TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-06 > 1276962786
From: "genbits" <>
Subject: [TGF] NARA Microfilm Numbers and Citations at Ancestry
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:53:06 -0500
Connie's comment is good. My use of the Source Citations that ancestry.com
puts out, are always in question until I check the data with the NARA Census
Bureau microfilm records. If anything is wrong on ancestry.com like not
indexed correctly or parts left out...
I always leave a COMMENT in the COMMENT BOX. Especially with indexers miss
spellings which happens a lot. [like Paulsen for Paul sen interperted as
Many times you will find in the Source Citation the no microfilm number just
the roll number. IN research documentation for example: Gary Minders Excel
Census Forms, have the roll and microfilm numbers from the Census Bureau
site and if ancestry.com has it different it is noted in the comment section
for each person found. If publishing the final research, I use Census Bureau
microfilm numbers and note that ancestry.com does not match. Trusting
footnote.com, WorldVitalRecords, or other websites and ancestry.com's
documentation or indexes is always up for questions.
If there are enough of us who take the time to complain/leave a comment
maybe they will get the message.
Annette DeCourcy Towler
Home page for DeCourcy & Pack
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [TGF] NARA Microfilm Numbers and Citations toMortalitySchedules
I enjoyed Linda Gardner's discussion of the Ancestry "thingies" that purport
to extract or abstract from a book, other database or image. And which
Ancestry insists on calling "the record."
It should be noted that Connie Sheets' link was indeed to a "thingy," but
for the purpose of showing the reader what Ancestry.com says about the
database source of the Mortality Schedule in question.
Linda said >So, perhaps what Ancestry is providing here is a partial
abstract + their analysis (the estimated birth year). Of course the viewer
has no way to tell which is which (abstract vs analysis) without looking at
My opinion is that, no matter how poorly rendered, it is indeed an abstract.
Unfortunately in many databases Ancestry has added interpretations or
outright inventions (such as relationships between household members in US
Federal Census entries).
However, Connie's question was not about how to cite such "thingies," but
how correctly to cite the source of the database as given by Ancestry, in
which the given NARA microfilm number appears to be incorrect.
I think Connie's approach to citing the Ancestry version of source is well
Connie's example shows the importance of verifying the accuracy of source
The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a safe environment
for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional
level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list.
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