Genealogy Chat

I do a little bit of census transcription (on a volunteer basis of course), mainly because I just enjoy it, like detective work! Just wanted to mention, there were HEAPS of mistakes in the originals, especially the older ones - ie. 1841, that will cause major havoc now. For example, I'm doing the 1841 for some areas of Devon, and I've just found a whole chunk of families (about 2 full pages worth) have been enumerated twice, one after another! It appears that the enumerator swapped with someone else halfway through, and the second enumerator mustn't have checked where the first one was up to! So there you go. And how do you deal with weird mistakes like this as a transcriber? Good question, I am yet to find out the answer! :-) By the way, my direct line of rellies are nowhere to be found on the 1841 because the area they lived in is missing! So I can sympathise... :-) And some crazy mispellings for me are: Riece or Rees, instead of the correct Reece; Manakee instead of the correct Mannouch; Henon istead of Heron; and the list goes on...

I had a dalton and under the head was written ditto so the rest of the family was down as ditton. I think they do a wonderfull job transcribing the images but it's nice to know the possibilities. Tracyx

I don't know whether this has already been mentioned, but you can post a name correction up on ancestry and it will eventually appear as an alternative name. Anyway, there is a mystery Mrs. Charlotte Laro mentioned in one of my family wills, so I always look for any Laro at all (there are hardly any of them about), and got excited as there seemed to be quite a crop of Laros on the 1841, but all I have looked at so far seem to be mistranscriptons of something boring like Law or Snow. Boo! Kate.

Hi Rachel You can advise Ancestry but it takes them ages to correct it. Penny

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you supposed to report transcribing errors to Ancestry? At least then these errors will be corrected for everyone to see.

In my case Kohler was transcribed into the index as 'Kobbe' Cheers, Bill Sydney, Australia

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.

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

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)

Mayers - should be Mears

Looking for a Susanna found her as Jusana. Interesting note seen on one page 'refused to return form, information from servants'

Finally found Joseph Marjoram... Joseph Marjamaa

Walton on Trent missing completely. B***er. Why is it always the bit that I want?

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.

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

Just found a Willa Winkle, but the image clearly shows Willm Winkle.

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.......

Mistranscribed on 1841 Buckinghamshire census: Coleman as Coalman.

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.

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 :-)