transcribing error.....

[Scozzie]

I've finally got my great-grandmother's death extract. It took some tracking down, as she's named as Kate, even though her correct name was Catherine (her son was the informant, probably didn't even know his mother's name was Catherine). I can read the writing, and know her maiden name was McVake (one of the variations), but the SRO have it as McPake. Should I tell the SRO?

[Tracey]

[quote]I can read the writing, and know her maiden name was McVake (one of the variations), but the SRO have it as McPake. Should I tell the SRO?.......................
Not if it clearly shows it as that spelling. I have found that even though we know the correct name if your doing a search on that name and it doesnt come up if you do a soundex on that name it will bring that name up under whatever the transcriber had read it as . I once "corrected" a transcriber in my early days as i was most put out that she had got my gx3 fathers age wrong and boy did she tell me off as she said "it wasnt her place to rewrite history" I tried getting in touch with the transcribers of 1901 census as they have one of mine as birth place Barriff ! when it clearly says Banff on the actual census, but gave up trying to get through to them via email. So you can either be brave and tell them or you might even get it changed

[Scozzie]

Hmmmmm - It was very bad handwriting, but the name is definitely not McPake. I sent an email to the SRO - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for an answer (I'll get a response, but no real answer, as usual). I only found her on SRO because I guessed she was yet another Catherine in the family known as Kate.

[Ina]

Hi Scozzie,

On my great grandmother's birth certificate it lists her mother as Flora McDonald, when in fact her name was Flora McDougall. When I was in Salt Lake City a few years ago I asked if they could change it, and they informed me that it could not be done. I'll be in Scotland next month and I may inquire at NRH if it can be changed.

The reason for the mistake in the first place, was that the birth was registered by a NEIGHBOUR (the husband was out at sea). She probably thought McDougall.....McDonald......what's the difference

Ina

[DavidWW]

We need to be clear here in terms of who is involved ..........

If it's an organisation such as GSU (i.e. the Mormons) then their very strict rule, as often as not to our advantage as researchers rather than the reverse, is that the transcription is carried out exactly "as is", and, further, once an interpretation has been made of a difficult record, they are most unlikely to change it, - unless, of course, we're talking errors on the scale of all Sutherland shown as Sunderland in the 1881 census, altho', to be fair, that wasn't a transcription error but a data input error based on the lack of geographical knowledge on the part of the inputters.

GROS, on t'other hand, are more than likely to take the view, as long as supporting evidence can be provided, that there could be either a case for a correction of an index, or, if the error is so fundamental, then even a case for an RCE entry, - there is no time limit for an RCE entry .............

OPR errors are something again. I suspect, but don't know for certain, that GROS would probably correct a blatant indexing error, but not an error relating to a name, - as where is the proof going to come from?, similar to that which can often be provided in terms of statutory records with supporting information from other statutory, and census records.

As you will now appreciate this is a true example of a can of worms that many groups and organisations prefer not to have to open

On a related theme, I was looking through some notes of various meetings in the last wee while, and came across one, from which I can state that the error rate in the Scottish census indexes is max 4 (four) per cent.

Admittedly still significant, - that's 1 in 25, - but it needs to be appreciated that not all errors are significant, e.g. an error in a surname can cause a major problem, but in a forename only a possible problem, and the same in terms of age.

Of course that figure of 4% could have been reduced further, but only at very significant additional cost ....... i.e. which situation is preferable, the Scottish census indexes as they are for 1901, 1891 and 1871, available but with a 4% error rate, with 1841, 1851 and 1861 to follow hopefully soon, - or no such indexes for some impossible to define period of time until and unless technology has improved to the extent that it is possible to produce the indexes with substantially lower error rates for the same cost??...........

David

[Scozzie]

I think I'll leave it - it's yet another variation (even though I believe whoever transcribed it couldn't read the handwriting). Catherine's (Kate) father first appears in my tree as MAHRAKE, then MALVAKE. I've found all sorts of variations - McVAKE, McVICK, McVEIGH, McVICER, McVICKER, so McPAKE shouldn't be a surprise. I wonder how many more I'll find when climbing this tree? Poor Kate, the LDS have her birth as MALVAKE, her marriage as McVICK, now the SRO have her death as McPAKE. I'm just glad I didn't get her maiden name as my middle name.

[DavidWW]

I think I'll leave it - it's yet another variation (even though I believe whoever transcribed it couldn't read the handwriting). Catherine's (Kate) father first appears in my tree as MAHRAKE, then MALVAKE. I've found all sorts of variations - McVAKE, McVICK, McVEIGH, McVICER, McVICKER, so McPAKE shouldn't be a surprise. I wonder how many more I'll find when climbing this tree? Poor Kate, the LDS have her birth as MALVAKE, her marriage as McVICK, now the SRO have her death as McPAKE. I'm just glad I didn't get her maiden name as my middle name.

Using wildcards and searching for M*KE* would pick up some of these, and M*cV*I* would pick up most, even all of the others (I think - bit early in the morning for such calculations ) You will be surprised at how few hits there are.

David

[Scozzie]

With all the variations of surnames I'm finding in my tree, I should maybe try searching for ********