PDA

View Full Version : Ancestry whinge - again!



Olde Crone Holden
23-08-09, 22:38
I've just spent an unproductive hour searching for John Jepson and all the little Jepsons - Rosannah, Zebudah and John.

I finally found them.

John Schson
Pegie Schson
Rschunnh Akewright
Schledy Schson
John Schon

OK, the original wasn't brilliant and Zebudah isn't a common name BUT I find myself wavering between doing a correction (which I have done) for those poor souls who come along next, and crossness that Ancestry not only let us do their corrections for them but make us pay for the privilege of improving their records.

Surely they could employ ONE skilled transcriber to go through and pick up the obviously mistranscribed names?

OC

Little Nell
23-08-09, 23:23
Schledy Schson-that's a beauty!

I agree OC, sometimes the handwriting is difficult and some names are bizarre, but there are so many blatantly wrong transcriptions. I think we should all get a % discount depending on the corrections we've done. And I wish they'd get on and allow corrections for the stupid birthplaces they've invented.

Olde Crone Holden
23-08-09, 23:42
I mean, wouldn't you look twice at Schledy Schson, appearing in a remote moorland village and wonder how she got there and where from!

I notice that the new correction facility means that they have given up any pretence of even checking corrections as the change is instant.

I am also cross that someone has affixed Schledy Schson to their tree without doing a correction - how mean spirited.

OC

John-Nihon
24-08-09, 04:54
I've just spent an unproductive hour searching for John Jepson and all the little Jepsons - Rosannah, Zebudah and John.

I finally found them.

John Schson
Pegie Schson
Rschunnh Akewright
Schledy Schson
John Schon

OK, the original wasn't brilliant and Zebudah isn't a common name BUT I find myself wavering between doing a correction (which I have done) for those poor souls who come along next, and crossness that Ancestry not only let us do their corrections for them but make us pay for the privilege of improving their records.

Surely they could employ ONE skilled transcriber to go through and pick up the obviously mistranscribed names?

OC


Sorry but the word 'muggins' comes to mind.

Why should they employ anyone when there are a lot of good quality and very helpful 'muggins' around that will do it totally free. Well not actually free, the good quality helpful 'muggins' are quite happy to pay for the privilege.

Caroline
24-08-09, 07:35
Schledy Schson-that's a beauty!

I agree OC, sometimes the handwriting is difficult and some names are bizarre, but there are so many blatantly wrong transcriptions. I think we should all get a % discount depending on the corrections we've done. And I wish they'd get on and allow corrections for the stupid birthplaces they've invented.

You can now. I have made some corrections - last week. They don't show up yet unless you look at the index underneath the image when they are in bold italics. :)

Trina
24-08-09, 07:45
My biggest gripe is NOT being able to change their really crazy mistakes - like my GGGreat Grandfather being "married off" to a complete stranger not even close to him on the census list and the other family muddled with someone elses!
Also that ubiquitous "windower" for widower that I keep coming across. As for the place names - don't get me going on that!!

Trina
24-08-09, 07:48
Maybe if the corrections were logged to the transcriber there would be some accountability and things would be better?

dicole
24-08-09, 08:16
You should see the transcription for Lavington Mansion, Woolavington Sussex, in the 1841 Census. The enumerator, who was very helpful (not), wrote the names of the inhabitants over two lines, then wrote nk for their age at the end of the first line. So instead of 8 people in the household (plus servants of course), ancestry has transcribed eleven.

for Judith Isabella Byles 45, ind,
the index shows

Judith Isabella, nk, abt 1841
and
Bryles, 45.

Her daughter Marianne, who is also at the house, later married Coventry Patmore, the poet.

I don't know how any transcriber could have not seen what is before their eyes, unless they were told to make no judgement calls, just to transcribe each line as it appeared.

Di

Class: HO107; Piece 1094; Book: 13; Civil Parish: Woolavington; County: Sussex; Enumeration District: 12; Folio: 6; Page: 4; Line: 5; GSU roll: 474672

margaretmarch
24-08-09, 08:25
You should see the transcription for Lavington Mansion, Woolavington Sussex, in the 1841 Census. The enumerator, who was very helpful (not), wrote the names of the inhabitants over two lines, then wrote nk for their age at the end of the first line. So instead of 8 people in the household (plus servants of course), ancestry has transcribed eleven.

for Judith Isabella Byles 45, ind,
the index shows

Judith Isabella, nk, abt 1841
and
Bryles, 45.

Her daughter Marianne, who is also at the house, later married Coventry Patmore, the poet.

I don't know how any transcriber could have not seen what is before their eyes, unless they were told to make no judgement calls, just to transcribe each line as it appeared.

Di

Class: HO107; Piece 1094; Book: 13; Civil Parish: Woolavington; County: Sussex; Enumeration District: 12; Folio: 6; Page: 4; Line: 5; GSU roll: 474672

I have done some transcribing - not for ancestry- and they do tell you not to use judgement but to put what is there exactly and if you can't read it leave it blank. It's very frustrating when you know for sure that what has been written is wrong!
I suppose the rules for any transcribing should be that it is faithful to the original and then it is up to the reader to interpret it.
As for poor handwriting then yes they should employ people with a bit more 'nouse' to sort things out who would know that a name is not feasible such as those OC has given as examples.
Margaret

margaretmarch
24-08-09, 08:27
Maybe if the corrections were logged to the transcriber there would be some accountability and things would be better?

They can be on ancestry and I always put my details, it's a good way of catching others searching for the same name!
Margaret

Olde Crone Holden
24-08-09, 11:27
margaretmarch

I think Trina means the original transcribers. They were of course overseas, with English as a second language and speed was the essence.

I have always agreed that transcribers should "write what you see" but if what you see doesn't make sense, then have another look, or ARSK someone else!

I think you have it right, John - muggins is the word.

OC

Chris in Sussex
24-08-09, 20:47
OK

Here is where I put my hands up!

Sometime ago someone added an 'alternative name' to a 1901 census entry with details that certainly matched 'our' family.

I added confirmation of the second forename.

I now, after a long and complicated research, know that the info we both added (in good faith) doesn't have any connection to the person in the 1901 :o

The only way I have been able to correct the info is by adding again to the alternative name and it makes us both look like complete idiots :D .....Though hopefully our long and detailed explanation goes someway to negate it!

We both wished there was a way of deleting 'our' original misinformation

So now with additional facility there is a way of immediately drawing peoples attention to our original misinformation (sp)!

Trina
25-08-09, 11:44
I think it is good of you to have gone back and amended it. We have all been down the wrong path at some point I am sure.
When I first started I put my tree onto the World Project bit on Family Search, thinking that I would get lots of contacts - what a mistake! Only later did I realise that my name and address are there for all to see, but also that I had made quite a lot of mistakes that needed amending. So beware of anything that you can't check for yourself!

Sand Dancer
25-08-09, 16:52
Aaaah this brings back memories of those years i spent searching for my Robert Whittlesey and his family in the 1871 census. I found them eventually, all with the surname Chillberg. Of course! Why hadn't I thought of that!
And as for Robert's sister-in-law being born in East Molesey, Surrey - it was transcribed as the rather ridiculous Eat Mallory. I ask you!!!!!!!

Laura the Explorer
25-08-09, 18:24
I have noticed that you can change marriages now I did one this morning what gets me on this is they cross refferance the marraiges under find spouse and they still get it wrong



Laura

Trina
26-08-09, 09:44
Lol!!!

ozgirl
18-09-09, 10:46
Could someone explain to me how the town of Esh in Durham can be mistranscribed to Western Sahara !!!

kenw55
18-09-09, 11:06
How about.

Jeremiah Parsons b. 1796 transcribed on 1841 Census as Jeremiah Norman b. 1840
Caesar Parsons b. 1827 transcribed on 1841 Census as Carnie Norman b.1827

Ken

Uncle John
18-09-09, 12:15
To be fair to Ancestry some of the writing on census returns is pretty cruddy, and can only be interpreted if you have a good idea of what it's supposed to say. Now that you can correct the place of birth and other fields it can only get better.

Christine in Herts
18-09-09, 12:30
Does anyone know how you correct a mistranscribed spouse's surname?

When you call up the 2 surname options, they both offer the target surname, not one the target and one the spouse.

Christine

MalcolmES
18-09-09, 16:55
Look on the bright side Ancestry doesn’t have HOT MATCHES!!!!:Big Grin::Big Grin::Big Grin::Big Grin:

maggie_4_7
18-09-09, 17:04
Yeah and its got the LMA records.

Can you imagine how much people in the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand needs those records and could never ever be able to travel to London to see them.

I forgive them the transcription errors I really do, hopefully you can submit a correction.

Can you imagine the task and the monies that have been spent to bring the records online, all of them not just the LMA all of them.

I think its just chirlish to keep moaning about Ancestry transcriptions. I don't like the new layout but you either put up with it (apparently they did a poll and the majority liked it) or you don't.

maggie_4_7
18-09-09, 17:12
margaretmarch

I think Trina means the original transcribers. They were of course overseas, with English as a second language and speed was the essence.

I have always agreed that transcribers should "write what you see" but if what you see doesn't make sense, then have another look, or ARSK someone else!

I think you have it right, John - muggins is the word.

OC

You wouldn't have it if they hadn't got the 'overseas' people to do it.

I transcribe but the rule is transcribe what you see as I am a 'native' (not an expression you can use btw) I can make a judgement.

The fact that most of the transcribing was done 'overseas' who are they going to ask? Seriously who? It was a job and it was done.

I think you expect to much for your money but then again if you feel that its not enough for you money don't subscribe.

Olde Crone Holden
18-09-09, 17:29
Maggie

If Ancestry said "Here is what we have transcribed, there's a lot of mistakes but it's the best we can do" then I'd be a lot happier.

Of course I have to subscribe if I want the information!

OC

maggie_4_7
18-09-09, 17:38
No company would say that.

Its as good as it gets.

Christine in Herts
18-09-09, 17:42
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some consideration (e.g extra days / discount) to reflect contributions made to improve a commercial site.

Christine

maggie_4_7
18-09-09, 18:52
Neither do I.

But the concerns have to be imparted to the company to make any difference. You can't spend your time whinging and expect something to be done unless you address the problem.

Christine in Herts
18-09-09, 22:01
I have already suggested it to them

Christine

Trina
20-09-09, 10:33
I wouldn't describe it as "whinging" - more an exchange of views. :)