Should transcribers have local knowledge?

[majm]

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

I disagree.   

I have transcribed many family history documents that are handwritten.  I have done so for decades.    If I was not able to read and write, I would not be able to transcribe.   

Most of these documents that I have transcribed are in the style of longhand that I was taught at primary school.  It was taught in schools throughout the western division of NSW at least from the commencement of compulsory education (1870s in the far western townships).   

It is a style that is no longer taught (ceased in the  early 1960s).   Most of these documents involve names of central western New South Wales localities, and yes, unless you had a working knowledge of those names (past and present) you would likely not succeed in your transcription.   

As an aside, here's a thread from the Australia Board re a flawed transcription.   http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=715385.msg5593782#msg5593782   The locality in my posts on that thread is in the Sydney region, and it is Neutral Harbour.  I clearly read it as such, not just because I can read and write using that style of script, but also because I have local knowledge of the geography.

The transcriber has made a mishmash .... the index has it as Newtral.


Cheers,  JM

[youngtug]

Put what you think that you see? Really? that does surprise me.

 Not the original quote. The original quote by groom was;  to put what they see, not what they think it should be. ..
 A different meaning entirely, a good example of the subject in question.

[Cell]

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?

In a perfect world yes, I transcribe places that I know inside and out, but also transcribe places that I don't know  but I am careful ( always!) and mistakes will always happen.
 
I think the problem is more to do with big commercial sites who have paid people/offshored to transcribe who really do not have clue and doubt they care very much.
If you notice the best  for transcriptions are done by people who gave and give their time freely  because they are interested in the subject and care, they tend to be more diligent.

Kind regards

[Guy Etchells]

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

I disagree.   

I have transcribed many family history documents that are handwritten.  I have done so for decades.    If I was not able to read and write, I would not be able to transcribe.

 Really why not a transcription is only a copy of a shape one does not have to understand what the shape means.
Just look and the numbers of transcriptions of hieroglyphs that have been made to understand the theory.

Many transcribers think their job is to interpret or transpose the handwriting not so.
The job of a transcriber is to make a copy of what is seen not to transliterate what is seen.

Most of these documents that I have transcribed are in the style of longhand that I was taught at primary school.  It was taught in schools throughout the western division of NSW at least from the commencement of compulsory education (1870s in the far western townships).   

It is a style that is no longer taught (ceased in the  early 1960s).   Most of these documents involve names of central western New South Wales localities, and yes, unless you had a working knowledge of those names (past and present) you would likely not succeed in your transcription.   

As an aside, here's a thread from the Australia Board re a flawed transcription.   http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=715385.msg5593782#msg5593782   The locality in my posts on that thread is in the Sydney region, and it is Neutral Harbour.  I clearly read it as such, not just because I can read and write using that style of script, but also because I have local knowledge of the geography.

The transcriber has made a mishmash .... the index has it as Newtral.


Cheers,  JM

I have never been to Austalia let alone Sydney but the example you give clearly shows Neutral Harbour (the flourish clearly descends the side of the u) claiming that the error was due to a ditant transcriber just does not make sense, it was due to poor practice.

Incidentally I learnt to write by tracing parish registers as an infant an progressed to transcribing them before I could read and write properly.
If I can do it any idiot can.

Cheers
Guy

[groom]

Many transcribers think their job is to interpret or transpose the handwriting not so.
The job of a transcriber is to make a copy of what is seen not to transliterate what is seen.

I think that is something that a lot of people who have never transcribed don't realise. Transcribers are told to put what they see, it is not up to the transcriber to put what they know it should be. Therefore it doesn't really matter where you are. As I understand it, if the word has been written incorrectly on the original document, you shouldn't change it to the correct spelling. Of course mistakes happen, and words that perhaps are obvious to others get copied incorrectly. Usually most sites offer a chance for others to submit the correct word. Without all the wonderful people who have given up their time over the years, many of the records we are now able to access through the Internet wouldn't be possible.

[StanleysChesterton]

True, you shouldn't change it for what you think it is .... but people with local knowledge will see something that others don't.  This something is more often likely to be a local name.  They can "more easily" decipher a squiggle into an actual place, because they know the place, they've heard of the place.

You can only put what you see..... but what you see is different depending on your experience.

Wilton or Milton?

If I am local and know there's a hamlet of Milton just 1/2 a mile up the road, that's what I'll see.
If I am from elsewhere in the country I might see Wilton.

We've all seen local placenames mangled.

[3sillydogs]

 WhileI agree that transcribers are supposed to "write" what they see, but that often turns into the mysteries that get posted on RootsChat   Local knowledge may help to lessen those "mistakes".

[groom]

If I am local and know there's a hamlet of Milton just 1/2 a mile up the road, that's what I'll see.
If I am from elsewhere in the country I might see Wilton.

But then, playing Devil's Advocate, are you then transcribing an historical document incorrectly just because you happen to know what the place name should be? 

[Calverley Lad]

As a transcriber for a local website, the layout of our transcribed documentation allowed for the inclusion of amendments (for as written as against corrections).
All submitted transcriptions were double checked with another local transcriber.
As had been said earlier without local knowledge some information could be well and truly lost.
(Local place names are an example, and the inclusion of place name York doesn't imply the event happened in York but in the county of Yorkshire)
Having access to the original handwritten records comes as a bonus.
 Brian