1901 and 1881 Scotland Census coming soon!

[SarahND]

Hi all,
Just got an update from Ancestry.com saying that the Scottish 1881 and 1901 censuses will be coming soon. So that completes the set-- "all" they need to do now is proofread it all (But we'll get some entertainment from it in the meantime, I'm sure...)
Regards,
Sarah

[emanday]

The question is - are they using the 1881 typed version or the original documents?

If they are using the typed version, and still come up with some of the howlers from before, then we'll know they are using OCR

[SarahND]

The question is - are they using the 1881 typed version or the original documents?

If they are using the typed version, and still come up with some of the howlers from before, then we'll know they are using OCR

Although I suppose the OCR program should be much better at reading typescript One can hope anyway!

[emanday]

The question is - are they using the 1881 typed version or the original documents?

If they are using the typed version, and still come up with some of the howlers from before, then we'll know they are using OCR

Although I suppose the OCR program should be much better at reading typescript One can hope anyway!

You'd think, but it depends on how much they paid for it I've used even top of the range ones that couldn't handle it if there were too many other things on the pages, like grids

[sporran]

Hello,


David Webster and I have received separate replies from Ancestry, and both have contained a statement that Ancestry do not use OCR in censuses. Please take notice.

This topic is getting to be like Lewis Carroll and "The Hunting of the Snark":
"What I tell you three times is true".


Regards,

John

[emanday]

Hello,


David Webster and I have received separate replies from Ancestry, and both have contained a statement that Ancestry do not use OCR in censuses. Please take notice.

This topic is getting to be like Lewis Carroll and "The Hunting of the Snark":
"What I tell you three times is true".


Regards,

John

Don't think they caught a Snark, though, did they?

[Russell]

No

It just made us sNarky for a while until we saw the funny side

Russell

[DavidWW]

Hello,


David Webster and I have received separate replies from Ancestry, and both have contained a statement that Ancestry do not use OCR in censuses. Please take notice.

This topic is getting to be like Lewis Carroll and "The Hunting of the Snark":
"What I tell you three times is true".


Regards,

John

That is indeed the case, but I still have the dilemma that I continue to see outputs that I just cannot believe are the result of the extensive training and considerable quality control that the same communication from Ancestry went out of its way to describe, if it is the case that human beings only are involved, not just in the occupation field, but the place of birth field.

In the case of the latter, I'm reassured that there are lookup tables to consult.

OK, with over 900 parishes in Scotland plus many placenames coming in which are not parishes, I can accept the occasional glitch, but just how long does it take to check in the list of 39 counties, - that's 33 plus the 6 alternatives used for several decades , yet there are regular errors, so whaur's the training and quality control

And then there's there the occupation field, Yes, indeed, I've seen many entries such that I can well imagine the difficulties in interpretation for anyone; but, the other side of that coin is that I've also seen many entries now where I'm at a complete loss to understand the resulting nonsensical transcription, - without exaggerating, a 7 year old in Scotland could read them on first look. .... and that's after the reputed considerable quality control.

I'm saying no more ..... goes away muttering darkly into his coffee (it's far too early for anything stronger )

David

[paddyscar]

Training may have been given, education credentials supplied, but has anyone checked the literacy rate of the of the human beings doing the 'quality control'? Checking with a list of counties, could be seen by some, as multi-tasking

Frances

[kathyc]

Wouldn't it be better to admit to using OCR than to let us believe that actual humans made those mistakes?

The latest one I found? A relative on the 1911 Canadian census, very clearly born in Scotland according to the actual page where "Scotland" was written out in full, transcribed on Ancestry as having been born in South Carolina.

Kathy