United States Census - Family History & Genealogy Message Board

Help!! Blended family, 1900 US Census

sfrank87 — 2013-05-06 01:24:50Z

A family has a widower with 10 children, he remarries and with his 2nd wife has 4 children. All of these children are enumerated on the 1900 US census and I cannot figure out how to make the children of his 1st marriage get proper citing to this record with their mother and the children of his 2nd marriage get proper citing with their mother on the census. Doing each child separately does not work, I still get the mother assignment problem. Using the attach record feature caused a huge mess. I want each of these children to remain attached to the mother they were born to. Any ideas? Thank you.

Re: Search problems

AliceWilkinson439 — 2013-05-03 16:33:43Z

Thanks. That worked. There was some creative spelling used. Now trying to add alternative spelling and not quite there yet but will keep trying.

Re: Search problems

barbdale_1 — 2013-05-03 03:06:45Z

It must mean that the transcriber on Ancestry has used yet another creative spelling. Try searching on first name and place only.

Search problems

AliceWilkinson439 — 2013-05-03 00:14:36Z

I have found in at least 2 recents searches that I have found the document with family information that I was seeking in Familysearch.com but then cannot find the same document in Ancestry to be able to save it to my family member. For instance, I found my family in the 1940 census with the last name misspelled. When searching that census through Ancestry, I can not find the family using either the correct spelling or the misspelled spelling.

Re: 1940 Census information

mbmjlm — 2013-04-30 01:24:42Z

The initials for given name were used by the census taker for the 1870 census for Madison County, Tennessee which makes me crazy. My gg grandfather's surname was Johnson and there were a great many Johnson's in Madison Cty in 1870 which has made it extremely difficult to locate my family there. I'd like to snatch that census taker bald headed for that-LOL

Re: 1940 Census information

meekernj — 2013-04-29 23:13:08Z

Here's another trick. Look for the neighbors. You may be able to find a neighbor's name which could not be messed up (think Smith). Then look for that neighbor. This trick also often works when trying to find your people in another census year. For example, you can find your people in 1940 but not 1930. Find a man nearby on the 1940 census who was old enough to also be there in 1930, then look for him in the 1930 index. Again try to pick somebody whose name can't easily be misspelled or misindexed. Also, try to use a man; women have a bad habit of changing names every so often.

Re: 1940 Census information

ruthpalmerroberts32 — 2013-04-29 14:25:15Z

Thanks for the help. Who would have thought that the name could have so many variation.

When I have found the transcription errors in the information, I have sent in the corrections so that others may have a less difficult time. You are right about the clarity of the writing and I have also found that the person giving the information probably was not accurate or difficult to understand. In one census, all the family members names were initials...go figure.

Re: 1940 Census information

mbmjlm — 2013-04-29 14:19:03Z

The indexing of the 1940 census is badly done for many names. It takes more than just looking for the correct name and then announcing that it is not there. One must be creative and use other means for finding the family-example: enter given name with possible birth dates in a range-given names with birth places along with birth dates in a range. In other words, be a detective. If a surname does not show up using the correct spelling, use soundex and other creative ways.

I've certainly never done any record indexing but seeing the handwriting re:the census records, most indexers have done a good job for the most part and given that some index was done in places other than the US. The 1930 index for my grandparents has finally been changed but prior to the release of the new interactive census, my grandparents surname was indexed as Usall-instead of Insall. His given name was written as Erick which was incorrect spelling. Looking at that same 1930 census which included my grandparents and my mother, the handwriting on that census is really terrible. That the census indexers did as well as they did is remarkable.

Speaking of the US census as a whole, I wish we could reach back in time and say to the persons who wrote the records-or perhaps made copies"write nice-200+ years from now, people are going to be shaking their fists at your awful handwriting."

Re: 1940 Census information

BobNY — 2013-04-29 13:58:20Z

The family is indexed as HEWELL.

Re: 1940 Census information

ruthpalmerroberts32 — 2013-04-29 13:36:31Z

Thank you for the response. You are probably right about the indexing configuration.

This is the information that I found on familysearch.org but I have not fount it on Ancestry.com

"United States Census, 1940," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/KQWK-38G : accessed 29 Apr 2013), Helen Howell in household of William Howell, Ward 22, Scranton, Scranton City, Lackawanna, Pennsylvania, United States; citing enumeration district (ED) 71-146, sheet 6A, family 115, NARA digital publication T627, roll 3687.

Re: 1940 Census information

mbmjlm — 2013-04-29 06:12:24Z

Which family are you looking for? If you know from another census record where they lived, you should be able to find it via Ancestry? I'll be glad to help if I know who I am looking for. Maybe they are indexed badly.

1940 Census information

ruthpalmerroberts32 — 2013-04-27 21:10:36Z

I have found the family's 1940 census location, household number and etc. and have seen the family's original form BUT I have not been able to find it on Ancestry.

Re: 1940 Census Duplicate Entries?

srrojas05 — 2013-04-22 12:47:37Z

Same ED - actually one is on page 7 and one is on page 39 of the same document. The page where it's only her, no one is indicated as the person giving the information, nor on the following 5 pages. I thought this was omitted by error, but maybe someone one one of those pages gave information about a bunch of neighbors?

She has the same address in both, so that house number/street name is just recorded on 2 pages. I couldn't find anyone else on that page duplicated elsewhere.

Re: 1940 Census Duplicate Entries?

jdweintraub — 2013-04-20 02:05:06Z

You left out some important facts that anyone speculating on your post must have.

Are the two records in the same enumeration district... or to put it another way, is the enumerator the same on both records.

Is one record in the front of the district (if one district) and the other on sheet #61 or higher?

Re: 1940 Census Duplicate Entries?

mbmjlm — 2013-04-19 19:30:34Z

Maybe she moved between one census and another or was visiting her children. Also possible that the family was not home and a neighbor gave information that resulted in duplicate census records. I've found duplicate census records for several family members. In one, my great grandmother was recorded with her father and stepmother once and then with another family member the same year but separate dates. The same with another family line-in different counties since the family moved from one county to the next during the census taking year.

I would check the dates.

1940 Census Duplicate Entries?

srrojas05 — 2013-04-19 16:02:11Z

Just wondering how common this is, because then I'm going to go back through all the census records I've saved for more clues. I just discovered a second great grandmother recorded twice on the 1940 census, at the same address both times. On one record she lives in the house on her own but in another she lives in that house with two of her children and their family. Unusual/mean anything? (Besides sloppy census-taking?) :)

Re: HELP!!!!

BobNY — 2013-03-29 16:32:36Z

http://eogen.com/USFederalCensusDates

HELP!!!!

purpleturtle1of1 — 2013-03-29 08:46:09Z

Can anyone tell us how we can find out when the census was done for different places back in 1830 and 1840 US Censuses as well as the other censuses before that? The one we want to know about most of all is the Carroll County Tennesse census.

What's the deal?

purpleturtle1of1 — 2013-03-29 06:12:38Z

Can someone from Ancestry please tell me why you put as a hint a William Autry for my Lemuel Lassiter for 1830 Carroll County Tennessee census please!

Re: "What happen to the 1910 Mircode Index?"

MAMAswan8 — 2013-03-23 20:20:18Z

Did you ever find out?

Re: changes to 1870 census

BarbaraTaylor7777 — 2013-03-19 22:38:37Z

Thanks for the examples :) I guess I have not encountered that difference before. It sure was a surprise to me.
Also, I see that my post was moved from site comments to this board.

Barbara

changes to 1870 census

BarbaraTaylor7777 — 2013-03-19 22:36:22Z

The 1870 census used to list the entire family on the census - at least a few days ago it did. Today, it only lists one individual person on the display page (not sure what it is called) - the one you click after getting a hint link to the 1870 census.
Now, in order to put in an entire family, I have to go look at the image, then go to each person to find the hint, or search for the person.
With the way it was a few days ago, I would add each person, then from that person, click on the link to the 1870 image just added, go down the list to the next person in the family and add their record. It was tedious but I got each one in the family done all at one sitting.
That was hard enough because there were no relationships taken on censuses before 1880. At least the entire family was shown on the Ancestry display screen.

Barbara

Re: Why no Birthdate or location search

BurgessDonnelly — 2013-03-19 21:29:56Z

Your question is on the US Census Board - there is no 1901 or 1911 for the US. I suspect you may want the UK census or one of its cousins.

Re: changes to 1870 census

BurgessDonnelly — 2013-03-19 20:51:23Z

The difference varies by location, in my experience.

For example - NYC had 2 enumerations of the 1870. For some of my family, they are all listed on the index page in 1 enumeration and singly on the other enumeration.

3 examples attached - the same family in 1870 in NYC - once with everyone showing, once with each individual separately. Also, a different family in 1870 in Georgia, listing everyone.

1920 Census for New Fairfield, Connecticut is backward

LDUZ2 — 2013-03-06 18:58:31Z

The 10 image set of the 1920 census of New Fairfield, Fairfield County Connecticut is reversed, Image 1 is the last page/sheet of the census, Image 10 is the first page/sheet 1A of the census.
Not only is the sheets shown in reverse, it is also indexed backwards!
My grand aunt Alma J. Anderson is shown on image 2, line 2
and Alma B. Anderson on line 1. they are indexed as being in the family of John Treadwell shown in image 1, this is wrong. Image 2 is sheet 5A, i have to forward to image 3 which is sheet 4B to get the previous sheet of the census. At the bottom of image 3/sheet4B, lines 98, 99 & 100 is Fred R Anderson, wife Lina V & son Theodore R. The Alma B Anderson shown on image 2 is Fred`s daughter and Alma J is Fred`s mother.

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=1920usfedcen&a...

The Sanford & Wildman families on images 4, 5, 6 & 7 are also indexed wrong.

Why no Birthdate or location search

zanthewitch1 — 2013-03-06 18:44:05Z

Hi,
I have noticed that you can no longer put a birthdate or location in on the 1901 or 1911 census search?
I'm sure I have done it before, even when you change to 'advanced' search there are still the same number of search boxes, no additional options.
Cheers,
Zan

town missing in census

potts13 — 2013-02-17 13:35:05Z

The town of Whitingham, Windham County, Vermont appears to be missing from the 1860 census at ancestry. I know it exists because I've looked at it at fold3, but ancestry should have it as well.

jp

Corrupt image sets, and my fruitless quest to get somebody to fix them

jtrichardson280 — 2012-12-18 17:20:38Z

Hi. I just now discovered that these forums existed, and am excited that there might be someone out there to listen (even if only other disgruntled users). I have been bugging Ancestry.com support for about two years about an issue of corrupt and unviewable census images. I have been filing a support request every couple of months, only to be repeatedly brushed off with assurances that someone would look into it, and to have no one look into it, and no one ever pass my request on to someone who might actually look into it.

The issue is with the 1850 census for my home county, Morgan County, Alabama, but it also extends to an unknown number of other counties, several of which I have run across in research. For example:

1850 U.S. Census, Morgan County, Alabama, page 204b
http://search.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=8054&ii...

A few years ago, the images were fine. Then, when Ancestry.com "upgraded" to higher resolution census images for the whole U.S., the images for these counties became somehow corrupt and unviewable for any practical purposes. It appears to be an image compression problem with the files themselves, I believe perhaps from a common source from which Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org might draw their images -- since FamilySearch.org's images for the same censuses and counties are also corrupt:

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MH58-4NQ

This needs to be fixed. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this problem, but it needs to be brought to the attention of someone higher up than a customer service grunt.

Re: Tip on finding badly indexed names in the 1940 census-and other census decades

meekernj — 2012-11-30 01:44:43Z

My favorite tip is to try the FamilySearch index! It's not great, but sometimes it's different.

Re: Tip on finding badly indexed names in the 1940 census-and other census decades

JoMac53 — 2012-11-29 18:05:32Z

Thank you, Joel. That may explain it.

