Keep up the good work

How do I “Select one parent in order to add new sibling” when NONE are shown?

The new index for the 1900 Census is broken. As an example, search for “George”, no last name, in Jefferson County, Tennessee, born in 1872 +/- 2 years. Not only are all Georges listed, some spouses, children, and even sisters of someone named George are listed. At least one entry, for “Jinnie Riley”, doesn’t include a George at all. Am I misunderstanding something?

To Chris Lydiksen The new, improved 1900 U.S. census is a BIG JOKE was more poorly transcribed than the old one. If a person was born in INDIAN TERRITORY, some uneducated transcriber has them born in INDIANA, so to the volunteers that did the 1900 U.S. census If you can not cook get OUT of the kitchen, and to the persons in charge of this project are the most UNEDUCATED persons employed by ANCESTRY to let some thing like this go by unchecked, they have NO PRIDE in what they are doing. If I were the person in charged of Ancestry I would Fire all of them!

Robert, the transcriptions for the new version of 1900 census were done by volunteers at FamilySearch Indexing. So Ancestry.com had nothing to do with the transcription mistakes that are in the new version. FamilySearch Indexing does no checking for errors when both of its volunteers key in the same thing. So I guess this goes to show that no method of census indexing is error free.

I’m wondering about the corrections I made to so many people. According to this, they are gone:

NEW INDEX: We took our existing index with user-submitted corrections, and the new, double-keyed and arbitrated FamilySearch index and programmatically merged the two. A complex algorithm was designed specifically for this operation. The following are a couple quotes from one of our developers:

I guess I should go to the “new improved” 1900 census index and check for all the corrections I made.

I checked one family for whom I had entered customer name corrections and the corrections were still there. Phew!!! Hope all of them are there. I saved all my “thank you” emails from Ancestry so this should be easy to do. Of course the old index entry is still there. I didn’t expect that to change.

To Robert:

I have indexed for FamilySearch and it isn’t easy. When you download a census page to index, you select the state and the county is randomly sent to you. I have indexed census pages in Ohio, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. I had no knowledge of any of the family names in the counties. Sometimes the enumerator’s handwriting is very hard to read and after indexing 40 people per page on the 1870 census, you began to get tired and your eyes are strained. Many times I have had to make a guess as to what the names were and where the people were born. If you are unhappy with the indexing, I recommend that you volunteer to index and maybe you can help to improve the situation.

To Pam

I volunteer to index to see what is was all about and got out of the kitchen, like you said you had no knowledge of the area you were indexing, or any background knowledge of handwriting in that period of time. We paid good money to Ancestry for their services, but lately we are not receiving the quality of there databases, like the North Carolina death certificates 1901-1975 If you are looking for some one that died in SHOOTING CREEK, CLAY,NORTH CAROLINA Ancestry has over 20 difference spellings of SHOOTING CREEK like SHORTING CREEK
SHOATING CREEK
SMOKY CREEK
SHODBING CREEK
SHOOTREY CREEK
SHERLING CREEK and the best ones SHVOTIRIGCRECH
SHROTUZ CRUTZ
SHWTING CRUK
Like I said before the person in charge of this database should be fired, you would think that they would give you a index of the spellings of the places in that state, but Ancestry wanted to be the first to get it out even if it is full of mistakes they have NO PRIDE in what they are doing
When the family trees started I thought that Ancestry would fix there index with the records attached to a person in your tree, I have 20696 persons in my tree and 52808 records attached
And to Ancestry stop wasting time and money in trying to come up with a NEW SEARCH ENGINE that will NOT work on the databases you have FIX the databases, Hire qualified people to do the indexing not some volunteer that has no knowledge of what they are doing, be the first to have the most correct index not the largest
Work on the user-submitted corrections to add corrections on not just the name but other fields like age, gender,relationship
It makes one wonder how many people that work for Ancestry has a family tree on Ancestry with records attached? and have first hand experience of trying to find some one in Ancestry databases

Pam, yopu said…

[quote]
I have indexed for FamilySearch and it isn’t easy. When you download a census page to index, you select the state and the county is randomly sent to you. I have indexed census pages in Ohio, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. I had no knowledge of any of the family names in the counties. Sometimes the enumerator’s handwriting is very hard to read and after indexing 40 people per page on the 1870 census, you began to get tired and your eyes are strained. Many times I have had to make a guess as to what the names were and where the people were born. If you are unhappy with the indexing, I recommend that you volunteer to index and maybe you can help to improve the situation.
[End quote]

I’ll be blunt-

If you are having to guess then you are doing it wrong. Simply mark it as unreadable and move on.

Your incorrect guess plus another indexer’s matching incorrect guess leads to an incorrect index.

This goes for anyone indexing anything for any organization-period.

Indexers are there to help with a solution and not to compound the problem.

And for those who ask…
Yes, I index for both LDS and Ancestry.

