I changed the subject heading to fit with my question. I discovered several errors on one census covering my home town (gross misspellings, etc.). Obvious to me because I had better information, but those errors are now in a source document. My question is how seriously do people take a census document (image)? And is it really a good idea to add another layer of possible errors by transcribing it? How do people typically deal with such situations? I believe that I've simply added notes as appropriate. Just curious. //jack On 4/20/2015 11:51 PM, Michael Cant via wrote: > Hi John (J. P. Gilliver (John) > > I normally use transcribed censuses as word documents as they are easier for > other family to read (if they ever do) > > Mick. > IOW. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > J. P. Gilliver (John) via > Sent: 21 April 2015 00:19 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order not > individual then family below? > > In message <[email protected]>, Michael Cant via > <[email protected]> writes: >> Hi all, >> >> I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 >> >> I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my >> main lines. >> > I am assuming you mean images of the censuses. Is there any particular > reason you're using the media tab rather than the pictures tab? >> >> We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, > Oh, I don't know - I started off as a ... [sorry (-:] > >> normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if >> they are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it >> goes automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading >> to view the list. > Good question ... >> Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether they >> are individual or family? > ... but John says (and Fran confirms) you can manually move them in v7. > (You couldn't - in the pictures tab, anyway - in v6; well, you could, but > they got moved back, with an error popup.) >> Mick. >> >> IOW. >> >> England. > [] > John, Kent, England. > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > Everyone looks sun-kissed and beautiful and as you watch it ["Bondi > Rescue"], pale and flabby on your sofa, you find yourself wondering if your > life could ever be that exotic. (It couldn't. You're British.) - Russell > Howard, in Radio Times, 20-26 April 2013 Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
To me all sources are questionable. When all sources point to the same result that's likely the true fact Jim -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jack via Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:59 PM To: Michael Cant; [email protected] Subject: [BK] Census Errors I changed the subject heading to fit with my question. I discovered several errors on one census covering my home town (gross misspellings, etc.). Obvious to me because I had better information, but those errors are now in a source document. My question is how seriously do people take a census document (image)? And is it really a good idea to add another layer of possible errors by transcribing it? How do people typically deal with such situations? I believe that I've simply added notes as appropriate. Just curious. //jack On 4/20/2015 11:51 PM, Michael Cant via wrote: > Hi John (J. P. Gilliver (John) > > I normally use transcribed censuses as word documents as they are > easier for other family to read (if they ever do) > > Mick. > IOW. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of J. P. Gilliver (John) via > Sent: 21 April 2015 00:19 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order > not individual then family below? > > In message <[email protected]>, Michael Cant via > <[email protected]> writes: >> Hi all, >> >> I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 >> >> I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my >> main lines. >> > I am assuming you mean images of the censuses. Is there any particular > reason you're using the media tab rather than the pictures tab? >> >> We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, > Oh, I don't know - I started off as a ... [sorry (-:] > >> normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if >> they are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it >> goes automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading >> to view the list. > Good question ... >> Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether >> they are individual or family? > ... but John says (and Fran confirms) you can manually move them in v7. > (You couldn't - in the pictures tab, anyway - in v6; well, you could, > but they got moved back, with an error popup.) >> Mick. >> >> IOW. >> >> England. > [] > John, Kent, England. > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 > MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > Everyone looks sun-kissed and beautiful and as you watch it ["Bondi > Rescue"], pale and flabby on your sofa, you find yourself wondering if > your life could ever be that exotic. (It couldn't. You're British.) - > Russell Howard, in Radio Times, 20-26 April 2013 Remember - Use the > Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
I tend to look on the census returns as secondary information and for those before 1911, as transcriptions because they are not the original household returns. They also have the additional problems, for me, of illiterate ancestors so the household return could well have been completed by somebody else, and the problems of different accents due to migration from one part of the UK to another eg Cornwall or Somerset to Northumberland or Durham. I believe the 2nd problem is even worse in the USA with higher levels of migration and multiple languages. Plus I have come across, in the 1881 census, comments from the Enumerator regarding the paternity of a child who was living in lodgings with his mother. I suspect that other Enumerators may have gone further and changed names. Cheers Steve On 21/04/2015 17:58, Jack via wrote: > I changed the subject heading to fit with my question. > > I discovered several errors on one census covering my home town (gross > misspellings, etc.). Obvious to me because I had better information, > but those errors are now in a source document. My question is how > seriously do people take a census document (image)? And is it really a > good idea to add another layer of possible errors by transcribing it? > How do people typically deal with such situations? I believe that I've > simply added notes as appropriate. Just curious. > > //jack > > > On 4/20/2015 11:51 PM, Michael Cant via wrote: >> Hi John (J. P. Gilliver (John) >> >> I normally use transcribed censuses as word documents as they are easier for >> other family to read (if they ever do) >> >> Mick. >> IOW. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> J. P. Gilliver (John) via >> Sent: 21 April 2015 00:19 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order not >> individual then family below? >> >> In message <[email protected]>, Michael Cant via >> <[email protected]> writes: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 >>> >>> I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my >>> main lines. >>> >> I am assuming you mean images of the censuses. Is there any particular >> reason you're using the media tab rather than the pictures tab? >>> We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, >> Oh, I don't know - I started off as a ... [sorry (-:] >> >>> normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if >>> they are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it >>> goes automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading >>> to view the list. >> Good question ... >>> Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether they >>> are individual or family? >> ... but John says (and Fran confirms) you can manually move them in v7. >> (You couldn't - in the pictures tab, anyway - in v6; well, you could, but >> they got moved back, with an error popup.) >>> Mick. >>> >>> IOW. >>> >>> England. >> [] >> John, Kent, England. >> -- >> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf >> >> Everyone looks sun-kissed and beautiful and as you watch it ["Bondi >> Rescue"], pale and flabby on your sofa, you find yourself wondering if your >> life could ever be that exotic. (It couldn't. You're British.) - Russell >> Howard, in Radio Times, 20-26 April 2013 Remember - Use the Archives at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> >> Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > . >
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:58:58 -0700, Jack via <[email protected]> wrote: >I changed the subject heading to fit with my question. > >I discovered several errors on one census covering my home town (gross >misspellings, etc.). Obvious to me because I had better information, >but those errors are now in a source document. My question is how >seriously do people take a census document (image)? And is it really a >good idea to add another layer of possible errors by transcribing it? >How do people typically deal with such situations? I believe that I've >simply added notes as appropriate. Just curious. > We use a lot of census, but they are documentation for other information, e.g. where people do live etc We have Internet connection to census and we can add the image to BK, mostly use are jpg. But thay are important, but we know that thee can bee wrong informationb as well, e.g. the name of a person can be spelled different in 1900 and 1910, so we always search for the documentaion from Chuchbooks for birthm mbapt, confirmation and marriage and death, That we definate as primary sources and census as Second sources. But all over we add them all to the individ. -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014