To correct or not to correct.

[AndrewA]

I have been looking at a number of transcription projects involving the 1841 census from around the country and the differences are quite surprising

Cornwall census project on rootsweb state that they prefer to have the transcription work identical as to how the enumerator wrote it. I found that surprising, as surely the point of transcription was to enter the CORRECT information, this is not some sacred documents which need to be re-produced with every mark identical.

As a researcher I would want to know that the correct names have been entered for the transcription, so surely this is more important than preserving the historical integrity of the enumerators document.

[Northern Lass]

I have to say on BCC we like the census if it is recorded to be as the census image really is
warts and all!
In a note in brackets or underneath the original info we will put what it maybe should be
if indeed we know.

I think it should be the original but with note on so anyone searching would find the info they need.
Only my thoughts

[snoopysue]

I can understand Cornwall, as who is to decide what the correct information is? Mostly it's down to interpretation, and we all think that our interpretation is the right one. In some cases the enumerator will have written it correctly, but it could be interpreted differently by modern day genealogists. Of course if the transcription done from the enumerators copy is incorrect, that is a different matter.
I agree with NL - transcribe as is, then add comments - other people can then make up there own mind.

[SRD]

I'm in the transcribe as written then add comments camp.

[Rob]

Yeah me too SRD.I'm with you warts and all with notes.
I had a marriage that was miscribed and still is for that matter :

Marriage Info 19 Nov 1876 St Thomas Dudley
-Joseph Ruston- 23- bach- puddler- Dudley-
Father-Joseph Ruston- nailer -
Eliza Quoit- 20 spinster- Dudley-
Father- Joseph Quoit- Collier
banns X of both Wit- William Ruston and Hannah Hill X
Poss death for Eliza 1883 RUSTON Eliza Dudley Dudley Register Office DUD/095/185

No one could probably read so the scribe wrote down what he heard." Quoit ".( local pronunciation)
What it should have been was Kite!!

[grangers14]

All the transcriptions I did for freebmd, freecen and freereg had to be as it is, not what you think it should be.
Jo

[Rob]

Found yer glasses then Jo? Bet they were cold.

[AndrewA]

What about this scenario, which is one which I encountered a few weeks ago. I was having problems reading a surname, I was going to just enter as it was, but checked ancestry which of course returned a single record for that surname being the 1841 census. Obviously it was just a random name, but was it? I did post about unique names on this forum a while ago.

SO I looked up the following census records, being a small parish it did not take too long to flip through the records, and found the same family group, but with correct surname spelling, so I entered that.

Will I be ostracised from the transcribers club for doing this?

[grangers14]

Eeesh well you could be!
Some of the old scans of things were really hard to read, as new ones are replacing I have had a few I have had to change on freebmd.
Just shush and don't tell anyone!

And yes Rob, I found my glasses and nice and cool too! It was not my day yesterday!
Jo

[snoopysue]

What about this scenario, which is one which I encountered a few weeks ago. I was having problems reading a surname, I was going to just enter as it was, but checked ancestry which of course returned a single record for that surname being the 1841 census. Obviously it was just a random name, but was it? I did post about unique names on this forum a while ago.

SO I looked up the following census records, being a small parish it did not take too long to flip through the records, and found the same family group, but with correct surname spelling, so I entered that.

Will I be ostracised from the transcribers club for doing this?

But how do you know which is the correct spelling - the one that has been used in modern times, or the historical equivalent? In my family we have Wearings and Jeavons. Both have been spelt differently in the past: Waring and Jevons. Was it a case of misspelling by the enumerators, or maybe an illiterate person not knowing how to spell their name? If it was the latter, my guess is that the version that was in use when the family became literate is the one that comes down the line to today. Is it any more correct than any other version?
In my in laws family, there is a family unit who moved - on the first census after the move the surname is totally different to their correct name. It should have read Powick, but is down on the image as Taylor - why? They were considerate enough not to move between the censuses, so the first names and places of birth match up. Was it an enumerator error, or was there another reason? Taylor is the maiden name of the mother of the head of the family. I've chosen to record it as Taylor rather than Powick.

Another point is who are you transcribing for? If it is soley for your own personal use, then you chose how you transcribe. But if it's information that is to be available to other people then I think it's important to display it in a way that makes it possible for other people to find, and make their own minds up as to whether or not it is correct.

[BC Wench]

You should always transcribe what is written and if needs be, put a note stating what it should be and the source from where you got the alternative spelling. The word transcript is a noun meaning copy.

[Antie Em]

You should always transcribe what is written and if needs be, put a note stating what it should be and the source from where you got the alternative spelling. The word transcript is a noun meaning copy.

I'm with you on this Barb. The census pages are historical documents, and should be transcribed as they are written, or what we would read them as. I have a family who changed their name completely on two census records. We'll probably never know why, likely to be some sort of evasion tactic, but it was a completely different name, and the maiden name of the mother of the head of the family.

There is another very prominent family in West Bromwich who used the name of a father who disappeared before 1901. The children born after 1901 were given his name, even though they were the children of the mother's new "friend", as proven by birth certificates.

[AndrewA]

Guess thats my rebellious nature showing through then.

Indecently, I do not have a Scatter gun approach to "correcting" census data,I am not like the woman who thought it was a good idea to go and restore the last supper by painting her own version of Christ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19349921

I proberbly have changed spellings literally one in thousand entries, or not even that. Then its usually been a poor attempt by the enumerator to spell a very unusual name, but apparently I should be given 20 lashes for doing that.

Just about all of the corrections I have made have come as a result as failing to decipher the hand writing and researching the person using other sources, such as PO and trade directories. Therefore if the hand writing is so terrible as is can not be made out, then it is surely it is valid to enter a legible name which has been researched from other sources instead of entering P??????gh.

Would there have really been that much difference to a family in a rural village from 1841 to 1851 in terms of literacy to evolve the name?

Another interesting point, I was reading an article which was explaining how it was only "recently" in historical terms that spelling names correctly has become important. Harriet is a common name in the 1841 census for Sussex, it is interesting to see that some enumerators spell this name in different ways and stay with that spelling through the whole district, I have had numerous spelling variations, Harriot, Hariot, Harriet, Hariet etc.

This is why we have such diverse spelling today for different surnames. I saw one surname written down and thought it could not be spelt right but a quick google showed a tiny number of people still clung onto this version of the name.

CONCLUSION:
Change a spelling, no way, that is sacrilege and should not be done, but correct the enumerators squiggles to a name everyone can understand, must be a good thing.

[Northern Lass]

No no no Andy .....may I call you that

we need to show that moment in time in all its glory

what you really need
actually ...............got an idea..............wot we need is
a tribal pages snapshot of a given time
so the 1841 census ..........with census in notes and then the families all on.

that would be cool would really help folk
nationwide......and no I dont want to do it

[AndrewA]

I guess I have not choice in being called Andy! I am used to it. When I worked as postoffice counter clerk I had Andrew on my name badge, people would check it and call me Andy

Certainly if the transcription process was a one off, unique in world, then well it would matter quite a bit I think, but as there are dozens of sources for transcribed census entries, along with census pages freely available, does it really matter so much about trying to record correct data instead of simply duplicating enumerators entries?

Which makes me think, why am I mad enough to do this, well its all down to copyright isn't it. Also I like to think that my transcriptions are more perfect than anyone elses