Genealogy Chat

I emailed ancestry yesterday after I found literally dozens of errors during trawling, I got the following reply: NAME CORRECTIONS You can provide corrections or additions for a record, such as for transcription errors, birth or maiden names (e.g., if a known name change has occurred), nicknames (to increase search options that will locate this record), name variations (if these occur for records), incorrect originals (i.e., the original record is incorrect). To indicate this information: 1. Click on the "Comments and Corrections" link from the individual's record page 2. Click the "Add an Alternate Name" link on the next page 3. Enter information in the Given Name and Surname fields 4. For the Reason, indicate any of those previously indicated 5. Provide a brief but helpful Explanation of the information you enter 6. Click the Submit Correction button PLEASE everyone do make corrections when you find errors.

Please remember that you can send in corrections for anyone, not only those related to you. If you are searching and you come across an error on the image, even if its not one of yours ancestors, please send in a correction. I am searching for ancestors that were taken away on that space ship ;-(( So come across errors on images a lot, even if they aren’t mine, if the error is obvious, eg jOne for jAne, then I will send in a correction, even for ‘easy ones’ Just think how pleased you will be if you suddenly find your ancestor because some kind soul did a correction. The more corrections that are done the more hope there is. :-))

But what if Jone should really be Joan? Or they had an unusual spelling? Won't that add more confusion? Sue ;-)

In this case of JONE/JANE, the image was very clear on the j n and e, and I only had to look at another child called jAmes to see the 'a' was identical. To me, I can't understand how the transcribers got it wrong in this case, but they do. So please, if you see an error between the image and the transcribed name, and you can verify it by other writing on the image, send in a correction

If you look at the census image and its absolutely obvious, like they so often are, then we should correct everyone we find. The "Stoney" for Henry is a ridiculous example - how the transcriber could have done that. Or the Lunitie Jumate for the place of birth????

I think sometimes the records are transcribed by people who don't have English as a first language, so it probably is not obvious to them.

Good idea in theory, Heather - but the trouble is, there are just SO many errors on Ancestry. We would be spending all our time filling in the corrections boxes! Also - Ancestry would be so inundated with corrections, that might slow down their release of more of the census. Personally I would rather put up with the errors in the transcriptions if that meant that they could then get on with finishing the 1871 & 1901 ... not to mention the promised release of 1861!!! Most of the time, the mistranscriptions can be worked around with a bit of lateral thinking on your searches, and it's easy enough to download the image to see what it REALLY said. In an ideal world, the transcription would be perfect, but in reality it is at least a useful finding aid (most of the time), even if at times somewhat cryptic. "Correcting" info that was supposedly entered incorrectly on the original is very dangerous - too easy for people to massage what is a primary source of data into what they think it should have been, or what they would like it to be. I'd much rather have the "as-written" info in the index, that way it leaves it up to the individual researcher to decide whether it fits or not. Richard

I understand your point Richard, but most people arent that inventive and persistent. If they cant find someone under the right name they assume they arent on there. Only a minority of people actually use these message boards - if you look at the messages added to your names lists you can see that most people dont know what to do if they cant find their ancestor's name on a census. I dont think anyone would attempt to correct something which is not an obvious transcription error which could be clearly seen on the census image (for instance, spent ages looking for a birthplace called Thadwete when I first started my research. When I got to see the image it very clearly said Shadwell!). I would have thought that ancestry would want their information to be as accurate and reliable as possible to attract more subscribers. Not our perogative, but if I were on their management Id make sure we employed enough people to make the system work. Also, as someone else said, inaccuracies like Somalia for Somerset and one I saw today, South Louth (for Somerset!!) wouldnt occur so often if they localised their transcriptors. Yes, I know we cant tell them how to run their business but if they get enough people advising corrections may be they will think again.

Yes I agree with everything you say, Heather - I just hope that by inundating Ancestry with corrections, we don't have a negative impact on the release date of further census data. Oh, and if they employed transcribers in the UK (at UK wages), the subscription rate would have to increase dramatically to cover the extra costs. I'm not being an apologist for Ancestry, am just trying to see both sides of the coin :-)

Absolutely, Richard. I can also see both sides but quite selfishly I would like not to have to trawl several thousands of names just in case one of them is mine mistranscribed. Most people arent that resourceful and perhaps dont have the time to do it. (She says looking round at a weeks filing and tidying to do!) I believe that ancestry transcribe in the US and there are plenty of native Brits who could be hired there, least of all students. As it is, I still had missing people who thanks to the kind experienced souls on here have turned up mistranscribed.

I know i'll get shot down in flames here but i read somewhere quite some time back on FreeBMD i think that the records were to be transcribed as they appeared all errors & ommissions included,i seem to remember also that they said even things like a full stop or comma etc was to be exactly as written no additions or subtractions,i apologise if i'm wrong but surely we should not change the way it was. John.

Thats absolutely true - I have done that work. But in that you are transcribing the Index not census forms. There is little chance of you deciding suddenly to type Somalia for Somerset. Furthermore, it is double checked so would be picked up. What ancestry is doing is just what you have said is wrong - changing information on the census sheets in error. The only amendments we would want is where the transcriber at ancestry has made very obvious and misleading mistakes. If you look at the census and place of birth is very obviously Shadwell and they have transcribed Thadwete, then they should change it to what the census says. I dont mean that we should all say, "My auntie Dolly said her uncle was called Bert and came from Ireland you have Albert from Devon on your transcription". I mean genuine errors made which everyone can see are wrong. We arent changing the original census forms, just the errors ancestry have made.

I have, several times, informed Ancestry of mis-transcribed info, where the image quite clearly states one thing but something entirely different has been recorded by the transcriber. However, I have not yet noticed that Ancestry have taken a blind bit of notice and the errors remain. I've not bothered since 'cos it seems a waste of time telling them if they ignore. Has anyone else noticed whether their information has been taken on board? Jan