Why can't I find a name in a FS census record, but I can find it on Ancestry.com?
I found an entry for Joseph Rice (born Feb 1863 in Pennsylvania; wife "Mary A.") in the 1900 US Census for Pennsylvania, Westmoreland County, South Huntingdon, ED 0136, page 49A using Ancestry.com. However, when searching the same FamilySearch collection of 1900 Census records I never get a match:
Also, for other persons on the same census page (visible via Ancestry.com) I couldn't find them either using FS/Search. (AND, I've seen these kind of problem on other census records, e.g., 1860 for New Mexico Territory.)
It seems to me that either (1) the records haven't been indexed (unlikely!), or (2) the database is corrupt, or (3) there is something wrong with the FS/Search software. Which one is it and when will it be fixed?
Answers
-
Using the FamilySearch Search Records form I used Joseph Rice, Residence Westmoreland PA, Year 1900 1900, Spouse Mary A.
and found this from the 1900 census.
0 -
Of course he exists in the record, but when I use FS/Search I get no match:
What's different for you compared to how I searched?
0 -
I don't know why my search works in FS and yours doesn't. When I use the same search terms you used above, (except country and state) I get 1 result of 1 result and it is the census document.
Try searching without the restrictions of United States and Pennsylvania and see what happens.
BTW, I am currently sitting 2.4 miles from Lawrence County and 15 miles from the center of New Castle, PA where it looks like Joseph Rice lived in 1880.
0 -
I am not sure why you are having difficulty finding the United States Census, 1900, for Joseph Rice, born 1863 in Pennsylvania. I did locate a census record for August Specht born February 1852, in Germany. He and his family are on the same page, lines 39/46, as Joseph Rice and his wife Mary, lines 24/25. I found this record using the Find feature of FamilySearch.
Also Grace Warrick, ID# GMTY-GMM, is found on line 49, of the 1900 census.
So some names are being found from this census page.
Keep trying.
0 -
The point that becomes clear is that there is at least one way of using the FS/Search tools, in a very rational manner, and getting "No Results". That shouldn't happen. (I've seen that with other Community users also.)
Here is my pathway to "No Results":
1) On the top FS page select Search/Records.
2) On the resulting new page click on the USA image on the map.
3) On the pull-down menu click on Pennsylvania.
4) When the "Pennsylvania Search Page" comes up, click on "Show All 135".
5) Scroll down to "United States Census, 1900" and select/click the box.
6) In the Search boxes enter "Joseph" (exact) and "Rice" (exact).
7) Also, enter "Pennsylvania" as Birthplace and 1863/1863 as "Birth Year (Range)".
8) Click on Search.
You will then get the "No Results" screen/message shown above.
If a Family History Center user follows the same process and also gets "No Results", then what should I tell him/her? (A) There really is no "Joseph Rice" in the 1900 Census, or (B) it's some weird quirk in FS software and there may or may not be a "Joseph Rice" in the Census???
Also, if the above procedure (steps 1 to 8) gives an incorrect result, then what's wrong with it?
0 -
I was about to report this type of problem in another thread, which discussed the current inconsistencies in finding (census) records. Just a few minutes ago, I entered details of an individual I was sure was resident in Middlesex in 1901, so should be found in the 1901 England & Wales census.
Admittedly, I use slightly different search criteria, but I got "No results" when I entered her (correct) birth details, but the required record when I left the "Birth" inputs blank. The displayed record matched my original search inputs exactly, so why did I not receive the result at the first search.
Others have claimed, and illustrated, different results being produced for separate searches using exactly the same inputs**. Something has certainly gone wrong here. In my case, why shouldn't I be able to narrow down my search by providing birth details. If I had been dealing with a common name I might have received hundreds of results be omitting this detail.
Update - I just discovered the problem in my search: I inputted just the county of birth, but what seem to be required was the "display" place of birth. See https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?q.givenName=jane&q.surname=rosenblum&q.birthLikeDate.from=1900&q.birthLikeDate.to=1901&q.residencePlace=middlesex&q.residencePlace.exact=on&q.residenceDate.from=1901&q.residenceDate.to=1901&count=20&offset=0&m.defaultFacets=on&m.queryRequireDefault=on&m.facetNestCollectionInCategory=on.
The county (Middlesex) is not shown at this level, just "St George E". However, once the record is opened, both the "Event place" and "Event Place (Original)" include "Middlesex". I have never had this problem until recently, having always been able to search on just the county in these circumstance.
This example does not address all my current search issues (nor probably the one that is the subject of this post) but it does seem to illustrate the programming has been altered recently - for the worse! I often only know a county of birth, but it now appears I have to search without any restrictions on birthplace, unless there is an exact match with the value displayed (as illustrated).
Incidentally, problems reported elsewhere on this forum include results being different depending on one is logged into a public or Church account and (for England searches) depending on what county is involved. There are current problems with search results when using "Find", too.
** See thread at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/269361#Comment_269361
1 -
Screenshots illustrating current problem of not being able to search with place name details that did produce results in the past. It appears the previous programming recognised the place name as it appeared under "Event Place" (see third screenshot) but the revised program only looks at the place as shown on the Results page.
0 -
@Evergreen This issue of an Event Place and an Original Place on lots of records not matching is causing all sorts of errors in search. As we find them, we are reporting them. We will forward this one for the 1900 US Census to a team of specialists. Unfortunately, they are dealing with a lot of these errors, so it will be quite some time before they are corrected. We apologize for this wide-ranging issue. We recognize that these issues make it very difficult to find people in record sets where you know they exist.
After we forward your issue, it is possible that someone on the specialty team will be in touch if they need more information.
1 -
The elusive "Joseph Rice, b. 1863, Pennsylvania" has now magically appeared in FS search of the 1900 US Census. And, there was no change on my part!! Same FHC, same computer.
This time it's a different US Census: 1860 for New Mexico. Once again, I can readily find a person using the Ancestry.com search, but all I get for FS is "No Results Found".
Here are the particulars: for Ancestry, select the 1860 US Census, enter "Nathan Webb", born "1828", "lived in New Mexico". The first match is Nathan Webb in Golondrinas, Mora, New Mexico Territory.
For FS, use "Search Historical Records by Place", then "United States", then "New Mexico", then "Show all 83", then "US Census, 1860". Enter "Nathan Webb" (not exact), born"1820-1830". The only response I get is "No Results Found" !!!! It's the same problem all over again -- just a different census year.
For what it's worth (using tracert, etc.) I could see that the search was run on a server run by AWS located in Ashburn, Virginia. So, if you say you can't reproduce the problem, then you must be hitting a different server, or there is a higher-order issue.
Based on my experiences, I'm forced to recommend that FHC patrons NOT use FS to search US Censuses; use Ancestry.com. I can handle false positives, but not false negatives!
0 -
Browsing through the images of the 1860 census for New Mexico Territory - Mora Territory - Precinct of Golondrinas (starting at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9BSX-HLW?i=11), it appears that these images have not been indexed on FamilySearch. That's why the search is failing to turn them up.
0 -
I think your Nathan Webb is line 11 on this page: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9BSX-H27?i=22&cc=1473181
The index tab is empty, and the "Attach to Family Tree" button is available, meaning that there are no entries in the "Historical Records" database that are associated with this image.
I have no idea why these images were not included in the indexing. The collection page (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1473181) says that the index came from Fold3, but it also implies that New Mexico is completely indexed, so I don't know what to believe.
0 -
Yes, that's Nathan Webb on line 11: I found him using Ancestry's search.
0
