1900 U.S. Census Being Indexed by FamilySearch

FamilySearch is an organization funded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons). The organization recently expanded their efforts at making more genealogy records available to the public. One new project that raised a few eyebrows is the indexing of the 1900 U.S. census.

Two companies have already indexed the 1900 census: HeritageQuest Online and FamilySearch. In fact, probably 80% of all Americans already have free access to these records via HeritageQuest Online. (See http://eogen.com/HeritageQuestOnline for a list of many libraries that offer free in-home access to HeritageQuest Online.) The question has been asked: "Why did FamilySearch decide to create a THIRD index of this census?"

A recent article in the Ancestry Insider blog quotes Paul Nauta, manager of public affairs for FamilySearch. The reasons are interesting and include some things I would not have realized.

You can read the article at http://ancestryinsider.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-1900-census.html.

While there, take a look at some of the other articles on the Ancestry Insider blog. It makes for interesting reading.

Comments

[Jason Presley]

"Two companies have already indexed the 1900 census: HeritageQuest Online and FamilySearch."

I imagine that should read HeritageQuest Online and Ancestry.com."

[xander]

Really, Eastman! Quoting an anonymous blogger ???

[Happy Dae]

I wonder, since there's less than 5 years to go until public release, if the FEDs wouldn't let them index the 1940 Census? It would really be nice if there was a solid index ready when the access was granted.

I'm just saying . . .

Happy Dae.
http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com/ssg1.htm

[Greg Matthews]

Dick, I don't see anything in that blog post that brings up any point that hasn't already been made or speculated upon somewhere else. Basically he said they wanted to give their indexers something to ease them into the process (mentioned once or twice in the comments of your previous post on this), they wanted to test some "behind-the-scene" parameters (how can you say you hadn't considered that when no one can tell what the heck he's talking about?), and they wanted to do the 1900 census because of the number of variables it reveals about each household.

Sounds to me like they couldn't come up with any good reasons for starting off with that census. Now that I read on there that they want to do the 1850 census next I want to stab my eyes out. I would almost buy the good-place-to-start-indexing explanation if they had said they wanted to start with the 1850 census as the microfilmed pages by and large are nice and clean for 1850 whereas the 1900 filmed pages are marred by blotchy ink and extreme fading/blurring on the bottom of a fair number of pages. I remain of the opinion that I posted to your previous thread that virtually ANY document is a good place to start if they are in fact doing double-blind indexing.

Someone commented that the LDS church is so big on genealogy because of their religion and that they document things to support their congregation. That sounded to me like a pretty good reason for them to index whatever they want to in whatever order they choose to do it. I accepted that reason. Now that I've read the explanation given by Paul Nauta I think he missed a good opportunity to give an excellent explanation and instead gave me the indication that they have no good reason.

[Robert Browning]

I think everyone here keeps viewing this situation from a genealogical point of view and not a computer database point of view. Just because a database exists does not mean it will be compatible with the one you want to have built. The system as envisioned by Family Search will be one of the largest (if not largest) collection of records organized into a database ever undertaken. Starting the project with possibly corrupted data would make no sense at all.

I am sure I am not the only person doing genealogy to have found a "database" of information only to spend the next few years trying to root out all the errors and inconsistencies. I applaud the LDS church at approaching the project with a "clean sheet" design.

[Joe Lake]

I am a volunteer indexer for the LDS project; I am not a member of the LDS Church. The proposed total project is so large and important and FREE to the genealogy community,I feel the nitpicking is misplaced and inappropriate. They cannot possibly make available on line first the record that each individual would prefer to see first. Their record of accomplishment, on balance is the best in the field. Proof enough to me that they proceed after balanced and careful consideration.

[Lorraine Eachus]

They are re-inventing the wheel. I volunteered - did one page and thought it was a waste of my time. PLEASE, I would love to take the records of some churches to supply hard-to-get records. I will volunteer again after the census nonsense is done.

[Linda Gutierrez]

I think the 80% of free access is a bit farfetched.

