Incorrect Census transcriptions on Ancestry

[Manchester Rambler]

Here's another variation:

The surname "Wife" exists, but in some cases I've found the enumerator has slipped up and entered something along the lines of:

Henry Smith  Head
Alice Wife  Wife
Jane  "       Dau

In this case, it seems to be enumerator error, which has then been transcribed "as is".

Rambler

[MaryA]

This is our old bugbear isn't it Carole?  How many times have we got a result from only a first name, age and birthplace, but it doesn't do to just send one entry in does it, it needs the complete overhaul and check that you've suggested. 

For anybody to report each individual error as they expect is doing their job for them, not only that but we PAY for these errors.  I think each of us should send an email via the customer help page you listed earlier http://ancestryuk.custhelp.com where there is a tab for emailing Ancestry Support.

We need correct census returns and since we are paying for it, we should expect as accurate transcriptions as they are able to provide.  If we can read what is written, they should certainly be able to and it is sheer laziness and a lack of attention to detail which produces such shoddy offerings and I can't say it often enough, that we are PAYING FOR.

[Jean McGurn]

Have just been reading this thread so thought I would try some of the ways folk have been saying.

Yippee finally found my Combe family - under the name Anscombe would you believe.

Looking at the census image I can well see how all the errors happened. The writing on the page is atrocious. I know I have the right family as it had Roavt Anscombe b 1834 Scotland occupation Book-keeper. Had the enumerator been writing legibly it should have read Robert Combe b 1834 Scotland Book-keeper.

Just goes to show, thanks to all you good people one can finally find those elusive ancestors.    I hadn't realised you could search without a surname. Now for some of my other elusives.

Jean

[honeybun]

Just reading through this thread.  Ancestry seems to have got worse.
I am still trying to find my Taylor family in 1861, having spent ages looking for them in 1891 I found them under PEYTON.

How's that for a mistranscription?

Honeybun

[Lloydy]

Amazing Honeybun.

On the subject of mistranscriptions, and very slightly off topic (hope all of you don't mind), I've "lost" a TROW ancestor in the 1881.

Now if the name TROW was written in that old fashioned, swirly script, how do you think a transcriber might read it?

I have tried the obvious - Trew, Traw, Frow, Frew etc but would appreciate other alternatives.

Thank you

Jan

[Nessie]

have you tried Throw, 

[Manchester Rambler]

Tronn?   Troun?   Srow?   

Rambler 

[Tati]

Jiam? 

[Gamone]

Not long ago, in my final year of professional activities before retirement, I was offered a well-paid full-time job as a technical writer with an international electronics company in nearby Grenoble. After three days, I discovered that this company was getting its computer programming work done in a shoddy fashion by sending it to a firm in a developing nation. I was shocked (for reasons that I do not intend to explain here) by this so-called "offshore" approach, and I immediately resigned.

If I were to learn that such-and-such a genealogical company is making profits by hiring low-quality and low-priced workers in a developing nation to transcribe UK census data, I would be morally shocked (for reasons that I do not intend to explain here) and I would not use the services of such a company.