so frustrated with Ancestry.com. Not one of my ancestors on the 1841 census has been transcribed correctly. I thought this would be a good place to let of steam ;D
For the name Grimes - I have had Grethem and Barmes.
For the name Peers - Purs, Peare, Piers and Perre.
For the name Beetchenow - absolutely nothing. I have tried all variations but no luck. I have had some wonderful help from people on rootschat and a couple of other forums - otherwise I wouldn't have found them at all.
Now I feel better having written this ;D
Skipworth in Aus
-
I was annoyed that Booth was transcribed as Both.
Then I looked more clearly, the enumerator had written Both.
Bob
-
I was annoyed that Booth was transcribed as Both.
Then I looked more clearly, the enumerator had written Both.
Bob
Bob
Thanks for admitting this !!
Not everyone realises that the process involved a schedule being given to the householder, to be filled in by them, or, sometimes with the later assistance of the enumerator, if the householder had problems; not necessarily in terms of illiteracy, more that this was probably the only time in their life that the Head was presented with such a form which had to be filled in. (In Scotland, these schedules were then destroyed, but they still exist in Northern Ireland for 1901 and 1911.)
Soooo....
#1 chance for error to creep in, - what the Head wrote, or what the enumerator wrote in the schedule. And take into account that surname spellings were quite flexible at that time.
Then the enumerator had to collect all the schedules and transcribe these into the enumeration books with which we are familiar.
#2 chance for error to creep in, - the enumerator's transcription, - done under pressure of time, and, for most of the Victorian censuses, - by candelight or similar, i.e. before the advent of gaslight or electric light. He didn't get paid until he submitted the completed enumeration books!, and there was a tight deadline.
#3 chance for error to creep in, - any and all later indexes created from the original enumeration books.
And however much indexing sub-contractors in the Indian sub-continent or Asia are trained and given lookup tables for forenames, surnames, and places, there's no substitute for being a native of the country with a long knowledge of names and places (witness the initial LDS classification of all entries from Scotland in Sutherland under "Sunderland" - since corrected in later editions, - but I've only just recently come across entries in "Leith, Middlesex", which I know have to be Midlothian!!)
Some years ago in SoG's now defunct Computers in Genealogy Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake had an article relating to a street in the Greater London area which was included in two different enumeration districts (let's not get into how the households were persuaded to complete two schedules!).
The comparison between these separate enumerations of the same households was frightening in terms of major differences.
I've recently been provided with the details of a similar "double enumeration" in Scotland, and it would surprise me if there aren't similar major differences.
I've previously come across a situation in Glasgow where an enumerator did a draft of his area, and then presumably went back to his supervisor and asked for a new book, only to be told "nae chance mate, use the one that you have!", so scored out all the entries, and re-entered his fair copy ..... which differs in some details from his draft !! (LDS policy when microfilming/digitising is to include all pages.)
ibi
-
HI there just thought I'd put my twopenneth in -
If you're searching for a Henry on Ancestry - (or a Fleury or a Fanny) don't forget to search under "Henny"
For Cook - try Cock (no honestly!)
Oh and don't forget the extra "r" in Harmmersmith !
Cheers Sadietoo
-
May I add to the list of clangers.
I've been looking at the surname Llewellen.
It's bad enough that the last vowel can also be an I or a Y but Ancestry have transcribed a great number of surnames which should begin with a double L as SL
I'm not altering that lot!
Peter
-
Good old Ancestry, they really do have a field day with the Welsh names.
I've just seen an advert for them on Sky tele. Trace your ancestors...
Yeah, a Rose by any other name............. ::)
-
I can't use Ancestry. It makes my blood pressure go up. Why do they keep estimating the birth year? So often they have it wrong, and why must the names be in alphabetical order? Why can't we have it like it is on the census form?
And WHY did my great grandfather William come from Hobberaam when it was Hubberston?
The LDS can get it right, why not Ancestry?
I had a months free trial with my Family Tree Maker, but gave up after two weeks from sheer frustration. Silly, I know, but that's me, a silly old bird. :)
You are not silly. I totally agree with you.
I refuse to pay for their shoddy work.
BD
-
Yep - the transcriptions are shoddy in many cases...... as are the original Enumerators 'translations' of what he heard !
Estimate the birth year ? They dont - they take it from the declared age on the original (if legible)
At the end of the day its a darn sight better than nowt .... dont under estimate the scope of the task ....
-
Thanks BD, it's nice to know I'm not alone.
-
I ran across a whole bunch of a name starting with M, which had been transcribed with a W the other day. I don't remember the name, as it wasn't one of mine, but it's something to try if you're stuck on an M-name (or a W-name for that matter!)
-
It's always a good technique , that i you can't find someone, but have a resonably certain birth place and date, to do a search on first name, birthplace and date, omitting surname, I have had much success this way
Bob
-
I've just been searching through the 1871 census for Alderney.
Having been given the folio and page number, I was surprised that I couldn't find it (RG10/5770 F39 P13)
I looked at the description page at the front and it seems that a whole district (no 3) is not in the database. I was able to find the image that way, but if a little place like Alderney can be wrong..... :P
Peter
-
There are areas totally missing from some censuses.
Walton is missing from 1841 Census
Also I found that some pages in Torquay were missing from Ancestry, but present in the 'official' 1901 site
Bob
-
I'll add my irritation : My forebear was given the first name "Read" when it is clearly "REVd" with the D in superscript and his occupation is Baptist Minister - at least I found him (his first real name is unusual which helped)..... and have entered a correction. But on other sites they got it right....
-
True, Ancestry is American, so they are unfamiliar with our names and place names, but familysearch is also American and there aren't as many mistakes, jumping to conclusions, yes, but not many transcription mistakes.
-
There is a very big difference between Familysearch and Ancestry. Familysearch has mostly been populated by genealogists, they would have a better knowledge of what they were doing.
Ancestry I think outsource their transcription to companies that employ people to transcribe - a whole different kettle of them there fish.
P :)
-
I ought to qualify my statement about the missing names on Alderney's 1871 census. They are in the database. :-[
I just didn't look hard enough!
Peter
-
This is a copy of a post I have just made on this thread http://www.rootschat.com/links/0uo/
"..and can I just add my "find" on Ancestry?
I was doing a look up for another RC member, and spent ages trying to find his family in 1841. I tried all the usual variations etc etc etc - tried just about everything. Then I did the first name, yob and pob and just went through all the images for every result. It took ages but was worth it!!!! All the families on the image had all been transcribed with the same surname as the family listed on the first line :o
So, please remember that you may also be looking for your ancestors with completely incorrect surnames!!!!! ;D"
-
Just found a good one in 1901, was looking for something else when 'Adder ATTACK' caught my eye and I just had to have a look at the image, as you do - turns out the surname of the family is quite clearly ALLCOCK ... but the Adder looks right, wonder what that's short for??
-
hello there
dare
I suggest
Black
regards Jenn
-
My great grandmother is Adder on one census - should be Ada, is that a possibility?
-
I hope everyone is aware that you can make a correction if you find out something has been mistranscribed on Ancestry
I've just been contacted through ancestry by someone wanting more information from 'a personal tree that I'd put on ancestry' about a person whose name I didn't recognise at all - I spent a while checking my various trees for him, then it dawned on me that I'd only entered an alternative surname for them on ancestry - it wasn't my personal tree at all, was just doing a lookup for another Rootschatter
The surname was so obviously mistranscribed that I just had to correct it - that'll teach me :)
- bit of a timewaster for the other person too. So perhaps be careful when you make a correction not to give the impression in the comments box that it's your own family research. (by the way I have asked the said Rootschatter if they want me to pass on their details to the enquirer)
Barbara
-
Black adder, LOL ;D
I wonder if the name could be Addie? I knew a woman years ago whose name was Adeline but she was known as Addie.
-
To anyone looking at Family Tree data on Ancestry
I was looking for something the other day and got quite excited because I found the right family. However all the dates were wrong and the further back it went the worse it became. For most of these things I have Birth, Marriage or Death certs which prove what is on that particular tree is complete rubbish.
If you use Ancestry Family Trees, beware because had I not had certificates for some of the people listed I could have gone off at a complete tangent.
Didn't help me with the one vital link but so annoyed that even the info I had which is easily available from scotlan'd People was wrong for every record listed! (Is this a record ?)
Ann
-
I have to say that I only trust my own research or those of people with whom I have made contact who I know are doing the research.
I have now put postem notes against a couple of things in a tree where if the owner had done the research instead of making an assumption (which actually was the assumption I had made until I did the research!) they would know they were wrong.
I contacted the owner, who had relied on this name (someone who is quite well know and who has a public biog) without checking things like place and date of birth. I said I had the actual certs which confirmed my research. But still it remains the same and unaltered, even though the tree has been updated, and I have never had a response from the owner at all. And now a cousin is pointing me to the tree as if it is the law of the ......
Oh well.....
-
Hi Carole
I've had the same problem with the do as in Alex Bonalliedo and also people such as my gran Olive Gwendoline Leng who was born 5 Nov 1905 always coming up as Dec 1905 on Ancestry and several other sites. Do you think they are all sharing the same database as it saves time on paying researchers?
Many thanks for all the help you've given me on my family tree it's coming along well
Yours Julie
-
During the ancestry blitz over the last few days, I found a new-to-me type of ancestry error. It made me absolutely furious.
I am not using the real names here, but this is how it goes. I have a Peter Schmidt on the 1901. I know he's there because I have found him before. I wanted to check a detail. This time, when I searched, he was nowhere to be found. Fortunately I had saved the census page number etc., and entered that, and then he popped up. The reason I had not found him at first was because ancestry, in their great wisdom, had decided that since he was a boarder, that he should now acquire the surname of the householder. So his name is now Peter Schmidt Bakerman, according to them. I couldn't believe this. To go in there and change what was right, in order to make it wrong, I just don't understand this. And, by the way, there was no "Do" or "So" or anything like that after his surname on the enumerator's list. Yes, I have sent a correction, but how many of these are there? Not a hope in hades of finding them by their real names, as most of us don't know in advance who was boarding with whom.
