Search Vermont, Delaware and Wyoming
Vermont, Delaware, and Wyoming are all searchable! Do you have family there? (These will be added to be reviewed later as well. https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/4464515
Comments
-
I've been waiting for Wyoming to become available to work on but no such luck. I did see on the index that most of my family who lived there in 1950 have incorrect names and other info. Either AI couldn't read the writing or someone else couldn't. That's why it would be helpful for someone who is familiar with the names in the area to review them.
0 -
Why has FamilySearch chosen to make these three states searchable before they've even been reviewed? To me, finding published records like this just looks unprofessional and sloppy:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHK-SQH4-WJYN
Are these records stable? What happens when individuals get recombined into the correct households later during the review process?
There's not even a source citation for any of the records.
1 -
Why are the last six states not available for indexing?
0 -
I have not been able to look at the Wyoming 1950 US Census following the link above. I am looking forward to reviewing the Wyoming records to get more information about an uncle who might be there!
0 -
I'm not sure what the reviewing plan is for these six states (Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming), but these are exactly the same states available for searching right now on MyHeritage. They're among the smallest populated states, so really a small fraction of the entire project. I'm sure this all weighs into whatever is going on.
0 -
@Mary Louise Lillian, are you saying that you weren't able to click on the link and go to the state of Wyoming which is listed on the right side of the page which brings up a search where you can put the city, county, state and also a name? Please let me know if you are still having trouble after following these instructions.
Instead of following that particular link above, go to the link below and see if it works now for you. When you get to the page, then click on Wyoming and you can do the search.
Another option would be to go to "Search" on the FamilySearch website (after making sure you are signed in) and click on "Records". Under "Search by Place", you can put in Wyoming and then scroll until you see the 1950 census. Or you can put in the information in the search box above that and then just scroll to see if you can find a record of your ancestor in 1950 census.
I hope that this helps you and that I understood correctly.
0 -
It takes time to prepare the record for the reviewing process. These to view are coming from other entities that have agreements with FamilySearch make them searchable. I guess to answer all of your concerns is that we just need to be patient at this point as we don't completely understand what always goes on in the background. When the states are reviewed and then published, we will be able to edit and make corrections at that time for anything that is found to be incorrect. So sorry for the frustration you are all expressing.
0 -
Thanks for the updates. It would be nice to hear from someone who understands what goes on in the background. The indexation of the 6 states is terrible. It looks like raw OCR data that has not been reviewed by a human. Correcting the info via the edit process is much more cumbersome than the review process.
1 -
Well, I must echo prior negative comments. Whom ever you out source the Index Image part of the 1950 Index Image to has done very poor work. I found 13 errors on film # 109037647, image 47 of 49 - Wyoming, Big Horn County, Greybull. 6 errors were in Marital Status - one of which lists me (a 1 yr. old) as "married". And my mother as "widowed" when the original census document obviously shows her as "wife" (column 8) and "mar" for married in column 12. Five others listed on the Index Images drop down are listed as "widowed" when none all are on the original as "mar", meaning married. My wife has encountered numerous problems with other areas in the past and no one seems to care at Family Search. Sub- par for the Church...
There is poor quality control & frankly I expect more from Family Search than this. Get more people to supervise what is submitted. What good is it to have such a faulty product that has to be clean up afterwards? How in the world will Family Search ever be able to clean up the enormity of this mess? What good is the Index Images section if its transcription has so many glaring errors? Do not be in a hurry to crank out such a faulty service. People will see it as reflecting poor integrity by Family Search. Knowing folks who work for Family Search there appear to be systemic problems there & this Index Image mess perhaps just a symptom.
I could not fix the errors I found because only 4 fields of data can be corrected & Marital Status is Not one of them. 2 States listed are erroneous non-words; one given name, line 2, is completely wrong as is the middle initial. I wish I thought upper management @ Family Search gave a toot... The member of the 70 who was supposedly over it several years ago reacted very poorly when my wife tried to illustrate to him the chronic problems she encounters. Brushed her off really. He never did understand it. If the darn 1950 Census is Not yet ready, don't rush it out so soon. The negative feedback will continue, but will pour in like a flood once the larger States 1950 data are released. What good is a deadline if the product's a "dud"? Makes no sense to me.
When can we expect to be able to have errors fixed, or to fix them ourselves? I tend to be a positive person overall. But to have such poor quality done & in the name of the Church is embarrassing. I have non-member family who use Family Search. What are they going to think?
Please tell those in charge not to roll out something so error riddled unless there are ways in place to remedy them. Those who work for Family Search have my deepest sympathies - Someone above made a poor decision and those below them are going to catch a lot of heat for something they had no say about, nor part in creating. Sad situation all the way around. If it is the A.I. program at the root of this, tell Ancestry that their "A.I. baby" is not ready for prime time yet. Do-overs anyone? I realize you are not directly at fault in this "comedy of errors" - wish I could speak with who is... My wife has a relative who was there for years & quit 6-8 months ago. Now I can sort of guess why... Bob Gallimore.
0 -
I have indexed thousands of names in the 1950 census. I took the opportunity to look up a relative in the supposedly complete New Hampshire census to find that they, as well as many others, were missing their surname! And there is a edit button, but it doesn't accept corrections. Am I wasting my time?
0 -
@Pat Davis_2, please, you are not wasting your time! We so much appreciate all that you are doing! Below are the instructions we have been given.
We are seeing Missing Field in the Surname field much more frequently in some states this week.
When you see that issue, click on Report a Problem and choose "The Surname field is unavailable" option. Continue reviewing the family even without that information. That will mark it so that we can go back to that image later and check those surnames, but you can continue the review as usual.
0 -
@AndLinda , I think you're misunderstanding @Pat Davis_2 's report.
The "Available to Search" map at https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/4464515 (the link from the OP) shaows Vermont as an available state to search. I can do a certain search, and one of the results is
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6XL4-JM55
That's a record with a name of just "Sanders". However, if you look at the actual image, the given name is clearly there: "Paula L". (She should also be grouped with the household at the end of the prior page, and the record shows her as line 2 even though she's on line 1 of the return.)
I tried to fix at least the name with the "Edit" button, but I couldn't save; I got an error "! Error: There was an error trying to save your change."
I can understand that it might be tricky to merge changes made with "Edit" with changes made from the ongoing indexing activity, they're not real-time against the same database, so we might have to wait until the indexing is done before going that route; but if that's the case, it would be friendlier to disable to "Edit" button, and have a clear message on the record with a link to the indexing status-page as the right place to get a guess for a good time to check back to see if the error has been fixed in indexing, or, if not, report it.
0 -
@davidleelambert and @Pat Davis_2 . I am sorry that I misunderstood. Now I understand that you were searching online in New Hampshire. Because those haven't been reviewed as of yet, you won't be able to edit them yet until the updated publication. There were six states that were processed in a different way - VT, WY, DE, NH, RI, SD. They felt that they could release those for searching before we reviewed them. When we finish the review on those states, we will update the published index.
I appreciate your patience with me and am glad that you brought this to my attention.
0 -
@davidleelambert , Paula L Sanders's full name is shown at Ancestry.com. She is also grouped with the correct household on the previous page. FamilySearch shares the completed states with Ancestry. Here is the link: https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/1923701:62308?tid=&pid=&queryId=a3d8561a02b93b784ffc538ef816899f&_phsrc=XWo843&_phstart=successSource
0