Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Response from FMP ?

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

  • Response from FMP ?

    We have reviewed the transcription changes that you have reported:

    Record set: 1871 census
    Census reference: RG10 Piece:1052 Folio:85 Page:8


    Last name from 'Taylor' to 'Kemp'


    After careful consideration we have decided that an amendment to the transcription is not required.

    Our process in dealing with errors is to look at our transcription alongside the original census image. If the transcription matches what the enumerator wrote on the census, then we will not amend it as we aim to provide you with an exact copy of the original census page.

    Bit disappointing as I do know its Kemp

  • #2
    Don't think you can blame them Val - if the image says Taylor what reason have they got to change the transcription to Kemp.
    Elaine







    Comment


    • #3
      suppose not but it took me ages to find her because of that? ah well at least they let me know , I reported a few much more plausible ones on Ancestry and they still have not been changed after 2 years.
      Dont think I will bother anymore .

      Comment


      • #4
        I think FMP only accept amendments where the transcription is wrong and it is clear that is the case.

        Ancestry do the same to give alternatives but also have 'user submitted comments' so better to use them for this sort of information.

        I've done several of these to highlight wrong relationships, mmn on births and districts/counties for BMD entries. which I hope will assist others in future. All have been included in the record concerned.
        Margaret

        Comment


        • #5
          Ancestry will let you submit alternate names for census entries. FreeBMD will only accept amended entries if the transcription was wrong.
          Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

          Comment


          • #6
            I've had several 'run in's' with FMP when there is such an obvious transcription error.
            I also received a similar bulk standard message when they have refused to make the change.
            But............ me being me pointed out that us researchers whilst needing an authentic copy do need to have correct info
            especially when it involves place names etc so we can look them up on old maps and this applies more so for people
            who don't know the area or are outside the country in question.
            I'm pleased to say in every case I WON!!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bluebell46 View Post
              I've had several 'run in's' with FMP when there is such an obvious transcription error.
              I also received a similar bulk standard message when they have refused to make the change.
              But............ me being me pointed out that us researchers whilst needing an authentic copy do need to have correct info
              especially when it involves place names etc so we can look them up on old maps and this applies more so for people
              who don't know the area or are outside the country in question.
              I'm pleased to say in every case I WON!!!!
              I may be wrong but I think Val's problem is that there was no transcription error, the census image shows the surname as Taylor, but rather that Val has other evidence that the child's surname was really Kemp. Unlike Ancestry FMP only accept transcription corrections, not extra info.
              Judith passed away in October 2018

              Comment


              • #8
                That's the point I was trying to make FMP don't always want to make corrections even when it's obviously a transcription error.
                I wouldn't expect them to alter general info.
                The last time I pointed out that they got the address wrong on the 1841 census but on the 1851 census it was correct they couldn't argue with that.
                Only when I'm 110% right will I insist that corrections are made, after all we pay enough for our subscriptions.

                Comment


                • #9
                  your right Judith so I suppose I am being daft assuming they would change that , as they dont know I'm right .

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The problem is people do not seem to understand how much time, effort and as a result money can be spent by such companies following up such suggestions.
                    The situation has changed from a few people writing up in an attempt to have a wrongly transcribed record changed to people sending in corrections to correctly transcribed records.

                    Ever single correction and suggestion has to be checked out before inclusion, this takes time.
                    A correction may mean a database has to be taken offline, corrected then uploaded again.
                    This is very disruptive in terms of access, cost and manpower.

                    It used to be the case that researchers viewed transcriptions and indexes as a guide to what was available; a starting point. Today researchers seem to view such items as gospel.
                    Cheers
                    Guy
                    Guy passed away October 2022

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well I've just reported another transcription error and it's been accepted and will be changed.
                      The name was F anny Weeds and should have read Young Wicks !!!!!

                      Not sure what Guy's point really is.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yesterday I reported to FMP that NONE of the residents from the whole of a village in 1851 could be accessed on the site, although all the images could be viewed on Ancestry.
                        They replied that the place in question was not on the official "missing" bit & could they have names of some of the individuals concerned.
                        I've sent them some names (these people quite definitely don't come up in the results list of any search) and | already know the village isn't "missing" - it was filmed years ago and i used to view it at the library.
                        I had a fiddle this morning and the total populations of 2 neighbouring villages are also missing.

                        Yesterday I was also looking for a 1970's wedding - it was a dickens of a job to find it, because they had indexed Paul W marrying Michael C. :D
                        Paul W married ROSEMARY C, the entry underneath Michael C.

                        Good fun, eh?

                        Jay
                        Last edited by Janet in Yorkshire; 07-09-11, 19:57. Reason: missed a word out
                        Janet in Yorkshire



                        Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          haha it took fmp a few months to put the village of neasham in durham on the 1851 census. they acknowledged they didnt have it!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            FMP also had a whole chunk of Elland in Yorkshire missing on the 1901. It took several months for them to correct it, and I had to supply a lot of data to them. Ancestry had most of Huddersfield St Peter indexed as Nomina on the West Yorkshire records. Again they needed a lot of information. Nomina has now been removed from the list of parishes, but a lot of Huddersfield St Peter is not indexed at the moment, you can only find records by browsing.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X