-
I am new to geneaology and have only been searching for the past week. Luckily I have been helped by Janan who has been looking on the original census returns for me (I couldn't decide whether to get a subscription or not)
Today Janan sent me some information which when I accessed the transcribed information came up as Abertillery, when the original says Abergenfy (we assume this is a mis-spelling as we are looking at Abergwynfi) I know Welsh place names are notoriously difficult and they mutate all the time and the handwriting is awful but I could have dismissed this link as Abertillery is the wrong place but Abergwynfi is the right place.
Does anyone have any experience with other (subscription) sites?
-
I signed up to a 72 hour access to British Origins yesterday because I wanted to check some London marriages. Didn't find any that I wanted so to use my sub I thought I would go through the 1841 census and see if I could find any missing ones.
So far I have downloaded 7 copies of 1841 census returns that I have been unable to find on Ancestry. Hmmm!!!
Coverage is not great but the transcription is obviously better.
:-\ :-\ :-\
Kerry
-
yes, I agree Kerry - and Origins is 'better' than the Genealogist place ....
-
Well I wasn't impressed with Origins after that free offer fiasco earlier this year but I'm beginning to wonder now! Do I renew Ancestry or look elsewhere.
Actually findmypast.com is fast becoming the English equivalent of Ancestry and I am impressed with it. I always find bmds on there that I fail to find on Ancestry.
Kerry
-
Yes, and I dont understand why - the GRO only 'sell' (licence) 1 version of the full Indices ?
-
Yes, and I dont understand why - the GRO only 'sell' (licence) 1 version of the full Indices ?
Actually there is another version - that held at the local offices - which sites such as Cheshire BMD use
Bob
-
British Origins is definitely better. I have several people that I found there that I can't find anywhere else. But I had problems with their technology, couldn't download after a while. I was thinking of trying it again for a short stint, to hunt for some new people that I can't find; maybe I'll get lucky and it will work again.
I found one all by myself the other day! I had a will, with a street name, but the person was nowhere to be found on the census two years previous to his death. So I went through the listings at ancestry for that street, and I found him myself! It was very faint, and if I didn't already know his name etc., I'm not sure I would have found him. I checked to see if any of the other names on that street were indexed at ancestry; they weren't, even though a few of them were quite legible. I think they just "dumped" the whole page as being useless. Ancestry seem to use a very crude process, the "bargain basement" approach.
-
I have found that British Origins only worked on IE, will not work in Firefox.
I really agree with you about ancestry's bargain basement approach! Have found more on British Origins this morning. How many hours out of 72 do I have left ?????
Kerry
-
Actually there is another version - that held at the local offices - which sites such as Cheshire BMD use ...
Bob
well yes - but thats their own data which they indexed and made quarterly returns of to the GRO.
The GRO Indices are full England and Wales scope and there is only 1 complete version. It may be subject to periodic updating to Licencees, but that doesnt explain the anomalies seen twixt the various online sites which claim to have it ...
-
I have found that British Origins only worked on IE, will not work in Firefox.
Kerry
I use Origins in Firefox with no problems
Bob
-
The GRO Indices are full England and Wales scope and there is only 1 complete version.
So, has anybody viewed an actual page from Origins including a name that can't be found on ancestry and compared it to what is available at ancestry? ???
-
I have found that British Origins only worked on IE, will not work in Firefox.
Kerry
I use Origins in Firefox with no problems
Bob
Bob
How do you do it? I just can't get the software to use the viewer to download in FF despite trying numerous times. I just gave up and go to IE.
Kerry
-
Tatty - we were referring to the old 1837Online ... not Origins ;)
Actually findmypast.com is fast becoming the English equivalent of Ancestry and I am impressed with it. I always find bmds on there that I fail to find on Ancestry.
-
I know :D :D
Oh Scroppers has modified he's post again ::) ::) ::)
Tati
I have found both bmds on findmypast and census results on origins which I have not been able to find on Ancestry.
Saying that I still like Ancestry, it has best coverage of all counties and years.
Kerry
-
Well, whatever the name of the resource, in fact. Has someone actually compared 2 pages from different resources and seen a difference? ??? ???
Tatty, Sir BodieNewf formerly ScRoppers? ??? ::)
OK - everybody have modified their posts - this is not making much sense anymore, is it? ;D ;D ;D
-
makes perfect sense to me - I just clarified mine so that Kerry realised I was referring to you ! :D
Yes, someone did some comparisons very recently .... cant remember who now .... but to my surprise they proved that 1837 online (aka newname) produced a hit where Ancestry didnt. And also had a few quarters of 1930 marriages which are blank on Ancestry - altho there was a theory that was to do with display parameters...
PS. Glad you used Sir - a little respect at last ;D ;D
-
First and last time, mate ;)
OK, blank page I understand, missing page I understand.
But I take it you are saying there are names missing on an otherwise identical page. Baffled!!
-
Tanja -
I've found missing pages but not missing names on 1837/findmypast.
Maybe Ancestry keep changing them :D :D :D
Gadget
-
Thanks Gadget - I like your explanation better ;D ;D
-
But I take it you are saying there are names missing on an otherwise identical page. Baffled
Nobody said that - its names not found due to missing pages in the full GRO set of 'images' I thought was being debated :D
-
Tanja - this is what kicked it off .....
Actually findmypast.com is fast becoming the English equivalent of Ancestry and I am impressed with it. I always find bmds on there that I fail to find on Ancestry.
Kerry
Yes, and I dont understand why - the GRO only 'sell' (licence) 1 version of the full Indices
Bodie
-
1837/findmyfamily, was originally founded by a group of people who needed the BMD information for their work. It was only later that they made it all available online.
Maybe, because they needed to use it for their own work, they were more careful to start with than Ancestry.
Gadget
PS here's the link:
http://www.findmypast.com/aboutus/
-
Maybe you are right Gadget,! I think I am going to do an experiment, next time I look up a BMD on findmypast that I can't find on ancestry I will try other people that appear on the same page on ancestry and see if it is missing pages or just simply down to mistranscriptions.
Either way findmypast is beginning to get my vote!! If only they would add more census!
Kerry
-
I found two mistakes today whilst looking for a death record, Bewdly was listed as being in Monmouthshire and Chepstow as being in Gloucestershire. It's Ok if you know your geograhy but must be confusing to overseas searchers.
Does anyone have any experience of Genealogy uk or using Roots uk?
-
Well, whatever the name of the resource, in fact. Has someone actually compared 2 pages from different resources and seen a difference? ??? ???
I have some pages that I printed out from the 1841 at britishorigins some time ago, but I neglected to take down the Folio, page etc, so I recently tried to get this information from Ancestry. However, Ancestry has no listing for these people. I can't see any good reason why not, as they are not that hard to read.
-
Scottish census :
"Retined Mershonat & Acculine Of 10 Acres Of Land" ... ???
Well its "Retired Merchant and feuer and [?] of 10 acres of land" - I'll give them the "A" word as it is illegible to the non specialist but I suspect it s a form of land holding in Scotland........
In an earlier census they have misread the word "master" as well.... ::)
-
Scottish census :
"Retined Mershonat & Acculine Of 10 Acres Of Land" ... ???
Well its "Retired Merchant and feuer and [?] of 10 acres of land" - I'll give them the "A" word as it is illegible to the non specialist but I suspect it s a form of land holding in Scotland........
...snipped .................
That looks very like a typical OCR error ??.................
(BTW, - what's the specific name, place, age, census etc. involved?)
ibi
-
Ibi
John Knox b approx 1796 in Greenlaw, and lived his whole life there. 1861 census is the offending one (I have a pdf of the actual census which is why Iknow about the correct and additional words) and the earlier 1851 census where master is translated as "mustic"
I would love know if any error checking is ever done........
-
On trying to trace my recently discovered Great Grandma's 2nd husband on the 1901 I find that although listed as Male his Christian name of Lewis has been transcribed as Louisa !!
:(
-
How many would you like??
Have just found Edith Alice indexed as Elizabet although very clearly written on the original census page
::)
-
Ibi
John Knox b approx 1796 in Greenlaw, and lived his whole life there. 1861 census is the offending one (I have a pdf of the actual census which is why Iknow about the correct and additional words) and the earlier 1851 census where master is translated as "mustic"
I would love know if any error checking is ever done........
So would I !
Error checking?, - how about a wee dod of Quality Control as well ! :o
On a parallel thread ""Grocer Not a Mercht in the ordinary acceptation of the term"
has been transcribed/OCR'd as "Grocer Not A Herch On Th Ordowary Acceplatson Of The ??"
ibi
-
So guess what I put in the "customer satisfaction survey" they just asked me to fill in ........ ;D ;D ;D ;D
and a request to be able to report errors on all items
But do they read these things! and more importantly do anything about them
-
Ibi
John Knox b approx 1796 in Greenlaw, and lived his whole life there. 1861 census is the offending one (I have a pdf of the actual census which is why Iknow about the correct and additional words) and the earlier 1851 census where master is translated as "mustic"
I would love know if any error checking is ever done........
Ye wurnie far off, - it's blatantly and clearly, very obviously ......
"Retired Merchant & feuar & occupier of 10 acres of land".
I'd back a student of less than 2 weeks on one of my courses to get this first time!
ibi
-
....snipped......
But do they read these things! and more importantly do anything about them
Do you really want an answer to that ;)
ibi
-
"occupier" - obvious now you have pointed it out when I looked again just now at the pdf :-[
and to answer your second post - definitely a rhetorical question as we ALL know the answer!
-
"occupier" - obvious now you have pointed it out when I looked again just now at the pdf :-[
This and another similar example mean that I'm now 99+% certain that OCR software was involved.
In both cases, the similar length of entry in the occupation field had to be squeezed in as two lines of writing in the space normally occupied by one, so that the size of the script is literally tiny.
For a human being, nae prob, just magnify it, and both were perfectly clear, but I suspect, - I'm not certain by any means, - that magnification doesn't help so much with OCR software.
The human eye and brain largely ignore the increased amount of "white space" from the magnification, but OCR software won't and will tend to produce even more bizarre interpretations.
While I'm very pleased about the search options possible on the three Scottish censuses that are available on Ancestry, the use of OCR for '51 and '61 is a pain in that it means that previously developed wildcard strategies are most often not going to be as helpful. :(
ibi
-
On trying to trace my recently discovered Great Grandma's 2nd husband on the 1901 I find that although listed as Male his Christian name of Lewis has been transcribed as Louisa !!
:(
Oddly enough, that one I can live with, since, depending on the manner in which the enumerator former these letters, that's a mistranscription that I've come across quite a few times before.
However, given that "Louisa" is shown as Male, that should have indicated that this was not a question of a normally female given name being given to a male (the reverse was even more common, in Scotland at least [an alternative was the addition of "ina" to just about any male name that you can think of, - the most unusual which comes to mind is poor wee "Normanina" ::) ])
ibi
-
But OCR in my limited experience still requires spell checking - and proof reading which is not the same thing - so does it really save time and effort? In my view, no. if the error rate is as high as this one is!
And, Ibi, what course do you run?
-
But OCR in my limited experience still requires spell checking - and proof reading which is not the same thing - so does it really save time and effort? In my view, no. if the error rate is as high as this one is!
Although I've read a lot about OCR technology over the years, particularly from the point of view of its application to historical documents, I have very limited practical experience, so can't really comment on the spell checking and proof reading aspects, - although, as regards achieving a reasonably high degree of accuracy, especially with material such as 19th century enumerators census enumeration books, I'd tend to believe that your statement is correct.
The saving grace here may be the fact that the Ancestry versions are searchable in a different manner and an additional field compared to the GROS versions at www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk .
As far as I'm concerned, however, until a body of experience with the Ancestry versions has built up so that I can take a considered view on extent to which OCR technology has or hasn't so mangled too many surnames, so that wildcard searching is problematic in terms of the ease, difficulty, or even impossibility of setting up wildcard search strategies, then I have to say that, for me, the jury's still out !
And, Ibi, what course do you run?
Email me on * and you'll be one of the very first to learn of a whole new set of courses launched literally 45 mins ago on the www (they've been a lot longer in the preparation :D ), - by a group of instructors who used to be involved in courses that were known in North America as "the best kept secret in the genealogical world" !!
ibi
email address removed to prevent spam and other abuse
-
Just have to share my bit of good luck that happened today.
I have been researching my Traies family in Hackney and I now have most census returns for the family but just couldn't find the 51 or 81. The 41 turned up under Travis and I have tried allsorts of different alternatives.
I was reading through some old Rootschat threads today regarding this family and someone had mentioned to me to try and F instead of T.
So I duly went and searched for Fraies and ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D yes there they were in 1881 under Fraies. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I have sent an alternative name memo to Ancestry and will try and think more laterally in future.
Kerry :) :) :) :D :D :D
-
There is just one simple golden rule I follow when using Ancestry,and that is never take what it says in their Index as Gospel.Always look at the actual entry.
Regards
William Russell Jones
Cefn Mawr
Wrexham.
-
Very wise words William :)
I also find many missing rellies by doing a search with: first name, year of birth and place of birth. Then I just go through the list checking out the images....unfortunately, a lot of them are incorrect. It's amazing to see how many surnames are mistranscribed.
BUT, on the positive side, if it wasn't for my Ancestry sub then I wouldn't have pages and pages of census images of so many ancestors ;)
-
Lloydy
first name only is my next step to try and find the 1851, the only missing census now for this family. I found one of the sons last night as well under Fraise! He was a pastry chef - a new occupation!!!!
Kerry
-
I found one of the sons last night as well under Fraise! He was a pastry chef - a new occupation!!!!
How topical, Kerry !! - Fraise is French for strawberry 8) :D 8)
-
;D ;D ;D LOL
So it is! Your on the ball for this early hour!!!!!!
Kerry ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
He was a pastry chef - a new occupation!!!!
Wow! you lucky thing Kerry. Mine are all Ag Labs or Weavers ;D
You might be surprised by just using the first name.......I have found many of my JONES ancestors using this method. They have been indexed as Janes, Janer, Joner, Fones, Foner etc etc etc The mind boggles :D :D
If you can't find your family in 1851, and you'd like another pair of eyes to do some searching for you, just PM me ;)
Jan
p.s. I was just about to mention the strawberry bit, but you beat me to it Tati!!!! ;D
-
I have been spending rather a long time searching for a JONES (groan :() family for another Rootschatter in the 1841, and when I thought I couldn't find them the right Head of household name appeared at the top of my search results, and in the correct parish.
I started to get very excited, viewed the image, and....guess what.....he was transcribed incorrectly. He'd been given the surname JONES (same as the lady on the above line) but the image clearly shows him as a LEE :'( :'( :'( :'(
No wonder so many of our Ancestors are missing >:(
Jan
p.s. I have been a good girl and sent a correction ;)
-
I found all the grown up Traies children on Tuesday with spouses in the 1881 and every single one of them had been transcribed as Fraies!!!!
Still can't find them on the 1851 though!!
Kerry
-
I've just corrected a mistake - if anyone was looking for Alice B. Pickthall they'd have found her under surname Hide.
Robert Weston Hide in index to census Thirsk 1891 was listed with wife Jane who had a yellow triangle next to her name, when I hovered the mouse over this, it said other possible name Alice B. Apparently this was because they thought Robert had two wives living with him, but when I looked at the image, Alice B.'s surname was very clearly Pickthall and she lived in the house next door.
::)
-
If you have any missing Roberts in your family, try a search for Hobert (across each census, but particularly fruitful in 1891)!
-
I didn't take time to read through all the messages, but I had an experience with A.com where the names of two individuals were wrong in a census - I KNEW this because they were part if the family line I was researching. I sent the company a memo; sometime later I noticed the entry had been corrected. So it pays to say something as others have found. Red Fox
-
Interesting point Redfox but surely a transcription or index is only wrong if it is different from the document transcribed?
If the original document has the name wrongly recorded and transcript or index should also contain that "error". ;)
Cheers
Guy
-
I think you're right to distinguish between mistranscription and misindexing, Guy.
My suspicion, though, is that certain sites have a higher proportion of misindexing than mistranscription!
-
Actually that where the correcton feature comes in useful
I have a Booth family.
In 1841 , they were enumerated as Both
The transcription also says Both
So I put on a correction saying incorrect original, so anyone looking for them will find them.
Same applies to visiting family members , who sometimes seem to be given the host families' surname
Bob
-
i have found 2 mistakes today while looking for my whitmores and sains.
obviously mrs sophia whitmore didnt like that name as on the historical document part she is down as sophia whitmorephia but on the actual census she is whitmore??
while looking for sains i have a daughter called raphael when it clearly says rachel.i know im blonde and dim but phew thats just plain daft isnt it!!
do you need to have evidence of errors or can you just let ancestry know without evidence?
-
Hi candyflossyum
I just let them know, I like to think the more transcription error notices they get the more they will realise their system doesn't work that well!!!
I'm not a realist!!! ::) ::) ::)
Kerry
-
I agree, just let them know. I just saw a correction where the submitter had just put 'obvious' as a reason and that obviously got through ok :D
I often put 'family research' or 'see later census', and the alternatives are shown a little while later, so proof not needed.
Barbara
-
One example I had was my Traies family who have been transcribed as Fraise and Praies and I just put something like please compare capital T of Traies with capital T of Turner or another T that might appear on the same page.
Obvious is a quicker way of saying it!!!!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ;) ;) ;)
Kerry
-
I couldn't find my Udy ancestors in 1841 Census on Ancestry, but found them in British Origins, in Wales. So obviously the Ancestry Records are not complete.
-
Hi Alectrea
Welcome to Rootschat :)
At the beginning of each census section on Ancestry there's a list of missing bits - don't think they claim to have it all. Might just have been indexed under something else - if you read these postings below you'll see what I mean. It's a good idea to search under just forename & birthplace, or just surname etc etc, too much info doesn't always work too well.
Is there anything we can help you with?
Barbara
-
Hi
When you look at the writing on some of the images you can understand how errors occur. I have struggled many a time and even magnifying it doesn't always help. Also - a lot are very faint and almost unreadable. Those type of transcription errors I can excuse.
But it must take a pretty dumb sort of person to look at an image with around 25 entries on it and think that all the various wives and children are surname SO even though the husbands have a different surname.
Right on, Carol
I have had my fair share of "challenging" transcriptions with probates but for goodness sake it only takes a little imagination and common sense to realize the bleeding obvious, LOL ;)
Bron
-
On every census Mary Morgan was show as having been born in Great Catworth, Huntingdonshire - except for the 1861 - there she is shown as having been born in Hungary !
-
Three generations with the name of John Udy and only 'Cornwall' as the birthplace for the elder two makes things difficult. Having found the elder two ,as I hope, in Wales, the family then disapears from Census Records until 1881! However, the elder two were both cordwainers/shoemakers and according to the Marriage Certificate for the younger they must have been in London in the 1850's. Any help would be appreciated.
-
Coould you give dates of birth for the two Johns you're looking for in London, and marriage details?
-
The eldest John was born c1811 in Cornwall, no marriage date. Next John was also born in Cornwall c1836, he marrried Ann Cobb on April 19th 1858 at St. Mary Magdalene in St. Pancras, Mddx. Ann's father William Cobb,was a butcher. Have Ann's death as 1889 in Bethnal Green.The youngest John - John Joseph was born 1858/9 and died 1899. My grandmother was Louise born 1873 who died 1904.
-
Could you please post any request separate from this thread.
It isn't for doing lookups, and it's better to try and keep on-topic
Pauline
-
My fault, not Alectrea's I think, Pauline, I asked her for their details on here instead of suggesting a new posting :)
Anyway, think I've found them in 1861 under a slightly different name, for a change not mistranscribed by ancestry ;)
Barbara
-
Yes, and I dont understand why - the GRO only 'sell' (licence) 1 version of the full Indices ?
Apologies if anyone already pointed this out, but I have noticed when doing painstaking quarter by quarter searches on Ancestry BMD that some pages do not appear. One big reason seems to be that where the original index was amended, extra names are sometimes added by hand at the foot of the page. Ancestry appear to have used the physical first and last names per page and not the logical ones
(made-up example) page starts with Bloggs and one is missing, at end of page under the list that is now maybe halfway through Browns, an extra Bloggs is written in and linked with asterisk to where it belongs. For Ancestry that page would contain only Bloggs-Bloggs entries so all those Browns and any names in between have disappeared from the index.
Once you are aware of it you can try a name before or after the one that you are interested in and get to it by using previous/next page options. It's a pain but the names and pages are still there, just not accessible directly via the index.
-
Just found a good one when looking for a Hillen family in Burnham Norfolk
1851 HO107/1827 f.77 p.4
Indexed at the end of the family was one Empty Honn, niece, unm, 25
it is of course an empty house, and dittos under the unm niece on the line above :D
Barbara
-
Don't you just love em!
That's a beauty, Barbara. :D
-
I usually put 'traced from previous census' or something similar
I always think its better to do the correction and save someone else the hassle of trying to find the family - I've been grateful of that a couple of times myself
Now can anyone tell me what name a family of Hopkins might be hiding under?!
Willow x
-
Hi
I was just about to ask if it was possible,that a Birth place,on a census could have been mistranscribed.I have never thought of that one before ::)On reading through these post,yes it is possible ;D recently i did some research for a birth got sent all the info from abroad,but still haven't found the person.The mistranscripions i have read on here are an eye opener ;D
Celia
-
Hi
I was just about to ask if it was possible,that a Birth place,on a census could have been mistranscribed.I have never thought of that one before ::)On reading through these post,yes it is possible ;D recently i did some research for a birth got sent all the info from abroad,but still haven't found the person.The mistranscripions i have read on here are an eye opener ;D
Celia
Even when the standard of a transcription is good, there's always the problem of difficult to interpret writing by the enumerator.
There's also the "ear of the hearer" effect. If the Head of the Household hadn't completed the schedule when the enumerator returned to collect it, the enumerator would have filled in the schedule for them, and if the enumerator was unfamiliar with the accent then it's amazing what could happen.
Remember as well that the enumerator then transcribed the info from the schedules into the enumeration book, and any such step opens up the possibility for error to creep in.
Enumerators would generally be familiar with the names of other parishes in the locality, but not necessarily those parishes some distance away, again leading to the possibility for error .........
ibi
-
Transcription errors are an ongoing problem on Ancestry, and much as we can correct them ourselves, let's not forget that we, along with everyone else, are paying quite a bit of money for an annual sub. and it looks as though we are turning into proofreaders for what are basically substandard databases.
We correct Ancestry's work - they get our subs. and use our knowledge to avoid having to proofread their transcripts themselves. It's really not on, is it.
I really think they should have got it right before they released it- it's rather beginning to look as though robots have done some of the transcripts, the errors are so obvious it's laughable in many cases. At least, it would be funny if it were not so awful on occasions. The waste of time is a real issue on dial-up, but even so, we all have other stuff to do, so it's annoying anyway.
The one thing I find the worst aspect currently in Ancestry is the inconsistency of the use of wildcards. If I am looking for Joe or Joseph Bloggs, and I am not sure which he'll be/or whether they've mistranscribed him, I can't put in Jo*, because I can't put a wildcard as the third character, only as the fourth or later - but I can happily search for every Bloggs, which is going to take their site longer to process. Similarly, I can't put in Joe Bl* in case they've transcribed it as Blaggs, again because I can't put a wildcard as the third character in the surname - but I can happily find every Joe in the country if I like.
I've had to use this getout time and again - if I think they've made a total hash of the surname, I just put in the forename, and vice versa - they can process that, so they're happy. I'm not, though - I have to wade through over 500 Joes or 500 Bloggs to find out what their best guess on the other name might have been this time, and some of them are so obviously wrong it's clear they have no local knowledge whatsoever.
Doesn't really make sense, does it...they don't allow us to make the best use of narrowing a search, because of the "three-letters-before-a-wildcard" rule - they keep kicking it out.
Reading some previous posts on this thread, I sincerely hope Ancestry are not doing the Censuses on OCR, or we're all going to be in DS - how about the surname Russell" in the 19th century? Given that the "long s" was in use in those days, I imagine a lot of ancestors are going to end up as Rufsell or Rupell, depending on the handwriting...
-
Bless the transcribers ;D
Just had a good one on the Scottish 1901 - General Dealer (Rag Shens). The original was Rags and bones ::) ::)
Gadget
-
Bless the transcribers ;D
I recently found a Thos' transcribed as 'Fred' :D
Paul
-
I had a Thos transcribed as Theo, which would have been completely wrong, though understandable when you saw'the real thing.'
But FRED !!!!!!
I'm beating the carpet laughing ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Or perhaps it should be crying :o
-
The one thing I find the worst aspect currently in Ancestry is the inconsistency of the use of wildcards. If I am looking for Joe or Joseph Bloggs, and I am not sure which he'll be/or whether they've mistranscribed him, I can't put in Jo*, because I can't put a wildcard as the third character, only as the fourth or later - but I can happily search for every Bloggs, which is going to take their site longer to process. Similarly, I can't put in Joe Bl* in case they've transcribed it as Blaggs, again because I can't put a wildcard as the third character in the surname - but I can happily find every Joe in the country if I like.
I find it bewildering that the software is programmed like this. It seems capable of doing the much longer searches quite happily.
I know there are some extraordinary transcriptions on Ancestry but I think when we have the benefit of knowing what the name should be, it's easier to understand the writing.
Monica
-
Its what comes of using all those Graduates from India to do all the transcribing for Ancestry.I somehow think that whilst they may be better educated than I am,they don't have the local knowledge,of lets say Cefn Mawr that I have!
Regards
William Russell Jones
Cefn Mawr
Wrexham.
-
wr, I think that's true of anyone not familiar with an area that they are transcribing. It seems part of their job would be to learn it. I think that's a poor or no work ethic. When planning a trip, I study the map so frequently, I've practically got it memorized. It has saved me getting lost several times in the past.
My pet peeve is to input specific information in "Search" and get everything but what I'm looking for: i.e., the party was born in England and died in the US, but the first 25 entries shown are all born in the US! That I do not understand. Even key punch cards did a better job of sorting - one of the forerunners of computers for the younger generation.
Despite the problems, I still check the library edition of a.com (paid for it for four years - that's enough). But the number of errors growing on a.com make it almost as unreliable as FamilySearch. That's sad. RedFox
-
.... much snipped............
Reading some previous posts on this thread, I sincerely hope Ancestry are not doing the Censuses on OCR, or we're all going to be in DS - how about the surname Russell" in the 19th century? Given that the "long s" was in use in those days, I imagine a lot of ancestors are going to end up as Rufsell or Rupell, depending on the handwriting...
The simple answer is yes!!, - It's already the case in the ScotlandsPeople censuses that there quite a number of folk with the surname ROFS and ROP ! Think about any such double ss combination in a surname, and you'll find some instances, - doesn't cost any credits to have a look at the number of such hits.
Similarly there's quite a few folk on SP with the surnames SMTIH and BRWON !, i.e. transposition of letters.
The point that I'm making is that it would be inordinately expensive to make such indexes totally error free.
Apart from anything else, that would require a true double entry system, i.e. two people independently key in the data. Any instance where the input is different is referred to a third person, and resolved at that level, with any unresolved entries being looked at by even more expert folk, and so on, with further levels of expertise above that.
In my recent experience, many so-called "double entry" systems ain't!, - instead they involve the situation where a second person just checks the entry made by the first person, which just ain't the true double entry system as defined above ..............
That written, my opinions on the Ancestry indexes are well known. I have been reassured from the highest level in Ancestry that OCR or similar or equivalent technology don't come into the equation; that their sub-contractors are given extensive training, and that their sub-contractors are supplied with every which look up list for surnames, occupations, county and paroch ("parish" ;) ) names............ OK, at the end of an exhausting 8 hour day entering data based on peculiar hands of the enumerators involved, plus some ink fading taken into account, I can just about accept that the 900+ parish list isn't properly consulted, but the number and quite ridiculous nature of many of the errors that I've seen in terms of Scottish county names, - it's a list somewhere in the 30s, isn't it?, when Haddingtonshire and similar "alternative" county names are taken into account, - does tend to call into question the Ancestry quality control procedures involved, and the validity of claims that a true double entry keying system is used, - see above. Such a short list must surely be easy to check?, or am I missing something ;D
However, I've slowly and painfully at times coming round to the belief that I can just about buy into the opinion that we're better with the Ancestry indexes than without, if only on the basis of the extra search field possibilities that Ancestry provides compared to ScotlandsPeople, plus, critically on occasion, the ability to search on a given name only.
BTW, on SP there's always an implied wildcard on the given name, i.e. searching on "J" is the same as searching for "J*" ................
All that written, I can well appreciate that some folk out there believe that, to some extent, they are being "sold a pup" in terms of what Ancestry claim to offer, compared what turns out to be on offer after the subscription has been paid.
At least, with ScotlandsPeople, it's very much the case that credits are not only refunded but also some extra compensatory credits most often provided, when it is shown to be the case that mis-indexing etc. has led someone to wasting time and credits on a futile search.
ibi
-
The following thread has one of the best ever Ancestry transcription errors!
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,247017.0.html
JAP
-
Suspecting that as someone is not appearing on the 41 or 51 Census due to mistransciption I have tried variations of the surname, I found Brewer as Brender, Benett as Barmte and someone who was a Dock Labourer transcribed as a Pauper!! The last one is quite unbelievable. I also found Southwark as Southwalk, and Westminster as Winchester to name only two examples of place names being wrong.
-
I found some wonderful ones this week while trawling through the phone books. Mainly place names such as Rushlalie which should be Rushlake Green and Punnetts Twa for Punnetts Town. ::)
What I don't understand is how this could happen, the phone directories are printed and very easy to read!!!!!! :-\ :-\
Kerry
-
If they used some kind of OCR, it could be that the old pages were smudged/badly printed in the original and, although the human eye could detect the correct word (familiarity, for example), the OCR could not.
The one I used to use gave some hilarious interpretations. I have a better one now.
Gadget
-
That's true I suppose, actually thinking about Town does frequently get abbreviated tp Twn so the n could be misread as an a ::) ::) ::) But Rushlalie, the mind boggles!!!! ;D ;D
Kerry
-
Rushlalie
Rushlake
No, not mind boggling at all really - k = li
Did the Green get missed off?
Gadget
-
Oh yes I see when I cross my eyes!!!! ::) ::) ::) The OCR must have been so exhausted it missed the Green altogether!!! :o :o
Kerry
-
Apart from the issue of the poor handwriting there is lack of geographical knowldedge, today I have found Calne (Wilts) as Calire, and lack of knowledge of British surnames. For example I found Swain as Suan, O'Connell as simply Connell (I expect they thought the 'O' was a middle name) and Penks transcribed as Denter. Admittedly Penks is quite an unusual surname but no way was the 'P' a 'D' and it was clearly a 'KS' not a 'TER' They don't seem to have compared letters on the page when in doubt. So any Penks searching will have no chance of finding their family in the 1851 Census will they?
Some of it is just downright sloppy. Savannah for Susannah and Jene for John.
I suspect mistranscribing is why there is no trace of the family I am looking for and I am getting rather disillusioned with Ancestry as each search reveals more errors.
-
I am certainly no apologist for Ancestry - yes is is sloppy, and we pay for that - but there are some amazing howlers on the free LDS 1881 Census, too - which, of course, are perpetrated on Ancestry as they have not, so far as I am aware, done their own index.
On the '81 there is a Samuel P Mard and his wife Selina - I was at a total loss to find them in the '91 and '01 until I saw the image of the '81 on Ancestry and realised that "P Mard" was a mistranscription of "Pittard".
Also, one poor chap on the '81 was described as an Expiree - I wonder if that means he was dead at the time of the Census...? ;D
-
Perhaps in a box on the table in the parlour!!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) :o :o :o
Kerry
-
I like the expiree! I do always take the time to correct mistranscriptions on Ancestry and on the Genealogist. It's annoying sometimes, especially when you have to go through a whole family group making the same correction! There must be a better way.
I'm not trying to help Ancestry, I'm trying to help other people who come after me, and save them from spending the time I have spent tracking down an ancestor in spite of the mistranscription.
I am quite sympathetic to the difficulties of transcribing, and I think we sometimes forget the advantage we have, knowing what names we are looking for, which are possible English names, and having at least some local knowlege.
My own favourites are Richard Scales Summy for Richard Summerscales, and Himmeidg for Slimbridge, although to be fair Himmeidg was what the emunerator had written.
I think I would still be puzzling over both these if it wasn't for Rootschat!
Anne
-
My ancestors were down as Phoud instead of Stroud on Ancestry's 1901. I did submit a correction, but the last time I looked at it, (almost a year later I reckon) nothing had been changed
-
I've corrected a lot of mistranscriptions, & I've noticed they show up quite quickly.
Wouldn't it be nice if Ancestry gave a discount for each transcription error discovered, after all, we are unpaid proof-readers!!
Dream on ;D
Betty
-
After months of searching I am now used to Victorian formation of letters, I wonder how much training the Transcribers were given? I would rather have waited longer and had it transcribed in this country than to continually hit brick walls because of mistranscriptions :(
For example, I have just found Irnside (which is a common misspelling of Ironside) It is transcribed as Kornder. Sometimes it just appears to be guesswork, weren't the transcriptions ever checked?
-
I've corrected a lot of mistranscriptions, & I've noticed they show up quite quickly.
Wouldn't it be nice if Ancestry gave a discount for each transcription error discovered, after all, we are unpaid proof-readers!!
Dream on ;D
Betty
Good Suggestion, Betty. I paid for a subscribscription for three years, but now use the library edition. I'm not sure which is worse - A.com or FamilySearch. I can't think how many times I've traced a family back on LDS only to find a number of incongruities giving the same name for the spouse and mother!!! RootsChat.com has always come through for me. RedFox
-
This is a very interesting thread. I have a few, some because the image is difficult to read
Like in 1841 in St Austell Cornwall, James SNELL, is James SMITH, Phillipa SNELL and some of the children are MELL. But at the Cornwall Online Census, Phillipa SNELL is called Phillipa BELL. Or in the 1861 Census, Holman for Allmon.
But perhaps the best one I have come across at Ancestry.. you would NOT want to live here!
BUTTOMPTON for Cullompton Devon ;D ???
That is just so funny it is laughable.
Jenny from Oz
-
I am certainly no apologist for Ancestry - yes is is sloppy, and we pay for that - but there are some amazing howlers on the free LDS 1881 Census, too - which, of course, are perpetrated on Ancestry as they have not, so far as I am aware, done their own index.
On the '81 there is a Samuel P Mard and his wife Selina - I was at a total loss to find them in the '91 and '01 until I saw the image of the '81 on Ancestry and realised that "P Mard" was a mistranscription of "Pittard".
Also, one poor chap on the '81 was described as an Expiree - I wonder if that means he was dead at the time of the Census...? ;D
The classic Scottish 1881 misindexing, long since corrected, was all Sutherland locations indexed as Sunderland, Co. Durham!
I've since come across several Leith, Midlothian entries indexed as Middlesex!, so wha kens what interesting mis-indexed entries are still "lurking" :o
ibi
-
On the national theme, I've come across many Derbyshire for Denbighshire - and so many of the Welsh Llanxxxxx as just gobbledeegook
Gadget
-
It's not just mis-indexing, if that's the word - some kind person has just found a family for me, birthplace in 1861 on census page as Midilsex, Bradford, very clear writing, and it should actually have been Cranford, Middlesex (from later census) - so enumerator's fault that time ::)
Barbara
-
And then there's my third gt granfather Richard Speight living in Northfleet Kent in 1851 aged 74 with the fascinating birth place Kendle Blund, Westmorland.
A careful look at the census page makes this almost believable until you notice that the 'blund' is written in the infirmities column. He was blind. ;D
Paul
-
Just to add to this, I`m doing a lot of research on the surname PARFREMENT and currently have 58 different mistranscriptions of this one name on ancestry.com so if your looking for your missing Parfrement, feel free to contact me,
Neil
-
I have come across some great ones.
My favourite though is Roly or Rollay instead of Foley.
On GR I hit a brick wall almost immediately because of mistranscription. My ggrandfather was Edward Hodges living in Fleur-de-Lys Monmouthshire in 1901. My father remembered him as not a very old man so I was boggled to find him appearing at the bottom of the list of people in his house, aged 31 with no occupation, and no disability to prevent him from having an occupation.
Then, on looking at the actual census page, I discovered the 1 was just an overscore(?) and he was actually 3 years old. Which tied into my family. Mystery solved! ::)
-
I have just been searching the 1841 census for a male with first name Lane -- and there were hundreds with that forename - page after page, when I checked some, they were all actually Jane.
So anyone out there looking for missing Janes .. think L
and no, I haven't amended them, there were too many to check.
Barbara ::)
-
Further to my last post, I did actually correct a Lane Yackee as it was clearly Jane Harker ::)
One other I saw was a Lane Taermud, (Jane Turner?)
when I clicked on the name, the index for that page shows a list of 86 names, many of them very non-British sounding (some of them are patients at a private lunatic asylum in Helmsley, Yorkshire). The writing on the image page is not that clear, but not that bad either.
Barbara
-
Just used Ancestry on 3 day offer and for once really got some fantastic information but sometimes (1930 U.s. Census) it took lots of searching by first name, birthplaces to find relatives that I already knew about. Great-grandmother was Feld and couldn't find her brother, nephews, cousins, etc. Already had names, birthdate & places but they weren't in index. Tried Field but finally found some of them under names like Filt & Fred. My grandmother's uncle is still hiding there somewhere (I know where he and family were living but couldn't locate them in 1930).
One surprise however is my grandmother's cousin, wife and daughter appearing in census 3 times! Names, ages, etc. all match us except in one census his parents listed with wrong country of birth.
-
Another Ancestry classic. If anyone out there wants to know what happened to my hubbys great great aunt Alexandrina Nellis after she married Alfred OTTERBURN , in the 1891 census she became Alexandrina CATTERBUM and on the 1901 census she was Alexandrina OTTERSTROM, so best of luck anyone researching the OTTERBURN family of Pickering.
-
I have a Rallmine instead of Catherine.
... and Pallot's births on Ancestry:
in the Parish of: Felmal Sut On In A
which is actually Female (as in sex of the child) Sutton in A, Nts (as in Nottinghamshire I imagine)
and another parish:
Female Matlock
The mind boggles.
I actually feel quite sad that someone is probably looking for these unrecognisable ancestors. At least on FreeBMD they use * or - if they can't decipher something rather than making it up!
-
Hiya all
While we are on this topic can I ask - what happened to the syntax? button. It came in useful for finding these mis-transcribed names
Willow x
-
I have just been searching the 1841 census for a male with first name Lane -- and there were hundreds with that forename - page after page, when I checked some, they were all actually Jane.
So anyone out there looking for missing Janes .. think L
and no, I haven't amended them, there were too many to check.
