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 = 4, No decision = 3.
In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 4: Seaver in California, Part 2, I displayed my second comparison table for Seaver entries in California. I analyzed the first half of the FamilySearch unique entries. My judgment for accuracy tally in this post was: Ancestry = 0, FamilySearch = 8, Both wrong = 0, No decision = 4.
This is the third of three posts for Seaver in California, and I'm going to work with the last 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:
* Charles H. and Everett H. Seaver (ED 60-258, page 62B) was indexed on Ancestry as "Server."
That is clearly a "v" not an "r". FamilySearch has the best index here.
* Mary Seaver (ED 37-37, page 4B) was indexed on Ancestry as "Surer."
This is a tough one. I can see how both indexed it the way they did. I can see the"e" (but not the classical lower case 'e') and the"a", and both are similar to others on the page. I can see the"v" but it looks like an "r" but not like the other lower case 'r's on the page. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Frank and Rose Seaver (ED 50-33, page 22A) was indexed on Ancestry as "Server."
Again, I can see how Ancestry indexed this as Server. However, the printed capital "A" in Seaver is consistent with all other capital A's on the page. The capital R's are different and also consistent on the page. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Mark and Teresa K. Seaver (ED 61-132, page 66A) was indexed on Ancestry as "Gea."
The Ancestry entry is obviously wrong. The surname could be Seaner, however. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Loren Laughlin and Bruce Arnold Seaver (ED 60-894, page 4B) was indexed on Ancestry as "Seavers." This family is on two pages:
This is interesting, because FamilySearch indexed the parents as "Seavers" and the sons as"Seaver." There were probably two different indexers on FamilySearch. I looked for other small s's on both pages and they are not similar to whatever is after the 'r' in Seaver on the parents entry. I think the entry should be "Seaver" and therefore 2 entries (the parents) on FamilySearch are wrong and 4 entries on Ancestry are wrong.
* Thayer W., Gladys M. and Joseph Seaver (ED 60-1260, page 4A) was indexed on Ancestry as "Seauer."
My judgment is that it is an "n" or a "v" in Seaver, rather than a "u." I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Orin J. and Agatha Seaver (ED 60-1272, page 6B) was indexed as "Seaner" on Ancestry.
I found other lower case "n" and "v" letters on the page, and I think it was written as an 'n'. Ancestry has the better index entry.
* Russell and Pauline Seaver (ED 42-3, page8B) was indexed as "Sewer" on Ancestry.
This is a difficult one because of the cramped handwriting. I magnified it more on the Ancestry site:
I see an "eav" there rather than an "ew"there. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
For this portion of the Seaver surname indexing in California, I counted up: Ancestry = 2, FamilySearch = 14, both wrong = 2, no decision = 0.
The totals for the Seaver entries in California in the Ancestry and FamilySearch indexes are:
* Ancestry has the best index entry = 3
* FamilySearch has the best index entry = 29
* Both wrong = 4
* No decision = 7
Looking at percentages, it appears that of the 147 total entries on both sites, FamilySearch had 7 wrong (4.8%) and Ancestry had 33 wrong (22.4%).
Of course, those numbers might be reversed with more comparisons with different names in different places. We do need more data here.
The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/1940-us-census-index-comparisons-post-4_19.html
Copyright(c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver