SOG-UK-L Archives

Archiver > SOG-UK > 2002-09 > 1030968142


From: "Peter Tatam" <>
Subject: Re: [SoG] Checking 1901 census
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:05:42 +0100
References: <001501c251df$c217ed20$67eed4d4@preinstalledco> <010101c25274$1b748420$9c16bd50@abc>


Sorry if I have been asking some questions already covered about checking -
my research over the last 20 years is spasmodic due to 5 house moves,
elderly parents etc and it is only recently I have been able to get back to
unpacking it and continuing it all again.
I have not checked them all but I think a lot of my TATAM are transcribed as
SATAM -presumably because of copperplate script!
Regards
Jackie Tatam (nee Aldridge)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Henley" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [SoG] Checking 1901 census


> Thee was extensive correspondence about this back in January and last
year.
> I gather that Eve Mclaughlin was one of two experienced people recruited.
> Most of the "checkers" last autumn were recruited via the local
job-center.
> There ws obviously a limited to what experienced people could do - and Eve
> had often pointed out the horrors which were perpetuated uncorrected.
> That said, I have found most of mine, except the DURDENs.
> Apart from accepting corrections - and that is a lot of trouble for the
> researcher who has paid alreday for his information to submit - how about
a
> 25 pence credit for every error and correction submitted??? - it seeems to
> me the three most helpful things the PRO/Qinetiq could do are:
> 1] Permit searches by wild card on the second letter of surnames.
> 2] Standardize the place-names, especially of Counties and census areas,
so
> that a seacrh for Phil's Glos. will produce all variants.
> 3] Set up a search facility which will return the address on the
identifier
> number, so that those who receive one of the many pages without
street-name
> or headings filled in can identify the address.
> Cheers
>
> John Henley
> (still catching up on masses of emails )
> using Archive CDs - see
> http://www.archivecdbooks.org
> and researching (and not finding much time for - but always very glad to
> hear of any)
> HENLEY, PARKER, PRENTICE, SECKER, RAPER, DURDEN
> [IN London/Middx./Essex/Suffolk]
> ROLFE, (O)RAFFERTY, EVANS, PARSONS, SYMONDS [IN Berks/Hants/Wilts]
> HILL [IN Staffs/Cambs/Berks]
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Tatam" <>
> > Judging by the number of errors reported so far, do we know if any of
the
> work on the 1901 Census was ever checked or was it just entered and slung
> onto the internet?
> > I thought it would be standard procedure for worked to checked by
someone
> else to ensure accuracy. Does anyone know what the criteria is for other
> data collating as I had thought of volunteering to help on some other
> databases I had seen on the internet but I would not if it was not
organised
> properly with proper checking.
> > Regards> J. Tatam
> >
> >
>
>
>

This thread: