Comments on: Transcription process and accuracy levels

By: bumper scuff

bumper scuff — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:46:01 +0000

bumper scuff…

[...]1911census.co.uk blog » Blog Archive » Transcription process and accuracy levels[...]…

By: How to get more Followers on Twitter

How to get more Followers on Twitter — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:31:06 +0000

How to get more Followers on Twitter …

[...]1911census.co.uk blog » Blog Archive » Transcription process and accuracy levels[...]…

By: family

family — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:12:51 +0000

family…

[...]1911census.co.uk blog » Blog Archive » Transcription process and accuracy levels[...]…

By: Diana Walshaw

Diana Walshaw — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:30:33 +0000

Why use transcription houses overseas, are there none here where we understand our names. I found a Mr Swithenbank that was written as Mr Sinthenlandt and in the whole of Burley in Leeds about 40% of it is a disgrace, a child could have done better. All the Thornvilles were transcribed as Moorville so anyone looking who doesn’t know the area have all got the wrong address
I cannot see how 98% is correct and if they’re part of a contractual requirement from the National Archives and as such are checked extremely rigorously before a piece is passed and allowed onto the site. then the problem is not only with the transcribers but with the checkers as well.

By: Paul Millington

Paul Millington — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:06:59 +0000

I am carrying out a one-name study of the Millington name. One of the things that would help considerably in tracking down bearers of the name where the transcript (or indeed the original) has varied considerably such that it is no longer a recognisable surname (e.g. Millingh found in the 1881 census) would be for findmypast to publish the list of surnames (and perhaps forenames) found in the census. Might also encourage your army of users to more quickly weed out obvious mistranscriptions!

By: iantester

iantester — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:49:10 +0000

@Bill - it most definitely was not transcribed by prisoners! I believe that Qinetiq who launched the original 1901 census did use prisoners to perform some transcription work but the results were sub-par.

We use dedicated transcription houses overseas and employ a variety of methodologies to ensure maximum accuracy. The accuracy figures we quote are part of a contractual requirement from the National Archives and as such are checked extremely rigorously before a piece is passed and allowed onto the site.

By: Bill Norton

Bill Norton — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:17:11 +0000

I have purchased a subscription and while being pleased to have the 1911 census find it hard to believe the accuracy claims made.
I am happy to report errors but feel that some recognition should be given to people who have reported and had significant numbers of errors accepted, thus improving the reliability of this census.
Is it true that this census was transcribed by guests of H.M. Government?

By: Bill Bartmann

Bill Bartmann — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:57:20 +0000

Excellent site, keep up the good work

By: Don Osborne

Don Osborne — Fri, 01 May 2009 07:52:28 +0000

@Lantester “please bear with us and soon you will be in ship nirvana.”

How soon is soon? My March transcript still has no ship’s name.

By: Fiona Gayther

Fiona Gayther — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:05:38 +0000

I curse the National Archives every single day for giving the contract for the 1911 Census to Brightsolid. Ancestry, for all it’s faults, allows you do as many searches as you like and their annual pricing is not too bad, but the 1911 Census and Scotland’s People is a huge money making racket. Reading this blog has just confirmed it.

Talking of transcription errors. I have a Amy Wallace, 12 year old schoolgirl - relation to Head of Household - Father-in-Law!