TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2012-04 > 1335094200


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Source Type for 1940 Census
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:30:00 -0500
References: <4F8F1536.3060808@reigelridge.com><4F91B717.1090303@post.harvard.edu> <4F92CFE1.7070900@sprynet.com><4F93087D.6080201@reigelridge.com> <4F934253.6000406@sprynet.com><4F935106.9040808@reigelridge.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F935106.9040808@reigelridge.com>


On 4/21/2012 7:29 PM, Terry Reigel wrote:
...
> Darrell,
>
> On which sheet numbers? In all I've seen, they were in sequence in the
> early pages (but often with some numbers missing), but then there are
> pages where they went back and got people they missed, which are
> supposed to start with sheet # 61. Here's what the instructions say in
> two relevant parts:
>
> "401. Numbering Sheets.-Number the sheets of the Population schedules
> used for persons enumerated in regular order serially beginning with 1.
> Number the sheets of the Population schedules used for persons
> enumerated out of regular order serially beginning with 61..."
>
> "418. The household visitation number should be assigned to all
> households at the time of the first visit, even if it is necessary to
> call back to obtain the information."
>
> When I've seen household numbers out of sequence, they were people where
> the enumerator went back later.
>
> Terry Reigel

Terry:

As I said, the enumerator botched it. So the instructions are irrelevant
except to confirm that this enumerator did *NOT* do what was expected. I
don't recall the sheet, only that it was in Illinois (it was a
FamilySearch indexer sharing a batch with others to see if they could
help read what was there -- FamilySearch is using volunteers to create a
FREE index to the 1940 Census).

Misnumbering a few households (either skipping one and not realizing it,
or skipping one and ignoring it, or skipping one and inserting it one or
two households later) is actually less rare than one might hope. I have
seen that both while indexing and when arbitrating. But it does not
happen on every second or third sheet, no.

Numbering households is not the only thing some enumerators did not do
right! One even put his name entries in the format "surname - initial -
given". One or two people, I would say perhaps that "Martin - A. -
Darrell" actually *is* named "A. Darrell MARTIN", he just uses his
middle name. But every sheet, of 40 people each? And then there are the
enumerators who insist on telling us where 3-year-olds (in 1940) were
living in 1935 ... Common? No. Extremely rare? Not at all.

The line number is preprinted and the indexing program prefills it
(after you start with either 1 for A sheets, or 41 for B sheets). So
**as a finding aid**, it is *slightly* -- but significantly -- more
useful than the household number. Yes, it is possible that both indexers
for a batch, PLUS the arbitrator, would mess that up. But it would take
some effort. ;)

Either way, the household number is crucial for grouping people. No
dispute there.

Darrell

This thread: