RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: AmandaP on Monday 13 March 23 22:26 GMT (UK)
-
I am currently in a bit of a battle with freereg.org.uk. A rootschat member pointed out that they had my great x 4 grandmother listed as a spinster when she married my 4 x great grandfather. She was in fact a widow. I got onto the freereg website and marked the error, pointing out that the original parish register and original banns make no reference to my great x 4 grandmother being a spinster. The reply back was basically the record doesn’t say she was a widow and “Phillimores said spinster so she was a spinster.”
Whilst I believe that Phillimores is a wonderful resource and it was a huge undertaking back in the day, it is still a secondary resource and needs to be treated as such. It should not be put up on a pedestal and it should never be treated as superior to the primary resources.
I was not asking freereg.org.uk to mark my great x 4 grandmother as a widow, just that they remove “spinster.” It is false and misleading.
I find transcription errors on ancestry.com on a weekly basis. Often it is simply because the transcribers have not accounted for the following year often starting after March in the old parish registers, but sometimes other errors also. From this I learnt to always look at original records when available. Just because Phillimores was transcribed a century ago, does not mean it is immune to human error, just like ancestry.com is not.
I think this is a good reminder for researchers to always use primary resources first when available.
-
Transcriptions are always going to have errors (I'm working on a transcription project at the moment and, try as we might, and proofread as carefully as we can, errors will creep through).
In your case, however, FreeREG are transcribing Phillimore's transcript; they are not transcribing an original register nor are they cross-checking every entry. So I think they are correct to maintain the transcript as Phillimore has it, not as the original register might be. Researchers need to be aware that transcripts (and transcripts of transcripts) will have errors and so need to be cross-checked against originals where they exist.
-
Oh ... don't get me started on pre-1752 dates!
The modern convention of showing, e.g. the date of the act of regicide as 30 January 1648/9 is clear and unambiguous.
If people want to adjust a pre-1752 date to New Style alone, and so record it as 30 January 1649 (New Style) then that too is fine because they are TELLING you that it has been adjusted.
But there are so many resources out there which have taken it upon themselves to adjust to New Style without telling you ... so you assume it is an Old Style date and mark it as such ... and you end up a year out.
The matter is complicated, of course, by the fact that prevailing usage was already shifting to New Syle in the first half of the 18th century and that the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 actually FOLLOWS prevailing usage rather than instigating it. And whilst the clergy, for the most part, doggedly followed "correct" usage until told otherwise by Act of Parliament, some of them adopted prevailing usage and I have seen parish registers from the 1720s and 30s where the year digit is clearly changed on 1 January not 25 March. So as ever, consulting the original record and checking what they were ACTUALLY doing in that parish register at that date is the only way to be sure.
-
...and the change of calendar took place at different times in different countries, e.g. 1582 in France, 1923 in Greece.....
-
Transcriptions are always going to have errors (I'm working on a transcription project at the moment and, try as we might, and proofread as carefully as we can, errors will creep through).
In your case, however, FreeREG are transcribing Phillimore's transcript; they are not transcribing an original register nor are they cross-checking every entry. So I think they are correct to maintain the transcript as Phillimore has it, not as the original register might be. Researchers need to be aware that transcripts (and transcripts of transcripts) will have errors and so need to be cross-checked against originals where they exist.
Yes, your first part is my point. Transcriptions will always have mistakes, only human, which is why it is important to look at the originals when available.
In the case of Phillimores, do you not believe that a note should be added to an online database such as freereg.org.uk when an entry in Phillimores has been proven with the original records to be wrong? At least ancestry.com allows you to submit an alternative.
-
FreeREG are transcribing Phillimore's transcript; they are not transcribing an original register nor are they cross-checking every entry. So I think they are correct to maintain the transcript as Phillimore has it
I would agree - all transcription should reproduce exactly what is written on the relevant document and not seek to correct or interpret it in any way, but they need to make it clear that this is a transcript of a transcript and not taken from original sources.
I've rarely used FreeReg but like most researchers (I suspect) I was under the impression that they are transcribing from images of the actual registers, but when you look closer they do say "and other relevant sources" ... many entries do say that they are sourced from "other transcript" and there is a warning on the search page telling users that transcripts can have errors and to check the originals.
Not accepting a note saying that Philliimore doesn't match the actual register is not very helpful, though I can understand why they may take that approach.
-
I should add that not uncommonly, people were labelled wrongly as bachelor, spinster or widow(er) on marriages or censuses, so the original can be wrong too.
-
all transcription should reproduce exactly what is written on the relevant document and not seek to correct or interpret it in any way
So they should ... but the real issue comes when "what is written" is difficult to discern.
The transcribers' mantra "write what you see" is all very well and good; but the person with additional information from other sources may have knowledge which enables them to "see" more accurately what is written there. I think correcting on the basis of such insights is right and proper.
