Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know you're disappointed, Nitram, but keep in mind that these records were never meant to be used for tracing families and individuals the way we do with them now. They were primarily meant as a count of people that would be used to establish representation in The Congress, as well as being used for other government analysis and calculation.
But I have to say, having tried to work with microfilmed records before the days of computerized indexes, the current state of the art... finding relatives in indexes in moment, then pulling up scans of the actual pages, over the internet, in the comfort of my own home, simply miraculous.
It's not a perfect system, but it is pretty darned amazing.
I understand what you're saying, but it's interesting that the previous census takers like the 30's and 20's were more accurate and clear reading. It seems that as we get later census records the quality of them written and accuracy should improve. Not the case withe 40 census.
I understand what you're saying, but it's interesting that the previous census takers like the 30's and 20's were more accurate and clear reading. It seems that as we get later census records the quality of them written and accuracy should improve. Not the case withe 40 census.
It really just depends on that individual census takers and whether he or she tried or cared. Or for that fact, it depends on whether they were sober. I once scanned an enitre town searching for an ancestor. The whole town was enumerated over a period of a few weeks by one man. You could tell when he started out fresh in the beginning of the day. Those pages were the most legible.
Then you could tell where he stopped for lunch and must have swilled down plenty of alcohol before heading back out. Because then his writing became really loose, sloppy and hard to read. This is all the same guy, day after day. As you know, the specific dates of enumeration are at the top of each page.
It's the luck of the draw. Your entry for 1950 may be better than 1940. I hope we all live long enough to see it released.
It really just depends on that individual census takers and whether he or she tried or cared. Or for that fact, it depends on whether they were sober. I once scanned an enitre town searching for an ancestor. The whole town was enumerated over a period of a few weeks by one man. You could tell when he started out fresh in the beginning of the day. Those pages were the most legible.
Then you could tell where he stopped for lunch and must have swilled down plenty of alcohol before heading back out. Because then his writing became really loose, sloppy and hard to read. This is all the same guy, day after day. As you know, the specific dates of enumeration are at the top of each page.
It's the luck of the draw. Your entry for 1950 may be better than 1940. I hope we all live long enough to see it released.
Funny stuff, though probably all true. Problem with the 50 census I'll either be in the nuthouse home or in the ceramic jar.
I understand what you're saying, but it's interesting that the previous census takers like the 30's and 20's were more accurate and clear reading. It seems that as we get later census records the quality of them written and accuracy should improve. Not the case withe 40 census.
I have made more suggested corrections to the 1940 census than I have for all the other census years combined! But what I am seeing is that it's not only the enumerator, but also the transcriber that has been making really obvious mistakes...I mean REALLY obvious mistakes. It has been tremendously frustrating searching for ancestors that I know are there so I have resorted to searching just by first name for smaller cities and then just by first name and birthdate for larger cities. Last night, I was searching for Robert Prouty after trying several different things, I finally just went with first name, mothers first name and place of birth. Imagine my surprise when I found the family listed under Robert Roanty. Sheesh...
I found one listing of extended family living together, all the same last name. This was grandparents to grandchildren. They spelled the name THREE different ways...almost as if it was to make sure one might be right. I really wonder when they do the computerized ones like the last one if they'll be more accurate or not. I know a lot of people were not pleased at some of the questions asked of late.
I think future generations will have a substantially harder time using the census for genealogical research. I can't tell you the number of people I know whom either discarded it or decided that it would be more appropriate to put in false information because they didn't think the government should be concerned with such private matters. The amateur genealogist in me cringed whenever someone told me this. I was meticulous completing my family's, even being careful to be completely accurate with our foster children's info - and I actually pondered what it would be like when future generations reviewed our information.
I think future generations will have a substantially harder time using the census for genealogical research. I can't tell you the number of people I know whom either discarded it or decided that it would be more appropriate to put in false information because they didn't think the government should be concerned with such private matters. The amateur genealogist in me cringed whenever someone told me this. I was meticulous completing my family's, even being careful to be completely accurate with our foster children's info - and I actually pondered what it would be like when future generations reviewed our information.
I got five visits and called them four times. And I turned it in... Seems the vacant lot next to me was on the list and they thought I lived on it. I don't see why they couldn't simply had a basic information list, and if someone refused they could note they declined. Otherwise those other questions probably were lied about more than not.
I'm pretty sure given the way they kept bugging me, that throwing it away was just going to bring a cencus worker to your door. A friend worked for them, and she had to check each shed, barn and abandoned building they had on the list to make sure it wasn't inhabited. But if someone just didn't want to talk, and the gate was locked and they didn't respond, she tried three times and marked it as refused/not home. I don't know if they had a supervisor take over then or not, but if you didn't want to give the personal info, getting noticed wasn't the way to do it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny stuff, though probably all true. Problem with the 50 census I'll either be in the nuthouse home or in the ceramic jar.
