• Census
  • Aug18

    No Comments

    My wife’s great-grandparent’s Petrillo families were used and abused in their 1910 census transcription found on Ancestry. Below is the original image alongside the info in the Ancestry database. Red highlighted ones are incorrectly transcribed.

    Even more odd than such bad gender-bending transcription is the fact that Mary & Katie are both listed as being 7 years old in the database (really 5 & 4 in the image), yet Ancestry has their estimated birth years listed correctly.

    I can see how the reverse “F” for “Female” might throw a transcriber off as a possible “7″, but then how did the birth year get correctly calculated?

    Bad, Bad Enumeration Example from 1910 Census

    Click on image for full size version.

  • May20

    3 Comments

    I’ll start by saying I don’t mean my example is excellent – but the varied information in this particular record is…

    While seeking my wife’s great-grandfather Michael A. Duffy’s family in the 1900 census, I went through several possibilities until I found one that appears to be a pretty good match. It helps that his father had the first name of Anthony which doesn’t appear to be too common. For Duffys in New York anyway.

    One thing that is off is Michael’s birth year – but since some of the years listed in my Tierney family’s 1900 record are way off from documented dates, that’s not bothering me too much.

    So, I’ll be following these folks around awhile and see where they lead me. But, even if it doesn’t work out between us I will still be glad that I found this record – it is an excellent teaching example! Take a look below… Read More | Comments