What an intriguing list of mistranscriptions! Some people doing one-name studies such as the now late Geoff Riggs must have taken days to check their names of interest in order to submit the mistakes. From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: [email protected] GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst Mem. of Wells Assn. (GOONS Reg.). ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] 1881 census > List members may wish to note this link to the document produced in > 2002 on "Reported Errors in the 1881 cesus" > No detailed critique of the document please is a statement at the > timeit was first published.Please read the introduction carefully. > > http://www.sog.org.uk/files/census1881mistakes.pdf > > Chris Broomfield > [email protected] > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > ______________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by Netintelligence > http://www.netintelligence.com/email >

List members may wish to note this link to the document produced in 2002 on "Reported Errors in the 1881 cesus" No detailed critique of the document please is a statement at the timeit was first published.Please read the introduction carefully. http://www.sog.org.uk/files/census1881mistakes.pdf Chris Broomfield [email protected]

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. The conundrum was not whether to reinterpret the enumerator's handwriting, but whether to submit a correction substituting the transcriber's interpretation of the surname (which, though probably wrong, was approximately right) for the middle name which had been incorrectly inserted in the surname field (and was therefore 100% wrong). Even if the enumerator's interpretation of the surname was wrong, a researcher using wildcards would probably have been able to find the entry - but as things stood, with the middle name substituted for the surname it would have been a far tougher challenge. The conundrum was whether by making this change I would be imbuing the enumerator's interpretation of the surname with spurious credibility. In the event I did decide to make the change. Why? Because at the subscription website I was using there is no way of knowing whether an entry has been corrected as a result of a user submission - so there would have been no way that my correction could have had an adverse impact on other users. However, if I had encountered the error at a different website I might well have reached a different conclusion. Peter On 1 Sep 2011 at 20:18, John Brown wrote: > I'd have to agree with Caroline. I offer corrections (or alternatives, > as allowed by 'Ancestry') when I'm sure of the details but otherwise > assume that I'm as likely to confuse others as to inform. > > John Brown > Leic., Eng > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Caroline Gurney" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:06 PM > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] transcription errors > > > > Peter, > > > > I think in those circumstances I would leave well alone, as I doubt > > my stab at a transcription of an illegible foreign name would be > > much use to anyone. > > > > Caroline

I understand that my comment below has been seen as offensive by at least one list member.  It was not my intention to cause offence and I apologise if this was the case. It is quite right that family historians should take second place to those who have been injured in conflicts or the families of those who have died.     David Blake ________________________________ From: David Blake <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2011, 10:43 Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Military Records My father's records took five months or so to arrive.  Part of the reason for the delay is apparently that so many people are dying needlessly in Afghanistan and dealing with their records takes priority.  Quite undertstandable. David Blake ________________________________ From: Pickard Trepess <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2011, 10:25 Subject: [SOG-UK] Military Records Hi All, Following a recent topic on the SoG list, I finally got round to asking for my father's military records (I wish I had done it while my mother was alive, I could have saved 30 pounds by getting it in her name) The reply I got back from the Army Personnel Center was stunning to say the least..... They said "Unfortunately due to the very high volume of urgent welfare requests on behalf of former soldiers, family interest enquiries may take as long as nine to twelve months to complete." Of course my cheque for 30 pounds has been cashed already !  They did offer to refund it if I wanted to cancel the request !!! So, if you are hoping to get military service records - don't hold your breath !! Happy Hunting Pickard Trepess (The address to write to (for the Army) is: Army Personnel Centre MS Support Division Parliamentary & Disclosures Branch Historical Disclosures Mail Point 555 Kentigern House 65 Brown Street GLASGOW G2 8EX More info on: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/Personnel/ServiceRecords/MakingARequestForInformationHeldOnThePersonnelRecordsOfDeceasedServicePersonnel.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

----- Original Message ----- From: "LostCousins" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] transcription errors > I was recently faced with a conundrum <snip> ... However the surname was a > very unusual one, possibly foreign - and badly written to boot - so I > really couldn't be sure that it had been transcribed correctly. Indeed, I > strongly suspected it > hadn't been, but because of the handwriting it was impossible to determine > what the enumerator > had actually written ... Should I submit the correction, even though I was > fairly certain that my correction was also > wrong? What would you have done? I too would have refrained from submitting an immediate "correction". But I'd have regarded it as rather a challenge and I'd have noted down the entry and then tried to see whether I could find any other references to the family in alternative sources. I might also have considered placing the details (and maybe even a copy of the image) online to see whether anyone else could offer useful suggestions. I'd only submit a correction if I felt completely satisfied about the eventual outcome. AJ

