I have just joined the list. I am looking for any information on a Jane HUBBOCKS who was born in Brill, Buckinghamshire. She is the mother of my Great Grandfather Robert James JONES.I found them on the 1871 census living in Middlesex. Her husband was James. I am guessing that her parents were John and Jane HUBBOCKS. They were on the 1861 census in Chelsea, Middlesex. John listed his birth place as Oakley Buckinghamshire and his wife Jane listed hers as Brill, which matches that of the the Jane HUBBOCKS that I'm looking for. That is why I think they are her parents. At this time I have no proof. I believe I have found her on the 1861 census as Jane HUBBERTS at the home of her aunt, Elizabeth CALLAWAY also in Middlesex. I'm hoping someone has some information on this family. Lynn Spivey Ontario Canada -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005

At least most of the records seems to be there. I don't mind trying variations of names and addresses - actually it's quite fun. Better than 1837online - I've been searching for Charlotte Walters and she is just not there - day one of ancestry I just entered the name and there she is. Paul Paul Irving <pauljirving@ntlworld.com> wrote: In my experience, the accuracy is much greater than 40-50%. If one takes the overall accuracy of transcription (what percentage of words are transcribed wrongly) the percentage is well over 90%. Even if one measures accuracy by how many entries have no apparent errors of any kind, the accuracy is at least 75% for my ancestors, even assuming that every ancestor I've not found is due to a transcription error, which is not necessarily the case. However, that's what I'd expect from a first draft, not the finished article, so it isn't good enough. I've just found my ancestor John LINES. Middlesex, district "Cosmopolite", i.e. the boat he was master of. He was indexed as John LYNES, born Marsbworth, Buckinghamshire, not LINES born Marsworth. Having checked the image, I can vouch for the accuracy of the transcription. The handwriting was not good, & both his and his sons names were written LYNES on the schedule. At the bottom it was signed John LINES - in a different, very careful, hand. I think he couldn't read & could write only his own name, & couldn't see or didn't care that his surname had been written differently by the enumerator or whoever filled it in. "Marsbworth" is probably not what was meant when it was written, but it's certainly what it looks like. I would say there are no transcription errors there, but there are enumeration errors. I never thought I'd find myself defending Ancestry.coms transcription, but I couldn't let "40 or 50%" pass. Paul John Brown wrote: > "Jenny Cross" wrote : > > >> I agree census were difficult to read, but sometimes I feel that the >> people who have indexed Ancestry need to use just a little common >> sense. One of my ancestors is Emanuel and it indexed as EMANIUIT > > > The problem is that these are commercial transcriptions, completed as > quickly as possible for commercial gain. They are not undertaken by > people with any local knowledge, nor with any real concern for > accuracy; best guess will suffice. While they are useful, they simply > can't be relied upon to be more than perhaps 40 or 50% accurate at best. > > John B > Leic., Eng > > ==== BUCKS Mailing List ==== > To view recent downloadable photos of Bucks churches and village > scenes, courtesy of Peter and Kevin Quick, visit: > http://www.countyviews.com > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/04/05 ==== BUCKS Mailing List ==== To view recent downloadable photos of Bucks churches and village scenes, courtesy of Peter and Kevin Quick, visit: http://www.countyviews.com

Hi everyone, Joseph and Martha Nixey were my great great grandparents. Joseph was born in Slough in 1814, and he was a master tailor there. Martha was born in Langley in 1821, and her maiden name was Blincoe. they were married in 1841 in West London. Yesterday, I found them at 1 Clifton Villas in the 1861 census. My great Grandfather Edward James Nixey was born in Alpha Road, Slough in 1863. In the late 1860s the family moved to Twerton near Bath in somerset, where Edward married Sarah Jane Nicholls, and where my grandfather Arthur Albert Ernest Nixey was born in 1898. I'd love to hear from anyone connected to either of these families or who may have info on them. Kind regards to all, Jon Nixey, Abertillery, Wales -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/05

Given that there seem to be some interesting and imaginative transcriptions...and I think I have tried every possible permutation.... anyone want to have a guess as to how to find my Tibby people please. They came from Wendover and a lot of them should be still there and/or in London. I think the beast has beaten me.... Pen