TO CHIRS LYDIKSEN 1900 Census

REMAINING FIXES: We do know of some issues with the browse, as well as some other items, that need to be fixed and we’re already working on those. If you find bugs or errors, please forward them on to me.

when searching 1900 census Indian Territory, birthplace Georgia, birth year 1858 + _ 10 NO MATCHES FOUND take out the birth year and you have 8,359 found and not one person index has a birth date listed. like I said before be the first to get it out even if it is full of mistakes. If you were a employee of mine you would be FIRED!!! you did not impress me.
how can Ancestry NEW SEARCH ENGINE work right if the info is not in the database so lets blame it on some technical problem to cover your (you know what) IF YOU DON’T HAVE TIME TO DO IF RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FIND TIME TO DO TO MAKE IT RIGHT

I received the e-mail last night saying that this census would be free for limited time. When I went there it said ‘hope you enjoyed your 3 free days’!!! This is second time I have had this experience. Might be nice to receive the notice BEFORE it ends!

My great uncle John Ratajczak born in 1866 is accounted for on the 1910 Cleveland Census. Immigration date 1895, married to Mary with two children Casimir and Stanislaw. I have been unable to locate him in the 1900 Census nor his children, in the 1920 and 1930 censuses. 1910 is my only reference to him and I am in a dead-end situation. Thank you for the 1900 census. Thought I finally could trace him but no luck!

I am absolutely thrilled with this newly improved 1900 Census. Prior to this release I had been unsuccessfully looking for several of my husband’s ancestors’ data for a year. There was a HUGE time gap, with many missing pieces to his ancestral puzzle. Yesterday when I searched the newly revised data it was like hitting the jackpot! Not only did I find the missing Census data, it led me to accidentally discover parents & siblings. I was able to push through a wall & find my husband’s great-great-grandparents. This discovery led me to marriages & children of people we didn’t know about, which sadly led me to a horrific discovery of how my husband’s great-great grandmother (who we’d just learned about) was brutally murdered, and her daughter nearly so. Yikes!

So anyways, thank you for this re-release of the Census data. For our family, at least, it worked wonders! I am eager to start searching it again to fill in a few gaps in my own ancestral line.

To Chris Lydiksen

First of all the 1900 United States Federal census is the most valued census of all the others, being the first complete surviving census after 1880, and having the following categories in the census: name; address; relationship to the head of household; color or race; sex; month and year of birth; age at last birthday; marital status; number of years married; the total number of children born of the mother; the number of those children living; places of birth of each individual and the parents of each individual; if the individual was foreign born, the year of immigration and the number of years in the United States; the citizenship status of foreign-born individuals over age twenty-one; occupation; whether the person could read, write, and speak English; whether the home was owned or rented; whether the home was on a farm; and whether the home was mortgaged.That is a 20 year gap a lot can happen in 20 years.
So FamilySearch and Ancestry treat the 1900 United States Federal Census like dirt. Why are there so many names indexed that do NOT have BIRTH DATE filled in? for example John R Stewart
and all the other on that page

Name: John R Stewart
Home in 1900: Santa Ana, Philippine Islands, Military and Naval Forces
Age: 22
Birthplace: Georgia
Race: White
Relationship to head-of-house: Private
Occupation: View Image
Neighbors: View others on page

in viewing the image He was born Sep 1877 Georgia so in your respond 4) Robert “Fixing each and every transcription error and/or normalizing all relevant fields in a database would increase the cost and time of each database by a hundredfold or more, which would be less optimal for all involved, the business and its customers.We could simply just not key as many fields as we do, but the majority of entries are transcribed correctly. This adds value to the database by allowing users to search instead of browse.” so what fields were normalized in redoing the 1900 census?
How can one search by year of birth if it is NOT index. In doing a search with the OLD SEARCH for John R Stewart we know for a fact that he is index as that, using EXACT MATCHES ONLY state NEW MEXICO- birth GEORGIA-birth year 1877

Your Search for John R Stewart returned no matches
You searched for John R Stewart born in Georgia
You said “if you find bugs or errors, please forward them on to me.”

In respond to 9)Robert
Is not Shooting Creek a importance field to be normalized? this is the place of death one would put in,in searching

I would love to discuss these issues man to man, but would that be fair to the other people that use this BLOG? and miss out on your respond
Will you be in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma soon?

In respond to 12) Robert I use the OLD
SEARCH
One good thing that I found in the 1900 census are the missing pages from Split Rock, Carlton, Minnesota

Thanks for your respond
Robert

Chris:

It was/is an exact search made with the old interface (exact matches only, exact spelling, etc.) It currently shows 71 results: first name “George”, born 1872 +/-2, Jefferson County, Tennessee. I tried the same query in various other counties around the country and ended up with the same problem, e.g., Lee County, Virginia, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, etc.

Robert, re: #16, “so what fields were normalized in redoing the 1900 census”

Ancestry did not ‘redo’ anything. They substituted LDS’ images for what images Ancestry had, and *added* the existing LDS index to the Ancestry index.

The search capabilities of the 1900 census are different from other years. Among other things, it doesn’t seem to work with a surname and state alone or with names that have three letters and an askterisk (as CLA*).

I can’t seem to locate people as easily as before. Is there something I’m missing?

