A challenge for 2017 - become a transcriber for FreeREG

[Andrew Tarr]

I am just now waiting for those PDF's to be sent to me so I can do a practise transcribe as part of my training. The email I got also said the unbreakable rule is type what you see.

Yes, it makes sense to tell all 'novices' that.  But you have probably seen some recent threads on here discussing 'leeway'.  Personally I only enter what looks like gibberish if I can't make better sense of 'what I first see'.  Often it's worth taking some time becoming familiar with (a) the original writing habit and (b) the commonly recurring surnames or place-names of the series you are working on.  You may well be able to revisit some earlier work when you think 'oh, that's what it was ...'

When transcribing baptisms or burials I copy what I see in personal names, even when they are clearly just mis-spellings.  However I see little point in reproducing variants in well-known place names such as Manchester, or names of months, for example.  We must remember that others are searching for records, and we should have a little licence to increase their chances of a hit.

[coombs]

I am just now waiting for those PDF's to be sent to me so I can do a practise transcribe as part of my training. The email I got also said the unbreakable rule is type what you see.

Yes, it makes sense to tell all 'novices' that.  But you have probably seen some recent threads on here discussing 'leeway'.  Personally I only enter what looks like gibberish if I can't make better sense of 'what I first see'.  Often it's worth taking some time becoming familiar with (a) the original writing habit and (b) the commonly recurring surnames or place-names of the series you are working on.  You may well be able to revisit some earlier work when you think 'oh, that's what it was ...'

When transcribing baptisms or burials I copy what I see in personal names, even when they are clearly just mis-spellings.  However I see little point in reproducing variants in well-known place names such as Manchester, or names of months, for example.  We must remember that others are searching for records, and we should have a little licence to increase their chances of a hit.

I will always take time to study what the writing says, rather than transcribe what I first see, always best to take a closer look.

[clairec666]

Re "type what you see" - the transcription is supposed to be a representation of what is on the page, not our interpretation of what it should say. So we shouldn't make corrections to spelling mistakes, or guess a gender - leave it blank if it isn't explicit. Any abbreviations should be written as they are, but abbreviations for months are obvious, and I think it's fair to assume that "mos" means months and "yrs" means years.

For example, if you see a place name that has been spelled incorrectly, don't correct it, as it may not refer to the place you're thinking about.

Here's a thread I started a while ago about proofreading your work: http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=746132.msg5933343#msg5933343

[StevieSteve]

Just as a worked example, so if you saw Manch'r in  as the abode in a Manchester parish, best practice is to transcribe as Manch'r ?

[Andrew Tarr]

Re "type what you see" - the transcription is supposed to be a representation of what is on the page, not our interpretation of what it should say. So we shouldn't make corrections to spelling mistakes, or guess a gender - leave it blank if it isn't explicit.

Unfortunately it's not always that simple.  For example my current baptisms are recorded as 'Fred son of Jas. and Mary Jones' while the standard FreeReg template only offers choices of Male, Female, etc.  So 'son' has to be translated into Male - not an exact representation of the original.

And I stop short of what I regard as 'interpretation' (your word) preferring 'recognition'.  I respect the original ad-hoc spellings of given names of which C18 clerics didn't have a standard version; it helps us imagine how the people of those days spoke the words.  But I am also aware that when that version is so far from what searchers may hope to find, we may not be helping as much as we might.

[clairec666]

Re "type what you see" - the transcription is supposed to be a representation of what is on the page, not our interpretation of what it should say. So we shouldn't make corrections to spelling mistakes, or guess a gender - leave it blank if it isn't explicit.

Unfortunately it's not always that simple.  For example my current baptisms are recorded as 'Fred son of Jas. and Mary Jones' while the standard FreeReg template only offers choices of Male, Female, etc.  So 'son' has to be translated into Male - not an exact representation of the original.
rom what searchers may hope to find, we may not be helping as much as we might.

Fair point. We also have to make little decisions about which data belongs in which field - e.g. often there's a date of birth in the margin but it doesn't explicitly say it's the date of birth, it's a fair assumption that it is though. And I've just transcribed a burial for Henry John Finch Croxon - I assumed that Croxon was the surname and the others are first names, since it wasn't obviously double-barrelled as Finch-Croxon.

[Andrew Tarr]

... I respect the original ad-hoc spellings of given names of which C18 clerics didn't have a standard version; it helps us imagine how the people of those days spoke the words.  But I am also aware that when that version is so far from what searchers may hope to find, we may not be helping as much as we might.

A suitable example has just come up.  With this lovely script the transcription is obvious - but what on earth is the surname?  The only one I can connect with it might be Boughey, which has already appeared once or twice.

[clairec666]

That's the sort of thing that wouldn't show up in a soundex or wildcard search...

[groom]

Looking at other letters, I'd read that as Beuyh - but that doesn't look like a name does it?