On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:39:10 +0100 "Jim Halsey" <jehalsey@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Jim, > Transcribing takes time,,patience,and local knowledge,of names, places Actually, local knowledge can hinder transcribers just as easily as it can help. With local knowledge, there's a greater tendency to correct 'mistakes' in the original. That desire has to be overcome. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Drums quite good, bass is too loud, and I can't hear the words Sound Of The Suburbs - Members

Hi Brad   No, you are misrepresenting the nature of transcribing when you say that. There is a difference between transcription and interpretation.   Kathleen --- On Sat, 8/9/08, Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> wrote: From: Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> Subject: Re: [SFHG] Ancestry To: "Sussex FHG" <sfhg@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, August 9, 2008, 1:38 PM On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:39:10 +0100 "Jim Halsey" <jehalsey@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Jim, > Transcribing takes time,,patience,and local knowledge,of names, places Actually, local knowledge can hinder transcribers just as easily as it can help. With local knowledge, there's a greater tendency to correct 'mistakes' in the original. That desire has to be overcome. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Drums quite good, bass is too loud, and I can't hear the words Sound Of The Suburbs - Members ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Actually I do think the Ancestry site has loads to offer which is why I subscribe to it. I wasn't bad mouthing it, just suggesting ways we might help them improve as many people seem to have problems. If nothing is said to the company how can give us what we want? My comments were not intended to be negative. I am sure many of you have noticed that after some surnames in brackets is another transcription. Ancestry ARE going over the information to see if they can improve and any way the subscriber can help with that I am sure is appreciated. Signing off this subject, Debbie Montgomerie

2008/8/8 Deborah Montgomerie <ifm@whidbey.net wrote >Some of the translations are just ridiculous and obviously the transcribers >are not even bothering to think about what they are typing in. I don't see why you should feel it necessary to back-track let alone apologis for your remarks about the quality of transcriptions. Your few words on the subject are spot-on ! Transcribing takes time,,patience,and local knowledge,of names, places and occupations or a readiness to enquire and study old forms of .script I am not suggesting that transcribers should not transcribe what is in front of them on the page- just that ignorant guesses.are worthless. Carry on saying what you think Debbie! Jim Halsey .

Hi Jim and Debbie   I agree with you both - quality is an important factor in any form of transcribing. Without some form of quality control (checking by a second person, for instance) a transcription is likely to be worthless. I also agree totally about local knowledge as a factor in quality. I have never understood why Ancestry and others feel they can get away with charging a commercial fee for their material but without necessarily providing a product of merchantable quality. The facility for submitting corrections is one thing, but if I take something back to a shop because it isn't what I asked for, I expect my money back, and Ancestry don't offer this. In other words, they expect the enthusiastic amateur family historian to both pay for the product and do the  supplier's job for them. This is why we feel entitled to grumble even though we use the sites.   Kathleen --- On Sat, 8/9/08, Jim Halsey <jehalsey@gmail.com> wrote: From: Jim Halsey <jehalsey@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [SFHG] Ancestry To: "Deborah Montgomerie" <ifm@whidbey.net> Cc: SFHG-L@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, August 9, 2008, 9:39 AM 2008/8/8 Deborah Montgomerie <ifm@whidbey.net wrote >Some of the translations are just ridiculous and obviously the transcribers >are not even bothering to think about what they are typing in. I don't see why you should feel it necessary to back-track let alone apologis for your remarks about the quality of transcriptions. Your few words on the subject are spot-on ! Transcribing takes time,,patience,and local knowledge,of names, places and occupations or a readiness to enquire and study old forms of .script I am not suggesting that transcribers should not transcribe what is in front of them on the page- just that ignorant guesses.are worthless. Carry on saying what you think Debbie! Jim Halsey . ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi all, Anyone who inputs names into a database from a handwritten source has a very difficult job. I index the Sussex Family Historian and know just how difficult this is, even if you speak the language and know the area reasonably well. I can't possibly be familiar with all the villages and hamlets in East and West Sussex, so I use a good map to narrow the odds of making a mistake. And as John has shown by typing 'mistrascribing' and 'mistrascribed' (sorry, couldn't resist that :-)) it is very easy to type the wrong thing even when you know what you should be typing. Even inputting from a printed source, as I do, results in occasional mistakes. Added to this, with my name having more than 50 variant spellings over the centuries, names are even harder to interpret and I have struggled many times with census returns. I do agree, though, that there is no excuse for making the job harder by getting people to transcribe when they are at a disadvantage from the start. For this reason, I rarely buy information from 'professional' sources. We should all be naturally suspicious of any information unless we have seen the original. In genealogical research, it pays to be pedantic. That's probably why it's taking me so long (30 years and still going)! Best wishes, and especial thanks to all those who have contributed to so much valuable information being available through SFHG (I've not been paid to say this!). Tony Hoklhma (sorry, that should be Holkham) 9967 On 08/08/2008, John Green <jandagreen@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hello Everyone, > Thanks for your comments Marion and I could not agree more with what you > say. As you say knowledge of the district one is working on is so important, > but also the language of the country concerned, e.g. English and a > knowledge of at least the more common first names and surnames. I suspect > that some of the transcriptions I have seen were the work of persons whose > first language was not English and their geographical knowledge sadly > lacking. Even English county names mistranscribed for which there is no > excuse, for they can be checked in an appropriate book of reference. My wife > is Welsh and as one can imagine the mistrascribing of Welsh names, places > and counties is very common. However having had close attachment to Wales > for nearly 50 years I can spot the mistakes fairly readily. I have several > SFHG transcriptions and agree they are of an exceptionally high standard. My > surname is one of the more common but it too has been mistrascribed in > different ways. Best wishes to all, John Green 9502, in Ontario, Canada. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marion Woolgar" <listmail2008@btinternet.com> > To: <cainjo1@postmaster.co.uk>; "lesleywhiting" > <lesley.whiting3@btinternet.com>; "sfhg" <sfhg@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 5:25 AM > Subject: Re: [SFHG] William Pestifold > > > >I didn't actually use Ancestry to find Lesley's family on the Brighton 1851 > > Census. Although it is there, it is mistranscribed as PATTISON. I think > > that it would take a lot of searching and lateral thinking to overcome > > that > > particular mistranscription. > > > > Instead, I used the SFHG's own Index to the Brighton 1851 Census which I > > bought years ago on fiche as each part was published (they are available > > on > > CD now). In this transcript and Index, the family is transcribed as > > PESTIFOTE?, which is a lot closer to Lesley's spelling of the surname. > > When > > I checked the Census schedule itself, I can quite see why the SFHG > > volunteer > > had difficulty reading it as it is very cramped writing. However, they > > made > > a very good stab at it indeed. > > > > Wherein lies the moral of the tale. I often overhear people at record > > offices, libraries and family history fairs saying that there is no point > > in > > buying census transcripts from Family History Societies (FHS) "because it > > is > > all online now and all you need is a subscription to a web site". My > > heart > > sinks when I hear that because the very best census transcripts and > > indexes > > will always be those that are made by interested volunteers who have a > > knowledge of the district that they are working on; and even then, their > > work is closely checked before publication by an FHS. I very much doubt > > that the internet search sites will ever be able to match that degree of > > commitment to quality control. > > > > Of course, no-one could ever afford to purchase all the Indexes that they > > need from FHS's and coverage is necessarily patchy because the work > > depends > > on volunteers coming forward and there has never been enough of them. > > That's where web sites like Ancestry, Findmypast etc score heavily and I > > had > > hoped that Familyhistoryonline would answer that challenge. However, > > there > > was trouble with that idea from the start with many FHS's refusing to > > sign-up to the idea and/or the contract with the Federation of Family > > History Societies (FFHS) and now the FFHS has sold out to Findmypast. > > "Big > > business" wins again. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Marion Woolgar > > Bognor Regis, West Sussex > > SFHG NO: 3323 > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi I have been following this has well, I would have said you have to give them 8/10, For effort that they were the first to publish online 1841 to 1901 census, In a short period of time, how many of you grateful for that, how many sites in the UK have been able to do this, in that time they did it, they made mistakes That's only natural, come on people give credit where it's due, less criticism and more research. TERRY 8298 Deborah Montgomerie <ifm@whidbey.net> wrote: Hi Everyone, I have been following your 'conversations' on Ancestry with interest. I wish someone from Ancestry was reading your comments! I have used Ancestry for many years and agree with all of your comments. As well as for private usage I also use it for business purposes. The site does have some interesting databases in their collections. I have contacted Ancestry many times to complain about the UK database and to be fair in the past they have gone through the motions of appearing interested. However, to date, the database has not improved, if anything it has gotten worse. Some of the translations are just ridiculous and obviously the transcribers are not even bothering to think about what they are typing in. I would like to suggest that more people complain, via e-mail or by letter. The 'squeaky wheel' is a good way to get Ancestry to see that they need to work harder at providing correct information for our hard earned money. There is an E-mail Ancestry Support tab under Contact Us on the site. Debbie Montgomerie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Like others, I would like for the transcripts to be more accurate than they are. This applies to all transcripts, not just Ancestry. However, I think that we may have unrealistic expectations. Firstly, we have biased expectations. If you are looking for a particular individual, you can see the name that you are looking for in the original entry. If you don't know what the answer should be, it isn't surprising that you see a different name. For example, I am researching the name "Sellens." Due to poor handwriting, the name may be listed as "Sellins" or "Sellers" or "Sillins" or "Sillings." If you factor on top of that the fact that spelling was not as rigid in years gone by (e.g. some generations of the family used the name Sellens and some used the name Sellins), then you end up with even more apparent errors. Additionally, there were errors made in the original images. For example, the 1891 census includes: William Milton; Father; age 59; Widower; Greengrocer's Assistant; b Hindhead, Kent William Prevett; Boarder; age 15; Greengrocer's Assistant; b Brighton, Sussex However, William Milton was born in Brighton and William Prevett was born in Hindhead. When I was looking for William Milton, it was hard to find him. We could choose to "blame" the transcriber for this, but the transcriber did what they were asked to do, i.e. to record it as they see it. That is exactly what we are asked when we transcribe BMDs for free BMD (and there are mistakes in those transcripts). The census transcripts are a bit like the beta testing of a new software. We know that it isn't perfect but it is released for limited use and the users provide input as to what doesn't work. Ancestry does allow users to submit corrections and the corrections will appear as alternative names (with time) and are searchable. This allows continual improvement of the transcripts. I think that it is our responsibility to make these corrections. Now, if only Ancestry would issue you with some form of credit for submitting valid corrections! Submitting the corrections is most probably the most constructive way to go. We do need to let Ancestry know that there are problems with the apparent fidelity of the transcripts, but just letting them know that the transcripts are inaccurate won't get us anywhere. If they started the whole process again, it is possible that the transcripts may be better but it is just as possible that they will be inaccurate. We could always vote with our feet and cancel our subscription to Ancestry and either subscribe to another service (with no guarantee that the transcriptions will be any more accurate) or go back to the old process of looking through the pages one by one and only finding the people that we were looking for if they were where we expected to find them. I know that Ancestry isn't perfect but without it (flaws and all) my research wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today. Regards Mark Milton, 9750 Belmont, MA, USA Deborah Montgomerie wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Deborah Montgomerie [mailto:ifm@whidbey.net] > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:16 PM > To: 'TERENCE MORLEY' > Subject: RE: [SFHG] Ancestry > Importance: High > > Hi Terry, > > I agree somewhat with what you have said and do value the information on the > Ancestry site. However, Ancestry take lots of money to provide this > information and my comments to them have been that whilst I appreciate the > information I think they should take more time to release it. I always make > allowances for local accents; unfamiliarity of place names etc. but the type > of errors I am talking about could often be avoided. I live in the US and > use both the US and the UK databases. I just felt that if more UK people > mentioned the problems Ancestry might take notice. I would like to do more > research but if the information indexed is so far removed from the original > it makes life very difficult. I like a good challenge but as mentioned > sometimes the search is more than challenging. > > Always grateful for any info, > > Debbie Montgomerie > > -----Original Message----- > From: sfhg-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sfhg-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf > Of TERENCE MORLEY > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:28 AM > To: SFHG-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SFHG] Ancestry > > Hi > I have been following this has well, I would have said you have to give > them 8/10, > For effort that they were the first to publish online 1841 to 1901 census, > In a short period of time, how many of you grateful for that, how many > sites in > the UK have been able to do this, in that time they did it, they made > mistakes > That's only natural, come on people give credit where it's due, less > criticism and more research. > TERRY 