Genealogy Chat

Susan Yes I agree. I've had great difficulty trying to read the 1841 in particular. Sometimes I have been amazed at how well a transcriber has done when they haven't known what its supposed to say. It's just jolly annoying when you DON'T know and the whole point of searching the census is to find out what your missing Bloggs' relative's first name or place of birth was and you can't read it! nell

Please spare a thought for the transcribers. I have just started transcribing for freecen, the information I am working on is on mircofiche ( my choice ), and not only is the writing difficult to read sometimes, but often the enumerators have writen on the forms and put lines though entries, almost obliterating some entries. We are also advised to copy adressess, surnames and forenames, precisely, even if it looks wrong. Remember, it's easier to read when you know what it should be. Susan

Thanks for the tip. Couldn't find a family although I knew they were living in a small town at the time of the census. I put in my ancesters first name (rather unusual) and his age, and where he was born, left the surname blank and up it came, the surname was spelt completly differently, almost back to front. This is the third mistake I have found, I hope they sort this problem out soon.

Paul Trouble is that capital H could look like anything - Hall Hill Mall Moll Holl Ball Rall Tall your guess as good as mine! Can you use the first name and date place of birth? Sometimes I've found people by looking for immediate relatives. I also lost some of my Gray relatives and as its such a popular name I tried looking for Gray + place of birth Limpenhoe. Found all except 2 - one was mistranscribed Limperhoe and one was Limperhal. It's taken me most of 2 years to get all the Grays and I have still got some people missing. Fortunately none of them is a direct relative, so I am not too bothered. Just hope 1911 will be done with a gazetteer and linked to a database of surnames! nell nell

I was going to say much the same thing - that the 1901 contains the most transcription errors in my experience. I usually get there in the end though Any suggestions for what HALL might be mistranscribed as ? lol

Fern I have found transcription errors on virtually every census but the 1901 I think is the worst. Hardly any of my relatives have all their details correct. Sometimes the census itself is poor quality (1841 unreadable in bits) and sometimes the handwriting is really difficult, but I can't see how someone could mistake place of birth Cambridge as Camligger - especially when other family members in the household are transcribed Cambridge correctly! I thought with Smoothy being a relatively unusual name it would be easy to find, but its been transcribed Smoothey, Smothy, Smithee, Timothy and Lenorthy! Broad became Wadd on the 1881, only found her because she put both her first names, though place of birth Mawgan has turned into Maurgan. Moore is Thorne on the 1871 (only found her because she was staying with her married sister). I still have some relatives I am unable to find and I know they are there somewhere! nell

Nudge.

Hi Benjamin, Did you give and take some years, 4 years give and take is best. Where about in Essex? Have you tried just the surname and leaving the first name blank. Fern.

I think the funniest one I've seen so far was when I was helping Zoe out with some of hers the other day (cos I was bored!) and found her Musgrove family transcribed as MARGIONE! I don't know what the actual image said/looked like but that's a huge difference to their actual name. Good job I have a vivid imagination when it comes to searching! Lou

These transcribers must be on drugs!!!!! What other explanation is there. I think we could all do a better job than they are doing. Fern.

Hi Fern I couldnt find my gg grandfather Henry Stock born in 1842/1843 in Essex, i know he was 28 on 1971 but cannot find him on 1961 for Essex, so I can find out his parents names and birthplaces. I typed any Henry's aged 18 in Essex and still couldnt find him though. Ben

Hi Linda, I'm really gald you found them, this is why I put my thread out so I could give some help to people, glad it worked. Fern.

Hi Fern: I couldn't find any of my BURT family until I tried your suggestion and they were all hiding under the transcribed name of BENT. I thought the original was easy to read as BURT. They had also transcribed the youngest child as Alfred when he was Terence. I was going in circles trying to find them on the 1861 census. I reported the errors and I've been given some extra credits.Thanks again for posting your tip. Linda

Nudge.

I agree, but I know a lot is being redone. I found my Foster family, which I already knew the details of only by doing an address search. They were transcribed as Hoster.

I had relatives with the surname ORROCKS - William known as Billy - found him and the family under OLLOCKS - that was on the 1851 census for a Scottish area - have contacted the transcriber of the FHS there - it did cause some amusement though. At least I wont forget them in a hurry

Hi, I sent them an email last night telling them of 4 different errors. I hope I do get some credits back because I have wasted loads. I wished someone had told me in the begining how to search for them on 1837 would have saved a lot of time. That is why I thought I'd let people know how to find their families on the 1861 census. Fern.

I was looking for James Cox aged 2 born in Greenwich. I found a likely candidate , cliked on it and found James aged 21 born somewhere totally different. The person above was born ingreenwich. i sent them an e-mail to let them know...... and I am still looking for James Cox!

Fern I found an error last week on the 1861 census. I thought the image was easy to read - but of course I knew what it was supposed to say! I e-mailed 1837online and they gave me some free credits and said they would alter the transcription. nell

Sorry forgot to say 1861 census I have now put my message right. Fern.