One of the records seems messed up to me? Hustler / Hastler
Not sure how to put this. Please excuse me.
I clicked on a hint which nicely showed possible person of interest. However its confusing to me, as the name I think should be of the Hustler family in the 1891 census, but FS has it as the Hastler family. I think it has been transposed poorly?
I guess what I would like is someone of more expertise to look at it and then to see if it can be changed if it is wrong. That is IF IM RIGHT. There is always the great likely hood that IM wrong, and confused.
However all of the names match basically in both families, which makes it unlikely to be a different family.
The FS number that I know is true is GS1D-JYS. However since the other record appears to not be connected to anyone, that I can see, I don't know how to show you the comparison accept by cutting and pasting. Unless there is a better way? Below then to be clear is the possible John Hustler record which is currently Hastler. When looking at the original it is very hard to read whether it is an A or a U. So if it is wrong it makes sense why.
I would like to attache the Hastler record to the Hustler record, but am loath to do anything that will be confusing down the road, or Wrong.
Thank you for your assistance.
Regards
Ps I think maybe Occupation Warehouseman Stuff may be Warehouseman Staff. Again confusion on A and U.
Best Answer
-
As you say, the correspondence between family members is almost absolute apart from the slight difference in the spelling of the surname. The fact that FamilySearch has picked it up as a possible match is, in itself, a testimony that the system does not think that the slight difference in the name is that important. Many a time I have had to hunt for census records because the surname spelling has been different.
Personally I would have no hesitation in regarding it as a match.
Incidentally it looks like Hustler is in the original image and not a transcription error.
Remember that in those days many people lacked writing skills. They would state their name to the census enumerator and he would write it down as he heard it. There was little or no scope for him to ask, "How do you spell that?"
As an aside, if you wanted to provide us with a link to the record rather than copying the image, all you need to do is click View Record on the screen that appears when you click the hint on the person page.
0
Answers
-
Right here is a link. I always forget that you can do that. I hope this works.
John Hastler in household of Joshua Hastler, "England and Wales Census, 1891" • FamilySearch
You are right regarding the software's smarts. I am always amazed at how the software does find links even obscure ones. I'm guessing that if I do associate the record the software will not get confused regarding the right name.
I found your comment "Incidentally it looks like Hustler is in the original image and not a transcription error." Interesting. And maybe I dont understand the word Transcription. I assume that the meaning in this case is " A person who takes the written record and copies it into the typed text". In this case I assume that that is what has happened? That is, a human or suppose otherwise, read the name and then typed it out incorrectly. Can you educate me on what you mean, that its not a transcription error?
As always thank you.
0 -
When I refer to a transcription error, I am thinking of the person (or computer) that has transcribed the image in modern times.
If a name is mis-recorded in the original image, I would regard that as a recording error - the enumerator has written it down incorrectly for whatever reason.
0 -
Thanks.
0