A newspaper article says he was a senior foreman at the CCC in Freehold in 1936 and the 1937 Freehold city directory lists him as a forman at 130 Center St. so he may not lived at the camp. He's still listed in Freehold in a family obit in 1938. I'm going to see if I can find a 1940 city directory and check for him, but also check that address. If he was relocating he may have been missed, too.

ETA: Apparently, no city directory exists for Freehold in 1940.

Re: Tip on finding badly indexed names in the 1940 census-and other census decades

JoelWeintraub — 2012-11-28 20:54:19Z

JoMac,

The instructions to enumeators for CCC members was NOT to enumerate the workers/enlistees at the camp itself. Only the administrators of the camp were to be enumerated, unless the enlistee maintained that the camp was his/her only permanent address.

Instead, it was up to the enumerator in the CCC member's home residence to ask the family if there were others in the household, not present, that had that address. Not all enumerators asked that question, or understood their instructions, so many of these people in 1940s New Deal projects were missed on the 1940 census.

Joel Weintraub
Dana Point, CA

Re: Tip on finding badly indexed names in the 1940 census-and other census decades

JoMac53 — 2012-11-28 20:31:06Z

I've tried that for my grandfather with no luck. He's difficult because he was widowed and not living with any other family members. The W for widowed is often mistaken for an M for married so that doesn't help. He could be in Monmouth, Hudson, Warren or Morris county in New Jersey.

I've seen his name really & truly mangled before...it's Irving S. Harrison but in 1930 he was originally indexed on Ancestry as "I Wing Hawrsorce" and now that they've "updated" it he's listed as Wing Hanson.

He was born in 1891 New Jersey if anyone wants to take a crack at it. He was in Red Bank, Monmouth, NJ, in 1930, in Freehold, Monmouth, NJ, in 1937 & 1938. In 1942 he's in Port Murray, Warren, NJ.

He was in the CCC in Freehold but is not in the CCC camp there in 1940. He worked for the Soil Conservation Service in Hackettstown in 1942 and at some point worked at the Picatinny Arsenal. Hence so many counties to search. :(

Wayne County, TN, 1860 Census - Pages out of order

AWalker68 — 2012-11-28 03:59:58Z

For Wayne County, TN, 1860:
District 5, page 4 - the last name on the sheet is J.E. Grimes, he is family #30. The sheet that SHOULD be next in order is showing as page 1 of District 2 (Wayne County) - starting with Katharine Grimes. She is James Eli Grimes (J.E. Grimes) wife. This page clearly says "Page 5" at the top.
Please re-sort these pages. I can see how someone could mis-read the District 2/5, but it seems obvious that page 4 should be followed by page 5, not page 6.

Re: 1740 record in collection for PA Census, 1772-1890

frostfreedet — 2012-11-27 17:59:54Z

It is Ancestry.com conducting the masquerade, not the passenger list! There are other purported "reconstructed" or "early census" items that include stuff like names from a letter, a militia list, or obscure tax assessment lists.

A "reconstructed" census using other data has a little bit of logic, when a census enumeration did exist but has been significantly lost. However, it is much more sensible to present the original data for what it was -- and immensely more useful if all of the original data is included together with a proper citation.

Re: 1740 record in collection for PA Census, 1772-1890

RobinBMc — 2012-11-27 14:02:54Z

Thanks for the info, I never considered that it might actually be a passenger list masquerading as a "census".

Re: 1740 record in collection for PA Census, 1772-1890

frostfreedet — 2012-11-27 13:39:16Z

According to Ancestry.com's pop-up description of this database, it was uploaded in 1998 and has not been updated since then.

You have probably put your finger on the source of this purported "census" item -- a list of names from the published Philadelphia passenger lists' index together with year-dates.

Ancestry.com has a lot of such poorly compiled and barely described databases. Don't ask me about the purported Delaware marriages index that thankfully was removed a few years ago. In this case, all of the crucial data has been stripped away from the database (nature and title of the source, particulars as to date, embarkation and arrival points, ship name, etc.).

