Stupidity at FindMyPast with the 1911 census (How they correct errors)

While researching the photographer Thomas Latchmore I came across the following 1911 census transcription in which the first line looks decidedly odd.

So I looked at the image and found

It is clear that the first line of the transcription is totally wrong - apart from the surname not one field is correct. Like all commercial transcriptions speed of getting the product to market meant that accuracy suffered (to be fair FindMyPast is NOT the only culprit in this respect) but at least FindMyPast does have a means of correcting errors. So I reported the fault (reconstructed image)

Read on to find what happened
This morning I received the following letter worded in such a way as to make me look a complete idiot

Dear Family Historian,

We have reviewed your recent transcription comment for 1911 census
submitted on Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:59:15 +0100

Record Description: LATCHMORE THOMAS WILLIAM ( RG14PN7593 RG78PN372 RD136 SD2 ED4 SN7)

Field: condition
Original: SINGLE
Suggestion: Widow

Field: profession
Original: PHO
Suggestion: Photographer

Field: fullwhereborn
Original:
Suggestion: London Bishopsgate

On this occasion we have decided not to change the current online transcription
as it appears to match the original census form within an acceptable margin of
error.

You may think the record is incorrect for a number of reasons:

1) Not as you have been advised previously from other sites/ family members

2) A name recorded not as expected whether (e.g. incorrectly registered or a
   shortened version of a first name)

3) An age/ occupation / birthplace not being as expected.The online transcription is designed to be an exact match of the original
census form. If they have entered shortened names, or have registered perhaps
an incorrect age, we will not change these as the site endeavours to reflect
the data captured on the original census form. This means that whatever details
are shown on the original will be those shown online. 

We do change misspellings of names but only in obvious cases as this will aid
in finding your relatives. If the writing on the original form is hard to
decipher and your suggested transcription change does look like a possibility,
we will always give your suggestion prioirty over what has previously been
transcribed.

Thank you once again for bringing this to our attention and we hope that you
will continue to search our online records.

Kind Regards

The findmypast.co.uk team

Our ref: 607764

Checking my email box shows that I had earlier had a more "normal" message more than a week earlier which read

Dear Family Historian,

We have reviewed your recent transcription comment for 1911 census
submitted on Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:59:15 +0100

Record Description: LATCHMORE THOMAS WILLIAM ( RG14PN7593 RG78PN372 RD136 SD2 ED4 SN7)

Field: firstname
Original: THOMAS
Suggestion: Catherine

Field: relationship
Original: SON
Suggestion: Head

Field: sex
Original: M
Suggestion: F

On this occasion, we agree that there was an error in the transcription.

We have checked your suggestion against the original image to decide on the
correct information to display; you should see the change reflected on the site
within the next 90 days (approx).

Thank you once again for bringing this to our attention and we hope that you
will continue to enjoy using our family history records.

Kind Regards

The findmypast.co.uk team

Our ref: 607762

This was quickly followed by a separate message:

Dear Family Historian,

We have reviewed your recent transcription comment for 1911 census
submitted on Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:59:15 +0100

Record Description: LATCHMORE THOMAS WILLIAM ( RG14PN7593 RG78PN372 RD136 SD2 ED4 SN7)

Field: ageinyears
Original: 28
Suggestion: 64

On this occasion, we agree that there was an error in the transcription.

We have checked your suggestion against the original image to decide on the
correct information to display; you should see the change reflected on the site
within the next 90 days (approx).

Thank you once again for bringing this to our attention and we hope that you
will continue to enjoy using our family history records.

Kind Regards

The findmypast.co.uk team

Our ref: 607763

What appears to have happened is that a single set of corrections relating to a single totally incorrectly typed line has been split into separate sections - possibly to be handled by different people at different times - which is about the most inefficient and inaccurate way of handling such corrections, and the most likely to lead to misunderstandings which infuriate the customer.

By the time the third set of corrections was dealt with, over a week after the first, it may be that the first corrections have already been made on the master copy (but not online) - and the correction has become ambiguous. However you only have to look at the original image and the transcription to see what I was reporting and there should have been no difficulty in a competent person making the requested amendment rather than leaving a blatant wrong entry on the system and sending out a standard "You, O valued customer, are an idiot" letter.

I will be making a complaint to FindMy Past (by means of a copy of this blog) and will append their reply later should I get one. However I will just list some of the other changes I have requested over the last few months. In general I think the fact that they correct errors is excellent - but their proforma communication is not ideal.

