1911 CENSUS (General)

by Jefff , West London, Middlesex, Sunday, May 13, 2012, 16:43 (4572 days ago) @ cmfenton

Thanks again guys for your replies, again very interesting. I really didn't realise the transcriptions were still done by people, sorry but I find that very hard to entirely believe. That said Marilyn if you speak from a position of personal experience as you appear to then of course I do believe you. It's just that given the type and multitude of this task I would have thought it odds-on in this day & age that computerised automated optical-text-recognition techniques would play a major role, just as they are so clearly used for the British Newspaper Archives site's search engine for example. One machine could process hundreds or even thousands of census forms an hour, 24/7. It's possible people are indeed used as a more economical alternative, but in this case I would expect that from economy of labour viewpoint (something I have considerable experience in especially from a worldwide viewpoint) those people are perhaps just able to read the text and may have a basic grasp of modern English/American, but they do not have the knowledge or time to be conversant with British names & placenames ?.
My interpretation of the Ancestry statement you quoted is that the whole process is indeed automated for many logical reasons, but with people being used for some of the trickier transcriptions, as final adjudicators if you like. From both a business sense and a legal sense this fits the statement; just as a sausage could be said to be handmade in Norfolk if it is produced by machine in Denmark from Russian beef but is then machinewrapped and hand-labelled in the UK.

When I first started this hobby less than 2 years ago wherever I went I found text books & magazines warning against the LDS site for their inaccuracies; however given that's a free site then I'm certainly not complaining at all, far from it !. However in my few forays into the very basic public Library Ancestry site looking up routine Census's I've seen examples where their smallprint actually quotes the LDS, I believe as their source reference. # If this is so then I suggest thats not a great selling point, but more worryingly are these LDS people those referred to in the Ancestry statement, aka a volunteer (I believe?) research service who do not always have the greatest accuracy of transcription ?.

Re the subscription costs then yes, on the face of it 30p a day isn't much at all from an individual's viewpoint, it's certainly a far better & more constructive alternative than buying puzzle magazines etc. I am also well aware of the great help you provide for others and thats truly appreciated, thankyou. I don't think your cells need worry about going grey never mind old for some while yet !
(That said the higher level subscriptions are currently more than I can afford, and no I don't smoke and currently cannot drink either or for that matter live particularly well indeed in any respect. We only had the one son as couldn't afford another, and at 16 we find he's rather pricey to run !! ;-)).
Having been enticed to buy a few of the popular FH magazines, usually on the basis of their "free" census/PRs cds that can seem to offer so much but often fail to deliver in any meaningfull degree, I would agree subscribing is far better value than that; especially as many of their articles and often the cd content can be found in library books or online for those with the time & patience to hunt them down. My point was that many many such subscribers worldwide clearly make for good business for Ancestry etc and perhaps they in return could offer better accuracy on what are clearly very poor transcriptions - I have no problem with occasional errors but my very limited usage keeps throwing up real silly whoppers. I just hope that when such whoppers are reported that they do in fact amend their database, altho as said earlier I don't know if they do.

Ultimately of course it's up to the individuals to spend their time & money how they like.

Finally, you mentioned the Census Summary Books, my first dealing with them. Last night in the Ancestry 1911 Census I found an ancestor within a summary book, but there was no separate Census form entry as I also expected to find so I couldnt find his 3 housemates. I searched high & lo but no luck. I read the site smallprint but the site's definition of the Summary Book actually seemed to relate to the actual Census forms themselves. Is this a possible event, I presume there must? be cases of the odd Census forms not surviving any more, is this the case here, or do Summary books not necessarily relate to (ie summarise) the actual Census forms themselves.

Thanks CMF, I'll be revisiting the Find My Past site etc if & when I look to subscribe. If they MUST redact the Forms then why oh why can they do so using a matching cream colour, call me sad or fussy but such things are important to me as they are real "living" links with my past and not just sets of data.

Moving on, its a great day so far, I'm no F1 fan but from a British engineering viewpoint it's nice to see Sir Frank Williams' team get their first win for some time and on his 70th birthday !. Shame the commentary of the Glorious Glosters cricket is suffering as many ailments as me but at least we seem to be winning, (as we did before losing t'other day!).
Summer's still with us AND today I've learnt a new word "redacted". Look out for it in further posts (after I've looked it up!).

PS
UPDATE RE TRANSCRIPTIONS, just spent a long time searching out another ancestor, living up North with relatives it seems. The form is neatly written and quite clearly says "GEORGE, Bro' in law, MALE"; he's paired alongside his probable(tbd) wife "Maud, Sis'r in law, FEMALE". Yet the transcription describes them both as Sisters in Law !!?? Honestly I'm not looking for these errors but ?
# I see today I read "Ancestry.com 2011". Have they bought out LDS or somesuch ?. Just a thought.. one day I'll look up some of my older Census Form images to see if they still mention LDS.