In my experience, the accuracy is much greater than 40-50%. If one takes the overall accuracy of transcription (what percentage of words are transcribed wrongly) the percentage is well over 90%. Even if one measures accuracy by how many entries have no apparent errors of any kind, the accuracy is at least 75% for my ancestors, even assuming that every ancestor I've not found is due to a transcription error, which is not necessarily the case. However, that's what I'd expect from a first draft, not the finished article, so it isn't good enough. I've just found my ancestor John LINES. Middlesex, district "Cosmopolite", i.e. the boat he was master of. He was indexed as John LYNES, born Marsbworth, Buckinghamshire, not LINES born Marsworth. Having checked the image, I can vouch for the accuracy of the transcription. The handwriting was not good, & both his and his sons names were written LYNES on the schedule. At the bottom it was signed John LINES - in a different, very careful, hand. I think he couldn't read & could write only his own name, & couldn't see or didn't care that his surname had been written differently by the enumerator or whoever filled it in. "Marsbworth" is probably not what was meant when it was written, but it's certainly what it looks like. I would say there are no transcription errors there, but there are enumeration errors. I never thought I'd find myself defending Ancestry.coms transcription, but I couldn't let "40 or 50%" pass. Paul John Brown wrote: > "Jenny Cross" <jenny@jennycross.freeserve.co.uk> wrote : > > >> I agree census were difficult to read, but sometimes I feel that the >> people who have indexed Ancestry need to use just a little common >> sense. One of my ancestors is Emanuel and it indexed as EMANIUIT > > > The problem is that these are commercial transcriptions, completed as > quickly as possible for commercial gain. They are not undertaken by > people with any local knowledge, nor with any real concern for > accuracy; best guess will suffice. While they are useful, they simply > can't be relied upon to be more than perhaps 40 or 50% accurate at best. > > John B > Leic., Eng > > ==== BUCKS Mailing List ==== > To view recent downloadable photos of Bucks churches and village > scenes, courtesy of Peter and Kevin Quick, visit: > http://www.countyviews.com > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/04/05

"Jenny Cross" <jenny@jennycross.freeserve.co.uk> wrote : >I agree census were difficult to read, but sometimes I feel that the people >who have indexed Ancestry need to use just a little common sense. One of >my ancestors is Emanuel and it indexed as EMANIUIT The problem is that these are commercial transcriptions, completed as quickly as possible for commercial gain. They are not undertaken by people with any local knowledge, nor with any real concern for accuracy; best guess will suffice. While they are useful, they simply can't be relied upon to be more than perhaps 40 or 50% accurate at best. John B Leic., Eng

> What a delightful dilemma! > Two census transcriptions....let's see, which shall we deem the > better? > How often do we have so many resources that we're able to debate which > is better? ;-) Although a primary use for many, I would also like to point out that the BGS 1861 CD is not just a tool for finding a specific person or family, however, a function for which we hope the accuracy of our transcript and the powerful search engine makes it extremely proficient (BTW the programme shows a list of all the surnames in the census and where the transcriber had a doubt over an entry there are notes to explain the doubt, with alternative possibilities - all of which should make tracking down a person easier) The data can be searched on any census field and the results of the search can be plotted to county and country maps in a number of different ways e.g. by census place, by birth place etc. thus showing the distribution and concentrations of names, distribution across the county of occupations etc. The program also shows age and sex distribution of search results etc. The CD contains a gazetteer of the county, allows distance calculations, and shows hundreds and civil registration districts and so on. I just thought it would be handy to point out some of the functionality of the CD as all the discussion to date has concentrated on pinpointing individuals. Regards Kevin Quick

I agree census were difficult to read, but sometimes I feel that the people who have indexed Ancestry need to use just a little common sense. One of my ancestors is Emanuel and it indexed as EMANIUIT Jenny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacqueline Wilde" <jacqwilde@lineone.net> To: <BUCKS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 6:54 PM Subject: [BKM] Faults > After having searched for 40 years at my wonderful reference library I > now have a computer and find it so much easier BUT I had been looking > everywhere for one of my NEIGHBOUR souls and a very kind lister managed > to > find him under HUGHBAN!! in the Ancestry Census of 1871 Also my ROSAM > grandparent was under ROSLEN, in the 1901 I know how difficult the early > Census are to read and am only too thankful that they are now on line. > Jacqueline > > > ==== BUCKS Mailing List ==== > Questions about the list administration? Contact the listowners: > Dave Carlsen - davidcarlsen@charter.net (USA); Judith Young - > Arkleside@ntlworld.com (UK) > >

