SOG-UK-L Archives

Archiver > SOG-UK > 2005-04 > 1112469455


From: "John Brown" <>
Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:17:35 +0100
References: <3.0.1.32.20050402181715.02520a40@POP3.demon.co.uk>


"Hector Davie (by way of Geoffrey < >) wrote :

>I tried out the 1871 census, and was disappointed that the index seemed to
>contain an even higher proportion of mistranscriptions than we have got
>used to from >1881 and 2001.

>Of the five entries I knew to be there, only two were in the index, and for
>one of those, >the street address was given as "Davids Road" - a mistaken
>assumption caused by that >being the last street name which had been
>mentioned in the enumerator's schedule, >some twenty pages previously.

Hope you don't really mean 2001 ! My experience with 1871 is to have found
an entry that I've had great trouble finding elsewhere; isn't it just a case
of all transcriptions including a degree of 'best guesses' and "yer pays yer
money and teks yer choice' ? Any index is better than none.

>Not that the transcriber was always to blame - I managed to find a missing
>gt-gt-gt->uncle, George Knight from Foulness, whose place of birth, in
>unmistakable handwriting, >was written "Fournass, Essex".

So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject had a
bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! Isn't the issue that census
returns are subject to a variety of original errors, as well as bad
handwriting, and that the modern transcribers, who may well never have seen
many of the words presented to them and may have no real idea of UK
geography etc., will make mistakes ? The commercial imperative, allied to
the internet, means that there are many organisations now competeing for our
cash and their main objective is speed. If FHSs and/or the SoG or other
organisations had already produced top quality indexes, they wouldn't be
able to exploit us.

John Brown
Leic., Eng

This thread: