Abbreviation N.R. COMPLETED

[lorisarvendu]

Hi all.

Long time no hear. The last time I was here was to post a Brick Wall about the Hill family. The wall is still there, though I have chipped away at quite a few bricks.

However I've recently had a Census breakthrough, but there's an abbreviation written on the original record that I wanted to pick some brains about.

The transcribers had put down "N. Mitlborne" as the birth place, but a look at the original showed that it was obviously "Middlesex", but with "N.R." written next to it, in different handwriting. Obviously the digital transcriber thought this mean "near", but you can't have been born "near" Middlesex. Plus the entry above says "Wales" and also has N.R. next to it. Near to Wales?

Some commentators say "N.R." is short for "Not Recorded" or "Not Reported", which doesn't make sense in this context, since they obviously have been recorded and reported. However is it possible it means "not related", as it is written next to two individuals who are listed as "visitor" and are not members of the main household?

To be honest the whole transcription of this census sheet is a right mess! Aside from "Middlesex" transcribed as "Mitlborne", "Chas" is transcribed as "Chen" and "Elizabeth" as "Elbert"! It's a wonder I found the record at all.

-Dave

[gardener]

Could it be NK rather than NR? So the birth places would be Wales, but not known where in Wales, and the same for Middlesex.
Have you tried looking at adjacent entries to see if any of those have a similar annotation? Sometimes that helps.

[lorisarvendu]

Hmmm...could be "n k" as the N is lower case. If anyone wants to see it, search Ancestry for "Chen Pankhurst", born 1872, living in Kent, 1901 Census. You'll see that there are a couple of later alterations to the document in totally different (but much more legible) handwriting.

-Dave

[Jimmy]

Could it be not recognised.

[AndrewA]

Welcome to commercialism and the joys of Ancestry. I guess this page was outsourced to India for transcribing. I will refrain from launching into a rant about Ancestry transcription work and how much money they make. By the way I have a subscription with Ancestry!

First it is 100% n.k. for Not Known. So obviously they only gained the information that he was Middlesex, obviously he was not around when enumerator called to amend the form.

Another thing which is a little annoying is that transcribers do not seem to understand abbreviations. The tradition of abbreviating names on paper has seemed to have long died out. But I will assume that you do know that Chas is an abbreviation for Charles.

[Northern Lass]

Moving to Misc section

[lorisarvendu]

Hi Andrew A.

Yes I know that "Chas" is abbreviation for "Charles". In fact I have a theory about that. I suspect that "Chas" and "Thos" came about simply as ways of shortening the names Charles and Thomas to make repetitive longhand easier, not as a verbal "nickname" to be given to Charles or Thomas. I doubt that anyone would have called Charles "Chas" to his face as a nickname, nor would they have called Thomas "Thos".

Notice that although we do still see "Thos" as a contraction of "Thomas" nowadays, it's noticeably only in company names such as "Thos Hill & Sons". Nobody ever calls anyone "Thos" because it's difficult to say (plus "Tom" is far easier). However "Chas" has fallen into use as a nickname or a verbal shortening of "Charles", in the same way as "Tom" or "Will", to the extent where it is even used when the person isn't actually called Charles at all (e.g. "Chas Chandler" of The Animals who was actually "Bryan James Chandler").

The problem comes in with digital transcribing of Census records by people who don't realise that "Chas" probably isn't what the individual put on their Census form, but what the enumerators shortened it to because they had so much of it to write. So they transcribe it because they think it's a real name that the individual was called. in the case of "N.R." or "N.K" the transcriber was unaware of what the abbreviation meant, so assumed it meant "Nr Middlesex" (or rather "Nr Mitlborne" !?)

I've got another Census record where there's a husband of 76 years with a wife of 16 years. It's actually "66" on the form (she's 10 years his junior) but someone's read the 6 as a 1. Common sense would tell you to just check that age again, as there's a teensy-weensy possibility that a marriage with a 60 year age gap might just be wrong, but with the speed they must be transcribing these, common sense goes out the window.

With my two main individuals both being "Charles" I often do an alternate search for "Chas", although in this case with it incorrectly transcribed as "Chen" I might never have found it.

-Dave

[AndrewA]

Transcription work has been known to have been outsourced to India, im not kidding either. The transcription work for Ancestry seems to be second rate, then they have the cheek to make a big issue about having its customers correct the mess.

Transcription work is not easy, its may appear to be, but its not. I have a number of posts on this, including examples of where the enumerator has obviously had to guess what is being said and names are then spelt phonetically.