After having searched for 40 years at my wonderful reference library I now have a computer and find it so much easier BUT I had been looking everywhere for one of my NEIGHBOUR souls and a very kind lister managed to find him under HUGHBAN!! in the Ancestry Census of 1871 Also my ROSAM grandparent was under ROSLEN, in the 1901 I know how difficult the early Census are to read and am only too thankful that they are now on line. Jacqueline

I would like too add,that on a search, I did for my family(not in Bucks) the WIFE is down as JAMES not JANE, so why guess if they could not under stand, why not put Ja**, But wife James,it did give me a good laugh, Plus some of the county's have being put down wrong too. Why don't they ask a English person? I have tried to tell them but it seem that you can only tell them wrong names. Give me local Cd's like our Bucks ones anytime. Sheila Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Hi Paul This discussion is happening on Warwicks list as well and I've just said the same thing there (in a lot more words though!)... your sentence sums it up exactly. That's the reason why we still need free and/or locally produced transcriptions - ones with high quality standards and accuracy - as well as the images at Ancestry. All the best Celia -----Original Message----- From: Paul Irving [mailto:pauljirving@ntlworld.com] Sent: 30 April 2005 15:53 To: BUCKS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BKM] BGS 1861 Census CD & Ancestry version <snip> In putting census images online & making them searchable, Ancestry is providing a useful service. But it's frustrating that they do it so badly! Paul -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/04/05 ==== BUCKS Mailing List ==== As of 30 December 2004: 386 list subscribers 175 digest subscribers 561 total subscribers

And a big cheer from NZ as well for the CD and the CD team! I might add that the transcription is, as expected, much better than Ancestry's (who appear to have put up their 1861 census records over the last day or so). My Medora LATHWELL and Alice LEE appear correctly on the BGS CD, but are masquerading as SATHWELL and LEX over at Ancestry....... As an aside, can anyone clarify what "nurse not domestic" might be - my Alice LEE is enumerated as such, the household she is recorded with (William and Ann DIMMOCK and children) has a 1-month old so I would have guessed she was helping out mother and baby (Alice is 48 so not a wet-nurse or whatever term might have been used for this in 1861!). What would the roles of domestic nurse versus not-domestic nurse have been? Regards Alex in Auckland NZ > > > >As most you know, over the last 3 or so years I > have been regularly > >posting to this list to report on the progress of > the Buckinghamshire > >Genealogical Society's 1861 Census project. > > > >As such I am pleased to announce this will be the > last such posting > >because the CD is now available. We launched it at > our Family History > >Feast in Aylesbury last weekend and Eve and Antony > McLaughlin have been > >busily mailing out CDs since. > > > >Kevin Quick > >Bucks 1861 Census Project Coordinator Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com