First the majority have been unconditionally accepted:

Field	Error	Suggestion	Action/comment
First Name	Donkin	Dolfin	Accepted
First Name	[blank]	Major	Accepted
First name	Pecy	Percy	Accepted
Last Name	Ackinson	Dickinson	Accepted
Last Name	Burfield	Busfield	Accepted
Last Name	Crommerti	Crommerlin	Accepted
Last Name	Foshett	Foskett	Accepted
Last Name	Foskett	Forskett	Accepted
Last Name	Himpson	Hampton	Accepted
Last Name	Mamwaring	Mainwaring	Accepted
House Name	Cheap ... Farm	Cheap Side Farm	Accepted
Occupation	[blank]	Carman	Mistranscription Accepted
Town Born	Walford	Watford	Accepted
Town Born	Richmondworth	Rickmansworth	Accepted
Town Born	...	Ringstead	Accepted
Town Born	...	Tiverton	Accepted
Town Born	Shoreditch	Narbeth	Mistranscription Accepted
Town Born	Rochfortt	Rochford	Accepted
Town Born	...	Datchworth	Accepted
County born	Middlesex	Herts	Accepted
County Born	Gherts	Herts	Accepted
County Born	Middlesex	Hertfordshire	Mistranscription Accepted

In many of the cases the original wrong transcription was what one might expect from a comparative beginner, with limited knowledge of English place and personal names struggling with unclear handwriting. It should be realised that all that was being corrected is the transcription, and that was all I requested. In the case of "Dolfin" that is how it is written - although I know the individual was called "Dolphin". 

However the three "mistranscription" (all on the same page) involved copying the wrong line. In another case, not mentioned above,  the house name "Golden Cross Public House" had been incorrectly "dittoed" over several pages and while it was "Accepted" I don't know if it was accepted for all the wrong entries or just for the household I mentioned.

For a number of other amendments they agreed that the transcription was wrong but suggested that my alternative was also wrong. In such cases they can't be bothered to tell you what they think it says - and as I know what is correct I can't be bothered to check back up to 90 days later to see what change they have made.

County born	Herefordshire	Hertfordshire	As a matter of policy they do NOT accurately transcribe county names and they clearly think the word on the original is not "Herefordshire" or "Hertfordshire" I wonder which county they are going to use. Perhaps they think it is a county with a similar name such as Kent or Wilts (both of which if written badly can be confused with Herts) - but they can't be bothered to tell me. After all I am only a customer who is trying to help them.
Occupation	...	Tanner Currier & 50 Men	No idea why they didn't like about my suggestion, perhaps I should have put a comma after Tanner?
Occupation	'Master Tenner Employing 18 Men And Boys'	Master Tanner ...	I simply used ... to indicate the same as they have - and there may be no disagreement.
Occupation	...	Watchmaker & Jeweller employing 1 man & 3 boys	I have no idea what they didn't like about this. The original was a scrawl and the original transcriber gave up. While some of the individual letters are unclear the word shapes and meaning fit and they should have been able to identify some words correctly
Town Born	...	Cowbridge	No idea what they didn't like about this one. Perhaps they did like it but as I had made two corrections for the same household the proforma letter didn't allow them to make a proper reply.
First Name	Short	Shott	I know what they are objecting to. - and they will be recording this at "Sholt" because the cross on the final "t" misses connecting with the previous letter by about a pixel on the scan.

In only one case has there been an outright disagreement. The original name field ended with the abbreviation "Jr" - for junior - and the last name was recorded as "Anscombe Jr" which would not matter if the search routines found it if you searched for "Anscombe"  - but of course they don't. My comment was that their policy made the return useless if you were carrying out a routine search according to their instructions. If they had replied thanking me for pointing out the failings in their search program, and suggesting it would be investigated. (As I taught about the design of database software at University level I think I am capable of pointing out design faults when I see them.)

I have just looked further on this point. Anscombe is not a very common surname so I took the 1891 census and a more usual surname and found double barreled "surnames" where Junior was recorded as JN JNR, JR, JUN, JUNIOR, JUNR while Senior was recorded as SEN, SENIOR, SENR, SNR and SR. I also found the  following tagged onto the last name BA, DD, JP, MA and MP and there may well be others. It was interesting that a similar search for the forename did not come up with a single Admiral, Captain, Doctor, Dr, General, Miss, Mr, Mrs, Private or Sir - suggesting that leading titles are removed from first names but not trailing titles from last names. It could be that the "Major" amendment reported above was due to the first name being omitted because it was a title. as the writing was clear enough.

In addition searches for single word surnames such as JUN and SEN revealed many more stupidities - often with the rest of the household being given the JUN and SEN surname although the ditto clearly referred to the proper surname.

I have working with censuses (originally from the original books) for over 35 years and I am well aware of the problems - the problem here is that combination of the search routine design, the instructions to the customers, the instructions for the indexers, the failure of the indexers to recognise ordinary everyday English titles, and the "proforma" reply suggesting there is not a problem gives the impression that FindMyPast are only interested in giving a cheapjack service.