Have Ancestry.co.uk gone mad?

[Sue1]

Just been looking at some new info on ancestry to see how useful it is:

View Record▼

James Rowlands
1801-1825 Town: Pater london

View Record

Daniel Rowland
1801-1825

View Record▼

E. Lloyd Rowland
1801-1825 County/Colonial: Denbighshire london

View Record

T. Rowland
1801-1825 County/Colonial: Kent aberhonddu

View Record

W. Rowland
1801-1825 Town: Aberystwyth; County/Colonial: Cardiganshire london

View Record

William Rowland
1801-1825 Town: Neath; County/Colonial: Glamorganshire london

What is that all about? Supposed to be UK and US directories. Did I miss something? Sue

[wr.]

T. Rowland
1801-1825 County/Colonial: Kent aberhonddu


Aberhonddu is the welsh name for Brecon in mid Wales, if it's any help.

[Sue1]

Many thanks wr - I certainly wouldn't have known that from the site BUT wonder why it has Kent in front of it - there are loads like this - it is one of ancestrys "new releases" I gather.

[Rick]

If you click on the record it explains it. T. Rowland of Old Romney in Kent subscribed to a very long title in Welsh, published by someone in Aberhonddu.

[Sue1]

Thanks Rick, I sort of get it now. Sue

[GallowayLass]

I was thinking it was another case of the Hemsworth, Yorkshire, West Riding syndrome. There's loads of BMDs that have taken place in Heywood, Lancashire that are indexed as Hemsworth, Yorkshire, West Riding. The image of the GRO register has correct reg dist. name of Heywood. I have reported every one I have found over the years (and they are legion!) but have ancestry done anything about them? - don't be daft...

[Sue1]

Why am I not surprised I wonder. Yesterday I looked at "U.K., City and County Directories, 1600s-1900s". I was looking for a Rowland who was a Tailor. There were six Rowlands (none mine unfortunately) but I actually laughed when I saw the transcriptions from the original - the poor soul who did those transcriptions obviously wasn't aware that an "S" was often written as "f" in the 1700s - the results are very strange i.e. Street has been transcribed as "itreet" - Mason Street is of course "Mafon itreet" - I did put alterations in for all six Rowlands - dread to think what the rest are like! It would appear that transcriptions are not checked. I actually felt sorry for the transcriber - it is not something you would know unless someone told you especially if they were transcribed "out of country". Bet they are not changed!
Perhaps we should get a reduction in membership fees if we have to repeatedly alter mistranscriptions? We are doing their job basically
Sue

[Richard in Perth]

I was thinking it was another case of the Hemsworth, Yorkshire, West Riding syndrome. There's loads of BMDs that have taken place in Heywood, Lancashire that are indexed as Hemsworth, Yorkshire, West Riding. The image of the GRO register has correct reg dist. name of Heywood. I have reported every one I have found over the years (and they are legion!) but have ancestry done anything about them? - don't be daft...

Was this on their FreeBMD indexes (i.e. pre-1915)? They won't make corrections to indexes that are sourced from elsewhere, which is fair enough really since they don't control the original database. You can always submit "alternative information" for any record on Ancestry - this then becomes searchable along with the existing erroneous transcription.

Edit: Oh and always worth checking the FreeBMD transcription as well, and submitting a correction if that was the source of the error. FreeBMD certainly do correct reported errors, usually within a couple of months.

[Richard in Perth]

Why am I not surprised I wonder. Yesterday I looked at "U.K., City and County Directories, 1600s-1900s". I was looking for a Rowland who was a Tailor. There were six Rowlands (none mine unfortunately) but I actually laughed when I saw the transcriptions from the original - the poor soul who did those transcriptions obviously wasn't aware that an "S" was often written as "f" in the 1700s - the results are very strange i.e. Street has been transcribed as "itreet" - Mason Street is of course "Mafon itreet" - I did put alterations in for all six Rowlands - dread to think what the rest are like! It would appear that transcriptions are not checked. I actually felt sorry for the transcriber - it is not something you would know unless someone told you especially if they were transcribed "out of country". Bet they are not changed!
Perhaps we should get a reduction in membership fees if we have to repeatedly alter mistranscriptions? We are doing their job basically
Sue

Sue these trade directories (along with electoral rolls, phone books, etc) have been converted to searchable format using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) - they have not been transcribed by a person. So no point in feeling sorry for a machine! It's actually quite amazing that the OCR is as accurate as it is, given the quality of some of the images and the various type-faces that were used.

[GallowayLass]

Was this on their FreeBMD indexes (i.e. pre-1915)?

No. The error is also in the 1916 onwards indexes. My cousin's 1974 marriage for example.