1911 census

[davidft]

Whether it is helpful or not it is the right way to do it.

First rule of transcribing is write what you see not what you think it should be.

I can see that, but why not double-index the entries that appear to be misspellings.  Index Herny as both Herny AND Henry.

The more alternatives they have to put down the more work is involved. This was the biggest census by miles that has been transcribed so far and if they sat there putting down every alternative they would have taken even longer to make it available. And let's be honest this difficulty with the spelling of names will be largely solved once all the functionality eg wild cards etc are available

[mike175]

One of my ancestors Phillippa Symons Metherell eventually turned up transcribed as 'Symons Philips' (admittedly this was 1891  not 1911)

While waiting for the original scan to download, I was preparing to write a scathing letter to Ancestry . . . then, guess what . . . that was exactly how it was written by the enumerator! All the other entries for the household were written with the surname last, so clearly a misunderstanding by someone back in 1891 . . . and full marks to the transcriber!

I get as frustrated as anyone by obviously lazy transcription work, but I agree, write what you see. It could take an awful lot of time and a lot of intuition to try to 'correct' them all.

Mike.

[Necromancer]

I dont think anyone has a problem with the fundamental rules of transcription - this sub-thread started because of the 'quality' issues being reported.... Ankerdines being most recent, but there have been dozens.


But having said that I guess we shouldnt lose sight of the fact that there's over 30 million names to transcribe, so what is being reported here is just a small % of the user population ......


I believe on their Blog, FindMyPast are suggesting a 98+ % accuracy ?   

[wrjones]

As far as the two perhaps villains referred to,I would choose Ancestry a thousand times over FindMyPast.I have heard instances of it taking 240 units simply to find one particular household.

Regards
William Russell Jones
Cefn Mawr
Wrexham.

[plimmerian]

1911
SWIFT ELIZABETH HELLOUS F 1896 15 Leeds

could this be:

Births Dec 1895
Swift  Elizabeth Healas 

just for reference!

 

[Berlin-Bob]

In Reply #311 Paul mentioned his table of 1911 census districts.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,352985.msg2319218.html#msg2319218

This table has been now placed in the RootsChat Reference Library.

See Topic: 1911 Census Districts
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,354796.0.html

Bob

[pjbuk007]

Wild card searches is now live, and seems to work.

[Nick29]

back to the debate about FindMyPast charging full-whack for images et al during the Beta-Test period - some were saying that it was still a 'privilege' to be able to see their ancestors, despite being expected to 'test' and comment on mis-trans etc .....

Now we have 'quality issues' in the almost-final product, tis interesting to note how the views are skewing round to FindMyPast being the villain   

Since most of us in the beta test only downloaded about 5 images each, I don't think we were in much of a position to judge about the quality of the transcriptions then, were we ?  I had one person who could not be found on an index search, but was found by address, but I've since seen some of the (mis-) transcriptions, and I can see what they were complaining about.

Given the same situation, would I do it all again ?  Yes of course I would.

[drodgers34]

The transcription errors would not be such an issue if it were subscription, would they ?  Annoying but not expensive.

They hve stated that subscription would be available later in the year.  Initially if you are sceptical you might say 'Why would they" but while PPV might be lucrative, subscription might poach long term customers from such as ancestry.

My renewal for ancestry is due feb 09 but I wouldnt switch unless the 1911 were on subscription.