All fascinating stuff though

[lorisarvendu]

What's worrying, especially with regard to Ancestry, is the number of errors I've encountered. Since I'm basically chipping away at a very narrow range of years and I've only been doing this for 3 years, the number of records I've accessed is relatively low, making the percentage of errors found quite high. If I'm seeing this many errors (and correcting them), there must be thousands out there.

I assumed that all the Census records had been transcribed once and then all the Geneology companies purchased the same records (hence you'd find the same errors on Ancestry and Genesreunited). But if you're saying that each company does their own transcription, then does that mean that some companies have better records than others?

-Dave

[AndrewA]

In short the answer is Yes.

Anyone can purchase the microfilm of the census images. The transcription work is copyright to the company. That is why I am involved with Sussex Online Parish Clerks transcribing the 1841 census for Sussex. When I hand my work over, it becomes the copyright of the Sussex Online Parish Clerks.

Find my Past is more accurate, they boast about that in their advertising now as well. I think I am right in saying that most of the transcription work on FInd My Past is directly from the Church of Later Day Saints, who have a belief that every person on earth must be recorded, so they already have had huge research centres and databases going way back, and more to point more time and care and effort has been put into recording the correct name as it is vitally important from their religious beliefs.

You can access a free search here https://familysearch.org, but to see the actual documents then you are given the link to FindMyPast ! However I have found many people on this service than I was able to on Ancestry. For example they have all the records for British citizens residing in India, which are not yet showing up on any other sites, although I read somewhere FIndMyPast should have the full documents available later this year.


One horrendous mistake, if you are on ancestry then go to 1891 England Census, look up MIddlesex, Hornsey, District 9, Folio 15. Somehow my family of Elizabeth HEATH and her children, ALice, Daisy, WIlliam and Mary (I think this is really May but another story!) have been recored as living in same household as the CASTLE family and recorded with surname CASTLE.

I spent months not knowing this record existed, until I started using my local library, Hampshire libraries have free access to all the genealogy sites, found it in about 5 minutes of looking on FindmyPAst.

[gardener]

If you can't find people on Ancestry then it is always worth doing a search using something like first name only plus family member's first name and the area they lived in. Then you can run your eye over the surnames and look at anything promising. You can also use the free searches of other collections and if that throws up a likely record then you have more to go for a search in Ancestry. That said, some folk just are not on there no matter what!

[lorisarvendu]

Because I assumed all companies used the same data, I've stuck with Ancestry, because I like the interface. However I'm still skirting round a brick wall (archived here - "Charles William Hill and Mary Jane Robinson"), where I've got a birth certificate with two married parents, but no sign of their marriage. However I've only looked on Ancestry, and if the lack of detail is because of their transcriptions...

I might try another site. Which is a bit of a bummer as I've just forked out another year's sub to Ancestry.

One other thing I've found a lot of is unequal marriage listings. You know, prior to 1916 you search for a marriage, you then click on "Find Others on this page" and get presented with 4 women and 2 men. What's all that about then? Did two of the grooms fail to turn up, so the women married each-other? Or did they have Civil Partnerships in the 19th Century?

-Dave

[grangers14]

It may mean that they haven't been transcribed yet or may be done but transcribed wrong!
I looked for years for my Mums birth certificate but that is transcribed wrong in the GRO !

[AndrewA]

Despite the transcription errors, ancestry membership is not too bad.

I think ancestry is more smoother to work with, my work flow is a lot better on ancestry. Findmypast just seems clunky and too basic at times. Have you tried on the Mormons website yet? I found all sorts of people on there while drawing blanks on other sites. https://familysearch.org/

The discrepancy in numbers can be for several reasons, first the page number on the index page was difficult to read, with page number being last number on edge of page, a damaged book will mean the page number column is usually the first to go, so transcription issues are most likely.

Then there is case that one of the spouces are entered in a couple times, again for number of reasons, incorrect information, spelling mistakes by the registrar or by the minister on original documents etc.

Of course civil partnerships are a relatively new thing. It was not long ago that people could be locked up for homosexual activity, in prison and mental institutes, so obviously there was no such thing in those days.

[lorisarvendu]

Have you tried on the Mormons website yet? I found all sorts of people on there while drawing blanks on other sites. https://familysearch.org/

I couldn't even find my GtGtGrandfather's birth on there, I'm sad to say. Charles Herbert Hill, born 1882, London. No records found.

Of course civil partnerships are a relatively new thing. It was not long ago that people could be locked up for homosexual activity, in prison and mental institutes, so obviously there was no such thing in those days.

Um...yes I did know that. Guess I should have put a lol at the end of my comment. lol (as tha kidz sai)