ROOTS-L ArchivesArchiver > ROOTS > 2003-01 > 1041798964
From: Steven Dhuey <>
Subject: [ROOTS-L] Problem with the 1930 census index
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 14:36:04 -0600
An important tip for using Ancestry's index to the 1930 U.S. census.
Many, many records in Ancestry's index (I am guessing up to a third)
do NOT include the person's birthplace. This seems to happen mostly
when the person is not the head of household; for example, wives and
children. Yet in every case of several dozen that I've checked on,
the actual census record does record the person's place of birth. So,
it's the fault of the index, not the census.
The upshot is that if, when using Ancestry's search engine for the
index, you specify a place of birth for someone whose birthplace is
not recorded in the index, you will get NO record of that person in
So -- if you can't find a person using Ancestry's 1930 census index,
leave the "birthplace" field blank and search again.
Although you can use Soundex coding for the last name, you can't for
the first name. The search engine is very literal -- if you search
for "Philip" you will get only "Philip" results, not any "Philipp" or
"Phillip" records. A way around this is to use the "wild card"
capability of the search engine. After typing in a minimum of three
letters for the first name, you can type an asterisk as a wild card
for the rest of the letters.
For example, typing:
will get you Philip, Phillip, Philippe, Philomena, and more.
Nothing on the search engine page for Ancestry's 1930 census index
tells you about this wild card capability.
|[ROOTS-L] Problem with the 1930 census index by Steven Dhuey <>|