Barbara ::)
So I can add J/L to the following list of possible initial, capital letter confusions ;)
Any more additions ?
L/S and the reverse
D/P and the reverse
I/J and the reverse
M/N/T and the reverse
H/K/F and the reverse
U/V and the reverse
M/W and the reverse
R/P and the reverse
Q/L and the reverse
I as G
P as G
G as Cr or Ci
As or Ar as Ch
Ag as Cl
Cl as A
St as H
H as Th
J as L
ibi
-
I'll add C/O
I've found quite a few men called Clive transcribed as Olive ;D
Betty
-
Hi
It's easy to get scornful of the poor Ancestry transcribers, who I suspect are non-English people working for a pittance. And I have to confess that despite my feelings of superiority I do make transcription mistakes. However, it is a pity that Ancestry does not seem to maintain a surname dictionary that might help them to identify the more outrageous mistranscriptions. Talking of which, has anybody noticed the large number of British families with the surname Wanker. I looked at one the other day and it was actually Parker. I have just looked at another couple, one is hard to read but looks something like de Wenkse (1891 Stratford-le-Bow St Mary) and the other has a very strange initial capital but I am pretty sure is Rankin Bermondsey, 1891).
Have fun
Gobbo
-
Apparently much of the transcribing is done by machine, so I doubt it earns anything at all ::) ::) ::)
Kerry
-
by machine???????? how????????
-
I'll add C/O
I've found quite a few men called Clive transcribed as Olive ;D
Betty
Thanks!
ibi
-
Apparently much of the transcribing is done by machine, so I doubt it earns anything at all ::) ::) ::)
Kerry
The "official" line is that it's all done by human beings!
ibi
-
Hi
It's easy to get scornful of the poor Ancestry transcribers, who I suspect are non-English people working for a pittance. And I have to confess that despite my feelings of superiority I do make transcription mistakes. However, it is a pity that Ancestry does not seem to maintain a surname dictionary that might help them to identify the more outrageous mistranscriptions. Talking of which, has anybody noticed the large number of British families with the surname Wanker. I looked at one the other day and it was actually Parker. I have just looked at another couple, one is hard to read but looks something like de Wenkse (1891 Stratford-le-Bow St Mary) and the other has a very strange initial capital but I am pretty sure is Rankin Bermondsey, 1891).
Have fun
Gobbo
I'm sure that many of us will admit that we've come across extremely challenging capital letters, and, if we can't hack it, take pity on trancribers in the Indian sub-continent, SE Asia and SE Asia for all the training they are given and lookup lists provided.......... never mind it was maybe the case the census enumerator got it wrong when he was transcribing from the household schedule :o
ibi
-
by machine???????? how????????
OCR and allied technologies............
ibi
-
Thank you, have just had to go and look that up, not being very technically brilliant... it's still no excuse for poor transcriptions :D
-
I have a Jas. A = Elizth, Eleanor as Ebvner, Dan l as Dane, Mary Wharton as Pay Wherson and if anyone is looking for Amy Gough she is Ary Sarah ???
I know some of the originals are virtually impossible to read but the above were perfectly clear as to what the real names were.
-
Martha
That's the problem though, when it is read by machine, it defies logic.
And doesn't it take a long time for Ancestry to accept alternatives??
Kerry
-
If they have used OCR, I'm a bit concerned about what type they are using. My handwriting is not the most brilliant and my OCR Reader/Software that came as a freebie with an old scanner 5 years ago can work it out ???
Do you think I should let them borrow mine?
Gadget
-
Now that's a good idea Gadget, and perhaps they'll let you have a year's free subscription to Ancestry. ;D ;D
I think not ::) ::) ::)
Kerry
-
Its not just names but places on Ancestry. A number of Norfolk birthplaces are listed as being in Norway (don`t they know the counties of England), though an enumerator managed to place Kings Lynn in Ireland so sometimes Ancestry isn`t to blame!
Neil
-
Apparently much of the transcribing is done by machine, so I doubt it earns anything at all ::) ::) ::)
Kerry
The "official" line is that it's all done by human beings! ibi
If technology has developed voice scan, why not transcribing by machine. It makes as much sense as some of the "efforts" we view. It's easy to get cynical about all the errors, but have you tried to transcibe old handwriting? I had to give it up. RedFox
-
If technology has developed voice scan, why not transcribing by machine. It makes as much sense as some of the "efforts" we view. It's easy to get cynical about all the errors, but have you tried to transcibe old handwriting? I had to give it up. RedFox
Old handwriting, and spelling, can be very difficult to read but being familiar with local places names, surnames, etc. can be a tremendous help to transcribing records. However, many of the mistakes are really silly (like Norway instead of Norfolk).
-
Old handwriting is difficult, and a lot, particularly 1841 is faded, but it is lack of knowledge about UK geography and UK names that is at fault. By farming it out to India and China you have people spending fruitless hours searching. Far better to have had it done in the Uk and waited longer
-
many of the mistakes are really silly (like Norway instead of Norfolk).
Just found Torrold for Scotland (admittedly the town was Edenbro, but a local would have known that was Edinburgh, therefore Scotland)
-
But you have to admit some of the writing on them census sheets are terrible, look how many times people on here give the H0 or RG numbers etc to ask what it says ;)
-
I remember the start of this thread, the original intention was to be helpful and give some mistranscriptions that were found, especially those which were a common fault and would be useful to try as an alternative when searching, but it seems to have become yet another "let's complain about Ancestry" post and also in more general terms complaining about mistranscriptions without providing any useful pointers.
Perhaps it should be unpinned now and allowed to run its course or die a death as there will always be new complaints about bad transcribing.
I notice that people are no longer happy with others lack of knowledge of the area in question - I've lost count of the number of birthplaces which I've been uncertain of because I couldn't read the word and also I didn't know the county so put a question mark against my best guess. In these instances I always hoped that the recipient of my efforts would either have better geographical knowledge of the area than I did, or alternatively would make further investigations to find out what the place logically might be.
I felt that at least I'd done the best I could and had provided some valuable details even if not with 100% success rate, but having read the criticisms above about mistranscriptions by people who don't know the area, I feel my efforts aren't worth a jot, why have I ever bothered?
-
I notice that people are no longer happy with others lack of knowledge of the area in question but having read the criticisms above about mistranscriptions by people who don't know the area, I feel my efforts aren't worth a jot, why have I ever bothered?
I think the main complaints are about the (possibly) foreign transcribers on ancestry who have seemingly no knowledge of the UK, not the kind people like yourself who answer so many posts for people on Rootschat. Of course your efforts are appreciated by the many people you've helped, and worth much more than a jot
Barbara :D
-
I notice that people are no longer happy with others lack of knowledge of the area in question but having read the criticisms above about mistranscriptions by people who don't know the area, I feel my efforts aren't worth a jot, why have I ever bothered?
I think the main complaints are about the (possibly) foreign transcribers on ancestry who have seemingly no knowledge of the UK, not the kind people like yourself who answer so many posts for people on Rootschat. Of course your efforts are appreciated by the many people you've helped, and worth much more than a jot
Barbara :D
Why foriegn....?......
I am born and raised in England and I transcribe for FreeCen.....I have done over 10,000 entries.....I can assure you that I have no local knowledge of Norfolk or Suffolk or Kent or Essex or Durham or Cornwall.....etc.....I was born and raised in a different part of the country.
There are times that I have spent an hour or more poring over maps and reading Genuki to try and figure out the name of a village or town. I don't think the Ancestry transcribers have that luxury.
If people are so unhappy with Ancestry then I would suggest cancelling one's sub...writing lots of letters of complaint and of course not asking for lookups from the people who have been duped into paying for such a lousy service.
Alice.....who is happy to have Ancestry as I have helped hundreds of people find rellies over the past 4 years.
-
Hi Alice,
I transcribe for Freebmd and we do have a list of districts, we're only supposed to transcribe exactly what we see, but referring to the list can help to make out the correct reg. district if not sure.
I also use ancestry for lookups for myself and others, and feel the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, wouldn't stop me subscribing - this thread may help others to realise that other ways of spelling names can help them to find their own ancestors on ancestry, and it's always amusing to read about mistakes too.
Barbara :)
-
Isn't that half the fun of using Ancestry, finding someone on the census against the odds and despite the mistranscriptions.
Perhaps I'm a glass half full sort of person but I find it more amusing than annoying!
Kerry :)
-
Hi Kerry
I agree, its the searching that is the best part of looking, if everything was done in regimental fashion we would all get bored. Its the detective work of searching that I enjoy. ;) Just think if it wasnt for ancestry and other websites we would all be going round to all the record offices up and down the country trying to find our relies
ricky
-
My gripe about Ancestry isn't so much the mis-transcribing its the blooming search engine!
We all know there can be problems with the software reading the census but human error doent help at times as local dialect, bad spelling (bad hearing!) all contribute
But when I can't find a relly and end up doing an advanced search - why can't it just give me a list of the names I've asked for!
I tried to find in the 1871 census a Charles Bowkett b 1826 +/- 2 years Herefordshire who married to Ann so why when I search on that criteria does it give me Charles married to any other name but Ann! Then it gives me names I havent asked for and then its several pages down before I find another Charles married to an Ann. On three stars it only gave me 14 names of which only 1 Charles out of the 7 given was married to an Ann and on 4 stars and above it gave me nothing.
I have e-mailed them about it
Willow x
-
Are you using exact search?
-
No Stonechat but I thought the idea of the search results were supposed to be the closest matches to the criteria you have put in and I thought it ran in descending order from the names - DOB - location
Willow x
-
If you tick exact matches only that is what you get
you may need to switch soundex on
Bob
-
Ancestry had one of my ancestors down as a married female, aged 5, named Henry!
-
My gripe about Ancestry isn't so much the mis-transcribing its the blooming search engine!
But when I can't find a relly and end up doing an advanced search - why can't it just give me a list of the names I've asked for!