Kay Schmidt

I’ve been a paying member of ancestry.com for 2 years and I recommend it to everyone. It is money well invested. Yes, there are a lot of misspelled names and locations, but I’ve found that on the original census an ‘x’ can look like an ‘r’, and a ‘T’ like a ‘J’, and that’s how the transcriber sees it. Is there any way that we can send in corrections on transcribed census lists? A load of thanks to you who are spending many hours to get my ancestors on the list. If it weren’t for all of you, I would still be wondering where I came from. Thanks for the new 1900 census…..awesome!

The new 1900 Census thing honks! It is ANOTHER bell/whistle that just messes up most of the time. Thanks for your trouble.

I have only done a quick look at the updated 1900 Census on family names I have previously located. I have been an indexer for Family Search for a couple of years and did many 1900 pages; I always put a lot of time and careful attention to getting the indexing as correct as possible. Now that the 1900 Census indexing is completed, I was surprised when I located one of my family members and found more errors than I had remembered from the original indexing on Ancestry. In some cases the yellow triangle was present to show there were alternate spellings. What is wierd to me is that when I look at the census page, the names are many times quite clear and not even close to how they were transcribed by either process. I also see some “way off” alternate spellings, sometimes none of the options is correct (the way I read the census page). So obviously there is no perfect method!

I would like to know why the 1900 census for Pickens County, Alabama was omitted from the new index. At least with the old index I could find my relatives. Now I can’t even find my County.

Chris, I’m wondering if the 1900 Census will remain the same or is work still being done??
If I enter ALL the known information; State,(WISCONSIN for example), Birthdate, Place of Birth, Ethnic group, etc., why does it start out with Alabama with no relevant information that I entered??
Am I required to go thru all persons until I get to the W’s??

Judy, #24,

You are much more likely to get results in the logical order if you use Old Search. If necessary, use the link to the right in the yellow band to click out of New Search, which is defective and not sortable by locality, name, etc.

JADE: Could I have more understandable directions as to how to get out of the new 1900 census site and back to the old way?? Yellow band I have, but no link to click as you suggested.
All the years I’ve had ancestry, this is the first time I’ve been so frustrated with a change in format!!!

For Yolande Carter,
On the 1910 census your John and Mary Ratayczak are living under the same roof as Stanislaus and Eva Ratayczak (related???). Both families married 7 and 2 years respectfully. They are living in Cuyahoga county Ohio, Cleveland Ward 17 District 258.

In 1900 Stanislaus is living with his parents Mar???? and Francis (???) and sister Pelagia they all emegrated in 1889 from Poland. They are household 145 family 364 in Cuyahoga county Ohio, Cleveland Ward 27 District 138.

In 1900 John Ratayczak is living with his married sister Katie Wasielewski and her husband Stephan Wasielewski. They are living in Cuyahoga county Ohio, Cleveland Ward 27, District 145. They are in house 1108 on Tod Street family 584.

In 1920 Stanley Ratajzak (indexed as Ratajeek) is with wife Eva and children and mother Francis, widowed in Cuyahoga county, Ohio, Cleveland Ward 14, District 286.

Unable to locate John and family in 1920 or 1930.

In 1925 John Ratajczak was naturalized, 18 September 1925 in U.S. District Court Cleveland Ohio. His address was 6924 Hosmer Ave, Cleveland, Ohio. His witness was John T. Wasielewski at 4323 E. 116 St. and Chas. Benaszek, 6610 Lansing Ave.

In 1930 Stanley Ratajzak is widowed and living with his sons and daughter in Cuyahoga county, Ohio, Cleveland, District 238.

# 28 Were is Chris Lydiksen? Will he be in on the 1 Oct to get his pay and post his respond? On his other posts he posts a respond on the first of the month

Special Thanks to Pat Bowen for helping Yolande carter.

were did #10 or #11 go?look at Chirs Lydiksen respond on 1 Sep and match up the numbers with the names

I would like to know how I can correct a mistake that was made at Ellis Island. I have copies of original passports that proves the records to be wrong at Ellis Island.
The last name was entered as Smutter.
This is incorrect. The name should be Smulter. The “L’ was crossed to resemble a “t” My mother was one of these people that arrived at Ellis Island in 1921 a board the Oscar II

Am I missing something, or is there a problem? Since the new images for the 1900 census have been activated, when I try to print, which used to be in portrait mode, a large portion on the right is cut off. The print instructions now state to use landscape mode, and that cuts off the bottom. Please advise.

When merging 1900 census records with your tree records, the marriage date field gives strange or incorrect results. If I search for John Doe and locate a 1900 census record I’d like to merge with my tree, click the save button. When it displays the data fields I’d like to merge, one is the year of marriage based on the number of years they had been married by 1900. Seems if I search for John who is an adult and already married, it copies the year married for him and his wife correctly. If I search for John who is a child, still living with his married parents, and copy the information from the census, I will get records showing John jr. married his father John sr. as well as a record showing John jr. marrying his mother Jane in the same year. It seems to create a marriage record for the person being searched, not between the parents (unless you are searching for one of the parents).

merge does not work

The first post on this thread caught my eye. This type of recovery of information and photo repair and enhancement can bring out details in records previously hidden from view. Without this form a of digital restoration we would not be able to find the clues that we need to investigate our family trees, truly amazing!