-
Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!
-
It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here
Find My Past
- Thread starter JohnR65
- Start date
Volume numbers are not always transcribed as written.
For example, volume numbers for early years were written using Roman numerals in the original quarterly indexes, but using Arabic numerals when transcribed. In later years volume numbers were recorded as one or two Arabic digits followed by a single lower case alphabetic character in the original quarterly indexes, but the alphabetic characters were usually transcribed as upper case.
There may be other variations, but the key point is that the volume number as transcribed is not necessary the volume number as originally written.
For example, volume numbers for early years were written using Roman numerals in the original quarterly indexes, but using Arabic numerals when transcribed. In later years volume numbers were recorded as one or two Arabic digits followed by a single lower case alphabetic character in the original quarterly indexes, but the alphabetic characters were usually transcribed as upper case.
There may be other variations, but the key point is that the volume number as transcribed is not necessary the volume number as originally written.
Anything that prompts family historians to ask questions and thereby gain a better understanding of the records is a good thing. I doubt that one in a thousand has read the information on the FreeBMD site.
It appears that I'm unable to log in to FMP today as it says :
We’re experiencing a lot of traffic right now. To ensure everyone gets a great Findmypast experience, we’re temporarily limiting access. We are very sorry for the delay.
Please refresh in a few minutes to try again or send an email to updates@findmypast.com and we’ll contact you as soon as you can access the site.
I'm paying a lot of money to use this site-is that the best they can come up with!?
Secondly did they use proper educated people to transcribe the 1921 Census, how could someone transcribe Frederick into Frances and occupation as Mole Nurse?
We’re experiencing a lot of traffic right now. To ensure everyone gets a great Findmypast experience, we’re temporarily limiting access. We are very sorry for the delay.
Please refresh in a few minutes to try again or send an email to updates@findmypast.com and we’ll contact you as soon as you can access the site.
I'm paying a lot of money to use this site-is that the best they can come up with!?
Secondly did they use proper educated people to transcribe the 1921 Census, how could someone transcribe Frederick into Frances and occupation as Mole Nurse?
I've not had a problem - but then I hardly ever log-out from Findmypast. I did get a Gateway error just now, but refreshing the page sorted it immediately.
I think the 1921 Census was done in a mad rush, so as to beat the competition and FMP didn't use proper transcribers. I'm forever correcting mistakes they've made; today found a Stenbert instead of Herbert, a mole nurse instead of male nurse....the list goes on. They ought to pay me for rectifying them! It also seems that I can't find the husband initially but often find the wife or child of the family and thence the husband by his correct name-how does that work?
There is something seriously wrong with the 1921 Census transcribed by FMP, hopefully Ancestry will make a better job of it in the future.
There is something seriously wrong with the 1921 Census transcribed by FMP, hopefully Ancestry will make a better job of it in the future.
Sandra837
LostCousins Member
I've been trying for months to get them to correct my great-aunt's entry. She is on a page of nurses at Marylebone Infirmary, 15 entries, where from the fourth entry to the fourteenth, the transcriber has copied the birthplace from the line below. My great-aunt's entry read "Birth place Banstead Surrey" instead of "Birth place Asansol India". After reporting the error it now reads "Birth place Banstead Surrey India" (!) with "Birth place as transcribed Asansol, India." A second attempt to get it correctly transcribed has been ignored.
There was no competition - once Findmypast won the contract they had exclusive rights (and still do). If you had read the exclusive article that Stephen Rigden wrote for my newsletter you would have some appreciation of what a challenge it was.
Sandra837
LostCousins Member
That is a very vivid and illuminating account of the digitisation experience - thank you for sharing it. I think human error in transcription is totally forgivable - Ancestry is by no means a paragon in that respect. But that makes it all the more important to process error reports diligently. The particular record I referred to resulted in eleven individuals with incorrectly transcribed birth places, none of which have been corrected.
Given how long it must have taken you to submit 11 individual error reports I would suggest raising a complaint.
Sandra837
LostCousins Member
I can't claim that much effort to be honest - I simply added a comment alongside my correction to inform them of the errors re the other individuals, assuming they would recognise the need to correct them too (I would have). To raise a complaint feels churlish, as on the whole I have had a really positive experience with FMP. However, I have today resubmitted my correction (third time lucky?) with details of the other rows that have been mis-transcribed. We shall see. I feel irrationally protective of my much-loved great-aunt's digital footprint; she had no children of her own to take care of it.
I might be wrong, but I suspect that the task of correcting transcriptions is done by contractors who get paid for each submission they process.
For us genealogy is a labour of love - for them it's about earning a living.