1900 Census link removed from LKH9-SPW
This morning I discovered that some unidentified person or organization has removed the 1900 census from Martha Helen Fowler LKH9-SPW. The citation still appears on her source list, but it now has a pink banner saying "! 410 - Record Removed."
When I click on the familysearch.org link that still appears in the citation, I see a page with graphic that says in bold, "This record has been removed," tells me the record is no longer available, and urges me to remove the bookmark that got me there.
The 1900 census is no longer available?? Well, the same citation is still attached to her husband and is completely accessible. There is no indication in Martha's change log that this citation was removed or who is responsible for this action.
I'm politely refusing to cooperate with that graphic. What in the world is happening here? Perhaps I could delete the citation and reattach it, but for the moment I'd really prefer an explanation of some kind and/or some assurance that FamilySearch Elf of Mischief is not randomly removing legitimate citations.
Engineers are aware of the problem with the 1900 census and are working on it. Thank you so much for reporting this.0
Gordon Collett ✭✭✭✭✭
I have absolutely no idea what is going on but going to go ahead and make some comments.
It looks like the indexing for that particular page of the census is in a big mess right now. Maybe someone at FamilySearch is in the middle of updating the index.
If you go to Martha's husband's Charles' sources page, his link to the census is still there. Clicking Unfinished Attachments to enter the source linker shows five individuals but Martha's index entry is not there. Taking a peek at the actual census, she is, of course:
What is strange though, that I don't think I've seen before, is that the Source Linker only shows five individuals in this household, not the full thirteen. Even stranger is the state of the list of indexed information seen on this page:
It does list have lines for what should be all thirteen individuals in this household, but nine of them are copies of the indexed record for Alexander Whittle. If you hover over the little document icon, you can see that they all point to the same indexed record.
If you click on the line for Charles Wyse, things continue to be strange, because on his record page, the names of all the other twelve people in the household are listed:
I clicked on Martha aka Mattie's name here and was taken to Alexander's record page. Coming back to Charles' page, all the links for everyone that has vanished are now red as if I had visited each of them. These all lead to Alexander's record page.
I would assume, and sincerely hope, that this represents work to improve the census index, will be temporary, and that when the work is done everyone will have their same URL back so the ones that were attached in Family Tree automatically go back to being correctly attached. I really hope this does not mean that somehow the whole census index got corrupted somehow. In any event, I don't think I would do anything right now. Just check back periodically and see if Martha's attached source begins to work or if going to Charles' source page then the Source Linker that all the missing people reapper in the Source Linker so you reattach Martha with a new URL.
Otherwise, maybe someone at FamilySearch can let you, and the rest of us, know what is going on.0
There's a whole series of complications in investigating Alexander Whittle and this census. I'm leaving him alone for the moment, but look at these search results. I entered Alexander Whittle b. 1849 Georgia. A click on the image icons for both entries leads to the same Bowie County Texas 1900 census image. And the top entry has the relationships wrong too, in addition to referencing a different county.0
I too have encountered this issue with a 1900 census record. The census record is not available for the individual but the exact same record is available for his father.0
It seems that there have been a lot of problems recently with the 1900 census records. Here is a list of threads related to this issue.
Unfortunately, I don't have any more information than that. I wanted to make sure you know you're not alone.0
There is also a linking problem for the family of Robert Fairgrieve GDJH-2XZ in the 1900 census. When trying to attach the source to Robert's wife Jessie Fairgrieve GDJH-5G4 you get the message, " the record is no longer available, and urges me to remove the bookmark that got me there." Then when trying to attach Robert Fairgrieve it will only let you attach the source to his wife Jessie and not to the proper record!0
This is happening with almost all 1900 census records. It seems that Family Search has a bug in their system somehow with 1900 census records.0
N Tychonievich mod
@PaulHenke1 It appears that some merging has happened with the Robert O Fairgrieve family in Family Tree. We found the surviving person after the merge, but find no 1900 US Census record hints. If you run across it again, please create a new post in FamilySearch Help's Search category. When you add your comment on to another person's query, it is easily lost in the shuffle. Thanks.0