Genealogy Chat

I accidentally came across family members while looking for someone else. I hadn't found these people when searching earlier. The original census is a bit messy and hard to read and they transcribed the surname incorrectly. How can I have this corrected?

Which site have you looked at the census on? If it is Genes then i don't think you can do anything as Genes don't hold the records.

On Findmypast there is a method of reporting an error in transcription.

If you want to give the name and census year I can have a look at Findmypast and see how the name is transcribed there.

Kath. x

hi 1861 was looking up Thomas Kay, b 1790, High Bridge St, Newcastle on Tyne. That wasn't the problem. I found Eleanor, Ralph, Jane A. and George Mole living there but the name transcribed was Moh. No wonder I couldn't find them

Do you want me to report the mis-transcription on Findmypast or can you do this yourself?

Kath. x

Don't know if you already have it but this is Eleanor's marriage:-

First name(s) Eleanor
Last name Kay
Sex Female
Marriage year 1831
Marriage date 27 Jul 1831
Place Gateshead Fell
Spouse first name(s) Ralph
Spouse last name Mole
Groom's first name(s) Ralph
Groom's last name Mole
Groom's parish -
Bride's first name(s) Eleanor
Bride's last name Kay
Bride's parish -
County Durham
Country England

Kath. x

Kath is the transcript correct on FMP???

Because GR's access to the censuses is from FMP!

No, the transcript on Findmypast has Moh. I will report it for you

Kath. x

The transcript is correct on Ancestry ...............

Ralph Mole 30
Eleanor Mole 28
Thomas Mole 9
Margaret Mole 6
Ralph Mole 4

It is Mole on Ancestry.

I take it Eleanor is the daughter of Thomas Kay.

Name: Thomas Kay
Age: 71
Estimated Birth Year: 1790
Relation: Head
Gender: Male
Where born: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Civil Parish: St Andrew
Town: Newcastle upon Tyne
County/Island: Northumberland
Country: England
Street address:

Occupation:

Condition as to marriage:

View image
Registration district: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Sub-registration district: St Andrew
ED, institution, or vessel: 17
Neighbors:
Household schedule number: 13
Piece: 3821
Folio: 20
Page Number: 2
Household Members:
Name Age
Thomas Kay 71
Eallonor Mole 48
Ralph Mole 24
George Mole 18
Jane Mole 12
Margret Warby 24
Matilda Warby 3
Thomas James Warby 9/12

Kath ..............

strange

I've just looked it up on FMP ......... and the transcript is showing MOLE for me

????????????????

Are you looking at the 1861 census Sylvia as it definitely says Moh for me? This is the transcription:-

1861 England, Wales & Scotland Census Transcription
House Shop, 63, High Bridge, St Andrews, Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumberland, England

First name(s) Last name Relationship Marital status Sex Age Birth year Occupation Birth place

Thomas Kay Head Widower Male 71 1790 Printer Newcastle on Tyne, Northumberland, England Transcription
... Moh Daughter Married Female 48 1813 - Newcastle on Tyne, Northumberland, England Transcription
Ralph Moh Grandson Unmarried Male 24 1837 Blacksmith Newcastle on Tyne, Northumberland, England Transcription
George Moh Grandson Unmarried Male 18 1843 Printer Newcastle on Tyne, Northumberland, England Transcription
Jane Moh Granddaughter Unmarried Female 12 1849 - Newcastle on Tyne, Northumberland, England Transcription
Margaret Warby ... Married Female 24 1837 - Newcastle on Tyne, Northumberland, England Transcription
Matilda Warby ... - Female 3 1858 - Newcastle on Tyne, Northumberland, England Transcription
Thomas James Warby ... - Male 9 1852 - Newcastle on Tyne, Northumberland, England Transcription


Kath. x

Trudy has a thread about the Mole's, when she was looking for Ralph and Eleanor's son Thomas

https://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/ancestors/thread/1373030

I think Sylvia has posted the 1841 - my kind of trick!

greyghost ...........

you're correct.

I did look at the 1841

I'll just creep away for now :-D

We've all been there Sylvia.....................so you can come back now :-D :-D :-D

Kath. x

lol I am so glad I am not the only one to get confused. I would like you to correct it if you can Kath. Hi greyghost, I am still hunting and will gradually fill in the blanks.

I sent in the correction to Findmypast. It says that it can take up to 90 days for them to check it and change the transcription if they agree with what is given.

Kath. x

They have waited all these years to be found, I'm thinking they wont mind the wait. Thank you Kath, then others can find them.

Trudy ...........

we've all had weird transcriptions ............ I had to ask on here before someone found a Hayhurst for me

It was transcribed as Porst :-D

........... not to mention those lost completely until one decides to 'walk the street' and look at all the neighbours and find the wanted family although the transcription has them logged under the surname of the people living next door.

I am used to searching using just first names and 'home in' on unusual -looking surname transcriptions which might just be possibles, but some I have still to find. I'm sure that my great grandmother is still hiding somewhere in Southampton in 1861, but I can't find her.

Gwyn ..............

like you (before searching the census), I use a first name (hopefully one of them has a more uncommon one), birth year +/2, mother's first name, father's first name, and sometimes also a sibling's first name.

That's actually how the Hayhurst family was found

But it gets harder if they are a family that moves around a lot!