Incorrect Census transcriptions on Ancestry

[Ecneps]

Hi Alice,

I transcribe for Freebmd and we do have a list of districts, we're only supposed to transcribe exactly what we see, but referring to the list can help to make out the correct reg. district if not sure.

I also use ancestry for lookups for myself and others, and feel the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, wouldn't stop me subscribing - this thread may help others to realise that other ways of spelling names can help them to find their own ancestors on ancestry, and it's always amusing to read about mistakes too.

Barbara

[kerryb]

Isn't that half the fun of using Ancestry, finding someone on the census against the odds and despite the mistranscriptions.

Perhaps I'm a glass half full sort of person but I find it more amusing than annoying!

Kerry 

[ricky1]

Hi Kerry

I agree, its the searching that is the best part of looking, if everything was done in regimental fashion we would all get bored. Its the detective work of searching that I enjoy. Just think if it wasnt for ancestry and other websites we would all be going round to all the record offices up and down the country trying to find our relies

ricky

[Willow 4873]

My gripe about Ancestry isn't so much the mis-transcribing its the blooming search engine!

We all know there can be problems with the software reading the census but human error doent help at times as local dialect, bad spelling (bad hearing!) all contribute

But when I can't find a relly and end up doing an advanced search - why can't it just give me a list of the names I've asked for!

I tried to find in the 1871 census a Charles Bowkett b 1826 +/- 2 years Herefordshire who married to Ann so why when I search on that criteria does it give me Charles married to any other name but Ann! Then it gives me names I havent asked for and then its several pages down before I find another Charles married to an Ann. On three stars it only gave me 14 names of which only 1 Charles out of the 7 given was married to an Ann and on 4 stars and above it gave me nothing.

I have e-mailed them about it

Willow x

[stonechat]

Are you using exact search?

[Willow 4873]

No Stonechat but I thought the idea of the search results were supposed to be the closest matches to the criteria you have put in and I thought it ran in descending order from the names - DOB - location

Willow x

[stonechat]

If you tick exact matches only that is what you get

you may need to switch soundex on

Bob

[MrsLizzy]

Ancestry had one of my ancestors down as a married female, aged 5, named Henry!

[RedFox]

My gripe about Ancestry isn't so much the mis-transcribing its the blooming search engine!

But when I can't find a relly and end up doing an advanced search - why can't it just give me a list of the names I've asked for!

I tried to find in the 1871 census a Charles Bowkett b 1826 +/- 2 years Herefordshire who married to Ann so why when I search on that criteria does it give me Charles married to any other name but Ann! Then it gives me names I havent asked for and then its several pages down before I find another Charles married to an Ann. On three stars it only gave me 14 names of which only 1 Charles out of the 7 given was married to an Ann and on 4 stars and above it gave me nothing.

I have e-mailed them about it

Willow x   

I have the same "gripe".  But I still use A.com - the library's edition now.  After three years of my own subscriptions, I decided to let someone else pay and try other sources.  It was convenient, but couldn't afford it.  I'm curious to know - what did A.com have to say?  I also have tried everything from 1 star - to exact matches and found the same problem.   RedFox