-----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

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 > >