Gary, What you say is perfectly true which is one of the reasons I do not use commercial company's references for documents (except for the Family Search IGI which Legcay automatically includes in the description when downloading details).
However, I suggest that this is not the point. I agree that the full references for a piece of paper held by eg. The National Archives is that given by them; but does the reference matter at all. No matter what changes commercial companies may make to their indexes the question is surely "in the future will we be able to search for a document using eg. date, place, name, birth date and place of birth?" If the answer to this question is "yes" then what reason do we have for putting the full references into our Sources? Ron Ferguson _____________________________________________________________________ For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk New Blog: Open Legacy Family File with Open Office View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ _____________________________________________________________________ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census Formats? Totally confused!! > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:16:08 -0800 > > You are assuming that the *same* index will always be avaliable. Remember, > the commercial indexes have mostly been generated by low paid workers, > usually in 3rd world countries, and they have a high error rate. Different > companies have done their indexes at different times with different people, > using different images, so it is not surprising that searches (for example) > of the Heritage Quest census index can give different results than > Ancestry.com. If Milstead was indexed as Milsted on HQ, but as WilStead on > Ancestry, then you better hope HQ is still in business down the road becasue > you might search Ancestry forever and not find it. > > Relying on a commercial enterprise to be available 10, 50 or 100 years from > now is questionable. I would think the government numbers are *more likely* > to remain stable and available for the forseable future. > > Gary Templeman > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Arnold Sprague" > To: > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 2:25 PM > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census Formats? Totally confused!! > > >>I *really do* hate to sound unsophisticated in this crowd, but I see less >>and less reason all the time to source in detail a US census. >> >> Yes, in the old days, it was nice, maybe even necessary, to include the >> page number, the roll number, enumeration district, and on, and on, but >> with such easy access to the censuses via the Internet, little >> documentation is required. In the old days, we were totally dependent on >> the LDS to order the film, thus requiring detailed sourcing in case we >> wanted to see that film again *and* have a pretty good idea where to look >> on the film. >> >> Now, we merely enter our best guess on the computer and we are pretty much >> there with the *right* person and the *right* census page. >> >> IMHO, I think we should move with the changing times and accept that when >> we source where we found Milstead, Norman L, for example, that our source >> should be not much more than: >> 1920 United States Federal Census, Mississippi, Yalobusha, Water Valley, >> District 124, 5 Jan 1920, Dwelling 57, Family 61, and note that he appears >> in the index as Norman T Milsted. >> >> Arnold >> >> >> At 12:27 PM 3/3/2008, you wrote: >>>Elizabeth: >>> >>>You raise an excellent point, and there's not even a world catastrophe >>>required. Some years ago the Archives of Ontario (Canada) renumbered >>>many--if not all--of their records for a computer-related reason. What if >>>the FHC or the NARA someday needed to do the same thing? I agree that the >>>simple source citations are by far the best. Data taken from the census >>>page itself would never be changed and could be located again via any >>>repository. >>> >>>Kirsten >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hope >>>Bagot Bees >>>Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 2:18 AM >>>To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com >>>Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census Formats? Totally confused!! >>> >>> >>> >>>Ah - well that is one major reason why I prefer to go back to giving a >>>simple source! >>>To my way of thinking, your first example is by far the best - it is the >>>original designation for the English census records - not as they have >>>been filmed, not as they have been copied but as they are so labelled in >>>the original format. >>> >>>As such, they can be accessed by anyone in the future, even after a >>>major internet crisis - electrical burnout - whatever world catastrophe!! >>> >>>Elizabeth >>> >>>GeoSci wrote: >>>> OK - I am coming up with a third format now! Does anyone know how to >>>> relate the following formats?? >>>> >>>> 1 - from Family Search Labs: >>>> >>>> Enumeration Dist 0091 >>>> Sheet 8A >>>> Household 177 >>>> Ref 19 >>>> GSU 121403 >>>> Image 00484 >>>> >>>> 2. From FamilySearch.org: >>>> >>>> NAFilm# T91151 >>>> p. 588C >>>> >>>> 3. From Heritage Quest: >>>> >>>> Series: T624 Roll: 1313 Page: 244 >>>> >>>> I know they are all referring to only one set of Census pages (not >>>> these specific ones - but they should be convertable from one type to >>>> another!) >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Keith _________________________________________________________________ Share what Santa brought you https://www.mycooluncool.com Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
