Beattie/Montgomery Mystery ?????

[Baldy]

I am looking for help/information on a problem.
Here is the problem. According to the 1901 census
I have been researching the Beattie's and have come across the below;
Maggie Montgomery DOB C:-1876
Mary Montgomery DOB,C:-1880
Agnes Montgomery DOB,C:-1886
Alexander Montgomery DOB,C:-1898

The census show the parents as Ebenezer Beattie & Sarah?
How can this be ?????

I welcome any help at all

TIA
Baldy (au)

[emanday]

Is there any possibility that Sarah was married before and these are the children of that first marriage?

You'd expect them to be shown as stepchildren, but I have a family in my line where the stepson, still with his deceased father's surname, is listed as son to the 2nd husband in the census.

[Jack]

Hi Baldy,
Were your 1901 details from Ancestry?
If so, then quite understandable there is confusion....
Seems there's been a wee mix up - make that Big Mix Up!
(and for some reason they also had a Maggie as Ebenezer's mother...)
They are two separate families; here's what the page actually says.
--
1901 census 882 Ed 10 p 3, Lines 14-18 (Troqueer)
61 Glasgow St. [schedule 19]
Ebenezer BEATTIE, head, marr, 53, general labourer, b Kirkbean, KKD
Sarah BEATTIE, wife, marr, 43, -----------------------b Maxwelltown, KKD
Janet Agnes BEATTIE, daur, 13, scholar, b Maxwelltown, KKD
James Johnston BEATTIE, son, 8, scholar, b Maxwelltown, KKD
Thomas BEATTIE, son, 5, scholar, b Maxwelltown, KKD

--next household--

1901 census 882 Ed 10 p 3, Lines 19-22 (Troqueer)
61 Glasgow St. [schedule 20]
Maggie MONTGOMERY, her mother from home, u/m 25, domestic servant, b Maxwelltown, KKD
Mary MONTGOMERY, daur, u/m 21, shop assistant, b Maxwelltown, KKD
Agnes MONTGOMERY, daur, u/m 15, factory worker, woolen gloves, b Maxwelltown, KKD
Alexander MONTGOMERY, son, 13, scholar, b Maxwelltown, KKD
--
Seems mother of the Montgomery children (who's name is Margaret) was away from home on census night.
And daur Maggie was temporalily "holding the fort" till her mother returned.
--
Like yourself Mary, i first thought a re-marriage.
But the Beatties & the Montgomerys are in Troqueer 1891 as separate families at different addresses.
Jack

[emanday]

Beat me to it Jack

After I'd posted my reply I had a look in Ancestry to see if Ebenezer had a different wife in 1891 and realised what had happened with the 1901 census.

I wonder how many more there are like that

[Jack]

Hi Mary,
Probably very many kicking about somewhere...!
But this is the World of Ancestry who had "Humans" to do the transcribing.
Perhaps that meant turning pages for the OCR software to do the work?

There are far too many glaring errors for a real person to make.
Someone with even a basic understanding of the English language would never transcribe what we see daily.
Ancestry's "Quality Control" seems non-existant, or is woefully inadequate for something so important.
And they charge you for it - imagine buying a reference book with as many errors!

When did we last have an Asst. Bonk Keeper in our families?
I'm quite sure i've none in my own....
If this was an isolated case then we could readily accept that there will be the occasional human error.
But it's not, and some of the "transcriptions" are gobbledygook at its best.
(or should that be worst?)

Possibly at the beginning Ancestry used real transcribers, but they've now sacrificed any quality for quantity.
And it shows.
One major gripe with the censuses 1851+ is that they never show the, often important, marital status.

Well that's my moan for the day over; feeling better already!
Jack

[paddyscar]

I cannae 'haud ma wheesht' any longer! I am not a fan of Ancestry.

Working with catalogues, databases, developing classification systems and indexes and doing research my entire career, I take everything I find in any Ancestry products, with SLABS of salt. I look at Ancestry for possibilities never facts. It will only become worse the longer Ancestry uses the current level of 'human' transcription service.

In days gone by, when missionaries and church members were hunting through records and including variations on names that weren't quite legible, or on foreign names, it was done with the best of intentions. Allowing those who searched likely alternatives. Their work was hard, long, unpaid and groundbreaking. It is sad to see such a well-intentioned effort being wasted.

It is obvious that the NUMBER of records retrieved on any search is far more important than CORRECT records retrieved. The NUMBER of records is the prime focus.

Inaccuracies in transcription, repeated through time, eventually will be treated as fact and the entire database is diminished.

Frances
This is purely a personal comment

[Russell]

Frances

I would class your comment as a 'professional observation'.

Thank goodness for scotlandspeople. Not only are the majority of their entries correct - or as correct as they can be given the originals they worked from - but they actually are interested in any notifications that we submit and endeavour to change the data location.

I wouldn't touch ancestry with a barge-pole.

Russell

[paddyscar]

Thanks for the affirmation of my professional capabilities, Russell.

Just wanted to be clear that I wasn't speaking on behalf of TS, not that I could, but didn't want anyone jumping to any conclusions.
Frances

[Baldy]

Hi Jack & others
Thanks for all replies
WOW.

Yes I was on the Ancestry site.
Perhaps I should have gone straight to the 1901 census site in stead of Ancestry ???

What a GREAT mess this turned out be.!!!!!!!

One now wonders "IF" any of the records were actually rechecked PRIOR to be put up by Ancestry ????

The answers given certainly do clear up the problem.

Thanks to all that gave their replies & thoughts,they have been appreciated
Regarsd Ted (au)

[Jack]

Hi Ted,
Glad you've now got your Beatties sorted...the Montgomerys aren't yours!

Ancestry is a pain to search for the most part.
It would need a vast improvement before i could ever recommend them.

Quite right Frances; don't haud yer wheest...especially when you're right !
As you wisely said; "I look at Ancestry for possibilities never facts."

It shouldn't be that way, but i doubt they ever will correct all their errors.
Of which there must be very many thousands; not a few dozens.
So bottom line on Ancestry for me is that it's only a guide - and a rather poor one at that.
Finding how they spell a name can be quite a hurdle to begin with....
And their "Soundex" is often hopeless.
Oh, but you do get a LOT of names; doesn't matter if they're nothing like what you're looking for....

Still can't believe that Ancestry actually had "Do" & "Ditto" as surnames!
So not every entry is checked; perhaps it's one page in a hundred, or whatever.
Jack