Incorrect Census transcriptions on Ancestry

[CaroleW]

Hi

It was the enumerators policy to put "do" short for ditto after surnames which were all the same.

I have recently discovered that Ancestry have transcribed the "do" as a surname SO and as a result, approx 1500 entries are mis-transcribed.

1861 - 106
1871 - 490
1891 - 561
1901 - 358

I have emailed them about the error but it may be the reason why some entries can't be found. The head of household is ok - it's other family members who are mis-transcribed

[CaroleW]

I have just received this reply from Ancestry

We appreciate your message.

Thank you for your input regarding our Census Images Online. We have already corrected many of these records that were transcribed as surname "Do". We have forwarded the information regarding the census transcriptions errors on to our programmers for further review. If you notice any other improvements that can be made to enhance your experience, please feel free to contact us again. If a fix is required on our website, please note that in order to resolve many of these issues it requires research, individual rescanning, and other time consuming processes. For this reason the resolution may take longer than that of other website errors. Thank you for your patience.


If there is anything else with which we might assist you, please let us know.

Shaun
Member Solutions
Ancestry.co.uk
http://ancestryuk.custhelp.com/

[suttontrust]

I've found lots of mistranscriptions on Ancestry, some of them quite serious, e.g. place of birth.  And they're the sort of errors you only find by accident.  Errors are inevitable, but some seem to arise because the transcribers are not au fait with English names and place names.

[CaroleW]

Hi

When you look at the writing on some of the images you can understand how errors occur.  I have struggled many a time and even magnifying it doesn't always help.  Also - a lot are very faint and almost unreadable.  Those type of transcription errors I can excuse.

But it must take a pretty dumb sort of person to look at an image with around 25 entries on it and think that all the various wives and children are surname SO even though the husbands have a different surname. 

[TerusTerus]

ERROR

Ancestry.com 1901 England Census index has FARROW instead of FORROW.

The index on genesereunited (national archives) is OK.

Don't the companies co-operate in checking or even share the
job of transcribing ?

Paul Suret

[Jane Masri]

Hi Carole,
Thanks for pointing that out.  Like the others I have found some serious errors between the image and their transcription index, some VERY comical

How would you suggest we go about finding those names missing on the transcription?  Type in, first name, then 'Do'? & see what comes up?  Or have you, or others, got a better idea?

Jane

[Ringrose]

Interesting theory about all these dittos. This is probably why I cannot find my great grandma Mary Ann Mann a widow on the 1901 census for Fulham. Iam now ploughing through the Fulham census to see if by chance  she is there. I did find her son who does not come up on any list when you put in his name and I know I have the right chap--by job name and birth.
I have also come across many place names in the wrong county but as other people say it is because the transcribers dont know the U.K.

[ggrocott]

When I have been unable to find a surname I have tried First name and year and place of birth - sometimes it works - I found my Penduck's transcribed as Pinnock and a few others.

[Dolgellau]

ERROR

Ancestry.com 1901 England Census index has FARROW instead of FORROW.

The index on genesereunited (national archives) is OK.

Don't the companies co-operate in checking or even share the
job of transcribing ?

Paul Suret

Perhaps we should be grateful that they don't co-operate or cross check, if they did both sites might have contained the same mistake

It is a point worth remembering that because both 1901 indices were made independently of each other, that if you can't find grandfather's name in one it is often worth checking the other.