I've given up trying to search the transcriptions on Ancestry so set about working my way through the actual images for the place I wanted. Only 106 pages to look through. It was worth it though I found my Frederick Crumb as Robert Frederick Croombe. On the way, I found this little snippet I've attached. The vicar was clearly put out as he added similar notes for an 1853 and an 1860 baptism for the same couple's children. Useful information for me though.
And you'll never find it via the transcriptions I've found the same thing, ploughing through the actual images is far better than using the transcriptions. When I started out on this lark, it was the only thing to do, nothing was transcribed way back then
I totally agree with Ann. As Genealogy websites have become bigger, their transcriptions seem to have become worse, perhaps because they have been farmed out to the cheapest tender. If you know where your ancestors are likely to have lived, this is not so much of a problem, but if they suddenly up sticks and disappear from that particular area, you do tend to rely upon transcriptions more. That said, obviously it is always better to look at the original records if possible, as you can sometimes get wonderful snippets that some incumbents add to the register, such as Muddy Puddle has found, although having Genealogy websites available online does mean you can do your research at your leisure which is a wonderful asset. Janet
No transcription body is totally safe. In the last 24 hours I have been looking for the Marriage for Blackmogs of a John Edsaw and Mary of Fittleworth, Sussex. Their eldest child was Baptized there in 1691. They had a second named Katherine there in 1692, but despite an excellent set of CMB that takes the line back to 1621, they have managed to miss the Baptism of Katherine on FreeReg. They, however provided the clue as to the Marriage at Steyning which FS & the Sussex Marriage Index had as John EDWARD Batch, when what it actually is in the Original Register is John EDWSA Batch:, the following entry also ended in Batch: and Sussex Marriage Index have them both indexed as 'Batch'.
Or, as in my case..from afar! The transcriptions often can give a clue where to find an original, anyway.
