Comments on: Time for a Second Look? — Improved 1920 Census Now Online

By: BobNY

BobNY — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 04:16:47 +0000

Nor was it acceptable to do what ACOM did when they “enhanced” the 1900 census. They deleted all of the ED descriptions in major cities, e.g. New York and Chicago.

I have been trying for an entire year to get them to:
1. Admit that they were there before the “enhancement”
2. Recognize they are not there now.
3. Have an “expert” determine if they are important
4. Look into returning them.

That is the current situation as I have not heard anything back from ACOM for almost 8 months.

These were the last 2 communications:

Chris Lydiksen, Ancestry.com
Posted on:
August 25, 2009 at 11:46 am
#62 and #63 – I’ve forwarded your feedback to the expert on the case. We’ll get back to you again on this.

=========================
Chris’ final response indicated to me that he still did not underdtand the question and basically has let it die a natural death.

Chris Lydiksen, Ancestry.com
Posted on:
August 25, 2009 at 3:50 pm
#76 – If the problem is with the transcribed index, then the U.S. content product manager is the right person to address this. If the problem is with the search tool, then the search product manager is the right person to address this. As stated already today, the issue is currently under review.

By: P J Evans

P J Evans — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 00:36:03 +0000

#32
Many of the images from other years refer to _both_ the NARA film numbers and the FHL film numbers. If I’m going to refer to a source for a census, I want at least the NARA film number, and I’ll add the FHL film number if I have it. Using some other number, without any kind of refernce to what it is and where its from, is just Not Acceptable.

By: Sarah L.

Sarah L. — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:34:53 +0000

Mike #17/18 and Margaret #26, it looks like Ancestry’s older 1920 census images were from NARA microfilm, but the new images are from FamilySearch microfilm instead. I think the strange new numbers that Mike found in the source citation point to the new source that Ancestry used.

I looked at a transcribed FamilySearch 1920 census record for Attleboro Ward 1, Massachusetts. It included a “Digital GS number” of 4301088, which matches the last part of the roll number in Mike’s posting 17: Roll 31109_4301088.

I’ve never heard of a digital GS number, but according to a posting on WikiAnswers, it’s an identifier for the digital version of a roll of microfilm created by the Genealogical Society of Utah (GSU):
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_Digital_GS_number

I checked several 1920 census entries, and the digital GS number from FamilySearch matched the last part of the Roll number on Ancestry’s pages every time. I don’t know what the first part (31109) is. It’s the same in every record I found.

Technically, I guess the source from Ancestry’s pages would be what we cite since that’s what we used. But it’s complicated. It sounds like Roll 31109_4301088 shown on Ancestry’s page is the digital version of the FHL microfilm (1820681). If you look up that film, it refers to the NARA film that Mike listed in his post.

Paul, if you or someone from Ancestry could help us sort this out, that would be great.

By: Sherry

Sherry — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:04:59 +0000

Linda #15

The familysearch pilot site has the 1865 and 1905 New York Census images online; unfornately not yet indexed but worth checking back to see what progress has been made.

The 1892 New York includes an index as well as images.

Best of all……..it is free.

By: Andy Hatchett

Andy Hatchett — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:15:40 +0000

Jim,

I know for a fact that certain organizations are indeed withholding records- and not just from Ancestry.

The four largest counties in Tennessee have declined to make their early marriage index books available to anyone seeking to put them online.

I wasn’t really pointing fingers, just saying that people seem to think Ancestry can just go get whatever records they want , when they want and that simply isn’t the case.

By: Buhton Downe

Buhton Downe — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:16:19 +0000

The internet archive also has the “Fourth Conference on Mars”.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=title%3A%28%22fourth%20conference%20on%20mars%22%29

By: Jim Livermore

Jim Livermore — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:02:20 +0000

Andy,

Where in my post did I suggest any relationship between LDS and Ancestry?

The point of my post was…

Quit pointing fingers at organizations you might think are withholding records from Ancestry. They are not. The ball is in Ancestry’s court entirely. It is all about the money.

By: Andy Hatchett

Andy Hatchett — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 07:57:53 +0000

Margaret,

There may be a relationship between Ancestry and the LDS concerning certain projects but each of those is a one-off deal, there is no overall relationship concerning the collections of each organization.

The point of my post was…

Just because the LDS has something in their collection it should not be assumed that Ancestry has access to it.

By: Margaret

Margaret — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:18:15 +0000

# 25 Andy

There is a relationship between the LDS and Ancestry. Read the source information for some of the databases including — on topic –the 1920 Fed Census. “Images reproduced by FamilySearch.”

BTW, Ancestry does have a couple – though not very many – databases covering some NY State Census records.

By: Andy Hatchett

Andy Hatchett — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:46:17 +0000

Jim-

As has been stated before…LDS has nothing to do with Ancestry.

If LDS has the exclusive use of the microfilm then they have to agree to give Ancestry access it it.

The point is that Ancestry must be given the right to use the records by whoever has control of the records; there is no unilateral action Ancestry can take on its own.