Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Genealogy

Some more handwriting and learning not to trust Ancestry transcriptions

74 replies

Another2Cats · 01/01/2025 14:10

This is mostly a rant about Ancestry but I do have some specific questions about handwriting at the end.

I recently started a thread about handwriting here

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/genealogy/5236815-anyone-here-good-at-deciphering-old-hand-writing-very-old-parish-register

and I just want to thank everybody that replied.
.

One suggestion, from @Shetlands, made a real difference to understanding things:

"Something I've always done is look at the rest of the pages and compare words so it's easier to decipher what they are. It can be tricky when the records are done by different vicars / curates but you can usually find enough done by the same hand."

I followed this suggestion and once you see how known words (eg common names or months of the year etc) are written then it makes it a lot easier to recognise how individual letters are written so you can then spell out other words.

So, doing this with the parish register that I was looking at I came across something a bit odd. I decided to check what I was reading in the parish register with what the record on Ancestry showed.

This is where I came across a huge problem.

On Ancestry I searched for any entries for this parish in a particular year and compared those entries with the scanned image of the parish register.

Lots and lots of the entries in the parish register were simply not recorded by Ancestry at all or were so different from the actual name (examples below) that you simply could not guess what the actual name was. There were also baptisms recorded as burials or marriages recorded as baptisms etc. There were entire years that had not been transcribed at all.

It appears that the transcriptions were done by different people. On one page, half of the entries might not have been transcribed and the other half were totally wrong. Then, on the next two facing pages the transcriptions were absolutely spot on in every detail (apart from a couple of minor mistakes) but then turn the page and it’s back to the rubbish again.

I have no idea if this is a one off or it has happened with other documents as well.

I checked very briefly some other nearby parishes. Some seemed spot on and some seemed rather patchy but nowhere was as bad as this. Maybe this was just a one off? I don’t know.

But it has made me seriously reconsider how I use the search function on Ancestry going forwards

Where I have reached dead ends or brick walls, in some cases it may be that Ancestry have either incorrectly or not transcribed the records at all. They may exist (like in the example of this parish register) and Ancestry have simply done a rubbish job of transcribing them.

It really has made me reevaluate what I thought I knew about Ancestry and has got me thinking that I need to now go back and double check all of the other early records that I casually assumed were accurate when I first started out on my search for my family tree.
.
.

Some examples of the poor transcriptions I came across

The baptism of “Somma Trifominge” was

“The christeninge of Thomas the sonne of Edward Viserd…”
.

Similarly, the burial of “Tho Heriftoning Gantoy” where the father was “Olive Gantoy” was actually

“The christeninge of alice hankox was in october the iiii day”
.

The wedding of “Tho Fomingo” and “Haboll Eddan” was actually

“The christeninge of Isabell the daughter of walter myles & margaret his wife was in december the xv day”
.

“Joen Maride” was buried and the father was “Edwards Maride”

The actual text was

“Wylia grevestocke clarke [he was in the church] was maried to Jone Edwards in november the xv th daye”
.

The burial of “Hynes Wilddonge” was actually the burial of “Agnes grevestock wyddowe”
.

The burial of “Wylia Postboye” was

“Wylia norris a pore boye was buried in Januarie the xi th day” [looking back at earlier records he was 13 when he died.]
.

So if you are looking for any of these families then you aren’t going to find these baptisms, marriages or burials on Ancestry if you just use their search function.

But maybe you will now? My DH insisted that we update ones that we found were wrong, so hopefully now people searching will be able to find them.

One that did make me smile though was the baptism of Joan to parents “Homer Wyfo” and “Elizabeth Wyfo”

In reality, the parents were:

“thomas bruer & Elizabeth his wyfe”

Whoever transcribed this thought that “wyfe” was the surname (but miscopied it anyway as Wyfo)!

I’m aware that Australians often use an “-o” on the end of words as a diminutive. When I saw this I just had visions of some one saying in an Australian accent “G’day, I’m Homer and this is Liz the wifo”.
.
.

@YellowPixie said

"Brilliant though that the priest/minister has recorded the name of the mother as far too often you just see "Elizabeth Smith daughter of John" and the mother doesn't even get a mention."

