Hi, Bob I never have subscribed to Ancestry.com; however, I have access to the HeritageQuest online census images. I didn't have any problems finding and reading the images when I looked for my husband's family in the Clear Fork area. The images were very clear, especially considering how the originals may have deteriorated before they were recorded digitally. I'll be glad to do some lookups for you. The HeritageQuest search engine works only with names or other advanced search techniques for individuals. I can't figure out a way to look at a specific enumeration district. If you will send me the names, ages, birthplace, etc. of the heads of households you're interested in, I'll be glad to look for them. The search only works for heads of households. I'll also be glad to do some lookups for anyone else on the list --- within reason. I will be going out of town next week for several days, but will try to do the lookups when I get back or as soon as I can. I have looked at microfilm of old census records that were so faded when they were filmed, they're practically impossible to read. If that is the case with the Ancestry images, Ancestry.com should notify subscribers of this problem or try to do some digital recovery. I can't imagine charging so much for poor images. You might consider renting microfilm from your local Mormon Church. At least if the film is hard to read, you're only out a very nominal rental fee. RuthAnn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Crabtree" <crabtree30@comcast.net> To: <VATAZEWE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:24 PM Subject: [VA-TAZEWELL] Ancestry.com 1930 Census problems > I would like for some of you folks with the Ancestry.com Census subscription > try and access the 1930 Tazewell County Census, Clear Fork Enumeration > Districts 4, 5, 6, and 7 and first check if they are available and or if > they are not sharp. They have been blurred for more than a year and a half > now. I have made numerous complaints by email and by live person > communication and they say there just isn't enough hits on them to raise it > on their priority list. Those folks get close to $200 a year from me and I > am ticked by their attitude about fixing the problem. > > And it is about the same story with the Bluefield Daily Telegraph on their Historical Newspapers > subscription. They have not added any thing new in for over a year. I am totally fed up with those folks but do not wish to drop > them. I am out here in California and I am home sick and enjoy the search. > As you all probably know these folks here in California really think that > the World History began when gold was discovered in 1849 and later when the > dust storms chased all those strange hillbillies out of Okalahoma. > > I have also found that a lot of information they had a few years back is now > gone. I suspect they will add it again at a later date as their guise of > adding new information. Just an opinion here. > > I would appreciate hearing if anyone else has problems here. > > Thanks > Bob Crabtree > > > ==== VATAZEWE Mailing List ==== > TAZEWELL LIST ADMINISTRATOR > VATazewe-Admin@Rootsweb.com > >

Actually, the original census records that I've looked at at the National Archives in Washington, DC are in remarkably good condition. When you go there to look at census records, you look at the microfilms. However, if the microfilm you're looking at is so faint that it is impossible to read and those in charge examine it for you and agrees that it is impossible to read, you may request to go to another floor where the original records are kept. The very large volume will be pulled and you may sit and examine it. Unfortunately, I can't recall if you're allowed to Xerox the original records or if you must extract the information by hand using a blank census records form. I don't know if faint microfilm images are a result of extensive use or if they are the result of poor images being produced during the process of copying (photographing) the original images. A friend who worked at Maryland Archives once told me these faint microfilm copies result when a large number of films (copies) are produced from another film. She said that with each success process the quality deteriorates. If you've encountered census microfilm at your local archives or library or through the LDS facilities that proved to be terribly faint and are therefore impossible to read, you might want to consider a trip to DC to see the originals. Pam Kerschner ----- Original Message ----- From: <ruthab@neto.com> To: <VATAZEWE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [VA-TAZEWELL] Ancestry.com 1930 Census problems <snip> > I have looked at microfilm of old census records that were so faded when > they were filmed, they're practically impossible to read. If that is the > case with the Ancestry images, Ancestry.com should notify subscribers of > this problem or try to do some digital recovery. I can't imagine charging > so much for poor images. You might consider renting microfilm from your > local Mormon Church. At least if the film is hard to read, you're only out > a very nominal rental fee. > > RuthAnn >