Census Transcription
Replies: 7
Re: Census Transcription
| Denny_Shirer (View posts) | Posted: 5 Jan 2003 6:15AM GMT |
Classification: Query
You stated:
"Are there gigantic problems to creating family trees based just on the census records?"
I can think of one major problem with this, at least for the census records before 1880. They were not proof of relationship, only of residence. If you were to assume every child in a household were siblings you would be making a grave error. Cousins, nieces, nephews and grandchildren often lived in a household and people assuming they are the children of the head of household are the reason we have so many bad Gedcoms floating around.
The later census records improved greatly by adding the relationship to the head but until they started adding the age at marriage and the marriage sequence it was also impossible to tell whether the wife was the mother of the children listed. Even then without something explicitly saying the relationship to both, it is not proof.
Census records are not a primary source of information. They are wonderful starting places but use them only as a secondary source to back up other sources. Sometimes secondary sources are all you have and a preponderance of them can sometimes be used in place of one good primary source but only if they all agree and not all census records do.
The other problem is that many census records can be transcribed many ways. Two people transcribing the same page may come up with many differences. Transcribed census records again are a good starting point, but you should always try to view the image yourself and make up your own mind.
I applaud you for your ambition but there are already census transcription projects being attempted. They are not creating large databases as you suggest but I think that is something that should be left to the individual researcher. I have seen only one attempt by an individual to create a database of all families in an area and that was the Tavenner Collection which is on file at the Balch Library, in Loudoun Co., VA. Mr. Tavenner used tax, marriage and baptism records to track the population of that county from the early 1700's to his present and spent a lifetime in that effort. It would take a considerable time and effort even with today's primary resources to do the same. Secondary sources may be quicker but no where near as reliable for the reasons I mentioned. Few of us have Mr. Tavenner's relentless enthusiasm. I wonder if he would have gotten as much done if he lived when there was TV?
"Are there gigantic problems to creating family trees based just on the census records?"
I can think of one major problem with this, at least for the census records before 1880. They were not proof of relationship, only of residence. If you were to assume every child in a household were siblings you would be making a grave error. Cousins, nieces, nephews and grandchildren often lived in a household and people assuming they are the children of the head of household are the reason we have so many bad Gedcoms floating around.
The later census records improved greatly by adding the relationship to the head but until they started adding the age at marriage and the marriage sequence it was also impossible to tell whether the wife was the mother of the children listed. Even then without something explicitly saying the relationship to both, it is not proof.
Census records are not a primary source of information. They are wonderful starting places but use them only as a secondary source to back up other sources. Sometimes secondary sources are all you have and a preponderance of them can sometimes be used in place of one good primary source but only if they all agree and not all census records do.
The other problem is that many census records can be transcribed many ways. Two people transcribing the same page may come up with many differences. Transcribed census records again are a good starting point, but you should always try to view the image yourself and make up your own mind.
I applaud you for your ambition but there are already census transcription projects being attempted. They are not creating large databases as you suggest but I think that is something that should be left to the individual researcher. I have seen only one attempt by an individual to create a database of all families in an area and that was the Tavenner Collection which is on file at the Balch Library, in Loudoun Co., VA. Mr. Tavenner used tax, marriage and baptism records to track the population of that county from the early 1700's to his present and spent a lifetime in that effort. It would take a considerable time and effort even with today's primary resources to do the same. Secondary sources may be quicker but no where near as reliable for the reasons I mentioned. Few of us have Mr. Tavenner's relentless enthusiasm. I wonder if he would have gotten as much done if he lived when there was TV?