Genealogy Chat

Hi Kate Don't panic, I haven't entered what I think it might be, I know we have to transcribe what we see rather than what we think is most likely. My question was really, what do I put? I'm used to one character being unreadable, but not almost a whole name. I know not everyone is a transcriber, but I know from previous threads there are plenty on here lol! I have emailed my coordinator, but as he can take a few weeks to get back to me, I though I would take a short cut and ask on here! I was interested to see what I might be though, that's the only reason I looked on Ancestry, sometimes their image is clearer.

Teresa, you are supposed to transcribe what you see, and please don't start searching on censuses! Just because you find a name that looks likely on the census does NOT mean that is what it says on the index! If you can't make out any of the letters in the middle but you know there is at least one you can 'Use the _{2,3} style of UCF' (_ means uncertain character then the numbers in the curly brackets are the minimum and maximum number of uncertain characters there might be. So for example if you think there are 4 or 5 unreadable characters, put '_{4,5}'. But 'Note: Using a single * is preferable to spending a long time trying to decide the min and max values to use in the _{min,max} format, which is more precise.' There is lots of info to help transcribers at http://freebmd.rootsweb*com/beginhelp.shtml and http://freebmd.rootsweb*com/vol_faq.html replace * with . And if you have a question which is not answered in there, you would be best to ask your syndicate coordinator or post to the transcribers' mailing list - see http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/lists.html and it would be the 'Admins' list. People on here are very helpful, but they are not all FreeBMD transcribers!! Kate.

Hi Teresa, If you go to the Transcribers page on FreeBMD it tells you how to deal with the problem, Hope this helps, June x

No Groom Reg, I'm transcribing that particular image, which is why I have to be certain before entering it.

There are plenty of Englefield births in the Basingstoke area, nothing for Englechild. It seems to be the most likely.

There are a few Ann Englefields in the approx area in 1851. Do you have a groom in mind? Perhaps we could find the happy couple in 1861, and work back from the info on there.......... Reg

Thanks Reg, another possibility, but it's a bit too obscure to be sure. It looks the most likely, and fits alphabetically.

It looks like either Englechild or Englefield to me. Could try to find her on the 1851 census. UPDATE - there are quite a few Ann Englefield's on the 1851 census but no Ann Englechild's. Kath. x

Possibly Englefield.........I think I can pick out a 'dot' over what might be a letter 'i' Reg

That's the problem, I know there is more than one character. It's so faded it's impossible, even on the enhanced image on Ancestry. Just not sure exactly how many.

something like Eng*d unless you know how many characters are unreadable.

1856 Marriages beginning E. Between William England and John Charles Engler. There is an Entry there, which I think may be Englechild, Her name is definitely Ann, Basingstoke, Vol 2c and I think Page 357. It's the only one I can't quite read. It's too faded. If I can't see what it is, I can definitely see ENG ........D, what do I put in?

mo