Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass mistranscription

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mass mistranscription

    I've always found the Ancestry transcription of the Scottish censuses like the curate's egg, excellent in parts. But now I've got mired in a large bit of raw yolk.

    Looking for my OH's Sturrock family in and around Dundee, I found them by the thousand in the IGI. I managed to find her ancestor's bap. and trace him back through the censuses to 1861, but I couldn't find the family at all in 1851. Fortunately the mother of the brood had a relatively unusual first name, so I searched on that plus d.o.b. plus Dundee as a keyword. Up they popped as STUNOCK.

    Nothing too exciting about that - double r misread as n. Except that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of them seem to have been mistranscribed the same. Having recorded a correction for my family, I have to wonder how many other people are vainly searching for Sturrocks.
    Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

  • #2
    Isn't it infuriating.

    I'm starting to think that the only correct transcriptions on Scottish Ancestry census are the submitted corrections!

    My Craigs, mistranscribed as CRAICJ - fine old scottish name I don't think. NICOL mistranscribed as UICOT had me cursing and swearing too.

    OC

    Comment


    • #3
      It would be great if they had a computer programme which flagged up unusual names - and unique names so that we didn't have complete nonsense in the indexes. I can understand Matthews being recorded as Mathews for example, but not as Maththews!

      At least Stu* would have found Uncle John's lot (when he'd waded through all the Stuarts, lol! But if the first letter is wrong its often very tedious trying to find the right person. I've more than once found P is mistranscribed as C (how!) whereas S being muddled for L or T is a bit more forgiveable.
      ~ with love from Little Nell~
      Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

      Comment


      • #4
        OC try UICOT upside down, it's a lot like NICOL , except for the extra tail on the L.. ............Get's down from standing on head......Pmsl.

        love sunny r

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Little Nell View Post
          whereas S being muddled for L or T is a bit more forgiveable.
          But impossible to find in a wildcard surname search. :(
          Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

          Comment


          • #6
            Indeed. I have found an entire family, name Stevens, mistranscribed as Howard - not a single letter correct. To be fair to the transcriber, unless you KNEW it was meant to be Stevens, Howard was a fair guess. I only found them because their daughter-in-law had a child from a previous marriage and I found him by doing a surname search - I didn't know he existed till I found him!

            I have some people who just vanish and I am sure they are there but mistranscribed as something unguessable. So frustrating.
            ~ with love from Little Nell~
            Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Little Nell View Post
              I have some people who just vanish and I am sure they are there but mistranscribed as something unguessable. So frustrating.

              Not a mistranscription, or even a case of bad handwriting.

              I was looking for my OH's 2xgt grandfather John Hunt & his wife Catherine born in Ireland about 1850. I know they were here by 1875 because of a string of children registered in Lancashire, found easily enough in 1891 & 1901.

              I finally found them (as usual, a stroke of luck when looking for something else) in 1881 under the name of Burke - which is Catherine's maiden name.

              Well, they were Irish LOL
              Vicky

              Comment


              • #8
                and then there my famous Overoys - actually Cray - again a poor attempt at something that looked more like Avery. Thank goodness for children born out of the area, or they would still be "missing"
                Vicky

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am just very relieved the population of Scotland was not greater! I have been forced to search so many parishes page by page because the percentage of mistranscriptions is so huge. No wildcard options would have found my Rachel mistranscribed as Batchel one time and Hatibel the next.

                  Having said that, the Ancestry transcriptions, however poor, have made Scottish research much more affordable.
                  Gillian
                  User page: http://www.familytreeforum.com/wiki/...ustGillian-117

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    But what a sense of achievement when you creep up behind them and catch them unawares, lol.

                    I have become very adept at rapidly scanning the results looking for ridiculous names, rather than faffing about with wildcards which rarely encompass the creativity of the transcriber!

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I found an 1891 mistranscription yesterday, which I completely failed to notice when I first looked, three or more years ago: a "Daur" transcribed as under her maiden name (SCANTLEBURY), instead of the married name (BARON, which possibly should have been BARRON) under which she is really recorded!

                      At least that didn't present any finding-problems.

                      Chrisitne
                      Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        My favourite today (so far)

                        1901 Scotland Thomas Aitken
                        Occupation: Sergeant Peper Army

                        Beatles or pizza spring to mind.

                        His neighbours included Bressmakers, Failors, Hotel Parters, Stone Mastons, Jonrenrymen, the Regestrar of Berths and a Retired Tail Manufacturer!

                        I'm sure many of our Scots ancestors would have had far more interesting lives if they really had been occupied in some of the weird and wonderful ways Ancestry transcribers think they were!
                        Gillian
                        User page: http://www.familytreeforum.com/wiki/...ustGillian-117

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          JG

                          It's the Tishermen and Tarmers in my scottish tree who had the most interesting jobs I reckon - although my ancestor who was a Samartive Beguine Bleaner must have really loved his most unusual occupation.

                          OC

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The LDS version of the Eng/Wales 1881 census (also on Ancestry) has thousands of people listed as living in ISLINSTON instead of Islington.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OC - having just finished reading the Holden chapel thread, I realise that you are way out of my league ancestor-wise and I have given up all hope of ever finding someone as impressive as your Samartive Beguine Bleaner in my tree.

                              I laugh, but, in fact, considering that Ancestry is a subscription "service", you'd have thought that, at the very least, transcribers could have been equipped with a reference list of common occupations. There are hundreds of masons in Stirlingshire for example. If the low standard of mistranscription was confined to occupations it wouldn't be so bad, but I'm getting weary of trawling through entire parishes because mistranscribed names don't show up on searches. About the only thing in favour of the data is that it is cheaper to access than Scotlandspeople.

                              Off my soapbox now (I think the loss of sleep when the clocks changed has turned me into a grumpy old woman)!
                              Gillian
                              User page: http://www.familytreeforum.com/wiki/...ustGillian-117

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                JG

                                Yes, I have very mixed feelings towards Ancestry. The transcriptions are very shoddy goods and I often muse about taking them to court over the Sale of Goods Act!

                                I am also torn between not doing their work for them free, and the thought of some poor researcher not being able to find by logical means, what I have found by sheer chance or luck or family knowledge.

                                I think it is the unspoken "Take it or leave it" attitude which rankles so much.

                                OC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X