Author Topic: 1901 Leftovers: Should we correct transcription errors ??  (Read 98017 times)

Offline Tra La La

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1901 Leftovers: Should we correct transcription errors ??
« Reply #81 on: Friday 06 June 14 01:42 BST (UK) »
When I come across a transcription error on Ancestry, I make an entry on the lines of "See also" in the make comment box.  This at least alerts others that the entry has been questioned.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Lisajb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1901 Leftovers: Should we correct transcription errors ??
« Reply #82 on: Sunday 17 August 14 11:02 BST (UK) »
I've just found an error on a 1901 census transcription on ancestry - George Saunders is down as 79, with wife Mary - 18, and son George 27.  Is there a "report an error" button somewhere that I can use?  Unless of course George had shed loads of money and Mary was thinking he might shuffle off his mortal coil fairly soon ;D

I've looked at the image and it looks like 68 to me, which fits with Mary's previous appearances in the census. There are also some very obvious number 1's on the page to compare her age with.
Mullingar, Westmeath Ireland: Gilligan/Wall/Meagher/Maher/Gray/O'Hara
Bristol: Woodman/James/Derrick
Bristol/Somerset: Saunders/Wilmot
Gloucestershire:Woodman/Mathews/Tandy/Stinchcombe/Marten/Thompson
Wiltshire: Mathews
Carmarthen: Thomas, Davies, Lewis, Humphreys, Williams, Jenkins

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Tra La La

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1901 Leftovers: Should we correct transcription errors ??
« Reply #83 on: Sunday 17 August 14 13:34 BST (UK) »
If you have a copy of his birth certificate and can prove what you say - then go ahead and report any transcription error.  Ancestry uk respond positively to being alerted to errors.

Offline LizzieW

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,114
    • View Profile
Re: 1901 Leftovers: Should we correct transcription errors ??
« Reply #84 on: Sunday 17 August 14 14:19 BST (UK) »
The only problem I have with Ancestry is that when you report a mistranscripton (known to be true because it's your own ancestor), they still show the transcribed name first and it's not until you've looked at that record that you can find out that there has been an alteration.  If they don't want to change what their transcribers have done, they could at least add an extra entry to the names on the census so that people will be able to find the person they are looking for.

Offline dionysus

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
Re: 1901 Leftovers: Should we correct transcription errors ??
« Reply #85 on: Sunday 17 August 14 14:21 BST (UK) »
I would suggest the crucial thing is not whether the census record reflects true age, but whether the transcript fairly reflects the original record - even if that was in error.  If you have other information that corroborates your understanding of the facts, such as other census records and entries of BMD, you can use these to support a reported transcription error.
Upton, Bishops Wood, Staffordshire.  Jones, Nant-yr-Ych, Aberhafesp, Montgomeryshire.  Evans, Kinnerley, Flintshire.  Dennis, Breedon-on-the-Hill, Leicestershire.  Brown, Red Lake, Wellington, Shropshire.

Offline stonechat

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,614
    • View Profile
Re: 1901 Leftovers: Should we correct transcription errors ??
« Reply #86 on: Wednesday 27 August 14 09:06 BST (UK) »
The only problem I have with Ancestry is that when you report a mistranscripton (known to be true because it's your own ancestor), they still show the transcribed name first and it's not until you've looked at that record that you can find out that there has been an alteration.  If they don't want to change what their transcribers have done, they could at least add an extra entry to the names on the census so that people will be able to find the person they are looking for.
But if you search for the corrected name (once accepted) you will find it
Douglas, Varnden, Joy(i)ce Surrey, Clarke Northants/Hunts, Pullen Worcs/Herefords, Holmes Birmingham/USA/Canada/Australia, Jackson Cheshire/Yorkshire, Lomas Cheshire, Lee Yorkshire, Cocks Lancashire, Leah Cheshire, Cook Yorkshire, Catlow Lancashire
See my website http://www.cotswan.com

Offline KGarrad

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,749
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1901 Leftovers: Should we correct transcription errors ??
« Reply #87 on: Wednesday 27 August 14 11:11 BST (UK) »
I've just found an error on a 1901 census transcription on ancestry - George Saunders is down as 79, with wife Mary - 18, and son George 27.  Is there a "report an error" button somewhere that I can use? 

When looking at the original entry (the hand-written page), click on the green "Index" button, bottom left.
If you hover over the age in question, the age turns orange. click on that, and a new box comes up which allows you to add an alternative entry.

I've made hundreds of these "alternative entries", and always get an acknowledgement from Ancestry!
Garrad (Suffolk, Essex, Somerset), Crocker (Somerset), Vanstone (Devon, Jersey), Sims (Wiltshire), Bridger (Kent)

Offline hughsba

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 9
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1901 Leftovers: Should we correct transcription errors ??
« Reply #88 on: Saturday 27 September 14 11:06 BST (UK) »
I transcribe parish records. We are told to transcribe exactly what we see.  There is the capacity to make notes.  There you can note unclear writing, spellings which are obviously wrong etc.  The only exception is when the clergyman's spelling of a name differs from that of the signatures of the people involved.  In those cases, we enter as the person spells their own name.  I think that's how it should be done.  It's up to the researcher to interpret the information.

Offline Shar10

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 34
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1901 Leftovers: Should we correct transcription errors ??
« Reply #89 on: Friday 18 August 17 18:56 BST (UK) »
I am pleased this issue has been raised thanks, as I have found quite a few errors in my ancestry, names birth dates  ages in censuses etc.
I have not informed ancestry , but if I know the information is  one hundred percent incorrect and some one else as the same person in their tree . I will contact them .and   mention it,
a couple of members have checked again and put the correction in their tree.
it can be confusing to have incorrect information, we found some one with my grandmothers name and birth place but the age on  her birth certificate  and her marriage certificate did not match,
seems she lied to make herself appear younger when she married so It is alwys worth checking.