Dear Ray, Thanks for your useful comments. That might explain why the name John became Joseph. I wondered if it was just a reading of the line above or below by mistake - which is something I do myself often enough. I always extol the advantages of looking at the original records because you nearly always find something of added interest. I've forwarded my letter to a friend/rellie in Wales to see if he can throw any light on the Wales and Banff connection. Best Wishes, Jane ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Hennessy" <ray@whatsinaname.net> To: <SCT-BANFFSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [Banff] CLAYTON baptism Banff OPR > jane kelly wrote: > >>I was in the library yesterday ... and found: >> >> Banff 1785 >> John CLYTON > ... >> I checked this entry with the IGI ... but the father is >> named as Joseph CLAYTON ... which I find odd as >> the handwriting was very clear and the spelling unique. > __________________________________________ > > Hi Jane > > Recently I was discussing a new FreeREG project with one of the > co-ordinators and found a very disturbing detail in the instructions for > transcribers, something like: > > "... where a name is clearly not the modern spelling, the modern version > should be substituted ..." > > I pointed out that this was "less than sensible" and that it corrupted > the database without acknowledgment. The response: this was a "norm" for > the IGI and other such transcriptions, but not always followed by > transcribers. > > Personally I think this was a diabolical way to proceed and hope that most > of the transcribers ignored it. If we > are to have any faith at all in these on-line records, they absolutely > MUST be faithful to the original. Many of > the transcribers did put dashes where there found an unreadable letter or > letter string. Unfortunately some of them are 'clever' and put what they > think it 'should be'. > > Your experience shows that it is essential to look at the original as far > as possible. I suspect the instructions were generated before Soundex and > similar search methods became universal and was a way of making the search > facilities more responsive. But introducing untraceable modifications to > the records? Words fail me! > > Best wishes > > Ray Hennessy >