Re: 1901 Census mistakes
- Dear Rene,
I read this message with great interest. I think I understand the
misspellings as handwriting can be hard to decipher IF YOU AREN'T CLUED IN
TO THE NAME. When we read microfilmed censuses, we easily "forgive" a
misspelled name of ancestors because we know they are the ones we are
looking for - right place, right ages, almost right names, etc. Our
wonderful brains compensate and make the leap.
Searching by computer allows no such leaps, although the wild cards help a
little bit. I have had an Albert transcribed as Robert; it took a lot of
perseverance to ferret that out. I have had Shottons transcribed as
Sholtons, and Hirsts as Hursts.
One method I have learned that might help everyone find family members who
moved around depends on knowing the birthplace (I suppose it wouldn't work
for really common names). I searched on a surname and a birthplace, and I
found people still in the birthplace in Staffordshire, and brothers in
London, Wales, Lancashire and Yorkshire. You don't have to be stuck in one
Still, the mistakes are frustrating and time consuming,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene" <rdussome@...>
To: "Dist-gen" <dist-gen@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:44 PM
Subject: 1901 English Census
> If you have accessed the 1901 census you may have found that there are
> many transcription errors.
> This is a message I received from a friend in England:
> > I have been using the 1901 census for about 3 months now. It was
available in London at the FRC before it went onto the web temporarily. I
filled in that many mistake forms in my alotted hour in London one day that
the supervisor came to see me. He asked if I would like to see the
representative of the contracting firm who did the work on the census to see
if I could get a refund on my voucher money. I waited and spoke to the rep
but he said that because I had seen what I wanted he could not make any
refund, so I enquired about a refund for time wasted searching and he just
laughed at me and walked away. I have not finished yet; every time I go to
London I will fill the same fault forms in until I get some response or they
correct the mistakes.
> (Rene: I understand that all the errors are going to be corrected at a
> later date. I believe that January 2003 was mentioned.)
> In response to my question about the type of errors my friend has found
> he replied:
> > Lots of misspellings i.e. 50% of the Grunwells are down as Greenwells;
husband's and wife's names spelt differently, even though the wife's name
had "do" at the side of it. One person was shown as born in Ecclesfield, and
the image clearly stated born in Germany. All these add up to time wasted
trying to hunt for people.
> We have to be very inventive when searching for some of our missing
> Initially, I could not find my first husband's family. The last name was
> Tunstall and when I eventually found it I discovered that it had been
> transcribed as Timstall. There is no way I could have found that using a
> wildcard because a wildcard must be preceded by at least two characters.
> In hindsight I suppose I could have tried Ta* Te* Ti* To* and Tu* but
> this type of search did not occur to me.
> The way I found the family in the end was to do a search using the given
> name only, not the surname. To do this you have to show given name, sex,
> age (you can use +/-), and place of birth.
> Best of luck with your searches!
> Rene Dussome