Should transcribers have local knowledge?

[majm]

.....
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.
......

Guy,

Any local person transcribing the record would have read it as Neutral, not just because that is the written word, but also because they are familiar with the locality.   

Yes, distant transcribers should have also transcribed it as Neutral, however they did not, and so they seem to have used the 'see the written word in isolation' approach to transcribing.  Yes, that particular Ancestry transcriber's mistake can be attributed to poor practice.   

I do not know your intent in using the word 'idiot' but in Australia it is often considered to suggest the person using it means it to refer to a person who is a bit of a dipstick, a dill, or a hoon. Here in Australia it is basically a derogatory word.

Cheers,  JM

[majm]

I have also transcribed oral histories.     

It is my opinion, gained through personal experiences and in conversations with others over many years, that these are the most challenging.  You need to be familiar with the spoken word, and with the social history and the accent of the speaker.   It also helps if you were present when they were being interviewed, and can return to them to discuss your first draft etc. 

Cheers,   JM

[DavidG02]

Interesting subject which has thrown up many varied stances.

My view- yes I would think local transcribers do understand nuance and local patterns better. But I take Guys point about literal translation.

The other point would be '' who is the transcription for?'' If it is for civil records then literal transcription must occur. If it is for a general family name gatherer then ''literal with local knowledge'' would be ok

My g-grandparents death records state Claraville SA. I had never heard of it but knew it was in the Mt Gambier township so put Claraville Mt Gambier in my records.

Me sitting on the fence 

Why cant records reflect both? The literal with an addendum stating possible differences? The differences would still need checking by others - hmm double handling- but it could eliminate people searching Milton instead of Wilton

[majm]

Hi there,

I am attaching a snip from an official record (one of hundreds of NSW historic maps) ..... 

I recognise the 'penmanship' as that of one of the drafters from the 1800s working in the NSW Surveyor General's department. 

It is my firm belief that without a local transcriber's knowledge of the National Park's name we should not expect it be transcribed as Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park.

Cheers,  JM

[Cell]

(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)

Funny you mentioned that one as just this week I was looking for someone on ancestry ( I had limited my search to UK records only as I have a world wide sub and didn't want search the world for this particular person in other countries as I know he never left the UK)
Anyway, in my search results was a person born in New York USA living in England - I was curious so had a look at it, the image clearly said York and  not New York  USA. More sloppy work by ancestry transcribers who seem to think everything is in America. I submitted a correction of course with York exactly as it  written. I love ancestry's transcriptions


As a transcriber you are supposed to write exactly what is written and I do 99 per cent of time, but obviously when you are transcribing for databases I am  certainly not going to type in Bristol Enland ( even if England is misspelled like that on the original document) I will type up Bristol England, or it will B8gger up the set.

Mjm - I can easily read the snip that you posted , except for the "ring" bit .  I come from a family who write like that. I think I may even write like that myself  ( my hubby can never read my writing - my 9 yr old  can though easily enough, perhaps he should be doing some transcribing, can't be worse than some you get) 


Kind regards:)

[majm]

   Yes, the 'ring' that my ancestor wrote is the one that tricks most people.    

That National Park should be a "must visit" for anyone in the Sydney basin, whether residents or tourists.

http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/Kuringgai-Chase-National-Park

Cheers,  JM

[IMBER]

"Should transcribers be local or have local knowledge of the documents that they are working on?

Clearly there are differing views, but where Ancestry and the like are concerned to do so would perhaps increase the cost of subscriptions?

Imber

[mazi]

I have to say that I have used my local knowledge of Welsh places in Radnorshire to decipher possibilities and been wrong more often than correct.

Maybe it's me   

Mike

[majm]

Well Mike,  I would not get any of the ones anywhere in Wales, but I have a fair understanding of the New South Wales ones, particularly their various geographical names from about 1788 to WWI.   Standard spelling was non existent and one of our Surveyor Generals was determined to save local Aboriginal names for the districts.  But as far as I know, there's no towns in NSW with 51 (or is it 58) letters in it.



Cheers,  JM