Hi Paul - haven't received anything other than what is below and when I try to email you, it bounces back Judy BC Canada ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Paul Hing" <paul@wilburydream.freeserve.co.uk> Reply-To: "Paul Hing" <paul@wiburydream.freeserve.co.uk> To: "hey wyre" <heywyre2002@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [BKM] GREENs in Pitstone, Bucks Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:15:47 +0100 Hi Judy, Did you receive my last e-mail. I now have further information for you. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "hey wyre" <heywyre2002@hotmail.com> To: <paul@wilburydream.freeserve.co.uk> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [BKM] GREENs in Pitstone, Bucks >Thanks Paul - I would love some pictures of Pitstone > >I do have one ancestor that says she was born in Cheddington - I think it >was one of the PARADINEs that married a GREEN > >I am sure somewhere down the road we might find we are related - do you >have any of the following GREENs in your tree: > >Percival >Cyril >Hilda > >These were all siblings of my Walter (parents Henry and Lizzie) > >Judy > >----Original Message Follows---- >From: "Paul" <paul@wilburydream.freeserve.co.uk> >Reply-To: "Paul" <paul@wilburydream.freeserve.co.uk> >To: "hey wyre" <heywyre2002@hotmail.com> >Subject: Re: [BKM] GREENs in Pitstone, Bucks >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:29:47 +0100 > >Hi Judy, >All my GREEN's seem to have been born and married in Cheddington with only >Joseph born in Pitstone. Cheddington isn't too far away as my Grandfather >walked to work from Cheddington to Pitstone Cement Works every workday and >when we visited in the summer the nearest bus was at Pitstone Crossroads. I >have GREEN's marrying MILLINS, PHEASANT, SEABROOK, and TAVENER. >If you would like any Pitstone photos just let me know. >Paul > ----- Original Message ----- > From: hey wyre > To: sylvie@wilburydream.freeserve.co.uk > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:35 AM > Subject: Re: [BKM] GREENs in Pitstone, Bucks > > > Hi Paul - it's quite possible I will get back that far. Right now I am > around 1850-60 > > What other names do you have in Pitstone that married into the GREEN >line? > I seem to have Paradine, Dollimore, Elphick > > Judy > BC Canada > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "Sylvie Lamande" <sylvie@wilburydream.freeserve.co.uk> > To: "hey wyre" <heywyre2002@hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: [BKM] GREENs in Pitstone, Bucks > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:46:14 +0100 > > Hi Judy, > If you get back to a Joseph Green born 25th Oct 1835 in Ivinghoe next to > Pitstone we may be related. > Paul Hing > ----- Original Message ----- From: "hey wyre" <heywyre2002@hotmail.com> > To: <BUCKS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 3:19 AM > Subject: [BKM] GREENs in Pitstone, Bucks > > > >I have just received the birth certificate of my husband's grandfather >and > >where he was born was Pitstone, Bucks "RSD" > > > >Can anyone tell me what the RSD stand for - is it residence? meaning he >was > >born at home? > > > >Judy > >BC Canada > > > > > > > >==== BUCKS Mailing List ==== > >To view recent downloadable photos of Bucks churches and village >scenes, > >courtesy of Peter and Kevin Quick, visit: > >http://www.countyviews.com > > > > > > > > > >

Liane Fenimore wrote: > I work in a library (U.S.) and the Ancestry rep came a week or so ago > to explain the 'new' library edition of Ancestry that we subscribe to. > > I specifically asked her about the 1861 and when it would be on > Ancestry because they seem to be behind schedule. She couldn't tell > me which seemed odd - now I know why - anyway, she did say that ALL > this work is being outsourced around the globe. So, I imagine it will > have problems similar to the 1901. Though in defense of all > transcribers, 'L's' and 'S's' can be tricky if you are not familiar > with the surnames. > True, as can T & S, so I find the transcription of my SURMAN ancestors as TURMAN in 1861 understandable. But no checker picking up on SHAWs being transcribed as HARRISON (the previous surname), the surname BUTTRESS being included in the forenames column & surname being blank, HERGEST being DENGEST (the substitution of N for R is understable - D for H isn't, having checked the original), TWING instead of IRVING (sloppy, but not too dissimilar - except that page is very clear & well-written), etc, etc, etc. And this is just my ancestry. There are ancestors I've not been able to find, I suspect because their names are too garbled. The search engine is also very limited in functionality, & "nearest fit" gives positively weird results. In putting census images online & making them searchable, Ancestry is providing a useful service. But it's frustrating that they do it so badly! Paul -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/04/05

Well, here you have it. An excellent description by Kevin of the multiple features in addition to the transcription, which come with the BGS CD. I think it's appropriate (particularly since I'm not a member of BGS) to point out that the timing of Ancestry's release of its indexed 1861 images is somewhat unfortunate for BGS. The society is a nonprofit and has devoted a good bit of time, not to mention some expense, to producing what clearly is a fine CD of great use to Bucks research. I sincerely hope the timing of Ancestry's release of its indexed 1861 images does not dampen sales of the BGS CD. After all, if the nonprofit societies cannot through sales of publications recoup costs and (hopefully) accrue some seed money for future projects, then such projects likely will cease to be undertaken. Ancestry is a fine resource, but it is a multi-million dollar for-profit enterprise. That does not make it 'evil'; it simply is what it is. It is also pretty pricey for individual subscriptions....so many people access it through their libraries and/or LDS Family History Centers. It makes a great deal of sense to me to purchase the BGS CD, and then, when possible, to consult images of the originals (via film or a trip to the library to ck Ancestry images) for verification. Unfortunately for me, my lot left Bucks some 200 years before even the first census was taken. ;-( -Sandy On Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 02:44 PM, Kevin Quick wrote: > Although a primary use for many, I would also like to point out that > the BGS 1861 CD is not just a tool for finding a specific person or > family, however, a function for which we hope the accuracy of our > transcript and the powerful search engine makes it extremely proficient > (BTW the programme shows a list of all the surnames in the census and > where the transcriber had a doubt over an entry there are notes to > explain the doubt, with alternative possibilities - all of which > should make tracking down a person easier) > > The data can be searched on any census field and the results of the > search can be plotted to county and country maps in a number of > different ways e.g. by census place, by birth place etc. thus showing > the distribution and concentrations of names, distribution across the > county of occupations etc. The program also shows age and sex > distribution of search results etc. The CD contains a gazetteer of the > county, allows distance calculations, and shows hundreds and civil > registration districts and so on. > > I just thought it would be handy to point out some of the functionality > of the CD as all the discussion to date has concentrated on pinpointing > individuals. > > Regards > Kevin Quick >

I just went out and used the 1861 on Ancestry. Their new search 'nearest fit' IS strange. I put in the last name and exact place of residence for a fairly uncommon name in Salford, Lancs. and got all kinds of possibilities, all over England. Everywhere but Salford, in fact. And for my great-grandmother Jennings, I only found their entry by using the first name, age and birthplace of her daughter (neither mother or two sons were to be found). And certainly not under Jennings. If you use it, be flexible. Liane

What a delightful dilemma! Two census transcriptions....let's see, which shall we deem the better? How often do we have so many resources that we're able to debate which is better? ;-) However, one thing remains constant: a transcription is a transcription is a transcription. Granted, some transcriptions may be 'better' than others, but in my own experience, I've yet to run across an 'error-free' transcription. (and since a transcription, by definition, involves opinion, the definition of 'error' launches yet another discussion). The bottom line is that any census transcription should be used as a finding aid. Perhaps the ideal in this case might be using the BGS CD as the preferred finding aid in conjunction with the Ancestry.com scanned images of the originals....or films of the originals, if you do not have access to Ancestry. In any case, transcriptions simply never 'take the place of' viewing the original image. -Sandy >

On Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Celia Renshaw wrote: > That's the reason why we still need free and/or locally produced > transcriptions - ones with high quality standards and accuracy - as > well as > the images at Ancestry. Absolutely. We also need *both* indexed transcriptions AND scanned images of parish registers. Without both, the latitude for research errors is simply far too wide. -Sandy >

Hi folks I've managed to borrow some books which have details of the villages of Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire & Northamptonshire. If you would like info on your village, please send me an email to: stella.watkin@ntlworld.com and I'll see what I can do. Cheerio Stella

I work in a library (U.S.) and the Ancestry rep came a week or so ago to explain the 'new' library edition of Ancestry that we subscribe to. I specifically asked her about the 1861 and when it would be on Ancestry because they seem to be behind schedule. She couldn't tell me which seemed odd - now I know why - anyway, she did say that ALL this work is being outsourced around the globe. So, I imagine it will have problems similar to the 1901. Though in defense of all transcribers, 'L's' and 'S's' can be tricky if you are not familiar with the surnames. There are continued problems with printing copies of some censuses. Ancestry has a drop down screen giving you instructions however the margins still aren't narrow enough. But printing is faster (when you can figure it out). The rep also said that World Family Tree would be taken off the Library version and only available on CD's. Although WFT ranges from absolutely awful to occasionally helpful, I do use it from time to time. The good news for libraries is that this 'new' Library Ancestry is about 1/3 the cost of the previous subscription. And it is free for all library patrons - you only have to pay for your copies. It can not be accessed at home. Liane