Ancestry has screwed something up big time.
As of last night, Ancestry has made a change to census citations which are totally messed up. I was looking to cite the 1930 Gonzales County, Texas census which usually has the roll number. Here is what I found instead as expressed through Ancestry. Source Citation: Year: 1930; Census Place: Gonzales, Gonzales, Texas; Roll: 4547960; Page: 17A; Image: 74.0; Family History Library Film: 2342071. Note: the roll number now has 7 digits instead of the 4 digits that should be there. I went further to determine what that 7 digit number might be and found the answer at Familysearch.org.
Name: Maner Whiteside Event: Census Event Date: 1930 Event Place: Gonzales, Gonzales, Texas Gender: Male Age: 42 Marital Status: Married Race: White Birthplace: Texas Estimated Birth Year: 1888 Immigration Year: Relationship to Head of Household: Head Father's Birthplace: Mississippi Mother's Birthplace: Mississippi Enumeration District Number: 0002 Family Number: 428 Sheet Number and Letter: 17A Line Number: 20 NARA Publication: T626, roll 2337 Film Number: 2342071 Digital Folder Number: 4547960 Image Number: 00078 Household Gender Age Maner Whiteside M 42 Spouse Alice Whiteside F 32 Parent James M Whiteside What Ancestry is showing as the Roll number is actually the Digital Folder Number. In my opinion, that is completely wrong. Instead of citing the correct roll number we are now citing the digital folder number. I don't think that is the correct citation at all in my opinion. So now instead of a census roll number, we have to use a Digital Folder Number. That's just plain stupid in my opinion.
Dones anyone think this change is GOOD!!!
|
The inmates are running the asylum . . .
At least that explains why ACOM is showing the 1930 census as "updated" on the "New records on Ancestry.com"
The 7-digit number [the iid, as ACOM calls it] has always been in the address linking to the image of the population schedule.
Substituting it for the Series/Roll number in the citation is irresponsible, ludicrous and just plain STOOOOOOPID.
|
Re: Ancestry has screwed something up big time.
This was an error and is has been fixed. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
-Jen Hodnett Ancestry.com
|
Let me see if I understand this . . .
1. There was (or was not) some attempt to update the 1930 census.
2. Whatever was done (or not done) to update the 1930 census resulted in an "error."
3. Whoever did (or did not do) the update failed to notice that he created this "error."
4. What passes for QC at ACOM failed to notice the "error."
5. ACOM depended on the subscriber base to report the error. =================== So, at the end of the day, was the 1930 census actually updated and what was the nature of the update besides creating this "error?"
|
Re: Let me see if I understand this . . .
I'm glad this error was fixed quickly. However, one wonders why there was no one checking this before the update was released. I really don't think Ancestry should rely on subscribers to catch errors like this.
|
Re: Ancestry has screwed something up big time.
Ancestry is always screwing something up. Why keep on adding more and more stuff if it just keeps screwing up the website, just so you can charge more? I am very irate at this website. The hint system has been "temporarily offline" since last night and I can't do anything, pages load too slowly and I always get error messages. I've tried using both Internet Explorer and Firefox and the website is screwed up on both of them.
|