Incorrect Census transcriptions on Ancestry

[PaulaToo]

Don't you just love em!
That's a beauty, Barbara.

[Willow 4873]

I usually put 'traced from previous census' or something similar

I always think its better to do the correction and save someone else the hassle of trying to find the family - I've been grateful of that a couple of times myself

Now can anyone tell me what name a family of Hopkins might be hiding under?!

Willow x

[celia]

Hi
I was just about to ask if it was possible,that a Birth place,on a census could have been mistranscribed.I have never thought of that one before ::)On reading through these post,yes it is possible   recently i did some research for a birth got sent all the info  from abroad,but still haven't found the person.The mistranscripions i have read on here are an eye opener

Celia

[ibi]

Hi
I was just about to ask if it was possible,that a Birth place,on a census could have been mistranscribed.I have never thought of that one before ::)On reading through these post,yes it is possible   recently i did some research for a birth got sent all the info  from abroad,but still haven't found the person.The mistranscripions i have read on here are an eye opener

Celia

Even when the standard of a transcription is good, there's always the problem of difficult to interpret writing by the enumerator.

There's also the "ear of the hearer" effect. If the Head of the Household hadn't completed the schedule when the enumerator returned to collect it, the enumerator would have filled in the schedule for them, and if the enumerator was unfamiliar with the accent then it's amazing what could happen.

Remember as well that the enumerator then transcribed the info from the schedules into the enumeration book, and any such step opens up the possibility for error to creep in.

Enumerators would generally be familiar with the names of other parishes in the locality, but not necessarily those parishes some distance away, again leading to the possibility for error .........

ibi

[Brambletye]

Transcription errors are an ongoing problem on Ancestry, and much as we can correct them ourselves, let's not forget that we, along with everyone else, are paying quite a bit of money for an annual sub. and it looks as though we are turning into proofreaders for what are basically substandard databases.

We correct Ancestry's work - they get our subs. and use our knowledge to avoid having to proofread their transcripts themselves. It's really not on, is it.

I really think they should have got it right before they released it- it's rather beginning to look as though robots have done some of the transcripts, the errors are so obvious it's laughable in many cases. At least, it would be funny if it were not so awful on occasions. The waste of time is a real issue on dial-up, but even so, we all have other stuff to do, so it's annoying anyway.

The one thing I find the worst aspect currently in Ancestry is the inconsistency of the use of wildcards. If I am looking for Joe or Joseph Bloggs, and I am not sure which he'll be/or whether they've mistranscribed him, I can't put in Jo*, because I can't put a wildcard as the third character, only as the fourth or later - but I can happily search for every Bloggs, which is going to take their site longer to process. Similarly, I can't put in Joe Bl* in case they've transcribed it as Blaggs, again because I can't put a wildcard as the third character in the surname - but I can happily find every Joe in the country if I like.

I've had to use this getout time and again - if I think they've made a total hash of the surname, I just put in the forename, and vice versa - they can process that, so they're happy. I'm not, though - I have to wade through over 500 Joes or 500 Bloggs to find out what their best guess on the other name might have been this time, and some of them are so obviously wrong it's clear they have no local knowledge whatsoever.

Doesn't really make sense, does it...they don't allow us to make the best use of narrowing a search, because of the "three-letters-before-a-wildcard" rule - they keep kicking it out.

Reading some previous posts on this thread, I sincerely hope Ancestry are not doing the Censuses on OCR, or we're all going to be in DS - how about the surname Russell" in the 19th century? Given that the "long s" was in use in those days, I imagine a lot of ancestors are going to end up as Rufsell or Rupell, depending on the handwriting...

[Gadget]

 Bless the transcribers 

Just had a good one on the Scottish 1901 - General Dealer (Rag Shens). The original was Rags and bones 

Gadget

[Paul Caswell]

Bless the transcribers 

I recently found a Thos' transcribed as 'Fred' 

Paul

[PaulaToo]

I had a Thos transcribed as Theo, which would have been completely wrong, though understandable when you saw'the real thing.'
But FRED !!!!!!
I'm beating the carpet laughing           
Or perhaps it should be crying 

[Shropshire Lass]

The one thing I find the worst aspect currently in Ancestry is the inconsistency of the use of wildcards. If I am looking for Joe or Joseph Bloggs, and I am not sure which he'll be/or whether they've mistranscribed him, I can't put in Jo*, because I can't put a wildcard as the third character, only as the fourth or later - but I can happily search for every Bloggs, which is going to take their site longer to process. Similarly, I can't put in Joe Bl* in case they've transcribed it as Blaggs, again because I can't put a wildcard as the third character in the surname - but I can happily find every Joe in the country if I like.

I find it bewildering that the software is programmed like this.  It seems capable of doing the much longer searches quite happily.

I know there are some extraordinary transcriptions on Ancestry but I think when we have the benefit of knowing what the name should be, it's easier to understand the writing.

Monica