"Editing" census records: a rant
OK, consider this a rant.
The ability to edit transcriptions on census records is a nice feature when used properly -- for example, to correct a transcriptionist's misreading. Unfortunately, there are way too many people running around abusing the tool to "correct" spellings and to add additional information that's not in the record.
For example, I have an ancestor named Robert Sutcliffe. He is often referred to in family history as Robert "John" Sutcliffe, and so some kind soul has taken it upon himself to edit all the census records to add "John" to his name when it doesn't appear on the original form (in fact, there is no reliable support for the tradition anywhere).
One of his descendants, also surnamed Sutcliffe, appears on one census with a surname of "Sutter". The same or another kind-but-misguided personage has corrected the spelling to "Sutcliffe" when in fact the original census document clearly reads "Sutter".
Please, folks! The editing feature is not a for adding supplemental information. It should only ever be used to correct transcription errors in cases where the transcriptionist clearly misread what was on the original form. It should not be used to "correct" the original, add married names, or do anything that goes beyond what is on the original form. Please resist the urge to do so.
/rant
|
Re: "Editing" census records: a rant
Then you should take your complaint up with ACOM because they are the ones who offer options to add supplemental data. Note in the transcription edit box, under the "Reason" drop down menu, there are options for "Incorrect in image", "nick name", "Name change", "Variation", and "Maiden name" - all of which are not normally supplied on the original document. Users aren't doing anything wrong by utilizing the tools ACOM offer them. Obviously this is acceptable to ACOM and if you have a problem with it, it's ACOM you should blame, not the users.
Personally, I think correcting misrecorded names is worthwhile since it makes records easier to find. If I'm looking for Edwin Smith but he is recorded incorrectly on one census (on the original document) as Edward Smith, I will find the record a lot easier if someone has added the name Edwin. It's not like the original gets deleted from the transcription, both names remain in case the edit is actually incorrect. You're entitled to disagree but asking people to not use the tools ACOM offers isn't really fair. If you don't like people doing this, you should appeal to ACOM to remove these options.
|
Re: "Editing" census records: a rant
"The editing feature is not a for adding supplemental information."
Actually, it is. Just be sure to indicate that the information is a "variation" rather than correction of a mistranscribed name.
|
Re: "Editing" census records: a rant
Thank you for your response.
Yes, I'm aware Ancestry allows the practice, and I have raised the issue with them twice. I haven't even received a courtesy reply. Nevertheless, I don't find "because Ancestry allows it" a proper justification for poor genealogical practice.
I tried your example, searching US census records for Edwin Smith. Ironically, the very first record that popped up was for one Edwin Curtis of Tremont Street in Boston, whose name someone had "corrected" to Edwin Smith, despite the fact that the census record itself clearly records him as Edwin Curtis, the widowed father-in-law of the head-of-household, Charles Smith. (As corroboration, a search on Charles Smith / Ella Curtis quickly turns up their marriage 1933 marriage record.)
Just as interestingly, where in the original record Edwin Curtis is the father-in-law and a male, some Ancestry transcriptionist has transmogrified him into a daughter - female.
All of which eloquently makes my case. Allowing users to correct transcription errors is helpful. Allowing them to attach erroneous data to census records is not. If I'm searching for Edwin Smith, I want to see results for Edwin Smith, not Edwin Curtis.
"... all of which are not normally supplied on the original document"
Exactly my point. If it's not on the original document, don't put it there. When I click on a census record, it's because I'm interested in what the record says, not what someone thinks it should say. If you think Edwin Curtis's surname should be "Smith", put it in your tree, source it, and I'll have a look. Turning census records into dumping grounds for everyone's unsourced -- often erroneous -- research is just bad policy.
"Users aren't doing anything wrong by utilizing the tools ACOM offer them."
Attaching erroneous information to census records is wrong, even if Ancestry does allow it. If you have additional information about Edwin Curtis that's not in the census record, the proper place for it is in your tree, not on the census. If I want to know what *you* think Edwin Curtis's surname is, I'll look at your tree. If I want to know what the census says his name is, I'll look at the census. Just because Ancestry allows it doesn't make it a good idea.
At the very least, if Ancestry is going to allow users to attach their own research to census records, there ought to be a dispute mechanism. There is no way for me to call Ancestry's attention to the fact that whoever changed Edwin's name to Smith is wrong, or to get that information removed. We're stuck with it.
|
Re: "Editing" census records: a rant
"Nevertheless, I don't find "because Ancestry allows it" a proper justification for poor genealogical practice."
My point is that just because you think it's poor genealogical practice doesn't mean everyone else has to. Personally, I have found it useful in my research.
"Exactly my point. If it's not on the original document, don't put it there. When I click on a census record, it's because I'm interested in what the record says, not what someone thinks it should say. If you think Edwin Curtis's surname should be "Smith", put it in your tree, source it, and I'll have a look."
Again, you've missed my point - that I very well might not have even found the "Edwin Curtis" record if someone else hadn't added a transcription for Smith. How can I add it to my tree if I can't even find it because the name was incorrectly recorded on the original document and no one is allowed to suggest a correction to it?
"At the very least, if Ancestry is going to allow users to attach their own research to census records, there ought to be a dispute mechanism. There is no way for me to call Ancestry's attention to the fact that whoever changed Edwin's name to Smith is wrong, or to get that information removed. We're stuck with it."
Again, it's not like the original transcription is removed. It's additional info, not a replacement, so I don't know why you have such difficulty simply ignoring the additional data. Alternately, I could argue that not allowing people to add suggestions for corrections to the original document means were stuck with the incorrect data, making it far more difficult to find.
You're entitled to your opinion and I understand why you feel the way you do - but there are equally valid reasons for why ACOM allows this and why I find it useful.
|
Re: "Editing" census records: a rant
"Again, you've missed my point - that I very well might not have even found the "Edwin Curtis" record if someone else hadn't added a transcription for Smith."
Then, with respect, perhaps you should look into upgrading your research skills.
"How can I add it to my tree if I can't even find it because the name was incorrectly recorded on the original document"
This is precisely my point: it WASN'T incorrectly recorded on the original document. The original document was correct. It clearly reads "Edwin Curtis", and it was transcribed correctly. It's not the original document that was in error; it's the anonymous amendment that is wrong. If you're adding Edwin Curtis to your Smith family tree just because someone scratched "Smith" across the original Edwin Curtis record, then your family tree will be wrong and you can thank whomever erroneously "amended" the census record (and ACOM for allowing them to do it).
Unfortunately, "Edwin Smith" and "Edwin Curtis" have now been indelibly linked, and that error is beginning to find its way into other peoples' research. I just checked five user trees with Edwin Smith; two of them incorrectly identify him as Edwin Curtis, and both link back to the census record in question even though the original record says nothing of the sort.
If Ancestry is going to continue to allow people to dump their personal research all over the records, there should at the very least be a few basic safety mechanisms: any suggested amendations should be reviewed first, documentation should be required to support the amendation, and there should be a dispute mechanism available so that other users can dispute erroneous amendations. Currently, anyone can add any spurious information they wish to any census record and not even peer review is possible.
Again, I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to put their personal research online. That's what the family trees are for. If you think Edwin Curtis and Edwin Smith are the same person, put it in your tree (and be sure to support your conclusion) or post it to the message boards and when I'm searching, I'll find it. But when I search the census records I don't want to see your personal notes scribbled all over them.
|
Re: "Editing" census records: a rant
Since the document itself remains unchanged, I don't see this as a big problem. I would rather sift through a few extra records than miss a record because the census taker couldn't spell a name or mis-heard the name or the indexer couldn't figure it out and had to guess.
Then of course there are fewer and fewer people everyday who can decipher cursive and so transcriptions get worse and worse.
|
Re: "Editing" census records: a rant
Personal notes are not scribbled all over the documents. The are only listed on Ancestry's summary of the document.
|
Re: "Editing" census records: a rant
Particularly with the Census there are many small errors caused by the fact that the census is handwritten. I know of one example where the family name started wit Kn. The census taker, proud of his hand writing, wrote a flowery K followed by the N. When transcribed, the flowery K became TH. THK is an extremely uncommon letter combination. When you compare the flowery K with other TH's on the same page it is obvious that it is different.
Using the comments, I have added the proper transcription, with my documentation. I have done this for several of my ancestors where there is a transcription error, but always with the reason to believe the transcription is wrong
I knew of one person who had to be in the 1810 census from deeds and family records. I looked through ever line on every page in that county, and finally found the person's record attached to the next county. In fact the whole township was attached to the next county.
By adding the correct transcription to this record, the next person who actually tries to document this ancestor may then be able to use the time to finds the document that will correctly find this ancestor's parents.
There are several trees that show parents for this ancestor, some have him being born to his parents when they are both in their 60's, in a time when they were lucky to live into their 60's. There is another having his mother living in England during the period when it is documented that she is having babies about every two years in the Binghamton NY area. I guess they believe a ship under sail made weekly trips between England and New York. probably also believe it was a Cruise Ship.
|
Re: "Editing" census records: a rant
Calvin,
I can appreciate your "rant"/opinion but as others have stated, I'd rather look through a few "extra" documents because someone added a "correction" vs possibly never finding record in the first place. If the original cenus info is in error, what's wrong with making a note for others? They can then decide for themselves which info is correct.
My tree resides on my computer with Family Tree Maker and is not on-line. How would anything I've researched and documented help you? For example, in 1940 census I find my grandpa as head of house, wife, son, mother-in-law and sister-in-law all living together. The mother-in-law & sister-in-law were erroneously shown on original census as having surname of my grandpa. Just to complicate things mother-in-law was listed as a sister-in-law & she & her daughter (other sister-in-law) had the same first name. Someone not all that familiar with this family wouldn't have made heads or tails out of that very poor & very wrong census info. Would you not like to know where/how (surname) to find the mother-in-law & sister-in-law? Would you also not like to know that the mother-in-law actually passed away in 1938 and shouldn't have even been on original census? Without Acom's "add a correction/addition" feature, others researching might not ever know this info. Why should they spin their wheels when I already know the answers? I would find that info helpful if I stumbled onto it.
I strongly suspect a lot of so-called "researchers" have a bad habit of only looking at Acom's indexing page instead of pulling up actual census record and reviewing it themselves. I don't expect anyone to "assume" my corrections/additions are 110% correct but it should help give them additional tools with which to make their own decisions. Plus one can always contact the person who left the correction, asking for details. Chances are if you're both looking at same census, you're both researching same people; I've found several previously unknown "cousins" this way.
I don't think there's a limit to how many corrections that can be left, but if you find someone left incorrect info, you have the option of leaving another correction and state why you feel the info left was wrong. If I pulled up a record & found multiple comments, I certainly would review each of them.
We all have our "pet peeves" and you're certainly entitled to yours. I personally don't mind the "correction/addition" at all. I've found more valuable info vs wrong/misleading info. As long as no one can physically change the actual census record, what's the harm?
Just my two cents worth......
|