Altering "spinster" to "widow", on the other hand, is not ... this is best dealt with by a footnote or simolar stating "although described here as a spinster, other evidence exists to suggest that she was in fact the widow of so-ond-so who died on such-and-such a date".
-
Altering "spinster" to "widow", on the other hand, is not ... this is best dealt with by a footnote or simolar stating "although described here as a spinster, other evidence exists to suggest that she was in fact the widow of so-ond-so who died on such-and-such a date".
I completely agree.
freereg.org.uk state on their website that “The aim of FreeREG is to provide free internet searches of baptism, marriage, and burial records. We are transcribing records from parish registers, non-conformist records and other relevant sources in the UK.”
They also give the option to submit a correction - great.
But when I submitted a correction based on the original marriage banns and the original parish register which neither original records of that time in Kings Stanley Glos. state either way if the bride and groom are widow/er, spinster or bachelor, the response I received was too bad, Phillimores says so. Phillimore seems to be responsible for adding spinster to his transcription, yet there is no way he had insider knowledge. I did not ask freereg.org.uk to add widow, I simply asked them to remove spinster to reflect the original records. They are not claiming to be providing a copy of Phillimores on their website, they are claiming that they are transcribing the parish registers and obtaining information from other relevant sources, so I find it completely bizarre, based on the aim of freereg.org.uk that they would argue that Phillimores trumps original records.
Accordingly, I reiterate the point of my original post: to always check the original records where available.
-
They are not claiming to be providing a copy of Phillimores on their website, they are claiming that they are transcribing the parish registers and obtaining information from other relevant sources, so I find it completely bizarre, based on the aim of freereg.org.uk that they would argue that Phillimores trumps original records.
The FreeReg transcriptions always name the source. The transcription I've sent them is a transcript of a Victorian published transcript. FreeREG and others would say that they are finding aids rather than original records.
-
This does raise a rather interesting question of what constitutes a "source", does it not?
Phillimore only claims to be a secondary source; not a primary source ... yet appears to have introduced into evidence the word "spinster" which cannot be verified from the primary sources.
So I think the point is well made. If we ask the question "On what evidentiary basis does this avowedly secondary source assert that she was a spinster", then the answer appears to be "none whatsoever".
Is there, then, any evidence for her having been a spinster? I think not.
So I am coming around to the view that a "finding aid" site ought to accept the proposal that it be deleted ... or at least replaced by a note to the effect that "no known primary source records her marital status. Philimore, which is a secondary source, asserts that she was a spinster. However, the source (if any) that Philimore relied upon for making this assertion is unknown."
-
In 1851 in Bermondsey there is a man whose birthplace is transcribed as Vierbwike, Essex. The original writing, as far as I know seems to resemble Walthamstow more. I shall have to find him again to have a second look. I saw an entry for someone living in Lancashire born in "Milton Hall", Suffolk. I would know that was probably Mildenhall, but if I was transcribing, I would have to put what it says on the original record. Milton Hall.
-
Amanda - does this relate to your post here:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=870496.msg7415939#msg7415939
If so, then Phillimore isn't at fault. His transcript can be found online at the Internet Archive; it's included in his Gloucestershire Parish Registers - Marriages, Vol. 1, and the relevant page is here:
https://archive.org/details/gloucestershire00blaggoog/page/n63/mode/2up
As you can see, there is no suggestion there that Sarah is a spinster, and none of the marriages on that page or the ones before and after have any indication of marital status either. Apart from a few mentions of licences or other parishes, it's just names and dates.
So it appears that FreeReg, in the absence of the word "widow", has assumed that they're all spinsters. This can't in any way be pinned on Phillimore, so you really need to get back to them with this evidence and ask what justification they had for this.
-
Amanda - does this relate to your post here:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=870496.msg7415939#msg7415939
If so, then Phillimore isn't at fault. His transcript can be found online at the Internet Archive; it's included in his Gloucestershire Parish Registers - Marriages, Vol. 1, and the relevant page is here:
https://archive.org/details/gloucestershire00blaggoog/page/n63/mode/2up
As you can see, there is no suggestion there that Sarah is a spinster, and none of the marriages on that page or the ones before and after have any indication of marital status either. Apart from a few mentions of licences or other parishes, it's just names and dates.
So it appears that FreeReg, in the absence of the word "widow", has assumed that they're all spinsters. This can't in any way be pinned on Phillimore, so you really need to get back to them with this evidence and ask what justification they had for this.
Yes, that is the issue I am talking about, and yes, I did that as soon as I received their reply. I have submitted a copy of the original parish register and the banns. The reply I received was: “I have viewed this entry with Phillimore's register and it is correct.”
