I was annoyed that Booth was transcribed as Both.
Then I looked more clearly, the enumerator had written Both.
Bob
Bob
Thanks for admitting this !!
Not everyone realises that the process involved a schedule being given to the householder, to be filled in by them, or, sometimes with the later assistance of the enumerator, if the householder had problems; not necessarily in terms of illiteracy, more that this was probably the only time in their life that the Head was presented with such a form which had to be filled in. (In Scotland, these schedules were then destroyed, but they still exist in Northern Ireland for 1901 and 1911.)
Soooo....
#1 chance for error to creep in, - what the Head wrote, or what the enumerator wrote in the schedule. And take into account that surname spellings were quite flexible at that time.
Then the enumerator had to collect all the schedules and transcribe these into the enumeration books with which we are familiar.
#2 chance for error to creep in, - the enumerator's transcription, - done under pressure of time, and, for most of the Victorian censuses, - by candelight or similar, i.e. before the advent of gaslight or electric light. He didn't get paid until he submitted the completed enumeration books!, and there was a tight deadline.
#3 chance for error to creep in, - any and all later indexes created from the original enumeration books.
And however much indexing sub-contractors in the Indian sub-continent or Asia are trained and given lookup tables for forenames, surnames, and places, there's no substitute for being a native of the country with a long knowledge of names and places (witness the initial LDS classification of all entries from Scotland in Sutherland under "Sunderland" - since corrected in later editions, - but I've only just recently come across entries in "Leith, Middlesex", which I know have to be Midlothian!!)
Some years ago in SoG's now defunct
Computers in Genealogy Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake had an article relating to a street in the Greater London area which was included in two different enumeration districts (let's not get into how the households were persuaded to complete two schedules!).
The comparison between these separate enumerations of the same households was frightening in terms of major differences.
I've recently been provided with the details of a similar "double enumeration" in Scotland, and it would surprise me if there aren't similar major differences.
I've previously come across a situation in Glasgow where an enumerator did a draft of his area, and then presumably went back to his supervisor and asked for a new book, only to be told "nae chance mate, use the one that you have!", so scored out all the entries, and re-entered his fair copy ..... which differs in some details from his draft !! (LDS policy when microfilming/digitising is to include
all pages.)
ibi
