|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: 1901 Census-on Ancestry.COM but not the PRO (Read 375 times)
|
Steven1966
RootsChat Extra
 Offline
Posts: 69
|
Came across something intersting during the week.I was looking for a particular family (The Coulsons)in the 1901 Census,living in the Duddeston/Aston area of Birmingham.
I tried the PRO site.No matter what family member i typed in and/or variations of spelling i put in i couldn't find them.They had to be there.By 1901 i knew there should have been at least 10 of them altogether.
I then logged onto Ancestry.COM paid for some credits and tried my luck there.Found them straight away at the first attempt.
Anyone ever come accross that before when searching the 1901 Census.Can't find someone on the PRO Site but can find them on Ancestry.COM or Vice Versa ??.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Surnames that am researching are,Siddons,Coulson,Clives,Peers,White,Swingler,and Lambeth,all of Aston/Duddeston/Hockley in Birmingham,Warwickshire.
|
|
|
casalguidi
Global Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 10435
|
Hi Stephen
Yes, it happens all the time - mostly due to mistranscriptions. Can you now find them on PRO 1901 by entering something like first names/ages/birthplaces (not entering a surname) to see if you can find what they have been mistranscribed as?
Unfortunately, every index is prone to error - some more than others - I suppose we should just be grateful that we have the indexes to start us off 
Best wishes
Casalguidi
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Steven1966
RootsChat Extra
Offline
Posts: 69
|
I printed off the Census Page from the Ancestry.COM site.Then out of curiosity i went on the PRO site.
Using the info from the census page i tried looking for each family member in turn.Now that i had information like ages,occupations,civil and ecclesiastical parish etc.I even tried variations on the spellings again.Still no joy !!.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Surnames that am researching are,Siddons,Coulson,Clives,Peers,White,Swingler,and Lambeth,all of Aston/Duddeston/Hockley in Birmingham,Warwickshire.
|
|
|
casalguidi
Global Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 10435
|
Try COALSON - is that them (if I have assumed the correct family)? Found by searching for Walter (no surname) age 22 born Birmingham in Aston
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Steven1966
RootsChat Extra
Offline
Posts: 69
|
Followed your suggestion.You did indeed have the right family.
I sat with my copy of the 1901 census page i got from Ancestry.com.I punched in the details for each member of the family.Putting in their sex and exact age and the surname Coalson,but missing out their christian names.
Everyone comes up,right christian name and occupation,but all are indeed down as Coalson not Coulson.
I may already have had the information,but i was very interested to learn what they were all mis-transcribed as.But now the mystery is solved.
Thanks
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Surnames that am researching are,Siddons,Coulson,Clives,Peers,White,Swingler,and Lambeth,all of Aston/Duddeston/Hockley in Birmingham,Warwickshire.
|
|
|
Steven1966
RootsChat Extra
Offline
Posts: 69
|
I have looked at the census page i downloaded on and off over the past few days.
I'd have to say,that i can see how the transcription errors that occured on the PRO site were made.Although to me what is written looks okay,but then thats what i was "expecting" to find.
The interesting thing that i found.Was that the correct interpretation and subsquent transcription of what was written on the census page.Was made by someone 1000's of miles away in Utah.Where as the incorrect one,was the UK one.
The one example that springs instantly to mind,is the birthplace for the head of the household.On the census page it is written "Warw Lea Marston".On the PRO site it is down as Warw Lee Marston,on the other it is down as Warwickshire Lea Marston.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Surnames that am researching are,Siddons,Coulson,Clives,Peers,White,Swingler,and Lambeth,all of Aston/Duddeston/Hockley in Birmingham,Warwickshire.
|
|
|
casalguidi
Global Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 10435
|
Hi Stephen
It may interest you to know that a lot of the transcribing for the 1901 census on the PRO site was done by persons with no knowledge of/little interest in genealogy or the places mentioned - prisoners and people in India perhaps. It was a commercial venture that the PRO "farmed out". Ancestry is US based and I don't know who they use for their indexing.
Years ago, I did quite a bit of voluntary transcribing for the 1881 census for the public record office (the fiche version) and, coupled with some terrible writing, I had a great deal of trouble with a lot of the immigrants names in London so it's no wonder these people have difficulty interpreting any census at times.
The more accurate genealogical indexes appear to be those done by family historians familiar with the names and places that occur in their own localities or that they take the trouble to look up in gazetteers and other sources if they get stuck!
Best wishes
Casalguidi
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Steven1966
RootsChat Extra
Offline
Posts: 69
|
Thanks for that information.
I can understand what you mean by bad hand writing on the census returns.For a lot of the ones i've seen/downloaded for the census's 1871 to 1901 are truely appalling.Quite easy to make mistakes.
The point you made about the more accurate transcriptions been made by family historians as they were/are familiar.With the names and places in their own locality,i agree with.I mean i looked at the page and read it exactly as it was (Coulson and not Coalson,despite the handwriting),because i knew the names and places.Any One else,especially someone with no interest in Geneology.Where the transcribing of the records is "just a job".Easy to see with the bad hand writing how things get mis-transcribed !!.
Stephen 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Surnames that am researching are,Siddons,Coulson,Clives,Peers,White,Swingler,and Lambeth,all of Aston/Duddeston/Hockley in Birmingham,Warwickshire.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