I wonder why they blamed Phillimore’s then?? After my first report, they added that comment in the notes field. See here: https://www.freereg.org.uk/search_records/640f504bf493fd65da06f857/sarah-alder-william-gabb-marriage-gloucestershire-king-s-stanley-1801-06-22?locale=en&search_id=6418e57af493fd1f707c4bfe&ucf=false
Although in my first report I explained that Sarah was a widow, I did not ask them to replace “spinster” with “widow”. I simply asked them to remove “spinster.”
-
The 1896 edition of Phillimore can be seen online. What's interesting there from the first page for King's Stanley is that Phillimore's transcript is actually a transcript of a pre-existing transcript made between 1875 and 1880. So FreeREG is a transcript of a transcript of a transcript.....
In and around the 1801 marriage, a few individuals are marked w[idow/er] or b[achelor] or s[pinster] but most are not marked at all. Looking at a sample of records on FreeREG, all are marked 'bachelor' or 'spinster.' Two possibilities from this, and of course we can't ask the original transcribers. (1) the remaining individuals were never marked w/b/s in the original, so FreeReG has 'invented' the marks; (2) the FreeREG transcript comes from a later edition of Phillimore.
Considering the known tendency for original registers to contain errors, we are now deep in tangles!
-
I've done a bit more investigating.
The only edition of Phillimore's transcript that I can find online is dated 1896, and the Society of Genealogists library catalogue doesn't mention any other edition.
It's interesting to know that the transcript used in Phillimore was produced by someone else, but not particularly relevant for the entry we're querying. Neither the parish register nor the bishop's transcript (images of both are at Ancestry) gives the marital status for William Gabb or Sarah Alder, so the version published by Phillimore that we can access is absolutely correct.
If it's any consolation, Amanda, your entry isn't the only one that seems to be in error. You can't browse at FreeReg, but as an initial test I looked for grooms named William in 1800-1802, to compare them with Phillimore - there are 11 in total. Phillimore gives the marital status (widow/spinster) for one of these (Graham is correct about a few being shown - I must have looked too quickly before), and the other ten have names only. However, FreeReg shows these ten as bachelor/spinster.
I then did a further check which I've used as a basis for a report to them on the William Gabb/Sarah Alder marriage. I took a screenshot from the page in Phillimore that they're on, showing a total of 20 marriages, none of which had any marital statuses shown. However, on checking these at FreeReg I found that they're all shown as bachelor/spinster, and I've mentioned this in my report.
This seems quite unjustified to me, so maybe if they get a lot of similar complaints about it they'll start taking it more seriously.
-
May I make one more point?
FreeREG like so many transcriptions depends entirely on volunteers. I think we need to understand that when we complain about the service. I'm working on a different indexing project and we have a bunch of committed and dedicated volunteers who are doing this work for the benefit of others. This is a shade different to some of the commercial databases.
-
But the complaint isn't about the transcribers ... we're all grateful to them; and we all accept that they may make errors from time to time.
It's about the refusal to amend a manifest error when pointed out
-
But the complaint isn't about the transcribers ... we're all grateful to them; and we all accept that they may make errors from time to time.
It's about the refusal to amend a manifest error when pointed out
Exactly!
Also, my initial post was about the importance of checking the original records when they are available. However, we all know that transcriptions have propelled our access to genealogical information.
Disappointingly, this is the reply I received this morning to my second request for freereg.org.uk to remove “spinster”:
“Dear Amanda Gabb;
You contacted FreeREG on the matter of Data Problem with a reference 258668339 at 20:11 on 2023-03-13
A team member has replied as follows:
Hi Amanda, when we transcribed from the Phillimoors books, they do not specify Spinster/Bachelor in there books only when they were widowed etc. So Spinster/Bachelor was added. This is the only time we add anything other than what we see when we transcribe. So in answer... do we add data the answer is no. If we in the furture transcribe the Parish register then it will show if your relative was widowed. Regards Doreen Olds coordinator Gloucesershire
The FreeREG Team”
Then my submission to the general website which included a copy of the above:
“ Why is freereg.org.uk adding false information to their transcriptions??? This is completely unacceptable. Attached is the second response I received in regards to freereg.org.uk adding “spinster” to a record for a woman who was a widow. The original marriage records do not state if she was a spinster or widow, we know that she was a widow from other records. I am NOT asking freereg.org.uk to replace “spinster” with “widow”, I am simply requesting that you remove your invented information to reflect the original. If it does not state on the original records if someone is spinster/widow/bachelor etc then freereg.org.uk should not be inventing the information in its place. This is false and misleading and will negatively affect people’s research.”
-
when we transcribed from the Phillimoors books, they do not specify Spinster/Bachelor in there books only when they were widowed etc. So Spinster/Bachelor was added. This is the only time we add anything other than what we see when we transcribe. So in answer... do we add data the answer is no.
