Bob, I should clarify, if it wasn't clear, that the census database is correct, it is the original enumeration that is wrong - you can't blame that on findmypast or any of us trying to create modern indexes. But it would be good to have the facility to add personal notes (as Ancestry allows, to a degree) to give more information to members. I see that both Gary and yourself see the benefit in this. Peter _____ From: BOB CHOWN [mailto:bob.chown@btinternet.com] Sent: 04 June 2007 10:58 To: peter.john.walker@gmail.com; eng-ken-woodchurch@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ENG-KEN-WOODCHURCH] NOW ONLINE - Woodchurch Census 1881 Dear Peter Many thanks for your kind words. I now include two fields in the transcribed Census databases. The first is 'Details' where the enumerator writes something that is outside the normal classifications. The other is 'Notes' where I include some information that I think would help anyone trying to sort out their Woodchurch family genealogy. Clearly I have the benefit of all the CMB, MI and Census databases online and an unlimited use contract with Findmypast. If the original entry has anything odd about it I try to double check it elsewhere. I would suggest the 'Notes' Field is a suitable place for annotating the records. I will include your notes on Sarah Jane Holyer in the next release I send to Gary. This is probably a good place to add a few comments about the quality of the Woodchurch Findmypast household transcriptions on which all searches of that database are based. When transcribing the 1861 Census, I started to compare my transcription with the Findmypast household transcriptions to find that about 90% had errors. Preparing these, sending them and recording their implementation was very time consuming and labourious. About 15% of surnames were wrong. Ages, addresses and town where born had about the same error rate. Forenames were good. I wrote Transcription Error Reports for most of those I found but have not done so for the 1891, 1881 or 1841 Census transcriptions. I just got fed up with it after about 200. It is something I would appreciate member's help with if their find the same situation with their Woodchurch ancestors in any of the Findmypast, Ancestry.com etc. transcriptions. I believe all other transcriptions may have the same problem e.g. KING/ RING, BARMAN/BANNAN. I am currently transcribing the Woodchurch Christenings/Baptisms 1675 to 1989 and I used the KFHS transcriptions as a start point. I transcribed 1813-1842 to find the KFHS transcription only contained about 20% for that period. This represented nearly 1000 missed. I have also done 1675 to 1702 and that seems close to 100%. I would appreciate some feedback. Best wishes - Bob Chown