Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
1841 - mistranscribed
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Borobabs | Report | 21 Apr 2006 18:41 |
I was deadd chuffed, found my Johnsons dead easy, but no image with there name on;; Never mind, at least I have ref; no so can look at later date;; My only grip;;; friends and family wont leave me alone to play away on there;;LOL Babs |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 21 Apr 2006 18:44 |
Sacker and Socher for Poacher Balders for Boldero (and my favourite so far ........) The parish of: St Cuthbert In And Out .................. like me you may be thinking St. Cuthbert took up the Hokey-Cokey, but no ................. it's actually St. Cuthbert in Wells. That one had me in stitches! Bev x |
|||
|
GillfromStaffs | Report | 21 Apr 2006 18:47 |
I have Buckland cum Bagnall. Should be Bucknall cum Bagnall Swinnerton S-o-T. It should be Shelton S-o-T Swinnerton is in Staffs but not in S-o-T. That's after only a couple of hours Gill Only on index right in image |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Carol 430181 | Report | 21 Apr 2006 18:58 |
I must be the lucky one. Have found nearly all of the people I was looking for, one back to 1756, pages were very clear. Have to add I have been up nearly all night, and have now run out of ink. lol Carol |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Sylvia | Report | 21 Apr 2006 19:12 |
I would like to say a good word for the transcribers,they have a very hard job. Found one of my rellies and the place was unreadable(to me) on image. Transcribed as Kingston Bagpuize!! I thought this cant be right. Looked on map there it is!! Was in Berks. Now in Oxon. So well done to them. Sylvia. |
|||
|
♫ Penny € | Report | 21 Apr 2006 19:57 |
Susan - 1841 = Leman Just seen Mrs Smith - that's what it says on image too - no wonder the Smiths are so hard to track down :-) |
|||
|
fraserbooks | Report | 22 Apr 2006 22:50 |
Not mistranscribed but I find a lot of the mens names are shortened Thos Thomas Jas James Chas Charles Geo George Jno John Fer Ferdinand Well worth trying for missing ancestors. I did find Puinell for Pannell I think Geniford is an old name rather than a mistranscription. I think the transcribers did a fantastic job. I get a headache after looking at the images for half an hour. |
|||
|
Theresa | Report | 23 Apr 2006 00:25 |
Mistranscribed on 1841 Buckinghamshire census: Coleman as Coalman. |
|||
|
Sharon | Report | 23 Apr 2006 00:44 |
I'm wondering about the JNO and John / James.......... If you look at the shortened Thomas and then look at some of the jnos... it could be transcribed as james the es/as look the same...... What do others think? I haven't seen a JAMES writtens a James yet....... |
|||
|
MaryfromItaly | Report | 23 Apr 2006 04:22 |
Just found a Willa Winkle, but the image clearly shows Willm Winkle. |
|||
|
Jean.... | Report | 23 Apr 2006 21:09 |
If you don't think you're up to transcibing do some checking as I do Susan. I check for BMD and sort out mistakes, it's not too good on the eyes but worthwhile. Jean |
|||
|
MaryfromItaly | Report | 24 Apr 2006 04:24 |
I do think a lot of the Ancestry transcriptions are very poor, compared with the 1901 census site, for example, which is much more accurate. I found one page in Birmingham from the 1901 census today where some perfectly legible place names have been horrifically transcribed: Thomas A Dixon abt 1817 Mineted States Blanche C Fisher abt 1870 NY, Minto Slater Louise Foster abt 1846 Cayton, India Harry M Hooper abt 1889 Cape Colong, Wiltshire, England The first two should be United States, the third is Ceylon, and the last one is Cape Colony in South Africa. |
|||
|
Angela | Report | 24 Apr 2006 08:33 |
Walton on Trent missing completely. B***er. Why is it always the bit that I want? |
|||
|
Stefan | Report | 28 Apr 2006 10:30 |
Finally found Joseph Marjoram... Joseph Marjamaa |
|||
|
Fred (“\(*-*)/”) | Report | 28 Apr 2006 11:44 |
Looking for a Susanna found her as Jusana. Interesting note seen on one page 'refused to return form, information from servants' |
|||
|
Sandra | Report | 28 Apr 2006 11:53 |
Mayers - should be Mears |
|||
|
Chrispynoodle | Report | 28 Apr 2006 12:57 |
Scroll down for info on the census and it tells you what area are missing altogether (naturally the area I want isn't therethe law of s*d me thinks) |
|||
|
Christine in Herts | Report | 29 Apr 2006 21:15 |
I know I've found one or two - but there wasn't a correction option, so I couldn't report them as would normally do. Transcription is always going to be tricky, but it does get irritating when the error seems obvious... but then I remember the time I copy-typed rubbish off my own handwriting... oops! Christine |
|||
|
Stefan | Report | 30 Apr 2006 00:10 |
You probably know this but for those who don't... If your using ancestry to look at the census and you find a mistake you can click on the 'comments and corrections' link on the right hand side to make them aware of it. Personally, I don't think there's a single Marjamaa in the country - all the ones I've looked at have been mis-transcriptions. |
|||
|
Bill | Report | 30 Apr 2006 07:28 |
In my case Kohler was transcribed into the index as 'Kobbe' Cheers, Bill Sydney, Australia |