Yes this does make a huge difference, especially when the men have the same name, live in the same village and are having children at about the same time.

Sometimes the entries went into a lot of detail. For example, from a neighbouring parish I noticed this entry

“Willm Nicholas, the bastard sonne of Willm Nicholas of the pirsh of Barkeley yeoman, and Elizabeth Dirett his late servant, was baptized on the xxii th day of April”

The parish of Berkeley was about 12 miles away with its own church so I would guess they were trying to keep this from the neighbours.

But some entries just made me stop and consider how things have changed.

“The christeninge of Jone … was in September the v daye and was buried the same day”

I was particularly struck by these:

“The buriall of Margaret Morgan in childbed decesed was in September the xxi th daye”

then four years later

“Elizabeth Viserd decessed in childbed & was buried in Julye the xi th daye”

A few years on from that, a Richard was baptised on 1st June, his mother Agnes (aged 41) was then buried on 3rd June and he was later buried on 28th June

All three of these women’s deaths are in the parish register that is viewable on Ancestry but they have not been recorded so are not searchable on the website other than knowing to look at a particular page of the parish register.
.
.

Anyway, I did also say that I had some questions about handwriting; and I do.

The first is about a name that I see commonly written as Wilia or Wylia but the letter “a” has a long curved line that goes over the top of it. I’ve included an image below of an example of this.

Does a curved line after a vowel indicate a letter m or n follows it? So should Wylia be read as “Wilia” or is the curved line after the “a” indicating it should be read as “Wiliam”?

I noticed this most often with the name Wylia but I did also come across the same thing in a will from the same time and the word “Item”. Sometimes it was written as “Item” and sometimes as “Ite[curved line]”

I’ve included an image of this as well. The will appears to read.

"Item I give more to margret my daughter my best brasse pot"

"Ite[curly line] I give to Joane pit my daughter my lycke brase pan"
.
.

The next handwriting question is about Greek letters. I think a name might be meant to be “Christofer” but it is written as “xpofer” and the letters x and p have a line above them.

Could this be the curate using the Greek letters chi and rho (for Christ) and simply writing them in the same way that he writes the letters x and p?

I’ve attached another image and I believe it says:

“xpofer Balinger was married To agnes Stallerd noveber ix th”

Was the name Christofer ever written this way or am I reading too much into this?
.
.

Then finally, I came across four women whose names appear to be spelt as either Emmot or Emote.

Was this an actual name or am I just getting it totally wrong? Again, image attached. Was this a real name that has perhaps now just died out or am I missing something very obvious?

I’ve attached an image that I believe says

“The christeninge of thomas the sonne of Emote pitte unmaried was in december the xxviii th daye”

With the other women, their names were spelled Emmot.

Sorry this turned out so long, I just started typing and it all sort of just came out. I was just rather annoyed at all these missing records I came across. But any help anyone can give with the handwriting I would be very grateful for.

Some more handwriting and learning not to trust Ancestry transcriptions
Some more handwriting and learning not to trust Ancestry transcriptions
Some more handwriting and learning not to trust Ancestry transcriptions
Some more handwriting and learning not to trust Ancestry transcriptions
OP posts:
slightlydistrac · 01/01/2025 23:36

Halsall · 01/01/2025 16:27

No, it doesn’t!

ETA - does this mean you have one too?!

Edited

It seems my ancestors changed the spelling of the surname at the beginning of WW1 so it didn't look German any more.

TeabySea · 01/01/2025 23:43

There do seem to be some parts of the records that are badly transcribed and when I spot them I submit corrections.
Some parish registers seem to have been very problematic for transcribers although I haven't found any as badly wrong as the examples from OP.
I still have a family "missing" from the 1911 census. I know where they are in 1909 and in 1912, but they don't show up (at least there are no scans or transcriptions) for the 1912 known address with them on. They were too poor to have been anywhere other than the UK, so either something is badly wrong or there are pages missing.

slightlydistrac · 02/01/2025 13:54

Another2Cats · 01/01/2025 17:38

Also @slightlydistrac Are names with an umlaut particularly rare? Ok, of course they're not common, but you definitely see them from time to time.

I was recently looking at the will of a Carl Götz who died in Manchester in 1895 and he certainly left some of his estate to others outside of the family that also had umlauts in their names.

I don't think names with an umlaut are rare, it's just that anyone researching ancestors with one particular uncommon German surname in the UK will be related to me! That's why I asked the pp if their surname began with an L.

Halsall · 02/01/2025 14:00

slightlydistrac · 02/01/2025 13:54

I don't think names with an umlaut are rare, it's just that anyone researching ancestors with one particular uncommon German surname in the UK will be related to me! That's why I asked the pp if their surname began with an L.

Yes, it’s just chance if the umlauted name is relatively uncommon, I think. Mine doesn’t begin with an L but I suspect it’s another that’s quite unusual - I did google it with the alternative ’e’ spelling and got just one result this time (someone to whom DH is probably distantly related).

Another2Cats · 02/01/2025 17:55

MissRoseDurward · 01/01/2025 22:52

The first is about a name that I see commonly written as Wilia or Wylia but the letter “a” has a long curved line that goes over the top of it. I’ve included an image below of an example of this.

Names and words were often abbreviated, either the end being missed off, or a syllable in the middle of the word omitted. So this is William, with the curving line indicating an abbreviation.

A missing syllable in the middle of a word is often indicated by a line above the letters. So 'tenement' might be written 'tent' with a line above. Anno Domini might be Anno Dni.

Words beginning par or per were often abbreviated, with a stroke through the tail of the p to indicate it. So pish for parish for example with a stroke through the p or a line above the word.

And be aware of New Style vs Old Style for events before 1752.

I use Find My Past, which also has errors. I don't think the transcribing and indexing is carried out by human beings; it's done by OCR. On FMP you can report errors, and I do this sometimes if I can be bothered.

The University of Nottingham has some useful resources:
Research Guidance - The University of Nottingham

Thanks for this, I really am learning a lot about 16/17th century handwriting in a very short space of time thanks to Mumsnet.

"I use Find My Past"

I do as well as I find that FMP is better with some things than Ancestry and also vice versa.

For example, most of my family lived in Gloucestershire and FMP are pretty rubbish when it comes to old Gloucestershire records but I do find them very useful indeed for other things.

So, even though I'm complaining about how bad things are with Ancestry, the FMP records for Gloucestershire are worse and, since they are only transcriptions and not the actual images you don't know if they have missed any out.

OP posts:
slightlydistrac · 02/01/2025 22:28

Halsall · 02/01/2025 14:00

Yes, it’s just chance if the umlauted name is relatively uncommon, I think. Mine doesn’t begin with an L but I suspect it’s another that’s quite unusual - I did google it with the alternative ’e’ spelling and got just one result this time (someone to whom DH is probably distantly related).

Those pesky surname variants - I think my lot has about 5 at the last count!

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 02/01/2025 22:38

NeverDropYourMooncup · 01/01/2025 14:56

I think it's actually Ancestry's AI that's the cause of the problems with the records in the first place, so I'm not sure using AI is going to help at present.

^This
Ancestry doesn’t transcribe the records. The individual archives round the world all use around a dozen different AI programs to transcribe their records to digitise them. Ancestry then pays the archives for access to their digital records sometimes with a scanned image of the original document attached, other times with just a link to the archive where you can pay extra to see a scanned image of the original document. Ancestry also has numerous records uploaded by subscribers who frequently transcribe things incorrectly.

It can be annoying, but it is much easier to do this research today than it was when I started out on Ancestry in 2002. It is always worthwhile to look at the images. I have often corrected transcription errors when I find them, Ancestry has a function to do that and save it to their database.

MissRoseDurward · 02/01/2025 23:58

The quality of the indexing on the 1921 census was very poor. I gave up submitting corrections (they were probably already sick of me by then).

Smilarly the 1939 Register - in a row of six semi-detached houses, the surnames of three of the families were wrong. I know, because I remember them - they were still living there when I was a child!

As well as its own OCR generated undexes, FMP uses transcripts and indexes made in the past by other people and organisations. Work done by local family history societies is likely to be reasonably accurate, as they know the names of the parishes in their counties and what surnames are likely to come up.

National indexes I treat with a bit more caution as the indexers may not have been familiar with the counties they were working on.

