Author Topic: What I like about ancestry compared with 1911 site  (Read 6016 times)

Offline lesleyhannah

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,458
    • View Profile
Re: What I like about ancestry compared with 1911 site
« Reply #18 on: Tuesday 30 June 09 12:36 BST (UK) »
Quote
BBC Tag 2nd from the end on the bottom line.  You can then just carry on with the rest of your message as usual.

Thanks Lizzie - it does work - though I don't know what BBC means!

Offline lesleyhannah

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,458
    • View Profile
Re: What I like about ancestry compared with 1911 site
« Reply #19 on: Tuesday 30 June 09 12:44 BST (UK) »
Quote
If  on the census image the person's name  is "Green", the transcription should not say Greer, the transcription should be  Green, whether  you know she was Greer or not  .

Hi Cell -

I have to confess here - I haven't seen the original. I can only afford to view the transcriptions. As I said, I have no problem with 'Green' being left as the default transcription, but because I know from the address and family names that this person's name was actually Greer/Grier, I know it would help other researchers to have that added as a searchable alternative.

In this case I'm not criticising the transcribers - in some handwriting a small R can look very like an N. As Green is a more common name than Greer it's understandable the transcriber would opt for that alternative.  I just feel that by not adding alternatives it is making things hard for researchers, who have to pay per view on 1911.

So despite all the daft alternatives added by some users on ancestry I still think it's a better system.

Lesley

Offline perth tiger

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,103
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What I like about ancestry compared with 1911 site
« Reply #20 on: Tuesday 30 June 09 14:22 BST (UK) »
Quote
Paste the quote, highlight it and then click on the BBC Tag 2nd from the end on the bottom line

dont mind me just trying

perth ;D ;D
davey hodgson holliday nelson oxberry ruddock sunman Sidebottom
yorkshire
Census information is Crown copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk included on your posts.

Offline Sloe Gin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,443
    • View Profile
Re: What I like about ancestry compared with 1911 site
« Reply #21 on: Wednesday 08 July 09 12:47 BST (UK) »
Quote from: Ancestry
a collapsible source panel so that you can quickly view the source citation

This I like too. 

I almost always, when finding something in the index, go straight to the original image and bypass the transcription.  Unfortunately the source citation is on the transcription page, and you cannot always extrapolate it from the original image, because not every page shows the folio number.  So this is very useful.

And I vastly prefer Ancestry's policy of adding alternative readings to the index.  Yes, I know the rules about transcribing, but adding something to the index does not compromise the transcription.  The index is purely a finding aid, and it's no use at all if you can't find someone because a mistake was made on the form.  We have the opportunity to make our own judgements by viewing the original - but only if we can find it.
UK census content is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk  Transcriptions are my own.


Offline ColinK

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What I like about ancestry compared with 1911 site
« Reply #22 on: Monday 13 December 10 02:01 GMT (UK) »
In searching the National Archives for information on relatives I found that two records had been indexed as Green rather than Greer, I forwarded them this information along with my proof of the error and they were quite happy to correct the errors. Maybe this is the way to get errors corrected.

Regards   Colin

Offline stonechat

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,682
    • View Profile
Re: What I like about ancestry compared with 1911 site
« Reply #23 on: Monday 13 December 10 07:55 GMT (UK) »
I have some Booth ancestors

On 1841 Census the name is actually written 'Both' on one site

What I like about Ancestry's correction system is that you can enter corrections as 'incorrect original'
So you are not saying the original is wrong but nonetheless the record can be found by later researchers
Douglas, Varnden, Joy(i)ce Surrey, Clarke Northants/Hunts, Pullen Worcs/Herefords, Holmes Birmingham/USA/Canada/Australia, Jackson Cheshire/Yorkshire, Lomas Cheshire, Lee Yorkshire, Cocks Lancashire, Leah Cheshire, Cook Yorkshire, Catlow Lancashire
See my website http://www.cotswan.com

Offline LizzieW

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 11,036
  • I'm nearer to finding out who you are thanks DNA
    • View Profile
Re: What I like about ancestry compared with 1911 site
« Reply #24 on: Monday 13 December 10 10:16 GMT (UK) »
Quote
What I like about Ancestry's correction system is that you can enter corrections as 'incorrect original'
So you are not saying the original is wrong but nonetheless the record can be found by later researchers

That's exactly what I don't like about Ancestry, they leave the "wrong" name as the default and only give the correcton underneath, so if the "wrong" name is totally wrong, you have no chance of finding it, which has happened to me and I had to search on a common Christian name and plough through too many pages before finding my ancestor.  Now if I can't find an ancestor I just go to FindMyPast.

Lizzie

Offline Nick29

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 6,273
    • View Profile
Re: What I like about ancestry compared with 1911 site
« Reply #25 on: Monday 13 December 10 10:25 GMT (UK) »
Quote
What I like about Ancestry's correction system is that you can enter corrections as 'incorrect original'
So you are not saying the original is wrong but nonetheless the record can be found by later researchers

That's exactly what I don't like about Ancestry, they leave the "wrong" name as the default and only give the correcton underneath.....

Yes, but whether it's right or wrong is often only a matter of opinion, so the original transcription should always stand.   (As has been stated before), transcribers have to write only what they see.  Quite often with the benefit of information gained elsewhere you can see that the name was actually written incorrectly by the enumerator, but that does not mean that it should be changed.  If FindMyPast alter transcriptions based on suggestions made by their subscribers, this is wrong and very un-professional.

RIP 1949-10th January 2013

Best Wishes,  Nick.

Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline sarenid

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What I like about ancestry compared with 1911 site
« Reply #26 on: Monday 13 December 10 13:14 GMT (UK) »
It seems to me the two systems are actually very different.  FindMyPast about correcting errors on the face of the document.  They make it quite clear that they will only correct if it is a mistranscription and that any other mistakes etc made by the enumerator or others will not be altered.  On the other hand FindMyPast does enable you to search on alternatives so spelling mistakes of names are not necessarily as important as they are on Ancestry.

Ancestry corrections is far wider and is more about alternatives.   Of course the most usual error is one of transcription but they have various other reasons for name variation.  It is about enabling other researchers to find people.  A married woman on the census is correctly going to be entered with her husband's surname but I have been helped immeasurably by other researchers who have entered the maiden name as an alternative, particularly when it is the first census since a woman married.

Unless it is a clear mistranscription I usually always try to give my reasons including very basic access to BMD records or past census records where appropriate.  If you disagree with an alternative you can always offer another and give reasons for you disagreement.   None of this as far as I can see is available on FindMyPast.

On the whole I personally prefer the ancestry system but I can quite understand the logic and integrity behind the FindMyPast one.

Regards Sarenid.