I tried to find in the 1871 census a Charles Bowkett b 1826 +/- 2 years Herefordshire who married to Ann so why when I search on that criteria does it give me Charles married to any other name but Ann! Then it gives me names I havent asked for and then its several pages down before I find another Charles married to an Ann. On three stars it only gave me 14 names of which only 1 Charles out of the 7 given was married to an Ann and on 4 stars and above it gave me nothing.
I have e-mailed them about it
Willow x
I have the same "gripe". But I still use A.com - the library's edition now. After three years of my own subscriptions, I decided to let someone else pay and try other sources. It was convenient, but couldn't afford it. I'm curious to know - what did A.com have to say? I also have tried everything from 1 star - to exact matches and found the same problem. RedFox
-
I totally agree with Willow regarding the search engine which can be very frustrating having to trawl through pages and pages of irrelevent entries. It will be interesting to see what email she gets back about this.
However, going back to mis-transcriptions, I do feel that if an entry is unreadable it should just put just the initial letter rather than guessing and coming up with nonsensical names. Yesterday, searching for one family on the 1871 I had Hassiette (Harriett), Minette (Michaell), Asbury (Arthur), Carlnelens (Cornelius), and Rigmore (Eleanor). Hmm, reminds me of Eleanor Rigby that one!
Having said that I don't regret having paid my subscription because I live a long way from any Records Offices and am new to research.
Also, I would like to say how wonderful people on Rootschat have been in finding information for me when I have hit a brick wall, plus the researchers in the Chat Room have been absolutely brilliant. They really can find a needle in a haystack :)
-
A particular favourite of mine was
Maria Silverstone.. where born, "Llanidloes, Somerset"
On looking at the actual document, it was quite clearly "Spanish Town, Jamaica"
;D
-
Now that is a particularly brilliant one :)
Please give us the census ref so that we can go see how it got to be that :D
Gadget
-
I love that one. puts all mine in the shade :o
-
I had a questionare from Ancestry today. Mostly it was ticking boxes regarding ease of use and where did you find Ancestry etc(I plugged Rootschat !) (TWICE) they also asked queries with comparisons to GR and findmypast.
At end there were 3 boxes asking for suggestions about improving the site.
Although I had 4, in the end all 3 were related to improving the Search facility.
I wonder what other Chatters would have put?
In no special order.
When searching the Census Description areas give a printed list of roads,rather than a facimile of the enumerators return.
When doing a general name search put page numbers(rather than "Next") so that rather than trawling through page by page, you could at least skip to the more indistinct records.
Due to age,incipient Senility and the Hour, the last answer has fled from my mind. But you get my drift.
Spring
-
Ok well its the 1851 Wales in Carmarthen St Peter
I think it is HO 107/2473.. it says Jamaica-Spanish Town 5th down from the top
-
I had a questionnaire too! And plugged Rootschat!
Just hope they act on the suggestions for improvement :-\
Barbara
-
I suggested they go back and check all the transcripts and fix all the wrong info. I can't imagine they will do it but I imagine lots of people said the same thing.
I wish I had thought to put about listing the street names from the enumerator page though - that's a great idea Springbok
Milly
-
In addition to telling them that I thought their interpretation of the census records left something to be desired, I suggested that they reviewed what they have recorded as the first and last names on each page of their full BMD records.
I also suggested that it might be a good idea if they made making corrections a lot easier.
Peter
-
Stumped
I get the distinct feeling that if I send a correction, they bin it and don't believe me anyway!
Kerry
-
Kerry
;D ;D ;D
Well perhaps I'm in favour, then.
I've submitted a lot of alternative names where (for instance) the enumerator has written Llewellyn and the family name is either Llewellin or Llewellen and they all seem to get accepted.
Peter
-
I have also suggested corrections that have been made by A.com. In a census I noted that two of the younger girls' surnames in a family were spelled incorrectly. I let A.com know, told them the correct information, and why I knew the names were wrong (they were ancestors). When I checked again (don't recall when), it had been updated.
-
I suggested a discount for making alterations (doing their work for them in effect) but don't think they'll do that
;D
One benefit of amending entries is that other people researching the names get in touch through ancestry to find out why, I have had several interesting contacts because of making the alterations.
Barbara
-
I must admit most of my alterations I haven't gone back and checked but the one I did took ages to be added. Perhaps its just because they were working through a long list of alternate names from people like ourselves.
Kerry ::)
-
Trouble is, some of the people getting in touch because of amendments aren't related at all, sometimes I just alter obvious things when doing lookups for other people, but sometimes I can point them in the right direction if I can remember who the lookup was for
;D
-
What do you put in the reason for alteration box?
I know what I'm tempted to put when I see some of the stupid obvious errors ???
Peter
-
I'm afraid I'm not that polite now, I put things like obvious mistranscription compare letter T with other Ts on the same page or some such comment!
Kerry
-
I used to put 'name' family history research, hence all the queries I get from others researching the names.
Now when I alter some name not connected to me, I put 'see other census' or 'name copied from household above' or 'quite clearly name on image' or, like Kerry, 'compare other letter T on page' etc etc, whatever applies.
I have seen various reasons given, (and have felt compelled to put sometimes myself) 'obvious' 'ridiculous' 'bad transcribing' etc - and they do all get altered, so no need to be too polite :D
Barbara
-
I have to say that recently I had to correct a correction - I can see why the incorrect correction was made but it did make my life even harder!
Mary Skilling married Richard Tollfree. The census shows Richard and Mary Tollfer living with father-in-law Skilling James so some kind soul had corrected Mary's surname to James. I have now sent in a correction for the whole lot but I wonder if it will be accepted.
-
The big problem arose with the transcriptions of the 1901 Census because our Government farmed out the transcription to a company, who didn't have sufficient staff to do it themselves so in turn farmed it out the the Prisons for them to transcribe - it was a total disaster, and then it was farmed out to a further company which was also a disaster they couldn't cope with the timescale involved.
It was then farmed out by the original company to India and Pakistan, which in itself created problems, by the time Ancestry got involved the whole thing was a shambles. hence all the errors when it was released to the public.
No one have done a thorough check on it as far as I can see, and I'm blowed if I am going to do a free service for Ancestry or any other paid site.
I will correct anything relating to my own research but not for the benefit of a commercial company.
-
I know what you mean, but I still make corrections when I see them, just a couple of days ago I was contacted by someone who was very grateful for my amendment, (Latrence to Patience) as it had helped her progress quite a lot with her research.
Barbara
-
They got paid good money to do that job and they should do it. It came out of Government funds as well so we have all paid for it the end cost was many more times the original estimate.
-
I know what you are saying Dancing Master but it is so much easier if someone has been there before you and corrected a mistake and I like to do my bit for those others too!
It's like so many things in life that we end up paying twice for, dental care, etc etc etc
that unfortunately is life :-\
Kerry
-
Ancestry did their own transcription of the 1901 census, and had nothing to do with the transcription done by QinetiQ on behalf of the National Archives.
Ancestry was not paid by the National Archives to do the transcription, as alleged by Dancing Master.
But yes, it bugs me that users are being used as beta testers to correct Ancestry's sub standard indexing, but I still send in corrections whether they're in my own tree or names I just happen to come across when doing look ups/research for others - not for the benefit of Ancestry but to assist other researchers
David
-
I did not allege Ancestry did their own transcription of 1901 they allowed it to be on their site unchecked in anyway by themselves knowing full well the problems that pre-existed their involvement.
That is what I said.
As I don't ask others to do look-ups for me or be involved in my research I do not see why I should
change anything on that site.
-
I suggested a discount for making alterations (doing their work for them in effect) but don't think they'll do that
;D
Barbara
Barbara
If you tell Find my past that any of their census info is incorrectly transcribed they give you 3 free credits.
Can't see why Ancestry couldn't do the same ::)
Carol
-
Hi Carol,
Yes I've had a few credits that way, from FindMyPast, and from My Genealogist, but they don't make as many mistakes, not that I've found anyway
:D
Barbara
-
That's interesting to know Carol, but I agree with Barbara I find so few mistakes on FindMyPast.
I guess if Ancestry adopted that strategy, they would fast run out of money ::) ::)
Kerry
-
I guess if Ancestry adopted that strategy, they would fast run out of money ::) ::)
Kerry
;D ;D ;D 8) 8) 8) ;D ;D ;D
-
Dancing Master - the transcription on the Ancestry site is a completely different transcription to the one done by Qinetiq for TNA.
They did not "allow it to be on their site unchecked in anyway by themselves knowing full well the problems that pre-existed their involvement" because it was their own transcription, probably even worse than the Qinetiq one.
They (Ancestry) were not "paid good money to do that job" - it was Qinetiq who was paid.
-
My gripe about Ancestry isn't so much the mis-transcribing its the blooming search engine!
We all know there can be problems with the software reading the census but human error doent help at times as local dialect, bad spelling (bad hearing!) all contribute
But when I can't find a relly and end up doing an advanced search - why can't it just give me a list of the names I've asked for!
I tried to find in the 1871 census a Charles Bowkett b 1826 +/- 2 years Herefordshire who married to Ann so why when I search on that criteria does it give me Charles married to any other name but Ann! Then it gives me names I havent asked for and then its several pages down before I find another Charles married to an Ann. On three stars it only gave me 14 names of which only 1 Charles out of the 7 given was married to an Ann and on 4 stars and above it gave me nothing.
I have e-mailed them about it
Willow x
The e-mail I got back was much the same advice I received on here - use the exact matches facility. Still didnt explain why the search facility is so haphazard in bringing up names though.
I've corrected quite a few transcript error this week - Anlow written as Anslou - Best down as Bert. Plus a Harter Jame to Hester Jane
Also on the one census the children were put down as initials - I corrected it to the proper names as I knew what they were
I do it because I think it might make someone elses search easier and if I have to go back and check something I dont want to have to try and remember the rigmarole I went through to find them in the first place!
