Ancestry transcriptions

[ElizabethHerts]

My search for early Jeffcoat ancestors is taking me into Warwickshire, and I am using Ancestry's invaluable Warwickshire PRs. However, the transcriptions are rubbish.

I'm searching for a birth/baptism for John Jeffcoat (and variant spellings) for the time frame 1640 to 1665. I haven't found anything that has got me excited yet, and I'm searching using Jef*.

This one caught my eye as I had exhausted the obvious Jeffcoat ones.

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=WarwickEarlyParish&new=1&MSAV=1&msT=1&gss=angs-d&gsfn=John&gsln=Jef*&msbdy=1650&dbOnly=_C000000F|_C000000F_x&uidh=xt1&msbdp=10&hovR=1&rank=1&pcat=34&fh=3&h=4736856&recoff=6+7+30+42

Firstly, I noticed that the surname is in fact Jeffcot, not Jeffres.
Secondly, I think the boy is called Job, and not John!

It means I shall have to trawl through a lot more now, because I can't trust what they have put.

[kiterunner]

Yes, he is Job, and the surname is Jeffcot. I'm sure I have made some mistakes in my FreeREG transcriptions while getting used to the handwriting etc but ancestry are notorious for them.

[Phoenix]

These are quite good fun:

http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/4790/40761_308512-00172/1502694?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk %2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3dsurreyearly%26rank%3d1%26new% 3d1%26MSAV%3d1%26msT%3d1%26gss%3dangs-d%26gsln%3dbroomfield%26msdpn__ftp%3dSurrey%252c%2 bEngland%26msdpn%3d5286%26msdpn_PInfo%3d7-%257c0%257c0%257c3257%257c3251%257c0%257c0%257c0%2 57c5286%257c0%257c0%257c%26cpxt%3d1%26catBucket%3d rt%26uidh%3d9vh%26cp%3d11%26gl%3d%26gst%3d%26hc%3d 50%26fh%3d50%26fsk%3dBEEtIrEIgAAStgAB-43-hQ-61-&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults

I was looking for Broomfields.

Joane Wolfertz = Joane Wakefeild
Dorothy Beverage=Dorothy Veere
Jane Omlid = Jane Gyles
Jane Cottons=Jane Collyns

but Elathotab Bromfeld is my favourite. I can often guess what it is supposed to be but this one foxed me (and they are not even a Broomfield:D)

[crawfie]

My guess is Nicholas - is that correct?

[Phoenix]

Yep - and Bromfeld should be Brymsted.

I know the handwriting is challenging (and I have read Worsfold as Broomfield before now) but a whole page does give the transcriber a chance to contrast and compare.

[Nell]

I think Ancestry should give subscribers a discount based on the transcription errors they report. Sometimes you can just see what the name is meant to be, without even looking at the image.