FamilySearch - the Mormon index - 😖😨😱😬💩

But it is all much easier than in the old days when one had to travel to do research and it all had to be done in office hours.

slightlydistrac · 03/01/2025 00:08

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 02/01/2025 22:38

^This
Ancestry doesn’t transcribe the records. The individual archives round the world all use around a dozen different AI programs to transcribe their records to digitise them. Ancestry then pays the archives for access to their digital records sometimes with a scanned image of the original document attached, other times with just a link to the archive where you can pay extra to see a scanned image of the original document. Ancestry also has numerous records uploaded by subscribers who frequently transcribe things incorrectly.

It can be annoying, but it is much easier to do this research today than it was when I started out on Ancestry in 2002. It is always worthwhile to look at the images. I have often corrected transcription errors when I find them, Ancestry has a function to do that and save it to their database.

That's the trouble with AI - it is learning from perpetuated errors generated by itself. GIGO.

Linnet · 03/01/2025 00:45

In the past when tracing my family tree I was told by the local historian in my local library that the records that show on Ancestry were transcribed by people whose first language was not English. Therefore you got rabouruer for labourer as it was not a word they may have known and been able to work out that rabourer wasn’t actually a word but labourer was.

The best one though is part of my family in the 1901 census has half of the children listed, on the transcribed record in Ancestry, as being born in Lochgelly in Fife. The family never lived there and I know for a fact that they lived in Dundee, which when you look at the actual census record it clearly states. How the transcribed record says a totally different town and area is beyond me as it’s not like they have misspelled the town, it’s a totally different word.
I also can’t find some people on the 1911 census even though I know where they lived but they just don’t show up, whether they’ve been mistranscribed or just missed off completely I don’t know.

WearyAuldWumman · 03/01/2025 01:16

Linnet · 03/01/2025 00:45

In the past when tracing my family tree I was told by the local historian in my local library that the records that show on Ancestry were transcribed by people whose first language was not English. Therefore you got rabouruer for labourer as it was not a word they may have known and been able to work out that rabourer wasn’t actually a word but labourer was.

The best one though is part of my family in the 1901 census has half of the children listed, on the transcribed record in Ancestry, as being born in Lochgelly in Fife. The family never lived there and I know for a fact that they lived in Dundee, which when you look at the actual census record it clearly states. How the transcribed record says a totally different town and area is beyond me as it’s not like they have misspelled the town, it’s a totally different word.
I also can’t find some people on the 1911 census even though I know where they lived but they just don’t show up, whether they’ve been mistranscribed or just missed off completely I don’t know.

Could they not have been born in Lochgelly and then moved to Dundee? It's not that far. The mother might have had relatives in Lochgelly and gone there for some of her confinements? Was there any mention of the parish at all?

I'm assuming that you got the census record from The Scotland People's website. Did you check any of the birth records there too?

When I checked the official census record for some of my Fife ancestors, there was misinformation - for a start, Great-Granny's age was off. She was a wee bit older than Great-Grandad and had shaved a couple of years off when speaking to the census taker. (I asked my mother whether Great-Granny was the kind of woman who would have lied about her age: "You bet!")

For the 1891 census, I noticed that there was a family member I'd never heard of listed with my Great-Grandad's family - he was listed as a "nephew" and "scholar". I'm assuming that he was only there for a visit. (It made sense - the surname was the same as Great-Granny's maiden name.)

Possibly some of your missing people in the 1911 census were elsewhere when the census was taken? That was certainly the case with some members of my husband's side of the family - I had to broaden the search a bit. It turned out that they were working as teenage farm labourers and away from home.

MissRoseDurward · 03/01/2025 01:25

I also can’t find some people on the 1911 census even though I know where they lived but they just don’t show up, whether they’ve been mistranscribed or just missed off completely I don’t know.

Have you searched on the address?

Or as WearyAuldWumman says, they might just have been away from home. The Census was supposed to record who was in the house that night, not who normally lived there.

The 1841 and 1921 censuses caught a lot of people away from home because they were taken in June, rather than March/April, as all the others were.

