* Text from source general use

[mnschwarz]

Hi,

Super quick question; when adding 'Text from Source' for a given document, should I generally be transcribing exactly as written even if there are obvious errors? EG: A name or address spelt wrong.

Some of the mistakes are decent, such as a name of Marquis instead of Markus. Is this text searchable or is there a reason to have it written one way of the other (if I know for a fact, or have other evidence that it's written wrong)? Thanks!

[David2416]

Hi,

Super quick question; when adding 'Text from Source' for a given document, should I generally be transcribing exactly as written even if there are obvious errors? EG: A name or address spelt wrong.

Some of the mistakes are decent, such as a name of Marquis instead of Markus. Is this text searchable or is there a reason to have it written one way of the other (if I know for a fact, or have other evidence that it's written wrong)? Thanks!

I tend to transcribe as written, as I use the 'Text from Source' as an easy means of reading the data.
In your example I would put my 'correction' in square brackets Marquis[Markus]. Some exceptions though. If a thorn has been used as in 'ye 15t day of ' I would transcribe as ' the15th day of'. If the original is not in English I provide my translation as a note. With older handwriting where there is heavy use of abbreviations I write the word in full. I also attach an image of the original for reference and add notes where there is ambiguity as to the original meaning

I expect others have different conventions.

[mnschwarz]

Thanks David. That's similar to how I've treated it so far which is good to hear but the idea of the [correction] is a good one! Cheers!

I tend to transcribe as written, as I use the 'Text from Source' as an easy means of reading the data.
In your example I would put my 'correction' in square brackets Marquis[Markus]. Some exceptions though. If a thorn has been used as in 'ye 15t day of ' I would transcribe as ' the15th day of'. If the original is not in English I provide my translation as a note. With older handwriting where there is heavy use of abbreviations I write the word in full. I also attach an image of the original for reference and add notes where there is ambiguity as to the original meaning

I expect others have different conventions.

[Peter Collier]

For me, text from source would always be 1:1 transcription . I may sometimes make my own inline note [in square brackets, thus] if I think it is necessary to aid understanding. I think the key point here is I need to report what it actually says, not what I think it should say.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I also record what it actually says, not what I think it should say, using the following conventions:

[ ] to enclose editorial insertions (my notes);
{...} for text I can't decipher. The ... can indicate the number of illegible characters if that can be worked out, or can include my best guess.
<> where I've expanded an abbreviation or a character we no longer use, for example <th>e for þe

[NickWalker]

To use an example I've stated many times before in regards to Ancestral Sources. In my opinion, the source text should be a transcription, so I'd have 'Ag Lab' as the occupation if that was what was stated on the record, but for the occupation fact that is generated from that source I'd record 'Agricultural Labourer'