Richard A. Pence wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>I am not quite sure, either, how you are using the FamilySearch 1880 >>>listings. The LDS 1880 census material is an index and is not a >>>"source document." >>> >>>"Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> >> >>Oh, it's more than an index! >> >> <snip> >> >>"Austin W. Spencer" <AustinWSpencer@sdc.cox.net> > > Dear Austin: > > The LDS 1880 database is an excellent information source. And it > will do more than just help you find someone on the microfilms. But > my point was that you shouldn't rely on it as the source of your > information for you genealogy or cite it as the source unless the > original is quite unavailable to you. Even the LDS "finding aid" has > errors. And, as I noted in my message to Bob Gillis, it is hardly a > complete transcription of the census records. Surely if you are > using the census for information for your ancestors, you will want > to at least be aware of all of the other things in the census record > that are not in the INDEX. I think it is more properly termed an abstract. It retains essential elements, recoverable in original order, but by no means does it transcribe the full record. For those who want this, it offers an adequate source citation. By contrast, if it were truly an every-name index, it would be organized more along the lines of the indices offered by Ancestry.com and Genealogy.com. Personal names would be presented with little, outside of placement indicators, to correlate persons of the same surname. > The ability to see who the neighbors are quickly is a helpful > feature, but neither new nor unique. The first census indexes on CD > were Head of Household indexes. Using the old Genealogy Research > System DOS software you could easily see who the neighbors are. The > Indiana Historical Society indexed the entire 1860 census of that > state and you can view it in several different ways, including > household order. This project included not only every name, but > every item included about each person in the census. The Society > does NOT call this a transcription, but an INDEX. Although I haven't seen these myself, your points are in the main well taken. The fact remains, though, that the Indiana Historical Society's effort *does* better fulfill the definition of "transcript" than the LDS database. In fact, if it is as you describe (and we have little reason to doubt you), it fulfills that definition as well as any electronic publication could. That the Society chose not to describe its transcript as such does not alter that document's general character. Of course, part of that general character is that any serious researcher with immediate access to the original census schedules of Indiana will use the Society's publication primarily as an index, and anyone without that access will use it primarily as a transcript. No actual or conceiveable publication is better adapted to the latter use. Certainly the LDS database isn't. > Here's a tip with regard to your following comment: > >>If your ancestor lived in a large urban >>area in 1880, transferring from LDS to one of these requires >>entering the LDS film number to see which EDs are on that film, then >>checking each ED for the appropriate page, > > Since each page number will appear only once on each microfilm, you > can usually quickly find the page by either estimating its location > or calculating it. The other night I was looking for someone in NYC > who was on page 264 of a given roll which contained EDs 69 - 88. I > guessed that page 264 was in ED 83, but was one too high - it was in > ED 82. Once the images for ED 82 were loaded (at Ancestry.com), it > was easy to do the calculation to reach page 264 on the first or > second try. (I outlined for someone the entire process for finding > someone at Ancestry.com from the info at Ancestry.com and if anyone > would like a copy of that message, drop me an email. > > "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> My point was that before you can delve into the films (under any catalog except FHLC) or the images, you need the ED range. For that, FHLC remains an indispensable companion to the census database. Luckily, the latter's output includes film numbers linked to FHLC's description of that film's contents. Besides, any time you resort to guessing, your first guess has only a random chance of being more accurate than the result of a diligent search. You got lucky with ED 83. Austin W. Spencer "Austin W. Spencer" <AustinWSpencer@sdc.cox.net>