Linnet · 03/01/2025 12:03

@WearyAuldWumman I’ve checked my records and it was actually the 1891 census not the 1901. But no the children were not born in Lochgelly there is no link to there at all. The first half of the children were born in England the family then moved to Dundee for work and then all the other children were then born there. It is only the transcribed page of Ancestry that mentions Lochgelly, when you look at the actual census page, on ancestry it clearly states Dundee as do their birth records. The transcribed page also lists the children born in England as having been born in India but the actual census page quite clearly states Berwick upon Tweed.

@MissRoseDurward Yes I’ve always just assumed that they were away from home or are listed incorrectly and I haven’t found them yet.

TeabySea · 03/01/2025 12:25

MissRoseDurward · 03/01/2025 01:25

I also can’t find some people on the 1911 census even though I know where they lived but they just don’t show up, whether they’ve been mistranscribed or just missed off completely I don’t know.

Have you searched on the address?

Or as WearyAuldWumman says, they might just have been away from home. The Census was supposed to record who was in the house that night, not who normally lived there.

The 1841 and 1921 censuses caught a lot of people away from home because they were taken in June, rather than March/April, as all the others were.

Yes, searched all known addresses. Searched other family members.
They lived in apartments (hovel like flats) in a block in Errol Street, but some other properties in the building are listed as City Road (Looking at the info, it seems to have been on the corner). Not all the flats are listed, when I compare both types of listing.
I've searched on variants of the name, just first name, children and parents separately. But a family of 6 in its entirety with not one member (including 2 young children) showing up implies an error somewhere.

TeabySea · 03/01/2025 12:27

^I can find them in 1921, and 1901. Just not in between. Other than anecdotal address information from birth certificates for their children born between those years.

LlynTegid · 03/01/2025 12:27

Sympathy for you OP, I have had the same issue on a couple of occasions though not with Ancestry.

OccasionalHope · 03/01/2025 12:36

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 02/01/2025 22:38

^This
Ancestry doesn’t transcribe the records. The individual archives round the world all use around a dozen different AI programs to transcribe their records to digitise them. Ancestry then pays the archives for access to their digital records sometimes with a scanned image of the original document attached, other times with just a link to the archive where you can pay extra to see a scanned image of the original document. Ancestry also has numerous records uploaded by subscribers who frequently transcribe things incorrectly.

It can be annoying, but it is much easier to do this research today than it was when I started out on Ancestry in 2002. It is always worthwhile to look at the images. I have often corrected transcription errors when I find them, Ancestry has a function to do that and save it to their database.

They do their own indexing if the original hasn’t been transcribed, which is certainly sometimes the case.

OccasionalHope · 03/01/2025 12:36

If the archive had transcribed it would be better quality.

WillItSnowTonight · 03/01/2025 13:50

I’ve given up reporting errors on FMP as nothing changes, e.g. Mary remains Uluny.

Illiteracy at the point of immigration, an accent and surname unfamiliar in the UK, flamboyant capital letters which could be read as F, S, T or P, guessed spelling, plus oddly transcribed handwriting have led to at least a dozen variations of the family name. The latest interpretation always causes merriment.

Combining info and accessibility to original records on the two main sites and supplementary sites has been a way forward for a group of us.
Happy hunting.

WearyAuldWumman · 03/01/2025 14:20

Linnet · 03/01/2025 12:03

@WearyAuldWumman I’ve checked my records and it was actually the 1891 census not the 1901. But no the children were not born in Lochgelly there is no link to there at all. The first half of the children were born in England the family then moved to Dundee for work and then all the other children were then born there. It is only the transcribed page of Ancestry that mentions Lochgelly, when you look at the actual census page, on ancestry it clearly states Dundee as do their birth records. The transcribed page also lists the children born in England as having been born in India but the actual census page quite clearly states Berwick upon Tweed.

@MissRoseDurward Yes I’ve always just assumed that they were away from home or are listed incorrectly and I haven’t found them yet.

Good grief: that's quite a mix up.

WearyAuldWumman · 03/01/2025 14:22

WearyAuldWumman · 03/01/2025 14:20

Good grief: that's quite a mix up.

Just adding that it sounds like you'd be much better off sticking to Scotland's People for any further info.

