Talk:World Archives Project: Tax & Rent Records Perth, Scotland
From Ancestry.com Wiki
Feel free to add to or edit information in this discussion tab as necessary. Please take time to become familiar with the General Keying Standards and be sure to read all instructions on the main project page. (Please note that in case of a discrepancy, project level instructions always trump general keying standards.)
Extra Keying Helps
Common Keying Errors Found by Reviewers
- Putting titles etc in the name fields. Ie the first name will not be "Duke of" and the last name will not be "Atholl" (The family name is actually Murray).
The correct way to enter the Duke of Atholl is to dump the whole thing into the Prefix field. Per project instructions.
- Keying place names or lands in the name fields.
- Assuming a proprietor/tenant relationship when not specified by the record.
- Failing to read the fine print. There are usually names therein that need to be keyed.
Questions and Answers
If you have a keying question that is not answered on the project page or in any of the information above, click “EDIT” and ask it here. (If you click on Rich Editor you won't have to worry about formatting your entry.) Then click “WATCH” at the top right on this page and you will be notified via email when an update has been made.
Q: I have just come across a new tax roll page format. One column is headed 'Proprietors' and the next is headed 'Agents or Factors'. The second column has a far smaller number of names in it, but the names are of individuals (e.g. James Stewart tobaccanist) rather than companies or solicitors. Do I key the names in the second column as Proprietors or Tenants? Or should I miss them out entirely?
A: The Official ruling is Agents and Factors should not be keyed. --Paulmd199 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Q: I have just started on these and wonder if someone can advise me: should I be listing the position that these people held as their prefix - a lot of the records have 'Deacon' 'Dean of Guild' etc before the given names and I have started including these as their prefix, but wonder if this is correct. Apologies if this has been answered before, but I couldn't find it. Many thanks for any advice.
A: Yes, these are prefixes. Though Guild is typically spelt Gild in many of these records. --Paulmd199 16:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Q: I have been working on these records for a while now and I realised yesterday that many of the pages I'm working on are organised alphabetically by given name. For example the current page starts the W section with 'Walter Jack' and then gives four more surnames in alphabetical order before moving to 'William Austin' and then a further list of surnames. From the pages I've done recently, it's obvious that where the given name is not listed, it could be copied from the cell above. (i.e. the first five entries should all have the given name 'Walter'; the surnames following 'William Austin' clearly all belong to men called 'William'). So far I've followed the instructions and marked the given name fields blank where the name isn't actually listed but surely it would be useful to include the given name where the same given name obviously applies to all the surnames in the section. Please advise.
A: I've seen these pages too. I think fill in the given names where appropriate. --Paulmd199 17:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Q: I see quite a few crossed out records. Should I key the records or skip to the next record?
A: Enter what you can of the crossed out record.
Q: If the proprietor is given as "Heirs of John Smith" or "Mr. John Smith heirs" (on a newer-style page), should the proprietor first/last name fields be marked blank, should "Heirs of" be a prefix (or "heirs" a suffix) and "John Smith" be entered in the proprietor first/last name fields, or should the prefix/suffix be left blank and just "John Smith" be entered in the proprietor first/last name fields?
A: Drop "Heirs of" and simply key John Smith. --Paulmd199 06:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Q: I've seen a few entries here and there (on newer-style pages) where the Proprietor is given simply as "Heritors". What does that mean, and am I correct that the proprietor name fields should be marked blank in that instance?
Q: I have a case of "John McKinnon, Farmer, Blairgowrie per David Mitchell, Banker, Blairgowrie" (for a parish page that isn't Blairgowrie), followed by "The Lay Salmon Fisheries Company Ltd, per Harry Robb, Secretary, St. Roberts Bank, Perth". Is the name after "per" always dropped, as is true for the Perth Valuations project?
A: Yes, follow the Valuation rules for pages that look very similar to the typeset valuations.
Q: Adding a wrinkle to the above question, this is one of those pages with the place name and tax data on the left page and the proprietor's name on the right page; these names come from a block of small text under the large name "Sir John Stewart Richardson Bar't" and in a different hand; from the text they appear to be proprietors (or, less likely, tenants) of sections of Sir John's land. Who should be keyed as proprietor(s) & who (if anyone) should be keyed as tenants?
A: Without a clear indication that somebody is a tenant (either by column headers, or language), key all names as proprietors.
Q: How to Key in Tenant Information. Please advise how I should key in Tenant information that states "Edward Smith formerly John Armstrong". It seems that Edward Smith is the current tenant and John Armstrong was the previous tenant. Do I key in two separate lines? Thank you.
A: Yes, that would be two separate lines. However, on the older records, you will rarely see tenants. It will usually be all proprietors. If there is a tenant, You will see one of several key phrases: "occupied by," "let to," "tenented by", "liferenter", "leased to." These will usually be in the fine print. --Paulmd199 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Customer 12/24/2010 02:26 AM
- I've encountered a book that this is different from all the other books so far
- COUNTY OF PERTH, BY ACT OF THE ESTATES OF PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND,
- 4th August, 1649; Contrasted With The
- VALUATION OF THE SAME COUNTY,
- 1st January, 1835.
- COUNTY OF PERTH, BY ACT OF THE ESTATES OF PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND,
On the left page is the 1650 version, and the right is the 1835 Version
It is Identical to the book found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=M03pAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
My plan for these is two sections, Left with year 1650, right with 1835. So far so good. Problem is not all pages are thus labeled, making an interesting problem. The Book cover isn't labeled with a year either. Is there a way to let your Processing people know about this reel, so the years are faithfully recorded where they should go?
Since there's a near guarantee that since the arbitrators will have not have seen this context they will undo my pretty sectioning. Leaving theresult less useful.
Perth tax and rent - interesting book -roll 964269
Discussion Thread Response (Daniel) 12/30/2010 02:37 PM Paul,You can either try to key the set as you are doing. Or you can cancel the set with the explanation that it may be different information for our developers to look at.
--Paulmd199 21:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Q: Hello! I had a quick question regarding multiple instances of the same name on a given image. I know from reading the available project-specific information, that we need only key the name once. My question is, can we simply key all
names as-is, or should we not be keying the same name more than once? Would keying the name every time it appears be considered a keying error? I ask because It's been easier to key every name, every time than to go back and see if the name has already appeared. Sorry, this is long-winded..but I'd rather be sure. Last part of the question; I think this is relevant to the first. Are "Dittos" just a reference to the above; the same person/proprietor written in more than one place? Thanks in advance! appreciate the guidance.
A: I'll leave you with a few thoughts on duplicates. The idea is to eliminate redundant lines while still accounting for all unique individuals. So if two people have the same name, but there is something that distinguishes them, you will want not want to eliminate that line. For example John Smith, the baker, is probably a different person from John Smith, the sailor, and John Smith's relict is yet a third person. So you would key 3 John Smiths. This happens frequently on alphabetized lists.
On the other hand, if there are indications that a redundant line really is the same person, you may eliminate the duplicate. Attempting this on long unsorted lists can be onerous, and actually harder to review. So You need not overdo attempting to eliminate every duplicate in the document. It's best to limit the scope to a dozen or so lines.
A ditto is a reference to the above. It does indicate the same person written again. --Paulmd199 07:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Q: I would appreciate it if someone could help me with two characters I have started to see on a regular basis. I have studied the sample images here, and the Scottish handwriting samples but have been unable to identify these characters; please see below. Thanks!
A: That reads "W & J Chalmers do," "do" is a form of ditto. Also of note: I and J are exactly the same character. When given as an initial, go with J; the ratio of J to I names is at least 30:1. --Paulmd199 15:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Old form, c 1819, Tenants, when present may be identified by one of several key words. "Tenanted by," "Let to", "occupied by," "liferented" and similar language. Proprietors may be specifically be identified by the phrase "belonging to" Caution: the phrase may also be used in the form LandA belonging to LandB, in which case it would be omitted. Without a specific identifier, it is assumed that persons are proprietors.