8298 > > > Deborah Montgomerie <ifm@whidbey.net> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > > > I have been following your 'conversations' on Ancestry with interest. I > wish someone from Ancestry was reading your comments! > > > > I have used Ancestry for many years and agree with all of your comments. As > well as for private usage I also use it for business purposes. The site > does have some interesting databases in their collections. I have contacted > Ancestry many times to complain about the UK database and to be fair in the > past they have gone through the motions of appearing interested. However, > to date, the database has not improved, if anything it has gotten worse. > Some of the translations are just ridiculous and obviously the transcribers > are not even bothering to think about what they are typing in. I would like > to suggest that more people complain, via e-mail or by letter. The 'squeaky > wheel' is a good way to get Ancestry to see that they need to work harder at > providing correct information for our hard earned money. There is an E-mail > Ancestry Support tab under Contact Us on the site. > > > > Debbie Montgomerie > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Dear Mark, Thank you for your clear answer and really I do get your point. Believe me I understand totally about how names used to be spelled etc. and the interesting variables, and work with those challenges often. However, I have had in depth dialog with Ancestry mainly because I use it nearly everyday and have done for many years so they do give me some time. Perhaps I find more errors than most people who use Ancestry as I use it in a professional capacity and so am searching within a wider range. Not transcribing a name correctly is one thing and is mainly acceptable, but there are many other badly done transcriptions. Sometimes the sex is wrongly registered even though it is clear and lately I have found that there are a large number of transcriptions where the reader has skipped a line or two and the info provided belongs to someone else (I suspect this is one person who is rushing to input the info). I agree that we can submit corrections and that we should to help and I do all the time. Surely though a large company like Ancestry must have some responsibility to provide a database that is the best that they can and the quality control in important. I don't expect miracles, and I am not talking about those errors that can be easily explained, I am talking about stupid errors that have been provided through laziness. It seemed to me other members have not been happy with Ancestry in the past and I was just mentioning a way that might help get us more satisfaction with a service. Perhaps members could say what they like about the service and what they are disappointed by, then Ancestry would get a good balanced picture. Of course there are no perfect databases but I presume we all want value for money. I know I also want to get as accurate information as I can otherwise the information is useless. Not meaning to upset the apple cart, Debbie Washington USA -----Original Message----- From: sfhg-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sfhg-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mark Milton Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 4:11 PM Cc: SFHG-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SFHG] Ancestry Like others, I would like for the transcripts to be more accurate than they are. This applies to all transcripts, not just Ancestry. However, I think that we may have unrealistic expectations. Firstly, we have biased expectations. If you are looking for a particular individual, you can see the name that you are looking for in the original entry. If you don't know what the answer should be, it isn't surprising that you see a different name. For example, I am researching the name "Sellens." Due to poor handwriting, the name may be listed as "Sellins" or "Sellers" or "Sillins" or "Sillings." If you factor on top of that the fact that spelling was not as rigid in years gone by (e.g. some generations of the family used the name Sellens and some used the name Sellins), then you end up with even more apparent errors. Additionally, there were errors made in the original images. For example, the 1891 census includes: William Milton; Father; age 59; Widower; Greengrocer's Assistant; b Hindhead, Kent William Prevett; Boarder; age 15; Greengrocer's Assistant; b Brighton, Sussex However, William Milton was born in Brighton and William Prevett was born in Hindhead. When I was looking for William Milton, it was hard to find him. We could choose to "blame" the transcriber for this, but the transcriber did what they were asked to do, i.e. to record it as they see it. That is exactly what we are asked when we transcribe BMDs for free BMD (and there are mistakes in those transcripts). The census transcripts are a bit like the beta testing of a new software. We know that it isn't perfect but it is released for limited use and the users provide input as to what doesn't work. Ancestry does allow users to submit corrections and the corrections will appear as alternative names (with time) and are searchable. This allows continual improvement of the transcripts. I think that it is our responsibility to make these corrections. Now, if only Ancestry would issue you with some form of credit for submitting valid corrections! Submitting the corrections is most probably the most constructive way to go. We do need to