Improved data now on site, including some enhancements
We have loaded a fresh version of the searchable data onto the website, with a number of enhancements:
- Transcription errors reported up to February have been checked and corrected where necessary
- Data standardisation has been applied to first names to correct common mistakes such as Geroge for George
- Data standardisation has been applied to ages to make them standard: for example the various ways that householders may have written “months” has been standardised
These changes should further improve the accuracy of your search - many more are on the way!
Tags: accuracy, ages, Data, first name, Search, standardisation
March 4th, 2009 at 10:19 am
You state `Transcription errors reported up to February have been corrected`.
I reported SEVEN errors on one page (Listed as `Hales` when name is clearly `Cooper`) but they haven`t been done despite being reported on 10th Feb.
Can I presume Feb corrections not yet done? My only other correction in December has been done.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:51 am
@Mitch: the reason for this is because you reported them *in February*: “up to February” includes December and January but not February. Feb corrections will be made in the next batch which will be around a month’s time.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Fair enough. Different interpretations of `up to` here, just wanted to check. Thanks.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Most of the transcription errors which I have reported remain unchanged, including a large number from December. I know that your policy is to change a transcription if it is clearly wrong when compared with the original, but it strikes me that there ought to be a way of incorporating the names which people suggest so that people can find the records they want more quickly - and at less cost. One example: John Singer, aged 71, of North Bersted in Sussex. The record contains four transcription errors when compared with the original: James and Maryann’s surname is transcribed as Singer when it is Sivyer; John’s birthplace is transcribed as Srafford when it should be Treyford, although John has spelt it Trayford. And North Bersted is transcribed as Nort Bersted without an ‘h’. Most of us know our families pretty well and suggest errors when we are certain we have the right people.
Could I also repeat my suggestion that when you acknowledge receipt of a notification of a transcription error, you say which record it refers to? I have submitted a large number without keeping records of them - maybe I should in future, but it would be helpful if your acknowledgement did this automatically.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I have just had an email notification that the transcription error I reported in February are NOT being accepted. The original clearly says `Cooper` it looks NOTHING like the word `Hales` which you have transcribed it as.
PROVES your transcribers are all blind and thick.
DISGUSTED.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
I’m starting to get back email on reported transcription errors.
However because the mail just says something like “We have reviewed the transcription changes that you have reported and was logged as call: 10549″ there is absolutely NOTHING to identify to me which census record you are referring to.
Even the original message i got back in December just said “Thank you for contacting The 1911 Customer Support Team. Your enquiry has been received and has been assigned call number 10549″. That didn’t indicate which record either.
Having filed various transcription errors and bugs, I have no idea of the status of ANY of these. Come on this is the 21st century. There is no excuse for such poor status reporting.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
When I sent email to support about getting proper identification of logged issues, this was the response received:
touchpaper@brightsolid.com
reply-to blackhole@brightsolid.com
to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
date 5 March 2009 09:47
subject Re: Re: Update: 10549
The process Genealogy Incident(1) is not in a valid state to carry out the action. Or the process Genealogy Incident(1) does not support the Action Update:.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:16 am
@Mike - thanks for this - we are investigating
March 5th, 2009 at 9:19 am
@Mitch: thanks for the personal abuse which I won’t be passing on to our hard-working transcribers. Perhaps you might think on how your comments reflect on you, and also the merits of using the term “blind” as a term of abuse…
March 5th, 2009 at 9:20 am
@All noting the not-very-helpful way the system replies to transcription comments - we are working on a way to make it clearer from the email replies which comment is being referred to and hope to have this fixed soon.
March 5th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I reported several in january and didnt even get an acknowledgement.
I havent had a single transcription without at least one error.
I think credits for doing this would be a very nice gesture.
How about a free original for each corrected transcription….
Not a lot to ask really considering we are doing a job poorly done in the first place, that we have already paid for…
March 5th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I have just received a batch of emails informing me that corrections i submitted in December were not accepted.
Submitting corrections took quite an amount of time and was done to assist others where the transcription was in error. Some of the writing was awful and real knowledege was needed to decipher the scrawl. In some cases the family name attributed to some members of the household was clearly incorrect such as when a notation, intended or otherwise, was added after the family name and that notation has been given to household members as their family name.
On the whole the transcribers have done an excellent job however, due to the nature of the material being transcribed, particularly the oddities of the writing, errors were bound to happen. Researchers are well placed to identify these problems and it is disappointing to have these corrections dismissed in bulk.
Even if you do not want to change your original transcription it would be helpful if the suggested changes were recorded against the entries and available for searching. This would help us all when seeking “missing” targets.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I reported about a dozen transcription errors in January and all but two of them have now been corrected.
For some I received an acknowledgement and for some I didn’t - this hasn’t made any difference as to whether they have been corrected!
