Another howler from Ancestry

[Nick29]

That's right - that's why Ancestry calls them 'Alternatives' and not corrections.   Sometimes transcription only comes down to interpretation, and often the correct interpretation can only be made by those whose research has revealed which interpretation is the correct one. 

[rachelralph]

my MILs name is a long one that is spelt differently to the norm, her first name ends in ene instead of the usual ine. someone has entered an alternative. when i told MIL this she was very annoyed!

[cati]

Not an Ancestry howler, but there really cannot be any excuse for this as a transcribed occupation on the 1911 census:

'Jakes in washing'

Cati

[omega 1]

I could`nt find the Tucknott family (1851) on FindMyPast,so looked on Ancestry.

The Tucknott surname had been transcribed,Suckrott ,Tucknob & Tucknote

Found the ones i was looking for,right spelling.

omega

[Sloe Gin]

I like Ancestry's approach of adding the correction to the index and not replacing the original.

That's bonkers/nonsense/rubbish (choose one or all)   

What is the point in perpetuating an error when a correction is offered?

Something you haven't taken into account is that the document being transcribed may itself be a transcription, and as such may itself contain errors. 

The census returns before 1911 are an example:  we are looking at copies that the enumerator made of the original forms, which no longer exist.  He may have made errors when copying, for instance he may have read a poorly-written Berry as Barry.  It may then have been correctly transcribed (by Ancestry or whoever) as Barry, but someone researching the family would know that it should have been Berry.

No harm is done by including alternatives in the index.  We can make our own judgement when we look at the 'original' - but we need to be able to find it, and that is all an index is for.

[Nick29]

I'm firmly convinced that there were as many (pre-1911) census transcription errors made by enumerators as there were errors made by transcribers for indexing purposes.  We have to realise that transcribers are human, and they make human errors.  If a transcriber is transcribing 'awkward' names and sees one close to one that they have come across before (or even someone that they know), then it's very easy to be swayed by that, and the transcriber puts down what they know, and not what they see.

[FosseWay]

I'm quite surprised that in six pages of this thread, no-one's raised errors in placenames in transcriptions. I have every sympathy with transcribers who make errors in personal names which seem 'obvious' to the relatives of the person concerned. Not only do we (I count myself in this, having transcribed for FreeBMD and WAP) have to cope with enumerators, priests etc. who are obviously descended from a long line of spiders, and with damage/fading to the original documents, but also personal names come in all sorts of varieties, both official (e.g. Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn) and as a result of parental choice or semi-literacy (all the Margrets, Jhons, Sharlots and such). Trying to second-guess your way through that lot will result in a transcription that is probably further still from what the enumerator actually intended to write.

But with place names, there is a finite number of places in the UK, most of them have standardised spellings and most of them can be fairly confidently associated with one or two specific counties. Yes, for relatively small places, especially those geographically distant from the enumerator, the same problems occur as with personal names, but I've seen real howlers in spelling and county attribution with large cities that any enumerator would have heard of, and any transcriber should have. I have a relative who according to an Ancestry transcriber was born in Wolverhampton, Co. Durham. On the census page it says 'Wolverhampton, Staffs' perfectly clearly.

On changing the record: I agree with those who have said Ancestry's approach leaves something to be desired. I prefer FindMyPast's/FreeBMD's approach where it's a question of a definite transcription error. The Ancestry 'alternative' field should be left for enumerator errors, or instances of married women being enumerated under their maiden name and other such oddities. Perpetuating errors that have no historical or documentary relevance is, I agree, bonkers, as someone else phrased it.

[Nick29]

The instructions to transcribers of Ancestry (and most other outfits) is perfectly clear "Type what you see".   Now, no-one can tell why this particular transcriber chose to read Staffs as Co. Durham, but according to the rules, any alternative interpretations have to be alternative suggestions, and not corrections.

As for "But with place names, there is a finite number of places in the UK" - this reminds me of when I found the birthplace of one of my UK ancestors born in 1644 in the Isle of Wight, Virginia, USA.  I immediately thought "Silly Ancestry transcribers !", until I researched it a bit more and found that this particular family was documented in the early settlerment records of this far-flung colony.  At the time I wasn't even aware that there was an Isle of Wight in the USA.

[LouiseA]

Making jokes out of other people's spelling mistakes and typos is not funny at all.   

In fact, it goes against 'netiquette'.

"Messages and articles should be brief and to the point.  Don't
      wander off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post
      messages solely to point out other people's errors in typing
      or spelling.  These, more than any other behavior, mark you
      as an immature beginner."


Internet 'netiquette', drawn up in 1995

Of course the real joke is that this thread is about someone's intolerence of someone else's mistakes !

Actually, I'm not intolerant of other people's mistakes, we all make them. My original post finished with a "grin" icon and was posted on The Lighter Side board - it was meant as a light-hearted comment.

Unfortunately there are some very pompous, humourless people on here who are too full of their own self importance and have their heads up their own backsides. If I'd realise that posting a glib comment about Ancestry was a hangable offence, I would have thought twice about it.

Anyway, I won't be coming back to this forum, I've got better things to do with my time.