let Ancestry know that there are problems with the apparent fidelity of the transcripts, but just letting them know that the transcripts are inaccurate won't get us anywhere. If they started the whole process again, it is possible that the transcripts may be better but it is just as possible that they will be inaccurate. We could always vote with our feet and cancel our subscription to Ancestry and either subscribe to another service (with no guarantee that the transcriptions will be any more accurate) or go back to the old process of looking through the pages one by one and only finding the people that we were looking for if they were where we expected to find them. I know that Ancestry isn't perfect but without it (flaws and all) my research wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today. Regards Mark Milton, 9750 Belmont, MA, USA Deborah Montgomerie wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Deborah Montgomerie [mailto:ifm@whidbey.net] > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:16 PM > To: 'TERENCE MORLEY' > Subject: RE: [SFHG] Ancestry > Importance: High > > Hi Terry, > > I agree somewhat with what you have said and do value the information on the > Ancestry site. However, Ancestry take lots of money to provide this > information and my comments to them have been that whilst I appreciate the > information I think they should take more time to release it. I always make > allowances for local accents; unfamiliarity of place names etc. but the type > of errors I am talking about could often be avoided. I live in the US and > use both the US and the UK databases. I just felt that if more UK people > mentioned the problems Ancestry might take notice. I would like to do more > research but if the information indexed is so far removed from the original > it makes life very difficult. I like a good challenge but as mentioned > sometimes the search is more than challenging. > > Always grateful for any info, > > Debbie Montgomerie > > -----Original Message----- > From: sfhg-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sfhg-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf > Of TERENCE MORLEY > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:28 AM > To: SFHG-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SFHG] Ancestry > > Hi > I have been following this has well, I would have said you have to give > them 8/10, > For effort that they were the first to publish online 1841 to 1901 census, > In a short period of time, how many of you grateful for that, how many > sites in > the UK have been able to do this, in that time they did it, they made > mistakes > That's only natural, come on people give credit where it's due, less > criticism and more research. > TERRY 8298 > > > Deborah Montgomerie <ifm@whidbey.net> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > > > I have been following your 'conversations' on Ancestry with interest. I > wish someone from Ancestry was reading your comments! > > > > I have used Ancestry for many years and agree with all of your comments. As > well as for private usage I also use it for business purposes. The site > does have some interesting databases in their collections. I have contacted > Ancestry many times to complain about the UK database and to be fair in the > past they have gone through the motions of appearing interested. However, > to date, the database has not improved, if anything it has gotten worse. > Some of the translations are just ridiculous and obviously the transcribers > are not even bothering to think about what they are typing in. I would like > to suggest that more people complain, via e-mail or by letter. The 'squeaky > wheel' is a good way to get Ancestry to see that they need to work harder at > providing correct information for our hard earned money. There is an E-mail > Ancestry Support tab under Contact Us on the site. > > > > Debbie Montgomerie > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear list I have just purchased Naval Service Records from the National Archives for my Great Great Grandfather a Charles W Blunden, but I cannot read it properly or understand it. It read I think: First page reads 16 in the first column and then it looks like Zephur The second page reads 23 October 1837 'Can read write and work a sasm? In the Rule of Three Signed it looks like Com Beris Zephyrs appointed by illegible, ?? Of engineering. I haven't a clue. This chap was in a seven year apprentiship in Midhurst in 1824 to be a Cordwainer and he turns up in 1841 living as a Cordwainer in Kingston on Thames, (there was a large tannery in the town in those days). Can anyone help me here or point me in the right direction please. Jan 10841

Dear Listers, I am researching my family tree and have hit a slight problem. I am endeavouring to identify and validate a James Heasman born in the Hartfield/East Grinstead Area in c.1795. Unfortunately, there appears to be half a dozen James Heasman's born between 1790 and 1800 which may fit the bill. I was hoping that there maybe someone out there who has been researching in the same area who may be able to help me eliminate some of the options. Thanks, Robert Heasman - 12817 Important: FIL Investments International (Reg. No.1448245), FIL Investment Services (UK) Limited (Reg. No. 2016555), FIL Pensions Management (Reg. No. 2015142) and Financial Administration Services Limited (Reg. No. 1629709, a Fidelity International Group company) are all registered in England and Wales, are authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Services Authority and have their registered offices at Oakhill House, 130 Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough, Tonbridge, Kent TN11 9DZ. Tel 01732 361144. Fidelity only gives information on products and does not give investment advice to private clients based on individual circumstances. Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of Fidelity. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. All e-mails sent from or to Fidelity may be subject to our monitoring procedures. Direct link to Fidelity's website - http://www.fidelity-international.com/world/index.html

