OCR madness .....

[Russell]

Couldn't agree more Pinkshoes

The whole thing has gone from an occasional nonsense to quite diablockable

See my previous post

Are they trying to make the searches so difficult that we have to resort to their paid researchers

Income generation springs to mind

To take money for such nonsense is ******* outrageous. I wonder if it offends the Trade Descriptions Act ?

It is the new people to the hobby who will suffer most from totally hopeless searches.

Russell

[pinkshoes]

Thanks for that Andrew - explains the two Kincardines situation for me. I knew there were two, but only since starting family history (I must've been asleep in school the day they covered that).

But - wiz there ever a Kunkardee? (It's a hypothetical question).

Best wishes
Pinkshoes

Later - Russell you'd think it would contravene something! Or perhaps it constitutes mental cruelty to researchers. I know from using the England bits that the errors are right across the board, but I think this latest lot takes the oatcake. And I notice on another board some members are wondering if the subscription is worth the money. I widnae like tae comment

[AndrewP]

Thanks for that Andrew - explains the two Kincardines situation for me. I knew there were two, but only since starting family history (I must've been asleep in school the day they covered that).

Also beyond Perthshire, don't forget Kincardine O'Neill (Aberdeenshire), Kincardine (on the Inverness-shire/Moray boundary), Kincardine (Ross & Cromarty) or the county Kincardineshire.

All the best,

AndrewP

[AnneM]

Hi again

In 1851 my ancestor Philip Assur appears as Philip Assum a clesk. Well we get the general idea but poor old Philip Alex Lucius born Stutgard (sic) Germany appears as a Journeyman Tippe Founder Bert Ulent.
Untouched by human hand!!!

Anne

Yet further down that search it gets Messenger at Arms perfectly correct and indexes someone else as a Sambourer!!!!!!!

[DavidWW]

Right then, here goes, here's the solutions ...............

Robt H Hall in St Ninians is a Proppirval Phrendogist
Professional Phrenologist

Henry L Lewis in Edinburgh St Andrew is a Lectrirer On Phrenotoye
Lecturer on Phrenology

Robert Burn in Stirling is Retired Phr Royalhary
Retired PM Royal Navy - "PM" = Provost Marshall - this identified by ADP as the probable meaning in a Royal Navy context =D> =D>

Hugh Connel in Galston is a Sovaneno Phranaker
Foreman Shoemaker

Joanna W Lennox in HAmilton is (of The Faculty Of Phrjeicitian Boycon)
No, she's not, but the entry for her husband, Walter W Lennox, spills over into the next line, Joanna, and the following line, daughter Margaret, and is Assist. Surgeon, RAH pay, Licentiate (of the Faculty of Physicians & Surgeons) Glasgow (In general practice) - there are obvious parentheses around the whole 3 lines. "RAH" is presumably"Royal A........ Hospital" - anyone know the situation around Hamilton? or any hospital that matches on the SE side of Glasgow. Could be Royal Alexandra but the only one I know is Paisley...... "pay" I cannot explain.

John Lindsay in Montrose is a Coal Fitter A Tichmeal Phrose Applud Person And Employ Loal Gar Scholar Indeed
Coal Fitter - A technical phrase applied to persons who had and unload coal vessels and build up coal in coal sheds. What's happened is that the enumerator has come across an occupation not on his permitted list, so has added clarificaton of the occupation given to him in the schedule.

Elisabeth Padge in Abbotshall is a Hawker Of Phread & Needles!
Couldn't find her.

John Kerr in Annan is a Farmer Of 150 Acceres Feplaying Phree 3 Labourers
Farmer Of 150 Acceres Employing Three 3 Labourers - and "acceres" is spelt that way!

Archibald Millar in Leith South is a simple Phryhman
Ploughman

All of the above except one were either obvious or very obvious, - I'd already sussed them online. The only one that was problematic, - barely readable on the microfilm, and only marginally better on the original enumeration book, was the Coal Fitter note.

David

[DavidWW]

Now that all the initial fun is over, let's get serious.

Will anyone who comes across a mistranscription in the Ancestry indexes of the 1851 and 1861 censuses please add it to the thread here in the Census forum at "1851 & 1861 Scottish Censuses on Ancestry.com Toady", - shortcut http://talkingscot.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 2&start=45 .

Any and all problems are of interest.

What worries me is that all that we are seeing to date are occupations, address, and place of birth errors, but that's undestandable as these most often result from a successful person search, - in other words they have only turned up as a result of a successful person search.

My particular concern is that there may be many unsuccessful person searches due to the complete mangling of the name. Over the weekend and on Tuesday at NRH I was unable to go direct to only some of the names in the "Sovaneno Phranaker" theme here, and had to try for the link via another name on the same page, - from the Ancestry index, - in some cases several other names. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time or resources on hand to do this in a properly structured manner.

What I mean is that, say, WABSTER, or WOBESTER, be those the actual names recorded, or mistranscriptions, are easy to pick up with wildcards via W?BSTER or W*B*TER, etc., but, "Mup&cmr", say, is likely to be impenetrable.