I've received e-mails thanking me for my corrections - something that has never happened before
Willow x
-
I've received e-mails thanking me for my corrections - something that has never happened before
You don't mean e-mails from ancestry :o
Do you mean from other researchers, like the one I received the other day?
Barbara :D
-
No Barbara - actually from Ancestry!
It read
Dear Ancestry Member,
Thank you for taking time to submit a corrected name to Ancestry.com. Your correction has been added to our indexes so other Ancestry members can also see the information you shared.
Correction Details:
Title: 1881 England Census
Original Given Name:
Corrected Given Name:
Original Surname: Anslou
Corrected Surname: Anslow
Click here to see your correction in context.
We appreciate your efforts to help us improve the quality of our genealogical records.
Sincerely,
Ancestry Member Services
and yes I was well suprised!
Willow x
-
So I can expect to receive at least 20 in the next few days then
;D ;D ;D
-
Yeap - theres 15 sitting in my recycle bin at the moment lol
Willow x
-
I added a correction and it took a few weeks to make it's way onto the site...but eventually it did. And the very next day I had a mail from someone who had been looking for the family for ages and had finally managed to find them because of my correction. I think he turned out to be a 4th cousin or something like that and we swapped a bit of family info. Apparently his aged mother was thrilled to have found out all the information on the family he was then able to give her. And I was happy to have helped ;D ;D
-
Just doing lookups at the moment and found a correction made by someone else who is the gggranddaughter of that person. So have passed on the contact and hopefully they'll get in touch and share their information - well worth doing corrections :D :D
-
I received the same sort of Email from Ancestry thanking me for the corrections I have submitted, as Willow 4873.
I have done so many corrections over the past three years for my family, that I am convinced that no one else has been trying to trace them. :-\
First time for me to receive a thank you though. :)
Ambers
-
That is quite unusual Ambers
I regularly put in Major and very minor corrections, and have always recieved an acknowledgement, but there again, there must be thousand of contributions daily.
Spring
-
I put in may corrections, never received any acknowledgement
Bob
-
Acknowledgement? - cool, I'd just be happy if they accepted my alternative names, I am the one doing the research and hate the fact I feel I am not believed by them!
Kerry
-
ambers, I too have made corrections to A.com. It was to a census record where the youngest children were given the wrong surname. I had seen it done in a correct manner. I've gone back later and found that the correction has been made. I think a note was attached to the correction. I have also received a note of thanks, at least once I recall. Maybe several others. RedFox
:) :) :)
-
Yes, ancestry have started sending me thank you emails for all the corrections I've made, must be a new policy
Barbara
-
But what happens if a correction is entirely incorrect?
I have been researching my great grand-father and mother and have them in the censuses up until 1901 and then until their deaths. Just recently on checking a street name on the 1891 I find someone has made a correction to my great grand-mothers surname and changed it to Parsons. There is no note in the comment section as why they thought she was someone else. The only explanation I can think of is that Thomas and Mary had a young married couple as lodgers at the time called Parsons and they assumed my great grandma was Mr. Parson's mother. :-\ She is clearly listed as wife to Thomas. If they had checked previous and following censuses they would have clearly seen all the family members together and known it couldn't have been Mary Parsons. (They never moved more than 2 streets away)
I have emailed Ancestry about it asking them to change it back and giving my reasons but as yet have had no answer.
I don't think people should be allowed to alter names without giving an explanation. It has made me very cross and if it's not removed it will make it more confusing for other researchers
-
Just add as a correction, and others can find it
BOb
-
I didn't think they would accept a correction without a valid reason, that's just stupid.
::)
I agree with Bob, just add your own correction, and say why
Barbara
-
Well I don't believe it!! Sorry to sound like Victor Meldrew! Just been back to check. On the first page of the record on Ancestry there is a mistransciption of Mrs. Parsons (the lodger's wife) to my family's name and he has added a note that it is a mistranscription from the original. Fair enough. The original is very plainly Parsons, another case of sloppy transcription. I'm afraid I don't take much notice of the title page and only go by the original.
However, I now find that the whole of my g grand mother and g grand father's family has now been changed to Parsons!! Including Thomas, my great grandpa!
My great aunt Minnie would be turning in her grave, :( or is it the case that if you correct one name in a Census the whole Household automatically takes that alternate name?
I now have a contact email address for him so will get in touch when I have calmed down.
-
One of the problems is that the Ancestry correction form is inflexible and unforgiving. I know that one correction that I made was totally wrong and I realized that almost as soon as I had submitted it. But there was no way at that point that I could withdraw it or re-correct it. As it was not a relative I quickly forgot the details and so cannot correct my error. I am now (shamefully) aware that I have made a nuisance of myself to other researchers. My humble apologies if it is a Rootschatter, who reads this.
Gobbo
-
is it the case that if you correct one name in a Census the whole Household automatically takes that alternate name?
Not too sure about their policy on this, I used to amend separately each person's details in a household, but it's such a fiddle on, so I now just say 'this applies to all members of this household' and I've found that the corrections are made accordingly by ancestry.
Incidentally, Gobbo, I too made a correction once and put the corrected surnames for a couple the wrong way round, someone contacted me about it recently as I hadn't realised until then, so I tried to amend it, but ancestry will only allow you to make one correction - so I told that person to put his own correction in to put it right, and that's what he did - it now shows both amendments.
Barbara
-
One (?) thing that I can't understand is how they show the corrections.
There are some with a little yellow triangle which show another possible name and then there are others with a cloud and a plus sign which permit you to see who has made the correction.
I think that I make all of my corrections in the same way so why should some of mine be different from the others?
Peter
-
:D I believe , please correct me if I am wrong ;D the little yellow triangle shows older corrections.
Since the blue cloud and plus sign, the corrections have been acknowledged by Ancestry and changed very quickly to come up on the relevant search.
I too have mistakenly made a wrong correction :-[ I knew the second I hit the submit key. It has been amended but took several emails to help Ancestry realise what I had done. It involved a different family member, although in the same household so I think the best way is to correct each individual in turn. :(
Crystal :)
-
Here's the link to ancestry's FAQ's about corrections:
http://www.rootschat.com/links/02df/
Barbara
-
I came to the conclusion that I never got an acknowledgement from Ancestry about my corrections due to the heavy sarcasm used in my reasons - ie well comparing this name to other names on the same page starting with same letter it is quite obviously a mistranscription!
But that was the fifth correction of one particular name - Traies, currently on Ancestry transcribed as:
Praies
Fraies
Truies
Travis
Travies
Trayes
Kerry
-
I'm afraid I quite often just put 'obvious' as a reason :o ::)
Barbara ;D
-
Nice one Barbara - after all you're only stating the obvious! ::) ::) ;D ;D ;) ;)
Kerry
-
I usually put 'transcript error' - think that covers it
I do think they should have a delete button for if you do realised you have put wrong information in. But it should only be usable by the person who put in the entry
willow x
-
I agree Willow, it would have saved a lot of explanatory emails from me to Ancestry. At one stage they replied telling me to contact the person who had entered the correction ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I also usually put transcription error
Crystal :)
-
Saying which I have just found my one Holmes family mistranscribed as Halmos (I can see what it says but there again I know who they are)
Ho hum corrections to do
Willow x
-
Usually put "careless transcription"
Also, in the ocassional surveys they do, I always put "improve standard of transcribers" as something they could do better - don't know whether they read it, but they did ask!
-
When I find a family surname spelled incorrectly, I submit a correction for each family member separately.....long job sometimes with so many children :D
Should I just submit correction for the head of the household surname, and Ancestry will correct the rest of the family automatically ?
Also should I ever find a correction for one of my family surnames...where is the username of the person that has done the correction shown.? ....it would be a brilliant way to make contact with rellie's.
Ambers :)
-
Am I very wicked and irresponsible?
I don't bother to tell them :)
It saves a lot of time and hassle ::)
Gadget
-
I have found that laterly other family members in the same list get their names changed too - but just to be on the safe side I change the father and put a note in the comments box "joe blogs, his wife and 9 children"
This seems to work - although I agree it didn't used to be the case and one had to do them all one at a time.
When you find a person with an amended name - one with a blue blob +. not the yellow triangle - click on that amended name and up comes the details.
Not everyone is contactable, it seems, but I have made and received several excellent contacts through this amendement posting on ancestry.
-
Gadget - I really dont know you well enough to say whether you are wicked and/or irresponsible (!) ;) - but it's nice to have a search bring up a possible 'cos someone else has made an amendment - otherwise you'd have to go through the whole field by field search, which seems a pity if someone else has already done that and discovered them!
-
Well I sometimes have to shake my head and wonder why :o :o :o I sent in a request for a "correction" of a LAST NAME and they did the first name. So now it's a double whammy.....aaaarrrrgggghhhh.
I found a good one yesterday......Sister Colester.......it should be Silvester :-\
mab
-
Am I very wicked and irresponsible?
Yes ::) ::)
;D :D ;D
-
Am I very wicked and irresponsible?
Yes ::) ::)
;D :D ;D
But I'm useful - especially when you have techie problems, Barbara :)
-
Best we take good care not to upset you, then - ;D
Of course you're not wicked or irresponsible! :D :D :)
-
Hi Cousin Gadget :-*, my Welsh side of my family have been difficult to trace, and it took me forever to work out which Evans and Davies's were mine ::) , and I hope to drag it a few more rellie's by making a little easier for them ;)
Mum 44, thanks for that ;) , wish I could make all my Triangles in to blue blobs if that's the case ;D
Regards Ambers
-
Amber - well, quite often if you look at the "lead" member of the family, they will have a blue blob - not every time, I admit, but a good percentage. Not always the father - I expect it depends on which family member the alterer (?!?) was interested in or made the original alteration on.
(is there a correct noun for the "person who made the alteration" ? Alterer is logical but it certainly doesn't look right! )
-
This topic seems to have run its course, so I will lock it now (20 page rule)
;)