The worst Ancestry transcription ever?

[carol8353]

My ancestor whose name was Fred- was transcribed as FROG 

[Beeonthebay]

One day soon they will get computers to perform transcribing.  They will probably be more accurate than human transcribers.

They've been trying for a long time with OCR, and that can only handle printed characters with any reasonable hope of success.  Attempts at blurry Victorian newspapers are a joke sometimes, so I don't share your optimism - yet.

Eeek I hope I am gone before that happens!!!   

[3sillydogs]

Don't know if I would have got "Hector" out of that straight off, but would have looked at the rest of the document for where that letter had been used in another word.

As a transcriber I know we are supposed to type what we see but a certain amount of common sense should come into play.  The problem comes in with transcribers that are working in languages that may not be familiar to them, which is possible with online transcribing with transcribers from all over the world.

I have also found that the older the document the worse the handwriting, don't know if it was the types of writing instruments and ink that they had or what, but the more "modern" ones are easier to read at times.  Maybe "practice makes perfect"

[larkspur]

Aw come on!!!  Looking at the page I would never, in a million years, have seen the name Hector!

Neither did I until I figured out the first letter was H (as in Milk House occupation) not T.........which made me think that the transcribers *are* only looking letter by letter and not at the whole page.

I have done a small amount of transcribing for Ancestry, and it is not always easy, you do not always see the "whole"page, and you are informed NOT to guess but leave a blank where you cannot read something.
I think we should be very grateful for all the people who transcribe-for free- some have done over 60.000. When you consider how much information Ancestry has and how many errors occur, and it is done by amateurs that is pretty remarkable.
What would you prefer? Back to the library etc and the fiche's, or sitting in your nice home in front of the comp. I know which one I do 

[3sillydogs]

I have done a small amount of transcribing for Ancestry, and it is not always easy, you do not always see the "whole"page, and you are informed NOT to guess but leave a blank where you cannot read something.
I think we should be very grateful for all the people who transcribe-for free- some have done over 60.000. When you consider how much information Ancestry has and how many errors occur, and it is done by amateurs that is pretty remarkable.
What would you prefer? Back to the library etc and the fiche's, or sitting in your nice home in front of the comp. I know which one I do 

I transcribe for Family Search and at least we do get to see the whole page (at least for the records I have been transcribing) it does make it easier to come to a conclusion.   

, (well for the records I am transcribing at least) it definitely does make it easier to come to a conclusion.

[StevieSteve]

I have also found that the older the document the worse the handwriting, don't know if it was the types of writing instruments and ink that they had or what, but the more "modern" ones are easier to read at times.  Maybe "practice makes perfect"

Don't know when they were written but the ones I curse are whoever wrote out the PCC wills.

Their writing is perfectly neat and consistent yet at times I find it perfectly  unreadable

[Andrew Tarr]

I have also found that the older the document the worse the handwriting, don't know if it was the types of writing instruments and ink that they had or what, but the more "modern" ones are easier to read at times.  Maybe "practice makes perfect"

I think that's mainly a matter of familiarity with style.  I'm sometimes surprised at how 'standard' Victorian handwriting seems compared with today's variations - I assume that there was a national drive to increase literacy, with a recommended style of 'copperplate'.  Increasing literacy between 1850 and 1890 is noticeable in the number who can (or try to) sign a marriage register.

But as you say, the further back you look, the more unintelligible handwriting seems.  By the 17th century it's becoming difficult, and earlier than that, impossible - for me at any rate.  And spelling is less predictable too.

[jaybelnz]

The words themselves are harder the further we go back, unfamiliar spelling, funny f thing for an f, strange English words in Ye olde English- must take a bit of working out sometimes, fortunately I don't have any from back that far though, but soo wish I did!

[Beeonthebay]

Don't know if I would have got "Hector" out of that straight off, but would have looked at the rest of the document for where that letter had been used in another word.

As a transcriber I know we are supposed to type what we see but a certain amount of common sense should come into play.  The problem comes in with transcribers that are working in languages that may not be familiar to them, which is possible with online transcribing with transcribers from all over the world.

I have also found that the older the document the worse the handwriting, don't know if it was the types of writing instruments and ink that they had or what, but the more "modern" ones are easier to read at times.  Maybe "practice makes perfect"

I did wonder if perhaps there were non English speakers transcribing though why you wouldn't see the whole page I don't understand.

I've been doing some transcribing for FreeReg of parish register marriages and have found a kind of rhythm in the flow of the handwriting sometimes by comparing it to a street name I know is correct if I don't quite "get" a letter.