Linnet · 03/01/2025 21:52

@WearyAuldWumman I do tend to use Scotlands people more than Ancestry. But I use Ancestry for the English, American, Canadian and Australian records. I haven’t actually done any research for a while, I usually use it at the local library as it’s free access.

MissRoseDurward · 04/01/2025 21:45

Case in point re the FamilySearch index: I've just found a baptism on FMP, from the FamilySearch index. The place is given as 'London'. No parish name. Goodness knows where the information came from.

Another2Cats · 05/01/2025 21:38

MissRoseDurward · 02/01/2025 23:58

The quality of the indexing on the 1921 census was very poor. I gave up submitting corrections (they were probably already sick of me by then).

Smilarly the 1939 Register - in a row of six semi-detached houses, the surnames of three of the families were wrong. I know, because I remember them - they were still living there when I was a child!

As well as its own OCR generated undexes, FMP uses transcripts and indexes made in the past by other people and organisations. Work done by local family history societies is likely to be reasonably accurate, as they know the names of the parishes in their counties and what surnames are likely to come up.

National indexes I treat with a bit more caution as the indexers may not have been familiar with the counties they were working on.

FamilySearch - the Mormon index - 😖😨😱😬💩

But it is all much easier than in the old days when one had to travel to do research and it all had to be done in office hours.

"The quality of the indexing on the 1921 census was very poor. I gave up submitting corrections (they were probably already sick of me by then)."

This comment just made me totally stop and reconsider things like I have done with Ancestry. I had always assumed that a more recently recorded document would be much better indexed than an earlier recorded document.

That really did worry me as I could not find one of my grandmothers on the 1921 census. (I could also not find a man or a woman who were both a link to an adopted woman to whom I am related somehow and 1921 was a very important year)

I thought that they had maybe not completed it or something like that.

Having read your comment here I just went back to check and it took me less than two minutes to find their entry on the 1921 census! It simply hadn't been indexed at all.

Is it worth bothering raising this with FMP? Will they bother to index it?

I am just so angry with myself that I trusted FMP to be accurate.

For some context (if people are interested) in the 1920 electoral register, my grandmother's parents were shown as living at an address in Gloucester (and their parents - my great great grandparents - were living next door).

By the time of the 1921 census my great great grandparents were still living at the same address and show up on the FMP search, but my grandmother and her parents were not indexed at all on the 1921 census.

I thought that maybe they had moved out and hadn't completed the form. Like you said:

"The 1841 and 1921 censuses caught a lot of people away from home because they were taken in June, rather than March/April, as all the others were."

But that wasn't the case here. I knew their address in 1920 so I did a search for the address instead and there they were.

FMP have indexed the address but not the people living there.

Just as an aside, it always surprises me that sometimes the world can be very small indeed.

In 1921, one of my grandmothers was aged 7 and the other was 6. They lived less than a mile away from each other (in a straight line).

My grandfathers were 15 and 11 at the time. Each of them lived less than a mile away from the women they would all later marry in 1936.

OP posts:
Another2Cats · 05/01/2025 21:59

TeabySea · 03/01/2025 12:25

Yes, searched all known addresses. Searched other family members.
They lived in apartments (hovel like flats) in a block in Errol Street, but some other properties in the building are listed as City Road (Looking at the info, it seems to have been on the corner). Not all the flats are listed, when I compare both types of listing.
I've searched on variants of the name, just first name, children and parents separately. But a family of 6 in its entirety with not one member (including 2 young children) showing up implies an error somewhere.

"But a family of 6 in its entirety with not one member (including 2 young children) showing up implies an error somewhere."

I've had something similar happen. I was looking for a family where the head of the household was on the 1871 electoral register at a certain address (so he wasn't poor at all - only about one third of all men, and no women, could vote in 1871).

But they are nowhere to be seen in the 1871 census at all. I've tried both Ancestry and FMP with no luck.

I thought that perhaps they were just away at the time but could find nothing at all.

Even when I've searched by address I can find nothing. I can find records for the other side of the street but not the side he lived on. Eg, if he lived at 210 then I can find records for 207, 209, 2011, 2013 etc but there are no records for 206, 208, 210, 212 etc.

Sometimes I think that there are some records that are just totally lost.

OP posts: