Search for content in message boards

Ancestry has screwed something up big time.

Ancestry has screwed something up big time.

Posted: 3 Feb 2012 6:42AM GMT
Classification: Query
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 . . .

Posted: 3 Feb 2012 3:12PM GMT
Classification: Query
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.

Posted: 3 Feb 2012 10:36PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 3 Feb 2012 10:40PM GMT
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 . . .

Posted: 4 Feb 2012 4:04AM GMT
Classification: Query
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 . . .

Posted: 6 Feb 2012 2:56PM GMT
Classification: Query
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.

Posted: 24 Jul 2014 10:05PM GMT
Classification: Query
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.
per page

Find a board about a specific topic