On many of the early censuses, including this one as far as I can remember, the census images that are available, and some of the indexes in print and on line, developed from the census microfilms, are actually later transcriptions of the original census pages. The actual census records were old, and degrading.............. Whether done by county archivists, or volunteers interested in local history long ago, there were people who transcribed some of the very early census data before the originals became completely unreadable. This was wonderful!!! And I thank them!! Their efforts allowed *something* to survive from these old pages. Without their work, there might have been nothing at all. On the other hand, they often took sections/pages and alphabetized the listings so that it would be easier to retreive the most basic information. This was ***long before*** searchable databases et al...... But when you come across census information in which there is a pattern of a page or two that seems alphabetical, and then it seems that it starts again and runs alphabetical......... This is a transcribed census. You need to keep in mind that: 1. Differently from other census info, from these transcribed censuses, you cannot know *anything* about geographical proximity from listing to listing. Three Hendricks may be listed in sequence, but these Hendricks may have lived in different parts of the township. They did not necessarily live next door to each other. 2. This early transcription adds another layer of possible mistranscription and error. Nonetheless, I'm glad they did what they did. At least the basic information is still available in some form.......... Linda >Does any one know roughly what sequence the census takers used when they did >the 1790 census ,some parts of the census seem t o alphabetized , and >other parts random. Is there any way to tell sequentially where people lived >going by the census for example 285-86.gif as found on the Randolph gen >web site for 1790 starts out with a Jerimiah York it seems very random >down to about Elizabeth Aldridge , then it becomes alphabetical for a >while .then it again becomes apparently random .Did the census takers go >by certain districts,and alphabetize the folks according to name >disregarding their location ,and who their neighbors were ?