Ancestry transcriptions
 

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...coff=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.

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.

These are quite good fun:

http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/47...nSearchResults

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)

My guess is Nicholas - is that correct?

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.

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.