It was good to be reminded of our 72-hour access to Origins before the first quarter ran out, and of our access to other, non-SoG, databases. I tried out the 1871 census, and was disappointed that the index seemed to contain an even higher proportion of mistranscriptions than we have got used to from 1881 and 2001. Of the five entries I knew to be there, only two were in the index, and for one of those, the street address was given as "Davids Road" - a mistaken assumption caused by that being the last street name which had been mentioned in the enumerator's schedule, some twenty pages previously. Not that the transcriber was always to blame - I managed to find a missing gt-gt-gt-uncle, George Knight from Foulness, whose place of birth, in unmistakable handwriting, was written "Fournass, Essex". Hector Davie This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology

"Hector Davie (by way of Geoffrey <lists@sog.org.uk >) wrote : >I tried out the 1871 census, and was disappointed that the index seemed to >contain an even higher proportion of mistranscriptions than we have got >used to from >1881 and 2001. >Of the five entries I knew to be there, only two were in the index, and for >one of those, >the street address was given as "Davids Road" - a mistaken >assumption caused by that >being the last street name which had been >mentioned in the enumerator's schedule, >some twenty pages previously. Hope you don't really mean 2001 ! My experience with 1871 is to have found an entry that I've had great trouble finding elsewhere; isn't it just a case of all transcriptions including a degree of 'best guesses' and "yer pays yer money and teks yer choice' ? Any index is better than none. >Not that the transcriber was always to blame - I managed to find a missing >gt-gt-gt->uncle, George Knight from Foulness, whose place of birth, in >unmistakable handwriting, >was written "Fournass, Essex". So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject had a bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! Isn't the issue that census returns are subject to a variety of original errors, as well as bad handwriting, and that the modern transcribers, who may well never have seen many of the words presented to them and may have no real idea of UK geography etc., will make mistakes ? The commercial imperative, allied to the internet, means that there are many organisations now competeing for our cash and their main objective is speed. If FHSs and/or the SoG or other organisations had already produced top quality indexes, they wouldn't be able to exploit us. John Brown Leic., Eng

----- Original Message ----- From: "John Brown" <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject had a > bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! Why does this myth persist. The enumerator delivered schedules to each household the during the week before census night. The schedules were filled in by the householder and collected after a check by the enumerator that all the correct parts had been filled in on the doorstep. There is no way an enumerator could have written out the details of 2,000 households in the houses - it took them days to copy the schedules into the books we see today. Hardness of hearing and accents very rarely came into the equation - relatively few households had no one that could read and write in them or living next door. I have a copy of an original schedule from Darlaston in 1861 signed by the 13 year old son. So please, lets give the enumerators a break and not blame them for all the evils of the world - well all the mistakes in the census. Peter Park (no knowingly related to any enumerator) Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK.

In message of 3 Apr, "Peter B Park" <pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Brown" <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:17 PM > Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > > > > So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject had a > > bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! > > Why does this myth persist. The enumerator delivered schedules to each > household the during the week before census night. The schedules were filled > in by the householder and collected after a check by the enumerator that all > the correct parts had been filled in on the doorstep. There is no way an > enumerator could have written out the details of 2,000 households in the > houses - it took them days to copy the schedules into the books we see > today. Hardness of hearing and accents very rarely came into the equation - > relatively few households had no one that could read and write in them or > living next door. I have a copy of an original schedule from Darlaston in > 1861 signed by the 13 year old son. So please, lets give the enumerators a > break and not blame them for all the evils of the world - well all the > mistakes in the census. I think that a high proportion of the population was illiterate then, or certainly in 1861 and this is why the schedule was signed by a 13 year old as he was the only one who could write. So theonly way the forms could get filled in was by the enumerator asking questions of the head to the household. What's the guess as to the then illiteracy rate among such heads? 40%? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org