I found many more transcription errors on my father’s cousins’ families from looking at the search results but didn’t waste credits on these to get transcriptions and originals just so that I could report the errors.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I just received five “Do Not Reply” messages from FindMyPast responding to the transcription errors I reported more than two months ago on or about January 1st. They all said “After careful consideration we have decided that an amendment to the transcription is NOT required.” The emails did not include any information about the particular documents in question, the nature of errors reported by me, or the date I reported the errors to them.
While the email I received noted that FindMyPast’s objective is to simply determine if the transcription matches the original image, it it clear they have not done this with the errors I reported in good faith on the understanding that they would be actually be carefully reviewed. Either the transcription errors I reported were simply ignored or they were reviewed by someone not familiar with English names and places, or perhaps with poor eyesight.
TRANSCRIPTION ERROR #1: The image clearly shows “Ian Huntly” but the transcription reads “Ian HANTLY”
TRANSCRIPTION ERROR #2: The image clearly shows the age of David William as “8 mo.” but the transcript reads “8″ (Years).
TRANSCRIPTION ERROR #3: The image clearly shows the birthplace of Jane as “Barrow-in-Furness” while the transcript reads “BARRET-in-TURNERS”.
TRANSCRIPTION ERROR #4: The image clearly shows the birthplace of Albert as “Barrow-in-Furness” while the transcript reads “Barrow-in-FARMERS”.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
According to one of the emails I got, emails are being sent out saying that transcriptions have been rejected even when the transcription has been accepted.
One service request from December generated 6 different call numbers. Complaining about this problem just generated more…
Overall I am still completely in the dark as to which call numbers correspond to transcription errors, which are for site bugs etc etc and which have actually been dealt with.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Further to my comment of 5 March. I have today, 18 March, received five emails regarding transcription errors I reported between 16 and 22 January. For two of these from 16 January I had already had an acknowledgment on 25 January.
All the emails said that the changes would be implemented in the next 30 days.
All the corrections have already been implemented in early March.
What is going on?
March 29th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I have found 2 errors:
1 Shown as George Malcolne Coope M 1866 Bolton Lancashire
Should be George Malcolm Coope as confirmed by baptismal records and FreeBMD website
2 Shown as Clarence Coope F 1899 Bolton Lancashire
Should be Clemence Coope. Clarence is a man’s name and the baptismal records and FreeBMD website show that it was a daughter.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:41 am
@Joan - please report these using the “Report Error” buttons on the transcript page.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I presume that the names that come up as the result of a search are the names that the entries were transcribed as. Since I have managed to identify correctly a couple of entries and downloaded the original images, how do I report the transcription errors, without additional cost in downloading the transcript? The originals are ok so “Report original page error” would be inappropriate.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:05 am
@Ian - yes, that is broadly correct - the transcriptions form the basis of the search index with some tweaks. Currently the only way you can submit corrections is via the transcript - we realise this is not great if you going straight for images, and are looking at ways of fixing this.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Having fun, if with a lighter pocket, now that Northumberland is available, I have found an oddity. For some reason on of the images I downloaded the schedule number box has been redacted in the same way as the infirmity column. Can this be checked please to see if this is an error? The image is RG14PN30550 RG78PN1751 RD558 SD1 ED12 SN8. Obviously the SN is given as part of the file name, but why has it been blocked out on the image?
April 10th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Would you please explain what this piece of goboldygook means. It was sent to me as a reply to an email re two missing streets on Rawmarsh, Rotherham.
” The process Genealogy Incident(1) is not in a valid state to carry out the action. Or the process Genealogy Incident(1) does not support the Action Update:.
”
Many thanks
April 14th, 2009 at 7:12 am
@David: sorry about this, it looks like our email server was sick and threw you a bunch of garbage instead of a sensible reply. Should be working again now so if you haven’t heard back from Customer Support feel free to give them a nudge (in case your original email got eaten en route).
April 18th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
@Ian: anything on my last query regarding the redaction of something in the top right corner of the houseschedule where the schedule number box would be?
April 30th, 2009 at 9:14 am
This morning, 30th April, I eventually sent in a contact message about the wrongly redacted image, got an acknowledgement almost immediately. There followed a personal reply 15 minutes later itself followed by a replacement image. Excellent service from the customer support team.
January 6th, 2010 at 7:15 am
I finally found my gr gr aunt Jane Brafield in Chiswick - at least I think it’s her - her age is out by 12 years - maybe she was fibbing or head of household didn’t know.
Most frustrating is her birthplace is mainly written in the infirmity column, so blocked out. I can read this ‘parents of British Origin’ then underneath what looks like a word beginning with M….. then blocked.
Jane was born in Melbourne, Australia but I think I will always wonder if this is actually her…….have lost her trail after 1911.
Jan