1900 census indexing error I can't fix
I work equally in Wikitree and Family Search, improving profiles in both. Recently I was working on a family which includes Leonard Bramwell. The 1900 census record for him was removed, but I found other family members in the 1900 census. It turns out that when they re-established a 1900 census record, they left out most of the family members.
Here is the new messed up version of the census record index; https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MM5P-9TP It lists only Alfred, Mark, and Golda, and repeats those names for other family member's names.
The entire list of family member's names is Alfred A, Margery, Alfreda, Mark, Myrtle G, Leonard G, Frank, and Golda W.
Here is the census record image: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6S7Q-2ZH?i=33&cc=1325221&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AMM5P-9TR
This is not my family, so I am extremely unlikely to come back to this record to see if some day it's been fixed. But it needs to be fixed, and although this is the first messed up indexing I've encountered in about 10 "new" 1900 census records, I worry that the problem might have occurred in other records as well.
Answers
-
@Judy Crook_1 We were experiencing problems with the 1900 US Census. Engineers seem to have corrected the problems. You might want to revisit it. The entry you mentioned: https://www.familysearch.org/en/info/us-census/1950-census/) seems to be showing correctly now.
0 -
You do realize that the 1900 U S Census index is still broken, showing 401 error "record removed" every time an attempt is made to access it or to attach it.
0 -
A.Nonymous, you can usually find a "record removed" 1900 census record as well as a newer 1900 census record. For example, last night I searched for my great-grandmother in the 1900 census and found both records. I attached the newer one. Family Search said, "Hey, here's a 1900 census record you'll want to attach." It was the older citation for the "record removed". I rejected the record, and got back to work. I have no idea why they did the correction this way, but oh, well. When I am unable to find a 1900 census record that is valid, I make a note of it on the person's Wikitree profile. It seems like a completely unnecessary mess, especially when we'll soon have thousands of 1950 census records. Oh, well.
0 -
Another similar problem is here 1900 Precinct 20 South Town Chicago city Ward 28, ED 861, Cook, Illinois, United States
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MSQL-8C2
Nathan Mc Nitt is repeated as son 6 times. Additional family members are missing per the image here
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-67CS-5JR
starting with line 1
0 -
For every person I work on, I double-check the census place name. Sometimes I know right away that the place name is wrong. The Worralls, for example, never lived in Carbondale, Colorado. But the census place name says Carbondale, which is about 50 miles as the crow flies from Austin, where they actually lived. Today, I tried to edit the place name for Malinda Worrall, and Austin couldn't be added. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQMH-KPH
I wish that 1900 census place names were reliable instead of mostly incorrect, but if they are incorrect, I wish they could be corrected easily.
0 -
@Judy Crook_1 Interesting. It is inaccurate in the original indexed value--hence inaccurate in the standardized version. I'll report it.
0
