#005157144 - 1790 Fairfield, South Carolina - mislabeled counties
#005157144 - (1790 census for Camden District, South Carolina) is labeled 1790 census for Fairfield County, South Carolina, however it contains 5 other counties as well. When these are attached as a Source, they are appearing as "Fairfield, South Carolina", which is incorrect.
p178 - image 17/56 is the beginning of Chester County.
p188 - image 23/56 is the beginning of York County.
p202 - image 31/56 is the beginning of Camden - possibly Richland County
p207 - image 35/56 is the beginning of Clarendon County.
p232 - image 48/56 is the beginning of Lancaster County.
Answers
-
According to the catalog, film 5157144 contains the 1790 census for the entire state of South Carolina. I did some random poking around on it and came up with all sorts of places in South Carolina, some of them auto-standardized (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHKN-FSF), some of them apparently not (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHKN-MW2).
I suspect that the error you're seeing is the result of auto-standardizing. You can recognize the work of this bot by the presence of two location fields, one of them labeled "(Original)". That's the one containing the text that was actually indexed; the other one contains the label of the Places database entity that the computer associated that text with. In my experience, that entity is almost always at least slightly wrong. It's quite often on the wrong continent. (It is unfortunately not a joke that the only reason the computer always gets the correct planet is that placenames on the Moon and Mars are not in its database.)
FamilySearch unfortunately continues to stick its collective head in the sand about the unbelievably vast scope of the problem caused by their auto-standardization routines. They expect users to individually report the billions of errors (by some ill-defined method here in the Community) so that the engineers can fix them piecemeal. Given that this method will not result in any noticeable change in the corrupted database within the current century, I have entirely given up on it. Location fields in FamilySearch's indexes may as well not exist, because their contents cannot be trusted at all. I use other localization methods, such as film numbers, on FS's records.
2 -
I'm well aware of this issue, thank you. I was under the impression that we reported these mistakes on this forum for the correction. Is there some other route to take? My concern is not for myself in locating a record, but for those with little experience trying to search for their ancestors. Having a result pull up in Fairfield County knowing their ancestor never resided there, could very easily be dismissed. FS seems to be constantly gearing itself towards those with less and less experience. It seems that this would be a concern.
0