Allow me to paraphrase freely:
"In certain circumstances we add data ... therefore the answer to the question do we add data? is no".
Essentially, they have fallen for one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book. They are confusing the proposition "the only status that Phillimore shows is widow / widower" with the proposition "every widow / widower is shown as such by Phillimore".
It is only if the latter propostion can be shown to be accurate that the addition of bachelor / spinster to those that are not specified as widow / widower can be justified. But (as this particular instance clearly demonstrates) the proposition cannot be shown to be accurate.
-
A team member has replied as follows:
Hi Amanda, when we transcribed from the Phillimoors books, they do not specify Spinster/Bachelor in there books only when they were widowed etc....
That's a big assumption, and wrong.
(a) 7 pages further on in the volume containing King's Stanley, the marriages at Owlpen include b. and s. for bachelor and spinster, so if Phillimore's practice was to omit this, why are they there?
See https://archive.org/details/gloucestershire00blaggoog/page/n71/mode/2up
(ADDED:
See also earlier pages for King's Stanley, eg these entries from the 1770s:
https://archive.org/details/gloucestershire00blaggoog/page/n53/mode/2up)
(b) I believe there are some volumes of Phillimore where bachelor/spinster are to be assumed in the absence of any other indication, but this is explicitly stated at the start of the parish or register concerned, or in the preface to the whole volume.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find an example of this, but Phillimore's concern for accuracy, as evidenced by the preface to any of his volumes, is such that he would surely have mentioned any deviation from the rule that transcribers should transcribe what they see, nothing more and nothing less.
-
This is the latest reply I have received from FreeREG. I am glad I persisted.
“Dear Amanda Gabb;
You contacted FreeREG on the matter of Website Problem with a reference 259438000 at 17:55 on 2023-03-22
A team member has replied as follows:
Many thanks for your query, Amanda. Let me start by saying that FreeREG policy is very clear in that transcribers should only type what they see in the source document they are working from and to my knowledge, this is implemented by all our current volunteer transcribers. I have looked into this specific issue and checked the details with the coordinator for GLS. This record was transcribed quite a while ago and it is possible that at the time, the transcriber made an assumption that if Phillimores didn't state the marriage condition, the default should be to enter spinster or bachelor. That is most certainly not the case now and all transcribers are instructed to 'Type What You See' (TWYS) and not make any assumptions or guesses about information that is not in the source being transcribed from. I apologise for the misinformation you received and will ensure that spinster is removed from the entry if it hasn't been already. Kind regards, Steve Biggs FreeREG Chairman
The FreeREG Team”
-
Excellent result and well done for not giving up.
-
Well done, and I'm glad you got a result. However, the problem is much bigger than the one entry you were interested in.
I sent FreeReg a screenshot of the page from Phillimore (https://archive.org/details/gloucestershire00blaggoog/page/n63/mode/2up) and pointed out that for the first 20 entries on the right hand page (down to 2 Feb 1802) they had incorrectly assumed bachelor/spinster when Phillimore and the original PR and BT had nothing. Amanda's entry (22 Jun 1801) has been corrected, but when I checked a few of the others a little while ago, they were still wrong.
I haven't yet had any response to my report other than an automatic acknowledgement, but if/when I do I shall be sure to tell them if the error still persists.
-
Well done, and I'm glad you got a result. However, the problem is much bigger than the one entry you were interested in.
I sent FreeReg a screenshot of the page from Phillimore (https://archive.org/details/gloucestershire00blaggoog/page/n63/mode/2up) and pointed out that for the first 20 entries on the right hand page (down to 2 Feb 1802) they had incorrectly assumed bachelor/spinster when Phillimore and the original PR and BT had nothing. Amanda's entry (22 Jun 1801) has been corrected, but when I checked a few of the others a little while ago, they were still wrong.
I haven't yet had any response to my report other than an automatic acknowledgement, but if/when I do I shall be sure to tell them if the error still persists.
You are absolutely correct, the problem is greater.
I ended up bypassing the “report transcription error” option after the second negative response and reported a “website problem”. That got their attention. From what I can work out, if you report the record as a transcript error then it just keeps going to that same person who seems to look after the Gloucestershire records. It took two days to receive an initial response which stated that they would be investigating the matter, then six days from there to receive the response I received today.
-
Thanks for the tip - I'll give it a few more days then try it as a website problem.
-
Other things got in the way and I've only just got back to this. I never heard any more from FreeReg, but I've just checked a handful of their marriage transcripts for King's Stanley around 1801 against what's in Philimore, and the marital status has been removed. So it seems like job done.
-
Other things got in the way and I've only just got back to this. I never heard any more from FreeReg, but I've just checked a handful of their marriage transcripts for King's Stanley around 1801 against what's in Philimore, and the marital status has been removed. So it seems like job done.
That’s great news, well done.