Separate category for census people who are servants, lodgers, etc?

LegacyUser

Anita Grace Clayton said: When tagging census records, I would like to see an option to put people in a census entry into a category maybe like, servant, house/farm help or lodger so that they would not come up as "unattached". Another time when I mentioned these unattached people, someone suggested that we make a new entry for them so that they wouldn't lost. Should we be doing that? I don't feel comfortable with that. But it also bugs me to have them there. I know I can "dismiss" it. Would perhaps putting them in say a servant category make it easier to track some of these people who moved from family to family over the years?

LegacyUser

Paul said: The only problem with this (as pointed out in an earlier thread on this issue) is that some of these individuals DID have a relationship with the "Head" and/or another member of the family. I have seen people shown as servants or lodgers who were actually relatives, but the record(s) just did not specify their relationship with the head of the household.

LegacyUser

Todd Powell said: Anita,
Thank you for this input. Want to let you know that we, as part of the product development team, have started working a couple of months ago on a solution related to this.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Yes, I ran into this in at least one census record where a person that had enumerated was not associated as a relative with the head of the household. But I also knew that wasn't the case, so I was able to attach the person to the correct profile in the massive tree.

I don't agree with the idea of a separate category because eventually, each of these "unattached" persons will need to be attached to their profile. I haven't started cleaning up my ancestral lines, but I hope to be able to determine if the person has a profile and if not, create one from the enumeration record.

LegacyUser

Anita Grace Clayton said: Good job

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Anita,

For what it's worth, until something else comes along you might try what I do. I turn the feature off so that none of that is showing.

I will very occasionally turn it back on briefly when vetting data on a person, but once I've quickly checked them all, I just turn it back off again.

LegacyUser

Anita Grace Clayton said: Yes, I suppose I should do that, thank you.