Incorrect Census transcriptions on Ancestry

[ggrocott]

I have to say that recently I had to correct a correction - I can see why the incorrect correction was made but it did make my life even harder!

Mary Skilling married Richard Tollfree.  The census shows Richard and Mary Tollfer living with father-in-law Skilling James so some kind soul had corrected Mary's surname to James.  I have now sent in a correction for the whole lot but I wonder if it will be accepted.

[Dancing Master]

The big problem arose with the transcriptions of the 1901  Census because our Government farmed out the transcription to a company, who didn't have sufficient staff to do it themselves so in turn farmed it out the the Prisons for them to transcribe - it was a total disaster, and then it was farmed out to a further company which was also a disaster they couldn't cope with the timescale involved.

It was then farmed out by the original company to India and Pakistan, which in itself created problems,  by the time Ancestry got involved the whole thing was a shambles.  hence all the errors when it was released to the public.

No one have done a thorough check on it as far as I can see, and I'm blowed if I am going to do a free service for Ancestry or any other paid site.

I will correct anything relating to my own research but not for the benefit of a commercial company.

[Ecneps]

I know what you mean, but I still make corrections when I see them, just a couple of days ago I was contacted by someone who was very grateful for my amendment, (Latrence to Patience) as it had helped her progress quite a lot with her research.

Barbara

[Dancing Master]

They got paid good money to do that job and they should do it.  It came out of Government funds as well so we have all paid for it  the end cost was many more times the original estimate.

[kerryb]

I know what you are saying Dancing Master but it is so much easier if someone has been there before you and corrected a mistake and I like to do my bit for those others too!

It's like so many things in life that we end up paying twice for, dental care, etc etc etc

that unfortunately is life 

Kerry

[bedfordshire boy]

Ancestry did their own transcription of the 1901 census, and had nothing to do with the transcription done by QinetiQ on behalf of the National Archives.

Ancestry was not paid by the National Archives to do the transcription, as alleged by Dancing Master.

But yes, it bugs me that users are being used as beta testers to correct Ancestry's sub standard indexing, but I still send in corrections whether they're in my own tree or names I just happen to come across when doing look ups/research for others - not for the benefit of Ancestry but to assist other researchers

David

[Dancing Master]

I  did not allege Ancestry did their own transcription of 1901  they allowed it to be on their site unchecked in anyway by themselves knowing full well the problems that pre-existed their involvement.

That is what I said.

As I don't ask others to do look-ups for me or be involved in my research I do not see why I should
change anything on that site.

[carol8353]

I suggested a discount for making alterations (doing their work for them in effect) but don't think they'll do that
 

Barbara

Barbara

If you tell Find my past that any of their census info is incorrectly transcribed they give you 3 free credits.

Can't see why Ancestry couldn't do the same 

Carol

[Ecneps]

Hi Carol,

Yes I've had a few credits that way, from FindMyPast, and from My Genealogist, but they don't make as many mistakes, not that I've found anyway
 

Barbara