• Census
  • Nov15

    9 Comments

    While watching today’s Ancestry.com webinar and seeing Crista Cowan‘s census table, I noodled around on the Google and created a quick version for download. Just enter names, birth and death years and it will calculate the persons age during each census from 1850 to 1940.

    Act now and it will also gray out cells for censuses in which the person was not around!

    Below is a static version – apparently you can embed Google spreadsheets, but they aren’t editable. Visit this link to use a live version of it.

    Until relatively recently, there was no way to lock particular cells in a Google Docs spreadsheet. They have reported that cell protection now has been implemented – but I have found it doesn’t really work properly, thusly I am leaving the whole sheet editable for now.

    So, Please be sure just to change the data in the green cells if you try it out!

    (Don’t worry, I’ve got copies in case the sheet gets borked. And hey you – YES YOU, we all know you don’t have any Walter Melons in you tree so no funny names, Mister Smartypants.)

    You can also download a copy to use in your own Excel or Open Office software by clicking File… Download As… and saving it to your computer.

    Makes a great stocking stuffer!

  • 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