Incorrect Census transcriptions on Ancestry

[Headbanger Veron]

It is a point worth remembering that because both 1901 indices were made independently of each other, that if you can't find grandfather's name in one it is often worth checking the other.

Hi - the same applies to 1861 transcriptions on Ancestry and 1837online. If I had relied on 1837online for some of my ancestors, I don't think I'd ever have found them. However they do have some useful things on the search that Ancestry don't, like "other people in household" so it's worht checking both.

Cheers Veron 

[Willow 4873]

I hope everyone is aware that you can make a correction if you find out something has been mistranscribed on Ancestry

If you click on view record -  to the right there is a section which lists comments and corrections. I've used it several times

Willow x

[Headbanger Veron]

Hi

I thought this was only possible if a) you have a subscription rather than a pay-per-view and b) if it's a name you need to correct rather then anything else. I have a couple of entries where it's the age or the relationship that is wrong, and it wouldn't let me enter the corrections. If this has changed I'll be delighted but that was what happened to me last time I tried to do it. 

Cheers Veron

[Willow 4873]

Hiya Vernon

Yes it is only for incorrect names at the moment but they are hoping to update it for other fields soon - sorry if I was misleading everyone.

Willow x

[PaulineJ]

Changing other mistranscribed stuff has been 'under review' for about three years now. I wouldn't hold your breath...

Pauline

[CaroleW]

As a follow up to my original message notifying this problem, Ancestry sent me another email asking me to use the "Comments & Corrections" procedure for each incorrect entry.   I replied that as around 1,500 entries were affected, there were not enough hours in the day!!

I suggested they did the same as me - on the home page, ask for a search for the surname SO and it will throw up everyone within each census year. They can then work through them.

Let's hope the "Do" and "So" issue has been addressed with their transcribers so we don't have the same problem when the 1851 goes online.

[eillo]

I have recently discovered that Ancestry have transcribed the "do" as a surname SO and as a result, approx 1500 entries are mis-transcribed.

Good for you for spotting this Carole! Compounding the transcription error of "do" as Surname SO is surname SO being used to replace actual ditto marks! I have found families (for eg ISHERWOOD in Little Bolton, Lancashire in 1891) where wife and children have " to indicate ditto for the head of house surname -- but have been recorded as having surname SO.

In the case of the Isherwood family, all the children (and their mother)  had " in place of their surnames, but only 3 of the 7 had the surname SO assigned to them by the indexer.

It's a wake up call for all of us to be sure to use wildcards when possible in search engines and be very creative and flexible in our search tactics. There's a tutorial on using Ancestry's search engines at the GenHelp site at  http://www.genhelp.org/?p=84

[PaulineJ]

Other suggestions

Try 'stupid' vowel combination at the start of the surnames. C, S, H, F all seem to be commonly transcribed as L

Hence (all in 1901)

Mary Ltanley   (Stanley)

John Llanaghan  (Flanaghan)

Emily Llancy  (Clancy)

Fanny M Llaslett  (Haslett)?


Pauline

[CaroleW]

Hi

Since discovering the "So" problem, I have found 2 families for other people who were previously untraceable.  The surname of the head of house had been mis-transcribed in each case and then the wife and children transcribed as "So".

Nationally - there are 1515 "So" entries from 1861-1901 - none in 1881.  This figure includes 182 for Lancashire

The figures are exactly the same now as they were a month ago when I first reported the problem to Ancestry so they haven't even started on correcting it.