Comments on: 1910 Census Update (part 1)—I’d Like to Buy a Vowel http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/10/15/1910-census-update-part-1%e2%80%94i%e2%80%99d-like-to-buy-a-vowel/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=1910-census-update-part-1%25e2%2580%2594i%25e2%2580%2599d-like-to-buy-a-vowel The official blog of Ancestry.com Thu, 23 May 2013 03:10:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Lila Garner http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/10/15/1910-census-update-part-1%e2%80%94i%e2%80%99d-like-to-buy-a-vowel/#comment-50466 Lila Garner Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:15:40 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=4753#comment-50466 Updating is good, but didn't work out so well for the 1840 census of Geauga County, Ohio, where I could find Almanza Best?r at first look. The update calls him Almaura Bester. I corrected his first name, later found out that Bestor is the correct spelling. So he can be found again, with my correction. Updating is good, but didn’t work out so well for the 1840 census of Geauga County, Ohio, where I could find Almanza Best?r at first look. The update calls him Almaura Bester. I corrected his first name, later found out that Bestor is the correct spelling. So he can be found again, with my correction.

]]> By: Andy Hatchett http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/10/15/1910-census-update-part-1%e2%80%94i%e2%80%99d-like-to-buy-a-vowel/#comment-50453 Andy Hatchett Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:41:03 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=4753#comment-50453 Michele Re: # 35 I forgot to add... If you or anyone else wants to send an off-blog message my e-mail is: agh3rd@aol.com I always try to answer e-mail within 24 hours if not sooner. Andy Michele Re: # 35

I forgot to add…

If you or anyone else wants to send an off-blog message my e-mail is:

agh3rd@aol.com

I always try to answer e-mail within 24 hours if not sooner.

Andy

]]> By: Andy Hatchett http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/10/15/1910-census-update-part-1%e2%80%94i%e2%80%99d-like-to-buy-a-vowel/#comment-50452 Andy Hatchett Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:21:37 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=4753#comment-50452 Michele Re: #35 Believe me- I'm not an Ancestry employee. The very thought of that give Ancestry management nightmares! I'm just a user like you. I have to admit that I'm curious as to what interesting stuff you found by clicking on my name that would lead you to believe I was a "ringer". As to the wedding info, in your original post you mentioned calling California counties which led me to believe you were looking for actual marriage documents- not announcements in newspapers. Michele Re: #35

Believe me- I’m not an Ancestry employee. The very thought of that give Ancestry management nightmares!

I’m just a user like you.

I have to admit that I’m curious as to what interesting stuff you found by clicking on my name that would lead you to believe I was a “ringer”.

As to the wedding info, in your original post you mentioned calling California counties which led me to believe you were looking for actual marriage documents- not announcements in newspapers.

]]> By: Michele http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/10/15/1910-census-update-part-1%e2%80%94i%e2%80%99d-like-to-buy-a-vowel/#comment-50451 Michele Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:54:56 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=4753#comment-50451 Andy Hatchett re: #26 Ancestry has found 3 wedding announcements in newspapers for me, during the 40's, hmmm but not in Ca., now that I think of it. Perhaps you are right. I clicked on your name to send a non-blog note; mighty interesting. I think you, Sir are a ringer, and either way you shouldn't be blogging with paying customers without being identified as an employee. If you have been identified as such, then you have my apologies. BTW: I found nothing on her parents either, which is why I think you are a ringer and that Ancestry should be looking into your interests here. Michele Andy Hatchett re: #26

Ancestry has found 3 wedding announcements in newspapers for me, during the 40′s, hmmm but not in Ca., now that I think of it. Perhaps you are right.
I clicked on your name to send a non-blog note; mighty interesting. I think you, Sir are a ringer, and either way you shouldn’t be blogging with paying customers without being identified as an employee. If you have been identified as such, then you have my apologies.
BTW: I found nothing on her parents either, which is why I think you are a ringer and that Ancestry should be looking into your interests here.

Michele

]]> By: Andy Hatchett http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/10/15/1910-census-update-part-1%e2%80%94i%e2%80%99d-like-to-buy-a-vowel/#comment-50407 Andy Hatchett Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:20:11 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=4753#comment-50407 Virginia Re: #33 After checking several counties and townships, I've reason to believe this problem may affect the entire 1910 New York census. Virginia Re: #33

After checking several counties and townships, I’ve reason to believe this problem may affect the entire 1910 New York census.

]]> By: Virginia http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/10/15/1910-census-update-part-1%e2%80%94i%e2%80%99d-like-to-buy-a-vowel/#comment-50406 Virginia Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:14:27 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=4753#comment-50406 Andy #31 Yes I knew about your notifying Ancestry...thank you. I was just giving a head's up to those who follow the blog...many do not read the message boards. Also wanted Bonnie to check out the problems she spoke about in the off chance they were part of the 1910 Census fiasco others have noticed. Virginia Andy #31
Yes I knew about your notifying Ancestry…thank you.

I was just giving a head’s up to those who follow the blog…many do not read the message boards.

Also wanted Bonnie to check out the problems she spoke about in the off chance they were part of the 1910 Census fiasco others have noticed.

Virginia

]]> By: Marty http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/10/15/1910-census-update-part-1%e2%80%94i%e2%80%99d-like-to-buy-a-vowel/#comment-50403 Marty Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:51:46 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=4753#comment-50403 I've been finding that the 1910 Census transcripts for Long Island, NY need work. I have found in several instances that family members are missing from the transcript and in one instance from the list of other people on the page, even though they are listed in the Census. Also people from other families on the Census page are at times mixed in with my ancestor's transcript. I’ve been finding that the 1910 Census transcripts for Long Island, NY need work. I have found
in several instances that family members are missing from the transcript and in one instance from the list of other people on the page, even though they are listed in the Census. Also people from other families on the Census page are at times mixed in with my ancestor’s transcript.

]]> By: Andy Hatchett http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/10/15/1910-census-update-part-1%e2%80%94i%e2%80%99d-like-to-buy-a-vowel/#comment-50401 Andy Hatchett Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:56:10 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=4753#comment-50401 Virginia Re :30 I just posted a message about what I've found about the 1910 census problem. http://boards.rootsweb.com/topics.ancestry.ancsite/11031.2/mb.ashx I also notified Ancestry and have received notification that they are checking into it. Virginia Re :30

I just posted a message about what I’ve found about the 1910 census problem.

http://boards.rootsweb.com/topics.ancestry.ancsite/11031.2/mb.ashx

I also notified Ancestry and have received notification that they are checking into it.

]]> By: Virginia http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/10/15/1910-census-update-part-1%e2%80%94i%e2%80%99d-like-to-buy-a-vowel/#comment-50400 Virginia Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:08:33 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=4753#comment-50400 #29 Bonnie On the message board: Ancestry.com Ancestry Site Comments, there have been issues reported regarding the 1910 Census. I have also seen some very WEIRD returns...my "subject" was listed as a sister-in-law in the WRONG household. When I pulled up the cenusu image, she was living with her married sister and the family she was "reported" to be with was actually on the same page but several families below. That being said, have you gone back to the 1910 census and completed a new search...to see if your family is still listed correctly? Also, the two examples given on the message board were both in New York State...my relative was also residing in New York State???? Virginia #29 Bonnie
On the message board: Ancestry.com Ancestry Site Comments, there have been issues reported regarding the 1910 Census.

I have also seen some very WEIRD returns…my “subject” was listed as a sister-in-law in the WRONG household. When I pulled up the cenusu image, she was living with her married sister and the family she was “reported” to be with was actually on the same page but several families below.

That being said, have you gone back to the 1910 census and completed a new search…to see if your family is still listed correctly?

Also, the two examples given on the message board were both in New York State…my relative was also residing in New York State????

Virginia

]]> By: Bonnie http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/10/15/1910-census-update-part-1%e2%80%94i%e2%80%99d-like-to-buy-a-vowel/#comment-50394 Bonnie Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:26:43 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=4753#comment-50394 Warning to anyone trying to create books from an Ancestry.com tree (using My Canvas). The 1910 Census image and associate data no longer show up as a page in the books. This problem just started for me when this "improvement" was rolled out. Spent hours editing a book only to realize that none of my ancestors had their 1910 data anymore. I have to wonder if Ancestry.com ever actually tests the impact of their "improvements" before rolling them out. Seems like every time they update, I have nothinb but problems. Warning to anyone trying to create books from an Ancestry.com tree (using My Canvas). The 1910 Census image and associate data no longer show up as a page in the books. This problem just started for me when this “improvement” was rolled out. Spent hours editing a book only to realize that none of my ancestors had their 1910 data anymore.

I have to wonder if Ancestry.com ever actually tests the impact of their “improvements” before rolling them out. Seems like every time they update, I have nothinb but problems.

]]>