"Singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > Amen. Even the 1930 isn't a model of legibility. :( > > And, messing around with some 1850 census today, I offer up the > following METHODS-y tips: > > Wise may be indexed as Urise, because in at least ONE instance > that's what it looks like. Now, anyone doing this for himself would > *assume* that a Urise in the midst of 8 WISE would more likely be > WISE than Urise, but paid indexers are paid to think, they're paid > to type. > > Likewise a LONG family's 3rd child was surnamed VONY or possibly > VONG. > > a BULLITT family is probably indexed as BULLELL because the bar on > the T is in the next box. > > A GEORGE family has a child whose surname is LEORGE ... > > I have no idea what the name UUmrl should be, but I'll bet it's NOT > Uumrl In England 1881 I found a BRADLEY transcribed as BROADLEY I went to the film and the enumerator had written BROADLEY so the error was made by the enumerator in 1881 the children, first names, dates, occupations all tied in with my correction It might have been a quastion of local dialect and an illiterate family Hugh W "Hugh Watkins" <hugh_watkins@net.dialog.dk>