-----Original Message----- From: Deborah Montgomerie [mailto:ifm@whidbey.net] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:16 PM To: 'TERENCE MORLEY' Subject: RE: [SFHG] Ancestry Importance: High Hi Terry, I agree somewhat with what you have said and do value the information on the Ancestry site. However, Ancestry take lots of money to provide this information and my comments to them have been that whilst I appreciate the information I think they should take more time to release it. I always make allowances for local accents; unfamiliarity of place names etc. but the type of errors I am talking about could often be avoided. I live in the US and use both the US and the UK databases. I just felt that if more UK people mentioned the problems Ancestry might take notice. I would like to do more research but if the information indexed is so far removed from the original it makes life very difficult. I like a good challenge but as mentioned sometimes the search is more than challenging. Always grateful for any info, Debbie Montgomerie -----Original Message----- From: sfhg-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sfhg-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of TERENCE MORLEY Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:28 AM To: SFHG-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SFHG] Ancestry Hi I have been following this has well, I would have said you have to give them 8/10, For effort that they were the first to publish online 1841 to 1901 census, In a short period of time, how many of you grateful for that, how many sites in the UK have been able to do this, in that time they did it, they made mistakes That's only natural, come on people give credit where it's due, less criticism and more research. TERRY 8298 Deborah Montgomerie <ifm@whidbey.net> wrote: Hi Everyone, I have been following your 'conversations' on Ancestry with interest. I wish someone from Ancestry was reading your comments! I have used Ancestry for many years and agree with all of your comments. As well as for private usage I also use it for business purposes. The site does have some interesting databases in their collections. I have contacted Ancestry many times to complain about the UK database and to be fair in the past they have gone through the motions of appearing interested. However, to date, the database has not improved, if anything it has gotten worse. Some of the translations are just ridiculous and obviously the transcribers are not even bothering to think about what they are typing in. I would like to suggest that more people complain, via e-mail or by letter. The 'squeaky wheel' is a good way to get Ancestry to see that they need to work harder at providing correct information for our hard earned money. There is an E-mail Ancestry Support tab under Contact Us on the site. Debbie Montgomerie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

There are ways around transcription problems on Ancestry, eg using the Soundex system, searching by first names and places, searching the districts etc which is easier with the earlier censuses are there are less people to look through; you can sometimes search a whole village in a half hour or less, depending on the speed of your computer. If you do find a mistranscription, you can correct it. The trying out of various possibilities is part of the fun of searching for me, almost as good as trawling through pages in an archive - which sadly would be very difficult for me to get to. Georgina 10821 Georgina Colwell www.musicair.co.uk www.musictheatrebritain.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marion Woolgar" <listmail2008@btinternet.com> To: <cainjo1@postmaster.co.uk>; "lesleywhiting" <lesley.whiting3@btinternet.com>; "sfhg" <sfhg@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [SFHG] William Pestifold >I didn't actually use Ancestry to find Lesley's family on the Brighton 1851 > Census. Although it is there, it is mistranscribed as PATTISON. I think > that it would take a lot of searching and lateral thinking to overcome > that > particular mistranscription. > > Instead, I used the SFHG's own Index to the Brighton 1851 Census which I > bought years ago on fiche as each part was published (they are available > on > CD now). In this transcript and Index, the family is transcribed as > PESTIFOTE?, which is a lot closer to Lesley's spelling of the surname. > When > I checked the Census schedule itself, I can quite see why the SFHG > volunteer > had difficulty reading it as it is very cramped writing. However, they > made > a very good stab at it indeed. > > Wherein lies the moral of the tale. I often overhear people at record > offices, libraries and family history fairs saying that there is no point > in > buying census transcripts from Family History Societies (FHS) "because it > is > all online now and all you need is a