Just a transcription grumble!

[Megan Roberts]

My original post was just a grumble (!) but of course what it and all the responses illustrate is that people should never solely rely on someone else's transcription and wherever possible always look at the original documents.

[timbo58]

The majority of transcriptions we see for indexing purposes are done abroad in countries where English is a second language at best, that coupled with no geographical or historical vernacular knowledge is a recipe for disaster with the more complex handwritten sources.
MH106* will, I am quite sure, be a case in point, since Ancestry now have the licence to digitise these images along with an index.
Since FWR has an intimate knowledge of what these contain and has fully transcribed well over a million of them it'll be very telling to compare the 2 offerings side by side in future.

*Military Hospitals admission/discharge register WWI

[David Tuson]

As a transcriber myself, I understand the importance of transcribing EXACTLY what is on the original document (handwriting allowing), and not interpreting the information or applying 'common sense'. The phrases used, inaccuracies written and method of documentation is just as much a part of our history as the information itself.

I am also a transcriber and we do have to transcribe what is on the image - but to my mind the problem lies in the interpretation of the handwriting. I have encountered numerous instances where capital "L" and "S" are written exactly the same; or lower case "n" and "u" are indistinguishable. We have to make a judgement call which the verifier may or may not agree with.
I have learned that it is essential to get the image for any ancestor that I am researching and then make my own assuptions of the handwriting