Rools about speling....

[bcowan]

I've read a number of articles on getting started guides within the main ancestry databases and the advice given is always to spell geenealogy properly so as to appear professional and informed and I can understand the reasoning but there are a few downsides;

For example, let's just say that I've got a distant cousin who has just published a full family history of Bob Smith.  He's done a great job, all of Bob's siblings, children, places of residence, etc, etc.  Unfortunately my distant cousin made a typo and entered a title of "The Geenealogy of Bob Smith".  Now, some time later I come along and start searching for the elusive Bob.  I go along to Google, Yahoo or whatever and carefully type "Bob Smith" + genealogy.  Guess what? No results!  Why? because Google looked at genealogy AND geenealogy and thought nope that doesn't match!  Throughout my website you will find instances of misspellings and the correct spelling.  What I'm trying to do here is capture the searches of those people who have simply mistyped a word.  Equally, when I'm searching the internet I use very specific searches (using the "", +, operators) AND common misspellings of geneology, famaily hisory, etc, etc

The same rules obviously apply when looking for placenames, surnames, etc, etc.  So remember, combine common misspellings with your surname searches and I'll guarantee that you will begin to discover some great sites that you would otherwise miss.

I'm sure that there are other techniques that researchers use and it would be interesting to get some other ideas....

Regards,

Bill

[mahees]

Hi Bill
When searching ancestry, I was looking for the Callaghan family on the 1871 census for months. I knew the Head, Patrick and wife Bridget were born in Ireland and all the kids were born in Stockport. I tried Calaghan, Calahan, Calagan, Callagan, Callahan, and goodness knows what else on every type of search, and I'd just about given up. 

Just recently I thought I'd have another go, so I typed in one of the kids' names with birthplace Stockport, Parents Bridget and Patrick and approximate birth date with no surname on exact match and low and behold, there was the Cullaughan family   

Just goes to show that you can try any number of misspellings and you still might never think of the right one. 

Erin

[7igerby7he7ail]

Yep, done the same myself.
Looking for Flanagan, tried various combinations and spellings, eventually found them entered as Flanakin.

In my tree I keep to the original spellings [that is as in original PR's etc]
I than put something in the notes to explain variations in spellings.

Tom G

[behindthefrogs]

The problem is unless you record every single reference and the spelling that you found there it can take a very long time to retrieve a reference to check some thing in the future.  I know you can record the obvious but if later you want to find if for example some new discovery was living in the same street in a census life can become difficult.

To keep my records readable I usually don't record the precise reference for a census if that  is the obvious source of the information but I do record the different spelling.

David

[RJ_Paton]

There are various methods of adjusting search terms on Search Engines such as Google.

As you have rightly said using the operators "" + - can make your search quite different

1. entering a word or phrase in inverted commas makes it search for that word/phrase exactly as you have typed it

2. adding a + immediately before a word confirms that this word must appear e.g. Smith +Green  would only bring it those Smith sites which also had green in the terms.

3. adding a - immediately before a word tells the Search engine not to display any sites with that word e.g. Smith +Green -politics

4. adding a tilde symbol ~ before a word when using Google will bring up sites which have a similar spelling or sound and this would cover your genealogy/geenalogy problem

[Malcolm Bull]

How can you hope to include every spelling to anticipate all the variations which a devout incompetent might submit to GOOGLE etc?  Would your approach satisfy George Bernard Shaw's spelling of FISH as GHOTI?  Surely the whole point of correct spelling is that we are all playing on the same level field.  If someone cannot find what they want when they spell words incorrectly, perhaps they might even take the trouble to spell words correctly next time.

Here on ROOTSCHAT, we have this topic of bad spelling from time to time, and on every occasion, the only defence of mis-spelling is a veil for laziness and incompetence, not to say stupidity.  In these days of spell-checking, there is little excuse.  If someone writes Geenealogy and fails to spot it and correct it, what confidence does it give you in the rest of their research?  Very little, I would suggest.

Malcolm

[behindthefrogs]

Here on ROOTSCHAT, we have this topic of bad spelling from time to time, and on every occasion, the only defence of mis-spelling is a veil for laziness and incompetence, not to say stupidity.  In these days of spell-checking, there is little excuse.  If someone writes Geenealogy and fails to spot it and correct it, what confidence does it give you in the rest of their research?  Very little, I would suggest.

Malcolm

I thought the point of this thread was not to lambast the sort of people that Martin is moaning about but to provide positive advice about the problems that we encounter.

We all have problems with bad transcriptions due to bad handwriting and mistakes made by transcribers.  If you have ever done any transcribing you know how frequently you can stare at and check a particular name before making your best guess, perhaps querying it for the checker.

If you have performed the checking role you will know that in some cases the correct transcription is obvious to you but in the majority you can't do better than the best guess.

Once your investigations go back beyond the 19th century the further problem of there being no standard spelling starts to enter the equation.  Please lets stick to the subject of how to find and record these variations where every bit of help can be useful.

David

[mahees]

Well, I suffer from dyslexia, and I have to say, Malcolm, your attitude to spelling is a little narrow-minded.
While I have a mild form, and my spelling is not terribly affected like some of the dyslexia sufferers I have met over the years, I still struggle with my spelling occasionally, and I wouldn't be so quick to judge those who find spelling more difficult.
Yes, spell checking is a help, but it is not always accurate, and is only available on a percentage of computer programmes. It also doesn't help for the spelling of names and proper nouns.

Until you experience what it is like to suffer with not only the spelling issues, but the many other symptoms of dyslexia, I would think before you speak just a little bit more.

Incidentally, despite the fact that that I need to double-check the spelling of genealogy, and ancestor before I write it, I still have absolute confidence in my research, and I have made excellent progress, thank you very much.

[JAP]

I agree with everyone who worries about rotten spelling - if only because it hides the origin of words; and the origin of words is something which I happen to think is important!

But I'm a pragmatist and so I have learned, like so many of us, in our genealogical explorations, to deal with rotten spelling and with typos!

I certainly appreciate that many such emanate from people who have certain problems with which we must sympathise - but most, I fear, are the result of nothing more than sheer carelessness ...

And we need to appreciate that computers are relentless in their interpretation of words (though, on second thoughts, fuzzy logic etc is changing this ...).

Best regards,

JAP