subscription to a web site". My > heart > sinks when I hear that because the very best census transcripts and > indexes > will always be those that are made by interested volunteers who have a > knowledge of the district that they are working on; and even then, their > work is closely checked before publication by an FHS. I very much doubt > that the internet search sites will ever be able to match that degree of > commitment to quality control. > > Of course, no-one could ever afford to purchase all the Indexes that they > need from FHS's and coverage is necessarily patchy because the work > depends > on volunteers coming forward and there has never been enough of them. > That's where web sites like Ancestry, Findmypast etc score heavily and I > had > hoped that Familyhistoryonline would answer that challenge. However, > there > was trouble with that idea from the start with many FHS's refusing to > sign-up to the idea and/or the contract with the Federation of Family > History Societies (FFHS) and now the FFHS has sold out to Findmypast. > "Big > business" wins again. > > Best wishes > > Marion Woolgar > Bognor Regis, West Sussex > SFHG NO: 3323 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > >

Further to the examples of copying, before the price of printed music fell relative to wages in the later 19thc., it was usual for people to copy out music by hand and keep them in manuscript books. I have a few early examples myself (as a musician and librarian) and I was one of the very last people to handle Jane Austen's own manuscript writings of her favourite musical items before they were photographed and put away from public handling. Her favourites consisted of the popular airs of the day. A single sheet of music could equal a week's wages for a working man so it's not surprising that copying was rife, as it still is today with the advent of photocopiers. Georgina 10821 Georgina Colwell www.musicair.co.uk www.musictheatrebritain.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: <Dkn72a@aol.com> To: <SFHG-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:07 PM Subject: [SFHG] Enquiry Does anyone have any information about the date of Copyright Law commencement ? On 'Cash in the Attic' today the valuer Jonty Hearnden said the Victorians were very fond of sketching and painting. That they often copied a painting owned by the family. The copy of a gamekeeper shown was worth £50 - £60 and the original would have been worth £500 - £600. The Law in recent years is that a painting has to be over 100 years old to be out of copyright. I remember all the fuss about Tom Keating, in the 1950s who copied the Old Masters. Believe he had to go to prison. Also does anyone have any information about an artist surnamed Such ? Many thanks, Diane 10813 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Everyone, Thanks for your comments Marion and I could not agree more with what you say. As you say knowledge of the district one is working on is so important, but also the language of the country concerned, e.g. English and a knowledge of at least the more common first names and surnames. I suspect that some of the transcriptions I have seen were the work of persons whose first language was not English and their geographical knowledge sadly lacking. Even English county names mistranscribed for which there is no excuse, for they can be checked in an appropriate book of reference. My wife is Welsh and as one can imagine the mistrascribing of Welsh names, places and counties is very common. However having had close attachment to Wales for nearly 50 years I can spot the mistakes fairly readily. I have several SFHG transcriptions and agree they are of an exceptionally high standard. My surname is one of the more common but it too has been mistrascribed in different ways. Best wishes to all, John Green 9502, in Ontario, Canada. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marion Woolgar" <listmail2008@btinternet.com> To: <cainjo1@postmaster.co.uk>; "lesleywhiting" <lesley.whiting3@btinternet.com>; "sfhg" <sfhg@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 5:25 AM Subject: Re: [SFHG] William Pestifold >I didn't actually use Ancestry to find Lesley's family on the Brighton 1851 > Census. Although it is there, it is mistranscribed as PATTISON. I think > that it would take a lot of searching and lateral thinking to overcome > that > particular mistranscription. > > Instead, I used the SFHG's own Index to the Brighton 1851 Census which I > bought years ago on fiche as each part was published (they are available > on > CD now). In this transcript and Index, the family is transcribed as > PESTIFOTE?, which is a lot closer to Lesley's spelling of the surname. > When > I checked the Census schedule itself, I can quite see why the SFHG > volunteer > had difficulty reading it as it is very cramped writing. However, they > made > a very good stab at it indeed. > > Wherein lies the moral of the tale. I often overhear people at record > offices, libraries and family history fairs saying that there is no point > in > buying census transcripts from Family History Societies (FHS) "because it > is > all online now and all you need is a subscription to a web site". My > heart > sinks when I hear that because the very best census transcripts and > indexes > will always be those that are made by interested volunteers who have a > knowledge of the district that they are working on; and even then, their > work is closely checked before publication by an FHS. I very much doubt > that the internet search sites will ever be able to match that degree of > commitment to quality control. > > Of course, no-one could ever afford to purchase all the Indexes that they > need from FHS's and coverage is necessarily patchy because the work > depends > on volunteers coming forward and there has never been enough of them. > That's where web sites like Ancestry, Findmypast etc score heavily and I > had > hoped that Familyhistoryonline would answer that challenge. However, > there > was trouble with that idea from the start with many FHS's refusing to > sign-up to the idea and/or the contract with the Federation of Family > History Societies (FFHS) and now the FFHS has sold out to Findmypast. > "Big > business" wins again. > > Best wishes > > Marion Woolgar > Bognor Regis, West Sussex > SFHG NO: 3323 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Hello Listers Would some kind person be able to help with the following 2 entries I have. I feel certain I have made mistakes with entries at HOOE and HOVE. I was not aware until recently that there was a place named HOOE. George KING born 1819 at Mayfield died October 1856 at Hooe or Hove. also William KING born 1825 married Grace Bateup 12 March 1849 at Hooe or Hove. Any help with this is very much appreciated. Denise Quinn no. 9928

I didn't actually use Ancestry to find Lesley's family on the Brighton 1851 Census. Although it is there, it is mistranscribed as PATTISON. I think that it would take a lot of searching and lateral thinking to overcome that particular mistranscription. Instead, I used the SFHG's own Index to the Brighton 1851 Census which I bought years ago on fiche as each part was published (they are available on CD now). In this transcript and Index, the family is transcribed as PESTIFOTE?, which is a lot closer to Lesley's spelling of the surname. When I checked the Census schedule itself, I can quite see why the SFHG volunteer had difficulty reading it as it is very cramped writing. However, they made a very good stab at it indeed. Wherein lies the moral of the tale. I often overhear people at record offices, libraries and family history fairs saying that there is no point in buying census transcripts from Family History Societies (FHS) "because it is all online now and all you need is a subscription to a web site". My heart sinks when I hear that because the very best census transcripts and indexes will always be those that are made by interested volunteers who have a knowledge of the district that they are working on; and even then, their work is closely checked before publication by an FHS. I very much doubt that the internet search sites will ever be able to match that degree of commitment to quality control. Of course, no-one could ever afford to purchase all the Indexes that they need from FHS's and coverage is necessarily patchy because the work depends on volunteers coming forward and there has never been enough of them. That's where web sites like Ancestry, Findmypast etc score heavily and I had hoped that Familyhistoryonline would answer that challenge. However, there was trouble with that idea from the start with many FHS's refusing to sign-up to the idea and/or the contract with the Federation of Family History Societies (FFHS) and now the FFHS has sold out to Findmypast. "Big business" wins again. Best wishes Marion Woolgar Bognor Regis, West Sussex SFHG NO: 3323

Hi Everyone, I have been following your 'conversations' on Ancestry with interest. I wish someone from Ancestry was reading your comments! I have used Ancestry for many years and agree with all of your comments. As well as for private usage I also use it for business purposes. The site does have some interesting databases in their collections. I have contacted Ancestry many times to complain about the UK database and to be fair in the past they have gone through the motions of appearing interested. However, to date, the database has not improved, if anything it has gotten worse. Some of the translations are just ridiculous and obviously the transcribers are not even bothering to think about what they are typing in. I would like to suggest that more people complain, via e-mail or by letter. The 'squeaky wheel' is a good way to get Ancestry to see that they need to work harder at providing correct information for our hard earned money. There is an E-mail Ancestry Support tab under Contact Us on the site. Debbie Montgomerie

Lesley. You will already have had the answers you want from others on your Pestifold query. This is just a reminder to all SFHG members of the problems when using Ancestry website. When I first read your e-mail I immediately looked for Pestifold on Ancestry, using the library version at Birmingham Library. Ancestry list no PESTIFOLD on any of their censuses. Clearly that is wrong because Marion Woolgar found the family for you at Brighton in the 1851 census. This clearly illustrates the problems with Ancestry's American volunteers who do not know English placenames or surnames. How Ancestry transcribed PESTIFOLD in the 1851 census is anybody's guess. When I looked up my ggggrandfather in the 1861 census - he, wife & 2 children - 2 different surnames were used plus 3 different places of birth, all of which should have shown Lewes Southover. Regards. John Cain 10370

Denise. Death of George King in 1856 and marriage of William King in 1849 were both registered in Hailsham registration district so the parish would be Hooe not Hove. Regards. John Cain 10370