Boards.ie

SophieLockhart · 03-01-2019, 20:00

Hi,

Does anyone know how long it takes from when you submit a correction, to when they actually update the site? Thanks.

kanadams123 · 03-01-2019, 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by SophieLockhart

Hi,

Does anyone know how long it takes from when you submit a correction, to when they actually update the site? Thanks.

A long time.

There is only one person going through all the sugested corrections. (John Grenham...i think)

Just don't submit the form more than once..he will get to it eventually!!!

**pinkypinky** · 03-01-2019, 20:37

If you've only recently submitted it, then he won't even be working on it. Afaik, he's working on a defined batch with a cut-off point.

Never forget, Eoin MacNeill was the secretary of the Garlic League.

Also if you read the comments on that post, you'll see JG was working on a contract with the NAI until July 2018. I don't know if they renewed it or if he was finished then.

Tombom1 · 03-01-2019, 21:47

I dont know why the didnt even upload the ones they didnt even microfilm yet before they start the corrections.Very annoying i have the 1901 though.

**pinkypinky** · 03-01-2019, 22:13

Not sure what you mean but fairly certain it can be summed up by "not enough money".

SophieLockhart · 03-01-2019, 22:52

Just one man?? Wow that's amazing, sounds like pure slavery! Thanks for replies.

**pinkypinky** · 04-01-2019, 09:30

Well, he is being paid, and tendered for the job, so presumably knew what he was getting into.

tabbey · 04-01-2019, 23:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkypinky

Not sure what you mean but fairly certain it can be summed up by "not enough money".

He means that the census forms which are missing from the microfilm and therefore also the online coverage.

This would be a lot more difficult, because somebody would have to go through every household return (probably a million or more) to see if it was on the microfilm and online.

They were omitted in error, so the NAI only become aware of their absence if the public ask to see the paper forms.

Jellybaby1 · 05-01-2019, 00:43

I've just checked a couple of my reported corrections and three I sent in in 2014 and 2015 have been corrected but another in 2014 has not yet been corrected. I won't send it in again, just in case Mr. Genealogy is prompted to reply with a "WTF" on his blog! Got to keep him purring whilst he does this important work. Someone fetch him a cuppa quick!

Hermy · 05-01-2019, 01:34

I've just noticed that one of two corrections I submitted for Mary Baptista Pelly has finally been dealt with.

She was mistranscsribed as Bagot William Pelly in 1901 and as Mary B?phi? Josephi? in 1911.

Something else I noticed a while back was that the number of Pelly's has changed. There are now 63 for both years but prior to corrections there were 64 in 1901 and 63 in 1911. Thankfully the transcripts as they originally appeared still remain unchanged at Ancestry so I was able to make sure the correction that was made was correct.

SophieLockhart · 01-02-2019, 23:49

I was interested in finding the youngest married entries but there are so many mistakes it's impossible.

Look at this page eg http://www.census.nationalarchives.i...=&pageSize=100

and there are 100 eleven and 13 year olds allegedly married! So plenty of work for the corrections officials...

**pinkypinky** · 02-02-2019, 10:04

Hmm, well, I just looked at the first person on that list and the transcription reflects what is written. It's almost certainly wrong but they can't change what's written on the census. Same with the second entry.

03-01-2019, 20:00	#1
SophieLockhart Registered User Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 55 Adverts \| Friends	Census correction Hi, Does anyone know how long it takes from when you submit a correction, to when they actually update the site? Thanks.

05-01-2019, 01:34	#10
Hermy Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,634 Adverts \| Friends	I've just noticed that one of two corrections I submitted for Mary Baptista Pelly has finally been dealt with. She was mistranscsribed as Bagot William Pelly in 1901 and as Mary B?phi? Josephi? in 1911. Something else I noticed a while back was that the number of Pelly's has changed. There are now 63 for both years but prior to corrections there were 64 in 1901 and 63 in 1911. Thankfully the transcripts as they originally appeared still remain unchanged at Ancestry so I was able to make sure the correction that was made was correct. Last edited by Hermy; 05-01-2019 at 01:40.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2019, 20:37	#3
pinkypinky Moderator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,640 Adverts \| Friends Mod: Genealogy, ZTest	If you've only recently submitted it, then he won't even be working on it. Afaik, he's working on a defined batch with a cut-off point. Never forget, Eoin MacNeill was the secretary of the Garlic League. Also if you read the comments on that post, you'll see JG was working on a contract with the NAI until July 2018. I don't know if they renewed it or if he was finished then.

03-01-2019, 21:47	#4
Tombom1 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2018 Posts: 39 Adverts \| Friends	I dont know why the didnt even upload the ones they didnt even microfilm yet before they start the corrections.Very annoying i have the 1901 though.

03-01-2019, 22:13	#5
pinkypinky Moderator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,640 Adverts \| Friends Mod: Genealogy, ZTest	Not sure what you mean but fairly certain it can be summed up by "not enough money".

03-01-2019, 22:52	#6
SophieLockhart Registered User Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 55 Adverts \| Friends	Just one man?? Wow that's amazing, sounds like pure slavery! Thanks for replies.

04-01-2019, 09:30	#7
pinkypinky Moderator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,640 Adverts \| Friends Mod: Genealogy, ZTest	Well, he is being paid, and tendered for the job, so presumably knew what he was getting into.

05-01-2019, 00:43	#9
Jellybaby1 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 6,700 Adverts \| Friends	I've just checked a couple of my reported corrections and three I sent in in 2014 and 2015 have been corrected but another in 2014 has not yet been corrected. I won't send it in again, just in case Mr. Genealogy is prompted to reply with a "WTF" on his blog! Got to keep him purring whilst he does this important work. Someone fetch him a cuppa quick!

01-02-2019, 23:49	#11
SophieLockhart Registered User Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 55 Adverts \| Friends	I was interested in finding the youngest married entries but there are so many mistakes it's impossible. Look at this page eg http://www.census.nationalarchives.i...=&pageSize=100 and there are 100 eleven and 13 year olds allegedly married! So plenty of work for the corrections officials...

02-02-2019, 10:04	#12
pinkypinky Moderator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,640 Adverts \| Friends Mod: Genealogy, ZTest	Hmm, well, I just looked at the first person on that list and the transcription reflects what is written. It's almost certainly wrong but they can't change what's written on the census. Same with the second entry.