APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2008-07 > 1216957482


From: "Tom Kemp" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] 1920 census going online - free
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:44:42 -0400
References: <mailman.66321.1216766528.9525.apg@rootsweb.com><39786.50164.qm@web62401.mail.re1.yahoo.com><5.2.1.1.2.20080724210431.02da7ec0@mail.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20080724210431.02da7ec0@mail.comcast.net>


The FHL did not have the index for 1920 - which they now have from Ancestry.
They also get the 1790-1840; 1910 and 1930 indexes.
It was a barter arrangement.

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Neal Underwood <> wrote:
> What, then, is the point of FamilySearch putting an "index" to the 1920
> census on its website and not accompanying it with the underlying schedule
> images when they already have incurred the expense of scanning the images?
> Do they expect the casual researchers to drive to an FHC or subscribe to
> Ancestry to obtain complete, accurate data? Since images to other censuses
> are posted free on FS, their intentions are confusing.
>
>
> At 06:43 PM 7/22/08 -0700, Ruy Cardoso wrote:
>> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:27:11 -0500
>> > From: Neal Underwood <>
>> >
>> > Hopefully, the new "indexes" will contain sufficient detail and be
>> > displayed in such a manner that referral to the original
>> > image is only required for questionable or specific data items. For
>> > example, I generally only use the transcription for the 1880 census and
>> > only occasionally need to refer to the schedule.
>>
>>Nice idea, Neal, but still dangerous. I can see how relying just on such
>>an idealized index would be tempting for any number of reasons, but why
>>take that particular shortcut when the corresponding images are so readily
>>available through a number of sources? And how can one assess what is
>>questionable without making the comparison of index to image? None of
>>this diminishes the usefulness of something like the 1880 census
>>transcription; it's the excess and largely unnecessary reliance on it as a
>>sole source that I'm questioning.
>>
>>I spent several years compiling an "index" along the lines you're thinking
>>of (for certain parish records). Yet even with my intimate knowledge of
>>the families involved, name spellings, handwriting, and so on, I'm sure
>>there are still misreadings aplenty (and they are now enshrined in the IGI
>>as well). Despite -- or perhaps because of -- my thousands of hours of
>>working with these records, I would unequivocally advise users of my
>>compilation to look at the original records rather than just relying on my
>>interpretations of them. Other eyes may see things differently than I did.
>>
>>Perhaps as a little test you could take, say, a couple of dozen random
>>entries from the 1880 census transcription and compare them to the
>>underlying images. I've not done this myself, so I'm not sure how
>>accurate you will find the transcription to be. But then I'm not the one
>>relying so heavily on that transcription, and I would think such a test
>>would be useful in evaluating your approach.
>>
>>Ruy Cardoso
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>


This thread: