Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search


  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts


ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date


Douglas Report 19 May 2014 00:54

My GGG Grandparents were Anthony (b 1816) and Isabella Peacock (b 1814).
They appear on the 1841 - 1851- Census's in Stockton on Tees,
nowhere in the 1861 Census and in the 1871 and 1881 Census's in
West Derby Liverpool.

I have just found the family in the 1861 Census in West Derby listed as Bacock ,
a clear error in transcription.

Who do I contact to have this error corrected, and wouldn't it be a good
idea to have a direct link to Genes Reunited to bring such errors to your attention?

Kind regards Doug Unwin


Kense Report 19 May 2014 07:57

You may contact Genes Reunited by email at this address:


Douglas Report 19 May 2014 08:58

Many thanks KenSE. Was I being slow? I looked in the obvious plas, the help link but there was no 'support' link.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to put me on the right track.

Kind regards Douglas Unwin


Kense Report 19 May 2014 09:18

There have been several complaints about the lack of an obvious contaxt point.

I believe the transcriptions GR uses are from FMP so they have to pass on any suggested amendments. Therefore getting transcriptions changed is not a quick process


Douglas Report 19 May 2014 12:11

Dear KenSE

I've had problems in the past with research into the Dutch, Werninck side of my wife's family. ( You can imagine the mis- spellings attributed to this name, can't you)?
A year on, a query I raised still hasn't been amended.
It also seems that Genes Reunited haven't put a protocal in place to deal with
transcription error.

Kind regards Douglas


DazedConfused Report 19 May 2014 12:53

With regard to 'transcription' errors.

Have you checked the original. If the original shows up as what we would consider as mis-spelling then it cannot be amended.

On the 1911 my g/grandfather mis-spelt my granddads name, he wrote Regniald instead of Reginald. But as that is how the original is, my poor old Granddad will forever be Regniald.



SylviaInCanada Report 19 May 2014 19:36

Re transcription errors ...................

those people who toil doing transcriptions of records HAVE to put down what they read on the original.

If the handwriting is bad, and they see it as Bacock instead of Peacock, then that is what they have to put down.

Have you looked at the actual image to see what that says?

Ancestry, and presumably FMP, will add a corrected addendum to the wrongly transcribed name, but they cannot correct it ...................... when they do this, both the wrong and the correct spelling will show up in searches.

There is no point getting all agitated about it ................... it is what it is.

Send in your correction to the site, hope that it will appear as an addendum some time in the next few weeks or months.

As others have said, GR carries the records as transcribed for FMP ......... so it might take longer to see the change on this site.

As they have not transcribed the records themselves, but share them with FMP, which is owned by the same company, GR CANNOT change or make an addendum to the records on THIS site. The incorrect record has to be reported to FMP ........... and it seems that that can take a very long time.

We've all been there ........................ I once found Schofield transcribed as Silufeld

yes, on looking at the transcript, it could be mistaken for that, the handwriting was so bad!

The worst one that I've found for my own family was Porst instead of Hayhurst ....... it took another GR member to find that one for me :-)

I have to say that, like most of the long time members of GR, I do not use GR records. They did not carry records when I first joined in 2004, and one had to use other sites. I still use those other sites, and use GR for the value of these Boards.


Douglas Report 20 May 2014 00:12

Dear All,

I have looked at the original and it reads Peacock through a magnifying glass, but the handwriting of the scribe who completed the census, is such that the transcriber could also read it as Bacock instead of Peacock.

I am not attempting to blame or complain about the transcriber. What I am attempting to do is to have the record amended so that other people researching this family, do not encounter the difficulty I have experienced. The tick box that looks for alternative spelling did not pick up this error. I said to myself, it's obviously a transcription spelling error, so I thought maybe the original scribe mis-heard and thought they said Beacock instead of Peacock. Only when I tried searching Beacock with the tick engaged did it throw up Bacock. Long odds to say the least.

The basis on which I feel an amendment could and should be made is that having found the relevant document, all the information connected with each person checks out with the data on1841-1851- 1871 and 1881 census records in connection with the Peacock family. Surely, when any shadow of doubt has been established, that, in itself, should be a compelling reason to put the record straight.

Kind regards Doug Unwin


SylviaInCanada Report 20 May 2014 01:48

of course ...................

but it takes time for the sites to make the addendum

In fact, they do NOT change the transcript ............ they just add the extra information, as I said in my earlier post.

GR cannot do that as GR is not responsible for the transcriptions of the records that they carry.

FMP paid for the transcriptions and therefore is the site that can add that information

Similarly, ancestry paid for its transcriptions ................ you will find discrepancies between transcript records on FMP and ancestry. Sometimes one will get it correct, sometimes the other will.

You will not find that any site actually changes the record .............. they cannot! They will just add the correct name as Added Information, along with the name of the member who submitted it and the reason for the addition.

Now ................... I do not honestly know how GR works to get "corrections" submitted to them passed on to FMP. That is something that you will have to fond out!

I did all my research on ancestry, and still do.


jax Report 20 May 2014 12:55

If you submit a transcription error on FMP....if they agree they will change it.

Unlike Ancestry, they do not leave the original transcription there.

I have reported many of my ancestors badly transcribed names and they have been changed on FMP then the record has then also been changed on GR....also they do not record the name of the person who put forward the new name


Kense Report 20 May 2014 15:30

Jax, I think you are wrong about Ancestry. I am sure they replace the original if they agree.

I know some alternatives are left there a long time , maybe that is because sufficient evidence wasn't given when the change was proposed.


jax Report 20 May 2014 16:04

Yes they replace but leave the original transcription there....some are over 4 years

Here is one from 2009.......why shouldn't they agree, when the youngest son has been transcribed correctly?

1851 England Census
about Samson Veranud
Samson Veranud
[Samson Verrant]
Estimated Birth Year:
abt 1800
Spouse's Name:
Mary Ann Veranud
Where born:
Devon, England
Civil Parish:
St George in the East
Registration district:
St George In The East
Sub-registration district:
St Mary
Samson Veranud 51
Mary Ann Veranud 37
James Veranud 15
Elizabeth Veranud 13
Sarah Veranud 7
Jamison Veranud 6
William Veranud 3
John Verrant 1

I don't know what evidence is needed then


Kense Report 20 May 2014 17:21

OK Jax I haven't found any of my changes that they haven't left the original. I only checked a handful as there are several hundred that I have made, but it seems that you are right.

Interesting in your example that they used ditto for everyone except the youngest son.

If anyone wants to make some Ancestry corrections then look in the 1861 census for the birthplaces of people living in St Peter Port, Guernsey.


SylviaInCanada Report 20 May 2014 17:57

Ken ................

I've only ever seen ancestry make the type of change that Jax shows ................. leave the original mis-transcription, with the corrected version in parentheses below the name

They do it for the person that you make the request for, and it shows as on that record.

When you submit the Additional Information (as they call it), 1 of 2 things happens, in my experience ........................

1. Your request is submitted, and that is that.

2. A box appears that asks should this name information also be applied to, and it lists all the members of the family with the same mis-transcribed name.

If you make sure that the relevant boxes are ticked on that drop down, then all the family names will show the Additional Information.

In the first case ..................... you have to add the information for each individual member. That can be hard to remember sometimes even when you know that you should do it!


DazedConfused Report 20 May 2014 19:28

Ancestry do change entries, I know I have had a couple changed.

But in the main:

They do tend not to change but show the old entry, with the new amendment underneath.


ErikaH Report 25 Jun 2014 08:09

GR don't have any way of amending transcriptions.

If you want records shown on GR to be amended, submit corrections to FMP, who will make the amendments, if they agree they are needed, and this will eventually show up on GR.


jax Report 25 Jun 2014 18:55

Wouldn't you have to be a subscriber of FMP to get them to amend transcriptions? not that I have ever tried without having a sub


InspectorGreenPen Report 21 Jul 2014 17:21

I remember this cropping up a couple of years back.

At the time we were asked to report the discrepancy to the GR support team and they would deal with whoever is responsible for making the necessary amendments.

The fact that the transcript had originally been sourced from another party was not an issue.