1911 Census @ Ancestry report errors?

[Sarch]

Ancestry.co.uk is giving free access to the 1911 England Census untill about the end of October ;D


Does anyone know how/where/who to report errors & make corrections to the 1911 Census transcriptions at Ancestry.co.uk?


I have tried previously with Family Search (LDS website) to submit corrections to the transcribed 1881 UK Census and have never had any luck there



Sarch

[sue]

Thanks Sarch

That should enable me to crack on with the rest of my huge 1911 project - mind you, the very 1st I looked up, Mabel Curnow born Dorset resident Berkshire, was transcribed as Clarnoor, so I can see this will be a test of my patience....!

It looks like you correct by using the "Add Alternate Information" on the transcription page of the entry concerned......

Sue

[Sarch]

Thanks Sue

Will try and see how it goes - have found a "multitude of errors" but am not complaining about the transcribers - it is not easy in the first place to transcribe as the writing is often difficult to read never mind the "strange" unfamiliar Cornish place names etc.

I have a problem tho' as a transcriber has also combined some people from two differnent households will see how fixing that goes ;D (was probably working late at night)

Regards

Sarch

[Sarch]

Definately not wide awake today

Eventually I found where to make the changes was to look at the original and call up the index at the bottom of the page there.

I found that I can make comments on some things like names but cannot change the daughter relationship to servant where it is incorrectly transcribed.

Sarch

[Cornish Terrier]

Sarch - I have been busy today so only just found your query.
But it seems you have found you way around and located the means to do what you want.

Unfortunately Ancestry has the same problem with all Census records where there are certain fields you cannot change. I think it is a little stupid to be honest because, as you found, there are fields that contain information that can be important in deciding if you have the correct person/family.

With the available 'correction typesl' I have major problems with two things.

1. 'Incorrect in Image' - it is absolutely idiotic to have such a field available!
What the enumerator wrote is just that ..... what the enumerator wrote and that is what is captured in the image! If the enumerator was wrong then so be it - that is something we have to live with. But whatever the enumerator wrote is exactly what is captured in the image and therefore THE IMAGE CANNOT BE INCORRECT!

2. Allowing comments - all that does is to allow the sort of thing that cluttered up the IGI so badly!

As for the transcribers - well I am afraid I don't exactly agree with you 100% on that one!

I don't expect transcriptions of Census Records, Parish Records or other old documents to be error free. I have done enough transcribing to know just how bad some of the writing can be and what time and the elements have done to many of these documents.

What I DO EXPECT is that the transcribers will make a decent effort to transcribe what they see as accurately as is humanly possible! Unfortunately I have seen too many instances where it appears the transcriber has decided he/she is not being paid enough.

I am sick and tired of having to add a full page of corrections (I KID YOU NOT!) after spending an hour or more trying everything I know to try and find what I am looking for. And when I see BERRYMAN transcribed as BARAGWANATH when it is quite cleary NOT BARAGWANATH .....................................

There are simply too many errors that are not caused by dodgy handwriting or damaged documents! So many seem to be sheer laziness and/or incompetence!

The 1940 US Census is a good example. It was a gradual process to get records for the various States all Indexed and groups of States were released online at a time.
I don't recall how many corrections I had to make with the first release but the last two batches were a joke!
On both occasions I had to make corrections from the very first name I searched and in one case I think I corrected something like six or eight in succession before finally locating an entry that had been transcribed correctly. And NONE of them were particularly difficult to read!

To those who make a genuine attempt to get it right I say WELL DONE and THANKYOU ...................... But to the rest .................... (I will leave that to your imagination! )

CT

[Sarch]

Hi CT

Some of the problems were able to be fixed in the comment edit section - but I still have the problem of two households combined - I have no idea how to sort that one out - boggles the mind

I didn't like to complain regarding the errors in the 1911 UK Census but I have found a great many in just a short time. Wonder if that is why Ancestry.co.uk is offering it free for a few months so other people will fix it for them ;D

I still have problems with some of the transciption errors which I haven't been able to fix in the comment section and would appreciate it if someone somewhere knows how to report them to a PERSON.

Sarch

[Cornish Terrier]

Sarch - so far I have been unable to find any means of having direct contact with someone who might be able to actually help. I have spent plenty of time on a number of occasions trying just that.

There is a Report Problem button available I think at the top right of the form but that is purely for reporting problems that affect the image on the screen - in other words Adobe Flash Player!

Found it - the Olive Green 'Actions' Button at top right. That gives you a drop-down menu where you will find an item called 'Report Problem'
If you click on that you are presented with a box labelled 'Report an image problem'!

I thought there was a Feedback button at the bottom of the scrren as well. Oh well, I guess they got rid of that when I asked if they could get rid of all the damned annoying interactive rubbish!!! (I see now that under Actions there is an option to use a non-interactive viewer'! :

Seems to me that, just like FamilySearch, these people are not interested in getting their hands dirty and fixing their mistakes when there are millions of 'suckers' out there who might do it for them!