These approaches to source records are very confusing for all but very experienced researchers, and contribute to discouragement.

Recently Ancestry.com stripped away actual document-type descriptions and component names from its extracts of the Sussex County, DE Calendar of Wills (a mistitled book in any case) -- which includes abstracts of a large variety of estate documents in addition to wills. So now those who run across these entries think that thousands of persons who died in DE before 1801 made wills, who did not leave wills. Those who take the next step and try to obtain copies of such documents from the DE Public Archives will encounter Archives staff who may by now be frustrated and peeved by inquiries insisting that the nonexistent document must be there somewhere because "Ancestry says so."

1740 record in collection for PA Census, 1772-1890

RobinBMc — 2012-11-26 19:13:05Z

I got a hint for my ancestor Henry Rorer in this collection but I'm hesitant to add it. I'm pretty sure it's the right guy but I have records that say he immigrated from Germany to Philadelphia in 1740 and this PA "census" record says 1740 as well. It's entirely possible he was recorded in the same year he arrived but before I attach it, I want to understand the record better and the "learn more" doesn't tell me what I need to know. What kind of record is it exactly? A tax list? And why is it turning up a 1740 record in a collection for 1772-1890 to begin with? Any insight from anyone would be appreciated.

I'm not one of those people who just blindly adds hints to my tree. I want to know what I'm adding and ACOM hasn't made it clear. I suspect new records were added to this collection and the title and details were never updated.

I wasn't sure where to post this though, since it's not a federal census but the collection does claim to be a census.

Indexing Errors

TxNxT — 2012-11-20 22:24:39Z

The errors by ancestry's indexers are really starting to frustrate me. I just spent 10 minutes trying to put a correction in, but the program would not accept it. The enumerator clearly writes the family's race as white and it is indexed as black. Errors like this and the one's that poorly index names makes it difficult to find people. I have started to think the indexers need glasses

Re: Searching seems very limited

RobinBMc — 2012-11-17 13:36:57Z

I just did a search for Melba I Adkins in the 1940 census and got over 900 results - the first 13 of which are:

View Record
Melba Adkins Marion B Bellingham, Whatcom, Washington abt 1904 Wisconsin Wife
View Record
Melba Adkins Wm T Hunt, Texas abt 1915 Texas Wife
View Record
Melba Adkins James Goldsby, McClain, Oklahoma abt 1918 Oklahoma Daughter-in-law
View Record
Melba R Adkins Samuel R,
Pearl M Inglewood, Los Angeles, California abt 1920 Iowa Daughter
View Record
Melba Adkins Las Animas, Bent, Colorado abt 1921 Colorado Servant
View Record
Melba Adkins Sadie Claiborne, Louisiana abt 1927 Louisiana Stepdaughter
View Record
Melba Adkins Willie,
Nan Floyd, Kentucky abt 1928 Kentucky Daughter
View Record
Melba Adkins Edwin R,
May Starr, Grady, Oklahoma abt 1930 Oklahoma Daughter
View Record
Melba Jean Adkins J W,
Lena Mae Coahoma, Mississippi abt 1936 Mississippi Daughter
View Record
Melba Adkins Harry,
Opal Floyd, Kentucky abt 1937 Kentucky Daughter
View Record
Melba Adkins Junior Hallick W,
Edith V Union, Lincoln, West Virginia abt 1939 West Virginia Daughter
View Record
Melba R Adkins Clyde,
Lucille Bogalusa, Washington, Louisiana abt 1939 Louisiana Daughter
View Record
Melba Adkins Bill,
Florence Green Sulphur, Summers, West Virginia abt 1939 West Virginia Daughter

----

Even searching from the main search page rather than just the 1940 census, all 13 of those show up on the first page of results. I included the middle initial and it did not automatically apply an exact match search. I tried all different methods - with a dot after the initial, without the dot, with the initial actually in the surname search field instead, etc. No matter what I did, I still got those same results from the 1940 census. I could not replicate the results (or lack there of) you describe, sorry.

Re: Searching seems very limited

jonsatcadence — 2012-11-17 06:54:44Z

Nope, that's why I gave the example. Try from the Ancestry main page putting the name: "Melba I Adkins"

You will find that it returns the 1930 census and 2 other entries but nothing from 1940. Remove the middle initial and whoala, you get hundred's of results.

Looks like if you use a middle initial it does an exact match even though you did not request exact matches. And as also stated it is not very name variant friendly which is needed for databases like this. Hopefully Ancestry makes their search criteria a bit looser.

Thanks for checking.

Re: Searching seems very limited

AGHatchett3rd — 2012-11-17 06:00:24Z

Sounds to me like you have something on the search form marked as exact.

Searching seems very limited

jonsatcadence — 2012-11-17 02:57:17Z

What's the deal with searching the 1940 census? seems like it is not being very smart. Take for example I have the following person:

Melba I Adkins (along with dates and locations but ignore theses and just use the name.

Ancestry returns NOTHING! but if I drop the "I" then it finds the correct name. Seems like the 1940 census search rules are very limited. I've noticed this with lots of name variations that the 1940 census is too literal (not necessarily other census years). You have to get the name 100% correct or no go, Bobby is no good if the name is Bobbie in the census and lots more like this. Seems like there needs to be more heuristics added to help find folks. Fortunately I have had luck going to the FamilySearch data to find many of these cases. Then I use ancestry to search for another name on the page and from there I can get back to my original name in ancestry. But should not have to do this.

Hopefully Ancestry is looking and will update the search algorithm.

Thanks,

Jon

Re: This is a weird one

mbmjlm — 2012-11-04 17:13:36Z

Yes, thank you for finding it for me.

Re: The proposed new changes to the way we cite or record census

mbmjlm — 2012-11-04 17:08:08Z

Job description for Ancestry programmers:Young social media programmers needed. Need to be able to change code every day even if it's wrong and keep coming up with new ideas. The people will let us know when it makes a mess and sometime we may even fix it. And keep up the good work despite the avalance of messages against what you are doing.

Re: The proposed new changes to the way we cite or record census

frostfreedet — 2012-11-04 16:12:22Z

"all the functions are the same as far as I can tell, it's just restyled."

The same crucial information is omitted from items' extracts and even more from the 'save to' form. I have seen only two improvements: in the 1940 US Census the 1935 residence seems available as residence for the timeline, and in a few marriage records I could actually peg the record to a second marriage (instead of allowing the widget to overwrite the date of a first marriage).

The latter is much needed and should be incorporated in the present non-beta format. The 1940 US Census is of very limited interest for those working principally on ancestral lineage.

The save-to form should still not be covered over with that ugly overlay. All fields should be immediately accessible for adding the data in the record that was omitted from extract/index and from the save-to form with no extra clicking. I think they put the overlay in to deter people from adding the omitted dates, parts of persons' names, parts of place-names, etc. Bad idea. If they think their servers are overloaded by user-supplied data from the documents, they need to add computing power.

Re: This is a weird one

shaliann — 2012-11-04 13:35:28Z

Is this the one you are looking for?

Re: The proposed new changes to the way we cite or record census

RobinBMc — 2012-11-04 10:07:56Z

This is not just for the censuses, it's for all records. I was saving directory records last night and this came up as an option. I don't mind it, all the functions are the same as far as I can tell, it's just restyled.

Re: The proposed new changes to the way we cite or record census

jwardh — 2012-11-04 03:37:28Z

I would imagine that if you clicked the advanced edit, you could perform the same selections regarding what to keep/merge and what to discard. I'm not much help, though, because I add 99.9% of my records via FTM, not via the ancestry member tree. Sorry.

Re: The proposed new changes to the way we cite or record census

mbmjlm — 2012-11-03 15:28:34Z

Attached:3 screen prints showing proposed new changes to census save. In my opinion, this is another bad idea.

Re: The proposed new changes to the way we cite or record census

mbmjlm — 2012-11-03 14:43:40Z

I think this thread "New beta for "Now it’s easier to add info to your tree" is what I was referring to.