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