YORKSGEN-L Archives

Archiver > YORKSGEN > 2009-01 > 1233144324


From: "Nivard Ovington" <>
Subject: Re: [YORKSGEN] Error on 1871 Census-SINCLAIR/MAPES
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:05:24 -0000
References: <5.2.1.1.1.20090127095125.039ee008@mail.aapt.net.au><00c001c9800f$4e588a60$0200a8c0@NJOvington><39C3E02CB0DF4E23A7897B91CB8F79C5@DESKTOP><009e01c98077$a2d54840$0200a8c0@NJOvington><17FBC5F8E5924B0FA3388096A8733AA5@DESKTOP>


Hi Shirley

There have been a lot of complaints about transcription errors and mistakes
with various census and by various suppliers

I have to say that in the main the errors are understandable mostly due to
the poor or in some cases over intricate handwriting of the enumerator or
person who wrote it in the case of the 1911 census

I don't blame the companies concerned as there is a fine balance between the
cost of transcribing it and the need to have it available for researchers,
obviously the longer it takes the more it costs to do

I have found countless errors in every database I have ever used but at
least with Ancestry you have a better chance of finding them

I am just glad to have the opportunity of "trying" to find them :-)

Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK)


> Hi Nivard,
>
> The biggest error I found on FMP was the 1861 census for George and
> Frances
> FLOWER and their daughters. After finding them where I expected to be on
> another source (in this case Durham Records Online, and they were close to
> Durham, where their son, my grandfather, was born the following year. ) I
> tried another tack and put in Frances, with no surname. Bingo - they were
> transcribed as Frances FRANCES and George FRANCES, etc.
>
> If you find an error, there is "Report Transcription Change" above the
> census transcription result, beside "Printer Friendly Version". A separate
> screen comes up with the facility to put corrections in. Easy, no fuss and
> done with courtesy.
>
> The Ancestry problem does not prevent someone finding the person, if one
> is
> prepared to do some lateral thinking, but it seems odd that the correct
> name
> is only noted as a "possible alternative name", when one look at the
> original proves what it should be.
>
>> however the original is the original and if that's
>> how its recorded that is how it should be shown
>
> I agree. Likewise with the freeBMD postems - super.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shirley Thomson


This thread: