Should transcribers have local knowledge?

[LeicsandWarksAncestors]

Should transcribers have local knowledge of documents that they are working on?
The more you use the census the more mistakes you find, this is especially true of Ancestry census transcriptions. If you purchase a cd from a local FHS, group etc then they tend to have a lower rate of mistakes.Bear in mind that if you are looking at a census transcription of an area that you do not know a mistake will not be obvious to you and could be the brick wall that you stuck on.
My question is, "Should transcribers be local or have local knowledge of the documents that they are working on?

[3sillydogs]

I do think it would be useful if transcibers had a local knowledge of the documents, they would more be able to decipher place names etc.  I suppose it is not always easy to do and some handwriting is so bad that it would be almost impossible.

If not local transcribers if the documents are checked before uploading then perhaps local adjudicators who have knowledge of the surroundings.

[LeicsandWarksAncestors]

A local adjudicator is an excellent idea!

[groom]

Dont forget though that transcribers are supposed to put what they see, not what they think it should be.

[c-side]

Dont forget though that transcribers are supposed to put what they see, not what they think it should be.

Absolutely, but speaking as a local transcriber, where writing is faded or indistinct it is easier to recognise a place name if you know the area.

Christine

[LeicsandWarksAncestors]

Put what you think that you see? Really? that does surprise me. Local knowledge would help with street names and local areas and looking at other words and how they are written would help with silly workmistakes such as one i found yesterday.
Jessy, a girl was transcribed as Jerry a boy. It was quite clear but it was just sloppy work. More accuracy and less speed!

[Ruskie]

Jessy, a girl was transcribed as Jerry a boy. It was quite clear but it was just sloppy work. More accuracy and less speed!

Local knowledge wouldn't have helped with that one. 

Yes, transcribers are supposed to write what they see not what they think a word should read. We know through many deciphering threads on rootschat, how subjective that can be - the variations in what people see can vary wildly.

[Guy Etchells]

Dont forget though that transcribers are supposed to put what they see, not what they think it should be.

Absolutely, but speaking as a local transcriber, where writing is faded or indistinct it is easier to recognise a place name if you know the area.

Christine

The downside of this is some local transcribers will guess at something that fits the locality rather than transcribing what they see.

The best transcribers could transcribe without being able to read or write (i.e. interpret what they see)
Cheers
Guy

PS street names often change over years so local knowledge does not always work

[StanleysChesterton]

I think local knowledge is essential.  That's why I declined to transcribe some FreeREG documents from areas of the country I hadn't ever even visited or knew where they were. 

Within a local area you have particular names that crop up again and again that, elsewhere, are unusual and could easily be mistranscribed simply by the transcriber not knowing that this variation of a name exists. 

Even more so with making sense of local placenames.  Little idioms and "the way we always write it" etc.

Anybody could transcribe some sheets .... but a local will add that extra %age of accuracy from local knowledge that's essential.

I also think that, with local records, a transcriber's got more of a sense of "ownership", taking each line a little more personally as they can visualise the village/location as they're doing it.  It's personalised to them. It's loved more.  You go the extra mile for your own child.