On the other hand the ability to search without the surname, and on other fields (plus naming others in the household? - it wasn't clear to me if this is possible) may allow workarounds in cases of "Mup&cmr" and the like.

The objective is to be able to reach a considered conclusion on just how serious the sitation is in terms possible "Mup&cmr" type errors for WEBSTER as a surname, when a search on "David" and 'address' and/or 'occupation' etc./, doesn't help.

In other words, regardless of the scale of mistranscriptions or the reason for these, do we end up with indexes for 1851 and 1861 for Scotland that are still worthwhile ?

David

[DavidWW]

Some interesting comparisons from Origins in relation to the 1841 census.

Accuracy and Completeness of 1841 Census Data

A Comparison between British Origins and Ancestry.co.uk

A preliminary comparison searches made on a selection of random names, including those in the table below, indicates that British Origins’ 1841 census index contains over 10% more names and is more accurate than that of Ancestry. We shall be extending this comparison and would welcome independent input.

No. of records

Surname Forename County British Origins Ancestry Comments

FAIRBROTHERJOHN Cheshire 7 7
FORBES Cheshire 20 20
HACKER Cheshire 7 7
ATHERTON JOHN Cheshire 18 15
DEAN ALICE Cheshire 10 5
GEE JOEL Cheshire 11 11
LEIGH GEORGE Cheshire 34 28
OLIPHANT Cheshire 4 4
OLLIER WILLIAM Cheshire 9 9
PIMBLET all Cheshire 8 4
SPROSTON NOAH Cheshire 2 2
WAINWRIGHTMARTHACheshire 16 15
ABBOTT CHARLES Middlesex 22 21
EADES JOHN Middlesex 6 6
EVANS ALFRED Middlesex 17 15
FAIRBROTHER JOHN Middlesex 5 3
FORBES Middlesex
(St Pancras only) 3 24 2 Ancestry forenames are incorrect: SERCHAR for “Sir Chas”, and Christian for Christina

GALE JOHN Middlesex 40 35
HACKER WILLIAM Middlesex 4 4
TEAPE all Middlesex 12 6

ABBOTT CHARLES Staffs 2 0
EADES JOHN Staffs 6 5
EVANS ALFRED Staffs 2 2
FAIRBROTHER JOHN Staffs 2 2
FORBES Staffs 21 20
HACKER Staffs 8 7
KEAN all Staffs 33 23
LABAN all Staffs 7 5
RAMSEY JOHN Staffs 1 0
SADLER JAMES Staffs 10 8
TAILOR all Staffs 38 22

ABBOTT CHARLES Surrey 5 5
EADES JOHN Surrey 7 6
EVANS ALFRED Surrey 12 12
FAIRBROTHER JOHN Surrey 0 0* *Ancestry has one “FAIRBROTHER”, but the original is clearly FAREBROTHER

FORBES Surrey 71 55
HACKER Surrey 25 20 Ancestry returns 27 HACKERs, but 4 of these are clearly HOCKER, and 3 should be (most likely) HAWKES

TEAPE all Surrey 4 2

Totals 538 435 +23.7% more records on British Origins

The Origins Network 2006
www.originsnetwork.com email: census@origins.net

In other words, Ancestry is "missing" a large number of records, presumably through the transcriptions.

David

[Morag]

My best one on freecen Midlothian 1841 is
David Kerr 65
Wphiamee Kerr 67

I would love it to be mine , but the David I want was married to Jean ! It is also very difficult to read on the actual census on SP

Morag

[DavidWW]

I have found a couple named Wm and Jean Fype who were both born in Kunkardee, Perthshire. Geography has never been my strong point, so I wonder if SKS could tell me whether this might in fact be near Kincardine?

There were two Kincardines in Perthshire. Kincardine Parish, the area around Blair Drummond (in modern terms better known for the Safari Park) and Kincardine-on-Forth (by Kincardine Bridge). Kincardine-on-Forth was in Tulliallan Parish, which with Culross Parish formed a detached part of Perthshire until 1891 when they were transferred to Fife.

All the best,

AndrewP

Kunkardee - I just love that, and can well anticipate the hand that led to Kincardine being so transcribed, be that by OCR and allied technology, or an untrained 15 year old Phillipino (just speculating !!)


The instructions to the Head of Household in the Census Schedule, repeated as regards the instructions to the enumerator who quite often had to assist the Head of Household to complete the Schedule, were that the birthplace should be shown as <parish> <county>, but I've seen many instances where <parish> wasn't, - so to speak -, but was a recognised area name within a parish, such as the Kincardine-on-Forth example above which may have been an ancient parish in its own right but was part of Tulliallan Parish in later eras!

David

[emanday]

luaergawrio

This is the birthplace of someone (and her sister) on an Ancestry New York Passenger list.

The image is actually quite clear if a little squeezed in, and no human being, no matter their first language could have got it THAT wrong.

Challenge - Any suggestions where these two ladies hailed from