Indexing
Please leave unindexed copies of census records. The indexing has no benefit to my use of the census records for genealogy research and has created issues in viewing the census records which is wasting what little life I have left. Please move the exact search toggle away from the search button. The exact search toggle continually turns on and off when hitting the search button.
Comments
-
You can browse the census pages without using the indexing. Indexing doesn't change the images.
0 -
How do you view an unindexed copy of the record? It's the indexing that has changed the record format and is causing issues viewing the record.
1 -
For example, if you want to browse the 1930 US Census: https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1810731
Under that "Browse" option, you will find each state as a waypoint, then under each state, every county, city, ED:
1 -
The copies in the census collection for 1930 you attached are indexed. Indexing of the census records is the problem. There wasn't a problem viewing census records until someone with to much time on their hands decided to screw up the system. If members have unlimited time and there is some useful purpose then index away but please leave an unindexed copy for those of us with limited time.
0 -
They are indexed, yes. But, as I showed, you do not have to rely on the index. You can browse by location. Did you even try what I showed?
0 -
Yes. Indexed is the problem. The problem can only be solved by access to unindexed records.
1 -
@TedSchroeder2, you can simply hide the indexing and browse the images without seeing any of it. Its existence makes absolutely no difference to the images.
Here's an indexed page from the 1930 census:
And here's a not-yet-indexed page from the Hungarian civil registrations:
As you can see, navigation and the image area are identical.
1 -
TedSchroeder2 I don't know if you are a Church member with free access to Ancestry or whether you have a subscription account with Ancestry, but when I want to browse or search exclusively a particular census, I find it much easier to do that in Ancestry.
First, links to every US federal census are right on the Ancestry home page. All you have to do is click the link of choice. In FamilySearch you have to go to the catalog or wiki.
Second, after you have clicked a census, you have a choice of searching it directly (ie, not a general search of all records) or browsing. The filters for state, county, township, enumeration district with the browse in Ancestry are very handy, and you can easily look to see which states or counties are included in a particular census while still having the option to search. With FamilySearch, if you browse, you are stuck browsing unless you click back to get to the search option and then you are stuck searching and can't see the filters any more. Clunky.
Third, If you choose to search within the censes, there is an additional amazing feature not available in FS. When, for example, search the 1840 census for all surnames Smith in Baltimore County, Maryland, and specify "This place" only, you may not see what you want. If you are not seeing the picture you want, in 4 clicks you can easily change it to "Baltimore County and all adjacent counties". That option exists at the state level as well. I can search the 1840 Census for Maryland and all adjacent states. Neither of those options are available in FamilySearch to search an adjacent set of counties or states. In FamilySearch you are stuck having to look up adjacent counties OF THAT TIME (which may not match today's map), and search them individually. This ability to expand a search from a single county to a group of counties (or states) is an invaluable tool. Both FamilySearch and Ancestry search results always give you a link to view the image directly, by the way.
Fourth, the search results in Ancestry include all the instances where the spelling was not originally indexed to be the name you searched BUT someone submitted a correction to the indexed information which matches your search. I can't remember if FamilySearch does that, but I do know you can see at a glance in Ancestry which search results have had a correction submitted, but you cannot in FamilySearch.
I must admit these features keep me using Ancestry exclusively for my census investigations.
0 -
I find it equally easy to browse the census on either Ancestry or FamilySearch.
If you need help finding a specific location for the browse function, Steve Morse's OneStep pages make it simple. https://stevemorse.org/
1 -
@Gail Swihart Watson, how do you deal with Ancestry's infuriating behavior of always going to the exact, precise center of the next image, where there's absolutely nothing useful to be seen?
Ancestry's census images are just as indexed as FamilySearch's, and it's that indexing that the OP was objecting to, although it's equally hideable on both sites. (The difference with Ancestry's image index info is that if there's a way to go from it to the index detail page, they've succeeded in hiding it from me completely.)
0 -
Julia Szent-Györgyi I just tried the 1840 census, and when I clicked to the image, after being on the indexed page, the entire image came up. I tried the 1940 census and the same. You have to zoom in. When browsing, I've noticed that when clicking next, the location and zoomed in amount will be the same on the next image, and that is often annoying when I am scanning for surnames.
To go from the image detail to the index page is indeed hidden, but possible. You start by clicking the little person icon. After clicking it, the list of names comes up on the bottom just like FamilySearch. Finally, clicking a specific name will bring up the indexed information in a panel to the right. See the succession of 3 images below, hopefully it is big enough to see.
0 -
Gail, you must be using a larger screen or something, because you're mistaken: Ancestry's image viewer does not go to the same position on the next image. As I said, it goes to the center of the next image. (It does preserve the zoom, unlike FS's Images viewer.)
I pan up to the top of the page (so that I can see the headers).
I click the ">" to go to the next page, and I'm looking at the middle of the page, with not a header in sight.
Every. Single. Time.
0 -
Julia Szent-Györgyi I thought we were talking about census records. Your images look very much like a city directory. Can you give me the name of the collection in Ancestry and I will try it out?
I do agree that looking at non-indexed images has aggravating behavior that causes more clicks than just "next." But I find that in FamilySearch as well.
Anyway, let me know the collection name.
0 -
I haven't noticed any difference between browsing census images versus other images on Ancestry, so I just grabbed the first example I had available, which is, indeed, a city directory.
But here's a 1950 census example. Once again, I pan to the top so I can see the state and county and city.
I click ">" to go to the next image, and it's down in the middle of the page.
Yes, it adds that overlay of the table headers, but what if I'm not there yet? What if I panned up to the top because I'm still looking for the ::grumblemumble:: town, which I can only see in the page header? Or what if I'm browsing through, looking for a family who I know the line numbers for but not the page? It Will Not Stay at the line(s) I want, unless they happen to be between 16 and 26 (and even then, they move around because the census pages came in three layouts [I think], with different lines highlighted/called out on each.)
1 -
I see what you mean, Julia.
I just tested on a 1950 census, with the top of the page displayed on the first image. Succeeding images moved lower on the page, hiding the top of the page. I have a large monitor, so I was seeing MOST of the page, just not the very top.
Then I tested with my browser (Firefox on Win 10) in full-screen mode, giving me a little more screen real estate. When I did that, the entire page was visible, and succeeding pages showed the top of each page in the ED, except for a couple that were filmed slightly askew. Not ideal, but maybe a useful workaround?
0 -
So I tested city directories and got exactly the behavior that Julia Szent-Györgyi indicated. I did not get that behavior with Census records though. When I browse census records, the next image will have the exact zoom factor and location as the previous, which I don't like but whatever ...
0