Seems that it is not quality that is important but rather quantity!!!

CT

[Cornish Terrier]

Sorry Sarch - I forgot one thing!

You may not be able to add any sort of separator to distinguish the two families but you should at least be able to change the names if they have been incorrectly transcribed.

Hmm - perhaps you had better give me the details so that I can take a look at the image.

As far as I am aware there is a separate Census Form for each household with the head of the household signing the schedule at bottom and entering the postal address.

So give me the details and I will check it out for you.

CT

[Sarch]

Hi CT

The households are together on the transcription but separate if you click on the originals

References
Civil Parish Sennen
Sub-Registration St Buryan

Class: RG14; Piece: 14103; Schedule Number: 5
and
Class: RG14; Piece: 14103; Schedule Number: 6

Household transcription (Schedule Number 5)
Jonathan Humphreys 48
Eliza F Humphreys 43
Vivian Humphreys 15
John Jarvies 71
Silas Matthews 24
Mabel Matthews 21
Lee Thorne Matthews 15
The Matthews children "vanish" when you click on the original
and do not appear on the Index either


(Schedule number 6)
Silas, Mabel & Lee are the children of Richard Matthews age 60

Household
Richard Matthews age 60
Amelia Matthews age 68
George Henry Matthews 35
Silas Matthews 24
Mabel Matthews 21
Lee-Thorne Matthews 15

(Schedule number 6)
If you go to the original handwritten sheet with Richard Matthews age 60 as head and zoom in a little and then put your cursor on George Henry Matthews SON the curson on the handwritten son brings up a box that says son in the household of Jonathan Humphreys. some of the other relationships are the same
The names that reference on the left when you zoom in also don't match up

If you search under Richard Matthews the transcription household page omits the children Silas, Mabel and Lee-Thorne
If you click on the original all the children are there and on the Index (the order of the names are a bit jumbled up)

Hope I have explained correctly what is going on

Sarch

[Cornish Terrier]

Hi Sarch - yes, I see what you mean. However:-

The Matthews children "vanish" when you click on the original
and do not appear on the Index either

Search for "Silas Matthews born Cornwall living Cornwall" and he appears as the first name on the list! The link takes you to the Humphreys page.

After looking at this for a few minutes I can now see exactly what the problem is.
The three Matthews children are actually enumerated with their father George Matthews and appear on the original with him.
The (Useless!!!) Interactive Menu for the Matthews family has the description of each person incorrect in the 'Relationship to Head' column.
e.g. for Richard, Amelia and George Henry Matthews the descriptions are for Silas, Mabel and Lee Thorne and indicates that they are with the family of Jonathan Humphreys.
These last three are indexed with Jonathan Humphreys but are not on the Enumeration Form with him.

Unfortunately I can see no way of being able to fix this.
The only available options for reporting problems or adding comments relate to the Image Viewer itself which is #%^% USELESS!!! There certainly needs to be some form of Feedback which will allow these sorts of problems to be correct!

HOWEVER - if there is one problem like this then there is potential for many, many more!
To prevent these problems would require invoking Quality Control but to fix them is going to require a complete re-indexing of every Census!!

That is the only possible way that life might be made easier for the likes of us!

CT

[Sarch]

Hi CT

Well the one difference between Family Search and Ancestry is that Ancestry makes you pay (through the nose) - so I would expect better than on a site like Family Search which is free.

There should have been some sort of Quality Control by Ancestry before going live - the sample of errors that I have encountered in just a few days is extremely high about 35 - 40%.

Will keep you updated

Sarch

[londoner]

Ancestry is offering free access to the 1911 census........

One cynical soul asked " are they doing this in order to get us all to correct all their errors?"

PS John Jarvis not Jarvies.
I should have corrected that one a while back since the Humphreys are my lot! ( I'm not sure when the 'e' crept in - the registrar always spelled it Humphrys)

[Cornish Terrier]

Well the one difference between Family Search and Ancestry is that Ancestry makes you pay

Ahem, Ahem!

FamilySearch also has the UK Census (including 1911) and you can search it for FREE!

HOWEVER ...............................

If you want to look at an image you are referred to their PARTNER SITE which is FINDMYPAST where you have to ....................................... PAY!!!

ct

[Sarch]

Londoner


My thoughts were along the same lines. ;D

I thought it was mostly the Cornish side of the Census probably done by one person as I don't have many people born outside of Cornwall in the UK but guess what some of the Cornish family moved up north to the cotton mills etc and those transcripts are also in bad shape.


Sarch

[londoner]

and it's not just the transcriptions - in some cases they haven't even filmed pages - looking through sequences (in a variety of districts) where families have been found on another site, I (and others) have discovered that Ancestry do not have the page!