General Chat

This is genealogy, honestly! While looking for Baptism records in the London Records, I found this.... I was very cross at the insensitivity of the modern day transcriber, to be honest.... it felt like a desecration.


This is the transcription:

John-Stepney (surname) Turnamewateown Baptism 1 Nov 1839 (fathers name)Austin Turnamewateown (Mother's name) Christina Turnamewateown St John of Wapping

The real transcription, clear as a bell?

John-Stepney, son of

Father's Christian name unknown

Mother's Christian name unknown

Surname unknown

This infant was found in the Churchyard of St Dunstan's, Stepney.


I just thought it was so sad......

Love

Daff xxx

It is sad Daff.
Someone told me that the transcriber has to put 'what they see'.
I would never be able to transcribe because if I thought something looked wrong I would have to dig about.
I see so many sad things as I look through records.......nothing to do with my own research - am just nosey.

Hiya Lyndi.... but this is so clear... except for the Dunstan... I thought at first it looked a bit like Tunstan.

Poor little boy.... he never stood a chance, did he?

Love

Daff xxxx

Transcribers do have to put what the see, not what they think it actually says. Sometimes it comes out as gobbledegook like that, and probably the transcriber actually knows it should say 'surname unknown' but they 'see' the other.

I transcribed for FreeBMD for a while, but I got fed up of putting what I 'saw' even when I knew damn well what it actually said, or should say. I gave up in the end. If the image wasn't that good, a single letter could have a bit missing which would make it appear as something else, such as the tail on a y would turn it into a 'u'. I'd have to put 'u' even though I knew it should be 'y'. Sooooo annoying.

Hello Lady Augusta.... I know a lot of transcribers are volunteers, and many are brilliant.... but this transcription was dreadful... the entry was extremely clear.... even to me.... but the transcriber just didn't have a clue. I actually wondered if English was not this transcriber's first language....

To be honest with you, I was not only very sad.... but very cross at the transcriber.... I have made a complaint! lol

Love

Daff xxxx

TW, I know.... that must be so frustrating..... but have a look at the transcript, and see what I mean..

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec/?htx=View&r=5538&dbid=1558&iid=31280_197797-00317&fn=John-Augustus&ln=Hammont&st=r&ssrc=pt_t242421_p-2105115834_g32768&pid=3926846

Love

Daff xxxx who is still a bit upset about it, to be honest, poor little dab xx

I am a volunteer transcriber for FreeBMD - and yes - we are told to transcibe what we see, even if we think it is wrong.

But - we also have the option to put in symbols representing letters that are unclear so that someone searching the database should still find the record. This is particularly important in the case of poor scans.

Daff -- if it's at Ancestry you can probably correct the record yourself. No reason not to -- just call it "transcription error" and refer to the image, and put the correct info for all the fields in your notes.

You'd probably feel better for doing it. It's unlikely in this case I guess, but who knows, it might even lead someone to their ancestor.

Thanks Janey.... I hadn't realised that.... I'll do it in a bit... it really phased me, that did, and as you said, it could be that someone is looking in frustration for him...... proper family, not surrogate Aunty Daff, lolol

Is that what the pen thing on Ancestry is all about? I'll go back now and look,

Love

Daff xxxx

Hello Daff,

I have corrected more mistranscriptions than I can remember. I know some are only obvious when you have a knowledge of the family and then you can 'see' what the names really are. I do agree though that some entries are laughable.

Sue xx

That is really sad Daff and I think the transcriber ought to give up transcribing if they can't read that!
x