A gremlin in the 1900 US Census - Kearny, New Jersey
Working on the Lawrence Barrett LR6X-S3D family this morning, I noticed that the 1900 census had been attached to him, but not to his wife, Mary Ann Hughes.
I opened the census to see why, and I found a mangled mess of an index. I don't think it was an error of the indexer, but more likely some programming error has crept in.
The entire family above the Barrett family is indexed as multiples of "John Duken" rather than John, wife Mary, and their 7 children. Only daughter Elizabeth gets her own name.
Then, in the Barretts, everyone was indexed as Lawrence the father, with the exception of sons James and William.
When I attempted to offer an edit, starting with wife Mary A, everyone else became Mary A. The problem does not seem to exist on the page before or after.
Any suggestions? @N Tychonievich ? The census page: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M9J2-XWQ
@Áine Ni Donnghaile Áine Ni Donnghaile Yes, indeed, strange things going on with the 1900 US Census index. Lots of reports. We'll add yours to those we have sent on to the developers.0
Thanks, @N Tychonievich I checked several other families I have researched, but I did not find that error on any of them.0
Yep, kind of hit and miss.1
Another one: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6729-N6?i=20&cc=1325221&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AM395-R1X
Notice under Davis, James L, there are two entries for Jennie E Davis, even though the record is only on the image once. The entry for Bertha is missing. It is impossible to link either of the entries for Jennie Davis to any family search persona.0
Another one https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/L4QG-4QT
George M Bancroft 1852–1929 • L4QG-4QT
1900 Census source now shows "410 - Record removed" but the Record is still existing: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MSGX-SC9?treeref=L4QG-4QT0
1900 census record : for my ancestor William Smith, wife Mary , children : Francis, William, Mammie, the view record detail gets an error, however the image is available.
here’s the the record link : https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MSLV-PPP. Gets this error: This Record has been removed.
Unfortunately, the record that you requested is no longer available. If you arrived here from a bookmark, please delete your bookmark.
But the image is available, image link: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6QC3-SF6?i=23&cc=1325221
This record detail was available at the time I used the link (beginning of Nov). Now suddenly it’s gone.
also As I read the names on the image, I notice the index section repeats the name William Smith.
Can this possibly be fixed. thanks0
@N Tychonievich tagging you again since several others have commented with the same issue on the thread I started.
Thanks for your help.0
Another one in my research, also in New Jersey, in Newark. For the John Whatton family:0
I came across a record which does not load correctly for attaching to the family (1900 census, Lockport, NY):
It loads but has the mother-in-law, wife, husband twice and is missing the two daughters and servant. Tried to load from husband William E. Huston (GQB5-ZPT).
(Added to this thread which seems to be about the same issue)1
@JohnWilliams, @CaptBob, @JoanWieczorek, @Áine Ni Donnghaile, @brad75552
Thank you for the reports of the problems with the 1900 US Census. The issues have been reported to the engineers. We do not need additional reports as they now have ample examples to use when they get back from Christmas break and start trying to track down and resolve the problem.
A work-around you can try while you wait is to pull up the census image and add it to your source box. From there you can attach the census image as a source to each family member. To add the image to your source box, look in the top-right of the image viewer and click Source Box. Here are instructions for how to attach from Source Box.
Sorry for the mess!4
Thanks for the update, @N Tychonievich.0
Thanks for the temporary workaround! Good idea :D0
April update: Portions of 1900 Census are still super corrupty - especially Queens ED 666