I'd have to agree with Caroline. I offer corrections (or alternatives, as allowed by 'Ancestry') when I'm sure of the details but otherwise assume that I'm as likely to confuse others as to inform. John Brown Leic., Eng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Caroline Gurney" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] transcription errors > Peter, > > I think in those circumstances I would leave well alone, as I doubt my > stab at a transcription of an illegible foreign name would be much use > to anyone. > > Caroline > > > > On 1 September 2011 19:46, LostCousins <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I was recently faced with a conundrum. I came across a household >> unrelated to me where - as >> quite often happens - the middle names of some of the members had been >> transcribed as if >> there were surnames (despite perfectly obvious dittos). >> >> However the surname was a very unusual one, possibly foreign - and badly >> written to boot - so I >> really couldn't be sure that it had been transcribed correctly. Indeed, I >> strongly suspected it >> hadn't been, but because of the handwriting it was impossible to >> determine what the enumerator >> had actually written. >> >> Should I submit the correction, even though I was fairly certain that my >> correction was also >> wrong? What would you have done? >> >> Peter

Peter, I think in those circumstances I would leave well alone, as I doubt my stab at a transcription of an illegible foreign name would be much use to anyone. Caroline On 1 September 2011 19:46, LostCousins <[email protected]> wrote: > I was recently faced with a conundrum. I came across a household unrelated to me where - as > quite often happens - the middle names of some of the members had been transcribed as if > there were surnames (despite perfectly obvious dittos). > > However the surname was a very unusual one, possibly foreign - and badly written to boot - so I > really couldn't be sure that it had been transcribed correctly. Indeed, I strongly suspected it > hadn't been, but because of the handwriting it was impossible to determine what the enumerator > had actually written. > > Should I submit the correction, even though I was fairly certain that my correction was also > wrong? What would you have done? > > Peter

On 1 Sep 2011 at 16:46, Caroline Gurney wrote: > One way that we can all help to improve existing transcriptions is by > submitting corrections to errors when we find them - not just for our > own relatives but for other people's as well. If I'm going through a > page of search results, and see what seems to be an error, I take a > minute to check the image and submit a correction if necessary. > Obviously it would take too long to do this for every error I spot but > I try to do at least one each time. I was recently faced with a conundrum. I came across a household unrelated to me where - as quite often happens - the middle names of some of the members had been transcribed as if there were surnames (despite perfectly obvious dittos). However the surname was a very unusual one, possibly foreign - and badly written to boot - so I really couldn't be sure that it had been transcribed correctly. Indeed, I strongly suspected it hadn't been, but because of the handwriting it was impossible to determine what the enumerator had actually written. Should I submit the correction, even though I was fairly certain that my correction was also wrong? What would you have done? Peter

On 1 Sep 2011 at 10:29, Chris Watts wrote: > > Just to be clear, I wasn't being critical of the LDS transcription > > and the fact that it's freely available on multiple websites is > > fantastic. > > > > I was just wondering if an alternate version is, or would ever be, > > available. Maybe one day. > > > > Paul > > Nice perhaps, but think of the economics. Why would a commercial > organisation spend lots of money preparing an index for which they > would need to charge (either directly or as a "hidden" component of a > subscription) when researchers have free access. Doesn't add up for > them - lots of more profitable things for them to do. Would a charity > (FHS or whoever) want to do it? They probabbly have lots of more > pressing projects that relate to totally unindexed records. So don't > hold you breath! Ordinarily you'd be right, but in this instance there is an alternative transcription - at The Genealogist (see the earlier part of this discussion). Peter

One way that we can all help to improve existing transcriptions is by submitting corrections to errors when we find them - not just for our own relatives but for other people's as well. If I'm going through a page of search results, and see what seems to be an error, I take a minute to check the image and submit a correction if necessary. Obviously it would take too long to do this for every error I spot but I try to do at least one each time. Caroline Gurney

----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Smallcombe" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:34 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] 1881 census > > > > > Just to be clear, I wasn't being critical of the LDS transcription and the > fact that it's freely available on multiple websites is fantastic. > > I was just wondering if an alternate version is, or would ever be, > available. Maybe one day. > > Paul Nice perhaps, but think of the economics. Why would a commercial organisation spend lots of money preparing an index for which they would need to charge (either directly or as a "hidden" component of a subscription) when researchers have free access. Doesn't add up for them - lots of more profitable things for them to do. Would a charity (FHS or whoever) want to do it? They probabbly have lots of more pressing projects that relate to totally unindexed records. So don't hold you breath!

