RootsChat.Com

Hi all,

I am after advice for researching a merchant sailor please. My great x 4 granduncle was indentured as an apprentice mariner in New South Wales, Australia in 1801. The term of his apprenticeship was four years. We have traced him working out of Port Jackson (Sydney) up to the end of 1810. I have found newspaper records of him (or someone with the same name) first as the captain of the Violet docked at London Warf in 1815, then as the commander of the Sterling, pin pointing the week of him changing his employment. He carried out three voyages from London to Quebec, Canada, with the Sterling being wrecked in a blizzard at the end of 1816 at the start of the voyage back to London. I would like to know do records exist for London for merchant sailors in London during this period? If so where are they held and how do I access them? Also, what about records for this period for Quebec, Canada? I tried to look at the Quebec Archives website but I do not read French.. I am trying to confirm 100% that this is our man, not just a man with the same name. Any advice would be grately appreciated.

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.

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.”

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.

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.