|
#1
31-03-14, 12:07
|
|||
|
|||
LDS transcriptions
I had been looking for the birth/baptism of a John Giles Rogers in Ancestry's Birmingham PRs without success. I found a transcript on FamilySearch
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NYY1-93P so, armed with the details, went back to Ancestry and found him here - http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/49...8_317002-00355 (bottom of column 3) indexed by Ancestry as John Giles. There's also a (probable) sister Mary Ann baptised at the same time. I wouldn't have been able to make out the John Giles from the image without the FamilySearch knowledge and I definitely can't see the birth date they have transcribed. My questions are - Did LDS transcribers always work from the film rather than the original? Would Ancestry have filmed their own set of Birmingham PRs? (I had assumed they were using the original LDS ones but can't work out how to tell  ).
|
|
#2
31-03-14, 13:19
|
||||
|
||||
|
Interesting questions. I can't find anything so far on ancestry's website to say whether they used the LDS film either. The index entry on FamilySearch shows a film number 813713 which comes up in their catalogue as Baptisms, 1780-1812 Marriages 1780-1812 Burials 1780-1812. On ancestry the section with that baptism in is 1795-1812 which suggests to me that they are maybe not using the LDS film. But maybe they just split it up into smaller chunks for indexing?
Anyway, Ancestry also has the images of an index to the St Philip's baptisms which shows John's middle name more clearly: Index to Baptisms This also comes up in FamilySearch's catalogue but has film number 813715. I don't know whether FamilySearch's transcribers would have been able to check unclear names on there. It is possible that the actual film of the PR's is clearer on a microfilm reader than the scanned version on a computer, or that FamilySearch's transcribers had it on a computer with software that enhanced it - I know that when we are transcribing for ancestry (World Archives Project) there are image tools available which you don't get on their normal viewer. I can't remember offhand whether you get something similar in FamilySearch's transcription software and I don't want to load it just now, but I bet it does have something similar.
|
|
#3
31-03-14, 13:22
|
||||
|
||||
|
I do some transcribing for the LDS (it's still going on), and you work from the scanned film on your own computer, using a program that allows you to enlarge the part you're working on and adjust the brightness/contrast.
I assume Ancestry's transcribers must use a similar program, but I was surprised recently when looking at Warwickshire records to find that the LDS transcriptions were often much better than Ancestry's, even though the LDS uses volunteers and Ancestry's transcribers are mostly paid.
|
|
#4
31-03-14, 13:51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks Kite.
The use of tools for enhancing images seems like a very probable explanation. Can you explain how you got to the 813715 film please? It didn't show up in my search results for John Giles and I haven't had occasion to use the current "improved" version of the LDS search much until helping friend with her tree now.
|
|
#5
31-03-14, 13:54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry Mary - didn't see your post.
Thank you. I think I'll have to make time to get myself properly up to speed with the current LDS search as you have found their Warwickshire transcriptions more accurate.
|
|
#6
31-03-14, 13:54
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
https://familysearch.org/search/cata...tory%20Library
|
|
#7
31-03-14, 14:00
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ah right, thank you Kite. Thought I must have been doing something wrong as I'm so rusty!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