Census issues I have been a volunteer for Devon's contribution to Free Cen, and ploughed thru' Yealmpton in 1861..............it's mind blowing, difficult, head aching and at times boring to say the least. I have also helped to transcribe parish registers for Gwent. I have used these transcriptions paid or free and am always in total admiration for the willing transcribers that are out there. If they weren't there family history would still be the discipline of the active and who live near archives................ Toot over ;-) Anne

Just to be clear, I wasn't being critical of the LDS transcription and the fact that it's freely available on multiple websites is fantastic. I was just wondering if an alternate version is, or would ever be, available. Maybe one day. Paul

Hi All, Following a recent topic on the SoG list, I finally got round to asking for my father's military records (I wish I had done it while my mother was alive, I could have saved 30 pounds by getting it in her name) The reply I got back from the Army Personnel Center was stunning to say the least..... They said "Unfortunately due to the very high volume of urgent welfare requests on behalf of former soldiers, family interest enquiries may take as long as nine to twelve months to complete." Of course my cheque for 30 pounds has been cashed already ! They did offer to refund it if I wanted to cancel the request !!! So, if you are hoping to get military service records - don't hold your breath !! Happy Hunting Pickard Trepess (The address to write to (for the Army) is: Army Personnel Centre MS Support Division Parliamentary & Disclosures Branch Historical Disclosures Mail Point 555 Kentigern House 65 Brown Street GLASGOW G2 8EX More info on: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/Personnel/ServiceRecords/MakingARequestForInformationHeldOnThePersonnelRecordsOfDeceasedServicePersonnel.htm

This is not a new problem - in August 2006 when my father was still alive we requested a copy of his army file under the Data Protection Act, and the information took 5 and a half months to arrive. Peter On 31 Aug 2011 at 10:43, David Blake wrote: > My father's records took five months or so to arrive.  Part of the > reason for the delay is apparently that so many people are dying > needlessly in Afghanistan and dealing with their records takes > priority.  Quite undertstandable. > > David Blake > > > > ________________________________ > From: Pickard Trepess <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2011, 10:25 > Subject: [SOG-UK] Military Records > > Hi All, > > Following a recent topic on the SoG list, I finally got round to > asking for my father's military records (I wish I had done it while my > mother was alive, I could have saved 30 pounds by getting it in her > name) > > The reply I got back from the Army Personnel Center was stunning to > say the least..... > > They said > > "Unfortunately due to the very high volume of urgent welfare requests > on behalf of former soldiers, family interest enquiries may take as > long as nine to twelve months to complete." > > Of course my cheque for 30 pounds has been cashed already !  They did > offer to refund it if I wanted to cancel the request !!! > > So, if you are hoping to get military service records - don't hold > your breath !! > > Happy Hunting > > Pickard Trepess > > (The address to write to (for the Army) is: > Army Personnel Centre > MS Support Division > Parliamentary & Disclosures Branch > Historical Disclosures > Mail Point 555 > Kentigern House > 65 Brown Street > GLASGOW > G2 8EX > > More info on: > http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/Personnel/Serv > iceRecords/MakingARequestForInformationHeldOnThePersonnelRecordsOfDece > asedServicePersonnel.htm > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You won't find the England & Wales 1881 census at FreeCEN (other than Cornwall) - sensibly they have concentrated their resources on censuses that aren't available free online. The 1881 LDS transcription comes in for a surprising amount of criticism from people who don't realise that is was done by experenced volunteers - then again, some people will whinge about anything. Where I find it stands out is not in the transcriptions of the surnames, but the places of birth. To clarify earlier points about the findmypast transcription: unlike Ancestry who add corrections as alternates (but leave the original), findmypast replace the original with the correction - thus differences will arise because of user-submitted corrections, and don't indicate a different source. Peter On 31 Aug 2011 at 10:12, Chris Watts wrote: > The transcriptions of the "LDS" 1881 census were actually done by > volunteers (all genealogists) mostly from theFamily History Societies > local to the area being transcribed (and so familiar with locale > family and place names) - and a second checking copy was also done by > different persons. The LDS's contibution (which was very large and > greatly appreciated) was primarily in the data entry and IT areas. > > So I think, Nancy, your presumption about quality is far off mark. > > Chris > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nancy Frey" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:52 AM > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] 1881 census > > > > Has anybody tried FreeCEN (http://www.freecen.org.uk/cgi/search.pl). > > These transcriptions were done independently by volunteers who were > > all genealogists. Probably a better transcription that anything > > anybody else did. > > > > Regards, > > > > Nancy Frey > > Newcastle, Ontario, CANADA > > OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset > > Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! FULFORD_North Devon Group > > Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! DAVIDGE Connections Group > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rosemary Morgan" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:23 PM > > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] 1881 census > > > > > >>I share your frustration, Paul, as my own great grandparents are > >>missing > >> on all the 1881 censuses you mention, which are indeed all based on > >> the original Familysearch transcription. > >> > >> As far as I am aware there is just one company who is / has been > >> re-transcribing the 1881 census and I think it is The Genealogist > >> but I can't find any reference on their website so I can't be > >> certain. > >> > >> Rosemary

