FreeBMD marriage index error?

From FreeBMD...

"Searching FreeBMD for potential spouses

David J Grimshaw...

Snip

Prior to 1852, up to 4 marriages were entered on each page of the
register. After that (with a few exceptions) there are two marriages per
page. Each page of the register is identified by the District, Volume
and Page.

FreeBMD provides a facility that makes use of this fact to help you
narrow down the search for a spouse. The FreeBMD search results give the
District, the register Volume (Vol column) and the Page (Page column)
within that volume. If you click on the Page a search will be performed
to show you all the entries on that page.

Hence the search could result in the names up to 8 or 4 people
(depending on the year), and any 4 or 2 of these could be the spouse of
the person you are interested in. There is no way, from the index, to
tell which person is actually the spouse. If you have no other
information to go on (e.g. cross referencing a Census) the only option
is to buy the marriage certificate from the GRO."

The above gives me the impression that couples should be found on the
same page.

From the 1851 census, I find Thomas Leslie (c1822 Scotland) and Mary
(nee Mattinson, c1827 Newcastle T)of Gateshead, have a daughter Hannah
c1848.

I subsequently searched the marriage index and found:
Thomas Leslie, Newcastle T, q3 1847, 25/321 and
Mary Mattinson, Newcastle T, q3 1847, 25/328.
But viewing the image for Thomas, I find quiet clearly XXV/328.

I'm hoping this must be a transcription error and is likely to be my
couple?

Martin Brown...

Looks like it. Ancestry image also shows XXV/328

Worth reporting any transcription quirks like this to FreeBMD.
They fix faults (and that makes the indexing more accurate).

I have had a few where mismatched couples appear on the same page too.
Typically a transcription error causes some other page to have an odd
number or people on it (and too many of one gender).

You can never be sure who married who out of the couples on a given page
which is a bit annoying when they are all called Mary or John.

Given the cursive script style and some of the scan quality it is
amazing to me they can read names reliably at all.

Martin Brown

David J Grimshaw...

Dear Mark,
First of all this news group is not the place for Transcription errors.
If as you say you have found one then and you have evidence of this then
report it to the Free BMD co-ordinators.
As I do not know how experienced you are with computers I will give you
a guide.
To submit a correction this can be done by going back to the listing in
question and clicking on Glasses which indicate that the image is online
and once that screen comes up you will find the following statement "If
you have a correction to this entry, please click here."
Before clicking on this copy into your computer memory the following
ACDB-03/1847M3-L-0890.jpg which is the scan image file name as you will
need this can be done by clicking on the left mouse button if set up for
a right handed person most are, keep the button depressed until all the
file name is highlighted then press the right mouse button ans select
copy, you have now placed this information in your computer memory for
latter use.
Next click on the "click here" link you will need to find the following
statement on the next page this being "Please confirm that the
correction you are about to submit complies with these points, and that
you have viewed a copy of the index to confirm the validity of the
change you are requesting." click in the tick box and proceed to the
Current Details and corrections part of the page.
Put in the correct page number this you have confirmed as being 328.
In the source comment box paste what you put into memory earlier this
being ACDB-03/1847M3-L-0890.jpg by clicking into the source comment box
and then right click and select paste and type in , Free BMD scanned
image online., the result ought to be "ACDB-03/1847M3-L-0890.jpg, Free
BMD scanned image online."
The rest you ought to be able to do.

I hope this has been of some help.

Mark...

Thanks David, it was, but it wasn't my intention as such to report a
transcription error; only ascertain the likelihood of it being so and
hopefully verifying that it might be the couple I am looking for.

Dave Mayall...

Well, it seems to me that you have established that it *is* a transcription
error.

That being the case, you *really* ought to report it as such, in order that
we can correct the error!

Peter Goodey...

I don't see the problem. You had already ascertained that it WAS a
transcription error! There are both on page 328! You can report this to
FreeBMD through the usual machinery and order the certificate in the usual
way.

David.

Charani...

This isn't a transcription error per se. The original volumes gave
the references as Roman numerals (XXV in your case). All the
transcriptions have translated those into figures (25 in your case).
When the handwritten volumes are replaced with typewritten ones, the
volume numbers are shown in figures rather than the Roman numerals.

My guess is that the transcription software doesn't handle Roman
numerals :))

Dave Mayall...

Perish the thought!

Charani...

The transcription software accepts roman numerals, and the database code
carries out a normalisation routine such that we hold both the original and
converted versions;

David J Grimshaw...

Snip
Charani,
I would recommend that you read the original message.
As the sender clearly gave all the facts and it was not the volume
number XXV or 25 that was in conflict with what he had found on the image.
What he has quoted is Beyond doubt a transcription error and does need
reporting.

==========================

Charani...

8>< coding snipped

sub NormaliseVolume ($) {
my $volume=shift;
$volume=~s/IIII/IV/;
my $arabic_volume;
if($volume=~/^([XVIxvi]+)([a-h?]*)$/) {
$arabic_volume=arabic($1).$2;
} else {
$arabic_volume=$volume;
}
return $arabic_volume;
}
==========================

The search always returns the normalised volume, but clicking on info will
show what was actually in the index

If you search for William MAYALL, died Mar 1838, it shows volume as "20",
but clicking on info will give you "XX"

Charani...

So I was right that it isn't a transcription error per se.

Dave Mayall...

You are indeed.

Charani...

Cooooo

It is a programatic rendering of a roman numeral into an arabic numeral.

By doing the conversion in code instead of in the transcriber's head, we cut
out human error.

Charani...

It's easy to misread VI (6) as IV (4) or IX (9) as XI (11). It gets
worse with higher numbers. Just as well the years weren't written in
Roman numerals as well ;))

You should be able to order off either number, but I'd suggest using
the original XXV.

Just in case you aren't familiar with the Roman number system: X = 10,
so XX = 20, V = 5 so XXV = 25.

Mark...

nemo...

In that case, I can help you by quoting a similar example - the marriage
of John Doogood and Mary Ann Greening in 1881.

When I first found them they were shown as being on different pages,
leading to five entries appearing for one page and three for the other.

I reported this and it has now been corrected.

Thanks, but the issue was whether the entry for Thomas Leslie should
read page 321 or 328.