Multiple Census entries attached
While people do show up in a given Census multiple time (I recently found a college student at home, in the dorms and in an adjacent boarding house), I encountered a "High" rated record that does not seem deserved due to 3 double Census source attachments. I don't have time right now to sort it out, and it might serve as an example to improve this system. (I tried to see if this issue was raised here before, though I'm still learning to search these forums {fora?}!)
Please assess https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LKZX-1S3
I added an alert note to my brief assessment of the issues.
Thanks for all y'all do!
Peace, Earl
Earl Alvin Daniels
(email removed)
項留言
-
AFAIK, the DQS algorithm does not try to assess if the attached sources are accurate. That is best left, in my opinion, to an attentive live person. The algorithm does call out errors such as a name mismatch, but the names on these censuses appear to be within the difference limits that would be noted, although they all cannot possibly for the same person.
1 -
As a Brit, it took me a long time to get my head round people appearing multiple times in the US censuses, but eventually I found 2 occurences in my Californian "relatives".
In the first case, a chap was a student in California and was enumerated in San Francisco on 2 June 1900, and then again in San Mateo on 22 June. It is simply not possible to decide whether SF was a temporary assignment and SM his normal place of residence. Or vice versa. Or whether he actually moved from SF to SM between the 2 enumerations. If it's the latter, then that is surely a perfectly acceptable state of affairs and I don't think the quality rating should be downgraded because of that.
In the other case, the student's (future) brother-in-law and family were enumerated on 20 April 1910 in San Francisco and then on 7 May 1910 across in San Rafael, Marin Co. I assume (bad move) that they had crossed over to their holiday residence between the two enumerations and I assume again that strictly speaking one of those enumerations shouldn't have been made. But those are the facts and it doesn't seem sensible that quality should be downgraded when entering the facts.
Tongue in cheek - is appearing in the census twice any worse than the father-in-law of the 2 guys above appearing in the same 1910 census in San Francisco when he was actually in Paris! (And yes, I know that was according to the rules but…)
In short, some double appearances might be due to errors, but others are factually correct - if not quite in accordance with the rules.
1 -
I took a rather long look at the various censuses attached in this example, and I would say they are most definitely for different people, although the names are similar enough that the algorithm doesn't call out a difference in the name.
I was so excited when the US 1940 was due for release. I knew EXACTLY where my mother, still single, was living and working. She was not there. She is not in the 1940 at all. Meanwhile, her recently-married older sister and brother-in-law were enumerated twice in the same small town. Go figure.
0 -
@Earl Alvin Daniels Mod note: Community is a public online forum. For your privacy, your question was edited to remove your contact information. Please see the Community Code of Conduct for more details.
0
