tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post6689606612603858102..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 1: MethodologyRandy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-3535140625722620742012-07-19T14:12:16.902-07:002012-07-19T14:12:16.902-07:00I enjoyed the exercise. I compared the Smilie ent...I enjoyed the exercise. I compared the Smilie entries for California.<br /><br />I found Ancestry had 19 people indexed with the last name of Smilie and Family Search had 21. One of the Ancestry entries did not meet the parameters of the search. He was a Smilie living in Ohio and born in Texas; no one in the househould had any California connection.<br /><br />So Ancestry really only had 18 names in California and Family Search had 21. Family Search had all of the Ancestry entries. Of the 18 they had in common two had slight variations that Family Search had correct.<br /><br />There were three names in Family Search that Ancestry missed because they were incorrectly indexed.<br /><br />My comparison had:<br />0 errors for Family Search<br />6 errors for Ancestry including the search engine error for the Smilie in OH born TXEddieBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-70773731507939504782012-07-17T11:06:53.119-07:002012-07-17T11:06:53.119-07:00I am a volunteer for the 1940 US Census Community ...I am a volunteer for the 1940 US Census Community Project with FamilySearch. Whenever I'm stumped, I look for that person in both Ancestry and FamilySearch to see how they might have been indexed in 1930. It's not surprising that quite often the results are different. I'm following your lead to see how my family was indexed. Here is my first one: http://jollettetc.blogspot.com/2012/07/1940-us-census-index-comparison-who.htmlWendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863357756727783017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-86333370370694835162012-07-16T21:10:19.648-07:002012-07-16T21:10:19.648-07:00Randy--I ran a similar comparison to yours for QUI...Randy--I ran a similar comparison to yours for QUIGGs in Washington State. You can see my results at http://geneginny.blogspot.com/GeneGinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05172142394579145655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-48422075509627650052012-07-16T15:26:45.666-07:002012-07-16T15:26:45.666-07:00I have found the Ancestry.com index to be super so...I have found the Ancestry.com index to be super so far! No complaints from me. WAY easier than using enumeration districts, for sure! I am simply thankful for all those volunteers who do the work.Scott Phillipshttp://onwardtoourpast.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-1190610374905993902012-07-16T13:51:23.384-07:002012-07-16T13:51:23.384-07:00I found a couple names incorrectly indexed at ance...I found a couple names incorrectly indexed at ancestry.com. I have not searched much at Family Search. The one family member I looked for at Family Search was correctly indexed. There may be quite a few problems with the Ancestry index?Annette Kapplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08838906750219853975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-60579217965195944092012-07-16T12:20:38.156-07:002012-07-16T12:20:38.156-07:00That's a great idea! I'll definitely try ...That's a great idea! I'll definitely try that with some of my names. I recently was looking for someone in Michigan on Ancestry.com and saw that the wife's first name was indexed as "Simmons." Looking at the record, it clearly said Suzanne (and I didn't spend more than a few seconds looking at it). I don't know if Ancestry.com uses a double indexing/arbitrator system like FamilySearch does. I suppose time will tell.Sonja Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03882161369011476773noreply@blogger.com