## Tuesday, July 17, 2012

### 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 4: Seaver in California, Part 2

I proposed a methodology for evaluating the accuracy and completeness of the 1940 United States Census indexes on Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org in

In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 2: Carringer in California, I displayed my comparison tables and found that Ancestry had 8 more Carringer entries than FamilySearch, and my judgment was that Ancestry was more correct on 7 of them, and FamilySearch for one..

In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 3: Seaver in California, Part 1, I displayed my comparison table for Seaver entries in California, and found that FamilySearch had 22 more entries (147 entries) than Ancestry.com (125 entries).  I analyzed all of the Ancestry unique entries, plus the ones that disagreed but were indexed by name correctly.  My judgment for accuracy tally in this post was: Ancestry = 1, FamilySearch = 7, Both wrong = 2, No decision = 3.

This is the second of three posts for Seaver in California, and I'm going to work with the first 8 (of 16) families indexed as Seaver on FamilySearch, but which did not appear on Ancestry.com.

Here is the table for this group:

The discussion on each of these is:

*  Marcus D. Seaver and his wife Laura (ED 19-710, page 18B) was indexed as "Seave" by Ancestry.com.

IMHO, that says"Seaver", although there is some blemish on the page over the "er" of the surname. FamilySearch gets the nod here.

*  Fred E. and Ella H. Seaver (ED 803B, page 61B) were indexed as "Seaber" by Ancestry.com.

IMHO, this is not Seaber, but it may not be Seaver either.  I didn't see any small "v"s on the page for comparison.  If I look at that for awhile, I see Seaoer, although that makes no sense.  I'm going to call this one as both wrong.

*  George M. and Martin H. Seaver (ED 21-45, page 1A) were indexed as Beaver on Ancestry.com.

This one could be Beaver, Reaver or Seaver.  The R's in the name above the entry are not exactly the same as the first letter of Reaver/Beaver. The first letter is different from the "S" in Son.  If it's a "B" then it's different from another name beginning with B earlier on the page.    I'm going to call this one even.

* Le Roy, Clara Mae and  Roy A. Seaver (ED 30-83, page 8A) were indexed as Seaverns on Ancestry.com.

I really don't see an "n" on the end of this name.  FamilySearch gets this one.

*  Mary Seaver (ED 59-28, page 8B) is indexed as Leaver on Ancestry.com.  After comparing other "S" and "L" entries on the page, I'm pretty sure that it is an "S."  FamilySearch takes this one.

*  E.J. Seaver (ED 62-120,page 1A) were indexed as Eaver on Ancestry.com.

This is pretty clearly "Seaver" and not "Eaver."  FamilySearch gets this one.

*  Addie E. Seaver (ED 59-92, page 8A) was indexed as "Seever" on Ancestry.com.

I read the above as "Seaver" but I can see how someone would index it as "Seever."  FamilySearch wins this one too.

* Byron D. Seaver (ED 60-742, page 84A) was indexed as "Sewer" on Ancestry.com.

I would have indexed this as"Seaver" with no questions asked. FamilySearch gets the nod here.

For this portion of the Seaver surname indexing in California, I counted up:  Ancestry = 0, FamilySearch = 8, no decision =  4.

I will post the rest of this list in the next post in this series.

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/1940-us-census-index-comparisons-post-4.html

Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver

#### 1 comment:

online diploma said...

Love your blog and thank you for sharing it with me. Your writing style has an infectious (in a good way) feeling of life, laughter and energy that makes me smile. I can’t help but smile, when i read it.