My father's records took five months or so to arrive.  Part of the reason for the delay is apparently that so many people are dying needlessly in Afghanistan and dealing with their records takes priority.  Quite undertstandable. David Blake ________________________________ From: Pickard Trepess <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2011, 10:25 Subject: [SOG-UK] Military Records Hi All, Following a recent topic on the SoG list, I finally got round to asking for my father's military records (I wish I had done it while my mother was alive, I could have saved 30 pounds by getting it in her name) The reply I got back from the Army Personnel Center was stunning to say the least..... They said "Unfortunately due to the very high volume of urgent welfare requests on behalf of former soldiers, family interest enquiries may take as long as nine to twelve months to complete." Of course my cheque for 30 pounds has been cashed already !  They did offer to refund it if I wanted to cancel the request !!! So, if you are hoping to get military service records - don't hold your breath !! Happy Hunting Pickard Trepess (The address to write to (for the Army) is: Army Personnel Centre MS Support Division Parliamentary & Disclosures Branch Historical Disclosures Mail Point 555 Kentigern House 65 Brown Street GLASGOW G2 8EX More info on: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/Personnel/ServiceRecords/MakingARequestForInformationHeldOnThePersonnelRecordsOfDeceasedServicePersonnel.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Chris: I agree. I think quite a few people have found or heard about errors in the IGI - in fact in the patron submissions section of the IGI - and have wrongly assumed that the LDS's transcription efforts, whether of the 1881 or a couple of counties the 1851, or of the main part of the IGI, were of low quality, when the opposite is the case. Cheers Brian On 31 Aug 2011, at 10:12, Chris Watts wrote: > The transcriptions of the "LDS" 1881 census were actually done by volunteers > (all genealogists) mostly from theFamily History Societies local to the area > being transcribed (and so familiar with locale family and place names) - and > a second checking copy was also done by different persons. The LDS's > contibution (which was very large and greatly appreciated) was primarily in > the data entry and IT areas. > > So I think, Nancy, your presumption about quality is far off mark. > > Chris > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nancy Frey" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:52 AM > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] 1881 census > > >> Has anybody tried FreeCEN (http://www.freecen.org.uk/cgi/search.pl). >> These transcriptions were done >> independently by volunteers who were all genealogists. Probably a better >> transcription that >> anything anybody else did. >> >> Regards, >> >> Nancy Frey >> Newcastle, Ontario, CANADA >> OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset >> Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! FULFORD_North Devon Group >> Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! DAVIDGE Connections Group >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rosemary Morgan" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:23 PM >> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] 1881 census >> >> >>> I share your frustration, Paul, as my own great grandparents are missing >>> on all the 1881 censuses you mention, which are indeed all based on the >>> original Familysearch transcription. >>> >>> As far as I am aware there is just one company who is / has been >>> re-transcribing the 1881 census and I think it is The Genealogist but I >>> can't find any reference on their website so I can't be certain. >>> >>> Rosemary >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = [email protected] PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell

The transcriptions of the "LDS" 1881 census were actually done by volunteers (all genealogists) mostly from theFamily History Societies local to the area being transcribed (and so familiar with locale family and place names) - and a second checking copy was also done by different persons. The LDS's contibution (which was very large and greatly appreciated) was primarily in the data entry and IT areas. So I think, Nancy, your presumption about quality is far off mark. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy Frey" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] 1881 census > Has anybody tried FreeCEN (http://www.freecen.org.uk/cgi/search.pl). > These transcriptions were done > independently by volunteers who were all genealogists. Probably a better > transcription that > anything anybody else did. > > Regards, > > Nancy Frey > Newcastle, Ontario, CANADA > OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset > Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! FULFORD_North Devon Group > Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! DAVIDGE Connections Group > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rosemary Morgan" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:23 PM > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] 1881 census > > >>I share your frustration, Paul, as my own great grandparents are missing >> on all the 1881 censuses you mention, which are indeed all based on the >> original Familysearch transcription. >> >> As far as I am aware there is just one company who is / has been >> re-transcribing the 1881 census and I think it is The Genealogist but I >> can't find any reference on their website so I can't be certain. >> >> Rosemary > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Has anybody tried FreeCEN (http://www.freecen.org.uk/cgi/search.pl). These transcriptions were done independently by volunteers who were all genealogists. Probably a better transcription that anything anybody else did. Regards, Nancy Frey Newcastle, Ontario, CANADA OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! FULFORD_North Devon Group Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! DAVIDGE Connections Group ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosemary Morgan" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] 1881 census >I share your frustration, Paul, as my own great grandparents are missing > on all the 1881 censuses you mention, which are indeed all based on the > original Familysearch transcription. > > As far as I am aware there is just one company who is / has been > re-transcribing the 1881 census and I think it is The Genealogist but I > can't find any reference on their website so I can't be certain. > > Rosemary