Names of people deleted from the censuses

[andrewalston]

On earlier censuses there are numerous pages where a couple of households (usually at the bottom) have been neatly crossed out and a comment made explaining that they should have appeared elsewhere.

Should these entries be transcribed? The text is there, so in my opinion they should be.

Sometimes the records in the "correct" place have less detail than the crossed-out version. On one occasion the "correct" entries had been lost entirely.

[JAKnighton]

My great-great-great grandmother has been crossed out in the 1911 census, her name is not indexed so you have to look at the image to see it.

However, it is just her name, no other information such as age or place of birth has been filled in. The total number of people in the household was written as six, whereas if she was there it would be seven. I haven't found her living elsewhere in the census.

While I agree that some effort should be made to record the fact her name was written, it doesn't seem correct to list her as being a member of the household on the night of April 2, 1911.

I myself have left a comment mentioning this on the record listing in Ancestry.

[Steeple1]

Agreed, she is not a member of the household but how else would you direct someone not as diligent as you have been at finding such an item / person in a similar situation in a different household? It is up to the researcher to work out the scenario - but before that, they can only be found by first getting them indexed.
.

[california dreamin]

My great-great-great grandmother has been crossed out in the 1911 census, her name is not indexed so you have to look at the image to see it.

However, it is just her name, no other information such as age or place of birth has been filled in. The total number of people in the household was written as six, whereas if she was there it would be seven. I haven't found her living elsewhere in the census.

While I agree that some effort should be made to record the fact her name was written, it doesn't seem correct to list her as being a member of the household on the night of April 2, 1911.

I myself have left a comment mentioning this on the record listing in Ancestry.

As it is the 1911 census are you sure she was not 'making a statement' by the lack of information and the line drawn through her name??  Just a thought.... 
https://blog.findmypast.co.uk/suffragettes-in-the-1911-census-1406301945.html

[Sinann]

I'm fairly sure people with crossed out names are in the search results for the Census of Ireland. Difficult to find one as an example, the only one I know off the top of my head is the head of household so his name is on the address page of the Census anyway. (Additional pages 2)
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Kildare/Naas_Urban/Naas_West/545646/
but I think including the name from the address page in the search results has helped find people who filled in the Census in old Irish script as those returns don't get transcribed at all.

[Sinann]

This person had a go at transcribing some of the Irish script but you can see how Mary's name is included in the search results but her name is in Irish on the return and in English on the address page so as such she is listed twice.
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Mountjoy/Ballybough_Road_/21557/

[JAKnighton]

My great-great-great grandmother has been crossed out in the 1911 census, her name is not indexed so you have to look at the image to see it.

However, it is just her name, no other information such as age or place of birth has been filled in. The total number of people in the household was written as six, whereas if she was there it would be seven. I haven't found her living elsewhere in the census.

While I agree that some effort should be made to record the fact her name was written, it doesn't seem correct to list her as being a member of the household on the night of April 2, 1911.

I myself have left a comment mentioning this on the record listing in Ancestry.

As it is the 1911 census are you sure she was not 'making a statement' by the lack of information and the line drawn through her name??  Just a thought.... 
https://blog.findmypast.co.uk/suffragettes-in-the-1911-census-1406301945.html

I have considered this, yes What would the likelihood be of a middle-aged farm labourer's wife in a rural village being a suffragette? It's possible.

[Blue70]

I don't particularly support or oppose transcription of crossings out. It's just a bonus if for example a merchant seaman away at sea has been included with his family and then crossed out. I would have thought such extras would have been identified when viewing images of the families concerned.


Blue

[Steeple1]

Very disappointed at the general lack of engagement and discussion of specific problems that were  cited.
I cannot believe that the rote transcribers who only transcribe what they see would record servant Wilkinson Ada, with Ada as a surname. (This problem is overwhelmingly found amongst Boarders, Lodgers and Servants). If you accept that there are times when sensible editing is necessary, how do you cope with Servant Ann Mary or Margaret Joyce, many forenames also being surnames?

A couple of days ago in 1911 I came across a deleted son, against whose name was written Gone to Birmingham. He is nowhere to be found in Ancestry or FindMyPast transcripts. How would you feel if he was *your* target?

Many years ago when the PRO was in the beautiful old Chancery Lane buildings I was looking at books while waiting for a doc to be produced. In the preface to a printed index of Admons the editor had unforgettably described the then Keeper of the Public Records as 'a man who had done so much to keep the public from their records' and in a strange way I feel that that tradition is alive if exclusivity, rather than inclusivity of information is preferred.