[Dawna]

I have to admit that when I first learned that the 1900 census had been selected by FamilySearch (FS) for indexing, it seemed rather redundant and unnecessary to me. However, from the perspective of a long-term staff member and former director of a Family History Center (FHC), I will explain why I have changed my mind and now support it.

Associated with FS, FHCs are where beginners - Mormon and not - often go for early help in tracing their ancestry. Most have no clue how to get started in their quest nor any comprehension of the value or availability of census records. From personal experience, the ideal means of assisting these FHC patrons - and keep them returning - is by having ready, in-FHC access to that which beginners most need, specifically every-name census indices, linked to images.

Most beginners need the kind of one-on-one assistance that FHCs can provide, as they learn. And immediate rewards - finding their ancestors in a census record - keeps them interested. Neither they nor the FHC benefit from redirecting them to a public library to use Ancestry.com (A.com) or HeritageQuest (HQ), where it is unlikely that their search will receive much personal interest or attention (unless there happens to be an associated genealogy society). Many are seniors and not only unfamiliar with genealogical records and research techniques, but often also not particularly computer literate. Without the kind of personal assistance that FHCs can provide, many newbies will become frustrated and discouraged and abandon the search before it's hardly started. Few beginners are willing to commit to the expense of an A.com subscription - or know how to take advantage of it - until they have become more familiar and independently successful with the research process.

Until recently, A.com provided FHCs with free access to all its census and other indices and databases, which enabled FHCs to provide an enhanced level of assistance to its patrons, with the census indexes being the most useful. However, this free access has now been curtailed by A.com and acquiring paid subscriptions for 2000+ FHCs seems logically cost prohibitive. Therefore, the only cost-effective and reliable way to provide its FHCs with the census indexes necessary for optimal patron assistance is for FS to undertake its own indexing projects. To this end, I suspect that FS will continue indexing all US, British and Canadian censuses top priority and - on behalf of FHCs and its patrons - I hope I am right.

Even though largely a duplication of what has already been done by A.com and HQ, I expect that even their users will benefit from the FS census indices. The FS's every-name indices will be superior to HQ's head-of-household indices and the double-blind process used by FS should result in more accurate and seachable indices than those at A.com. In keeping with FS practices, they will be made available free of charge at FamilySearch.org for both experienced home users, as well as FHC patrons needing personal assistance. Why should anyone object to having another free research resource?

I see no valid cause for criticism of FS decision. As an experienced researcher with personal home access to both A.com and HQ, had I been able to pick the indexing project and had I considered only my own personal research interests, I would most probably have picked something else, not previously indexed. However, as a FHC staff member who is also interested in helping beginners at the FHC, I do now realize the sense and benefit in FS's decision to index the census records. As the 1900 is one of the most useful of the censuses, it is as good a year with which to start, as any.

The 1900 United States Census is not the only project being indexed by FS. The list of current indexing projects include, among others, the 1930 Mexico Census, the 1819 Mecklenburg Germany census, Arkansas and Indiana marriages and Salt Lake County birth records. Those who do not want to volunteer to help index the 1900 census, because it has already been previously done, could instead help index these other records. See www.familysearchindexing.org

[Gloria Ishida]

I agree with Robert Browning. Why the nitpicking? Although some question the motives of LDS, many ancestor researchers use the site, at least as a starter. And yes, there are caveats about input by individuals. 185o and 1900? I can readily see the reasons for these two as priority.

I also wonder about how many of us ancestry buffs are not residents of the US, and who have got started later in life when one has more time. (For example, myself, Japan) As a citizen abroad and retired with an increasingly limited budget, I welcome anything that is reliable and free. I have subscribed to ancestry.com for two years, one as deluxe or whatever it's called at 300 dollars. No more. If one wants to request records from official sources, that costs money and that is understandable. Research hours are involved. Even Dick's plus edition.
LDS centers? The one in Tokyo has no English reseources; there is no guarantee when one would arrive and for me that would involve a roundtrip by rail of 200 dollars.
Yes, we get much help from rootsweb lists, and I have tried to help others using my ancestry subscription.

Libraries? One cannot get or continue a former card if one is not physically present in the area. Again this is understandable when one does not pay local taxes. Yes, I know there are some genealogical libraries that give one the opportunity of subscribing and at reasonable subscription fees giving access to Heritage. Hooray. That will be my way next year. In the meantime I applaud LDS for its continuing work.

Gloria Bauer Ishida

[Dawna]

One final thought - who wouldn't appreciate having access to the quantity of indexes currently available at Ancestry.com, but more accurate and free? That is the goal of FamilySearch's indexing program - the 1900 census is but the tip of the iceberg. It will take time, but it will happen. The more volunteers, the faster it will happen and the sooner we can all quit paying fees to Ancestry.com. I personally feel that I get my money's worth from Ancestry.com - I use it nearly every day and would certainly not like to go back to the days of researching without the help it provides. But I also would certainly not object to having access to similar indexes and info, without fees.

And I am personally of the mind that the Mormon Church and thus Familysearch will be around a lot longer than will either Ancestry.com or HeritageQuest. Consider what would happen to their databases, where they ever to go bankrupt? However currently unlikely, it is certainly within the realm of possibility for any privately-owned, for-profit company. If the profit is ever gone, then so will be the company and its indexes.

I, for one, would rather entrust the future of genealogy indexes to the Mormon Church, which is not only one of the wealthiest denominations, but for which family history is one of its fundamental beliefs and practices and which has a long history of contribution to and sharing of it, than to any company only in it for monetary gain.

[Bill Buchanan]

There are a variety of indexing projects at www.familysearchindexing.org in addition to the (default) 1900 US census.

Besides the 1900 US census, I have indexed some parish records from France, and so far have indexed 10 batches of the 1871 census of Canada. There is also the 1930 census of Mexico and some German records.

So pick your project.

[Tar]

Lots of good information on New Family Search ,Interfacing with NFS - Part One
http://rzamor1.blogspot.com/2007/09/interfacing-with-nfs-part-one.html

[Happy Dae]

What is FamilySearch doing, anyway?

Go find out at the FamilySearch Labs blog. Tell them what you think—add YOUR comments! They are very open about their goals and projects. What would you expect from an all-volunteer organization? I like these guys—they are honest and think "long-term." They really ARE "planting trees they may not live long enough to harvest."

Happy Dae.
http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com/ssg1.htm

[Susan Roylance]

I have participated in the 1900 indexing project that Family Search is sponsoring. While doing so, it did some comparing with the Ancestry.com index -- and there are errors in the previous indexes. Also, the Family Search index is picking up some additional information (like the actual birth information). It's a GREAT genealogy source, and a good index makes it available, free, to all.

[Susan Roylance]

As I re-read my posting above I can see that it gives a wrong impression. I am the one that did the comparing with the Ancestry index, not as a part of the Family Search process. There were some errors in the Ancestry index, when comparing with the original record. But I want to be clear that I am very grateful for the great work that Ancestry has done to make these records more available and usable.

[Lorraine Eachus]

How were some of you able to index LDS records of your choice? I wanted to do a specific LDS film in their library because I was familiar with the geographic area of the records and the local names. I was refused and told I could only do the 1900 census. They lost a volunteer with 10 fast fingers.

[Pat Erdmann]

As I understand the process at Family Search, they have a list that you can pick from, as per suggested in others comments. The family search team has yet to get the records prepared for us to read and index in this format (computerized) on FSIndexing. Be patient it will all come sooner or later. I think it is great, and have seen the Mexican census and Canadian census also in my indexing experiences.
I am willing to help get it online so you can find your ancestor. I am hoping you will help also, so I might find mine too.

[Mary Grindol]

I am a volunteer indexer for the FamilySearch project. I am not a member of the LDS church. I have selected the 1900 census images. One can either chose "download batch" (1 page) and let FS send whatever comes up next or choose from a list (which includes projects other than the 1900 census). You can select the state, but not the specific county.
I admit that I often compare the Ancestry images and note their interpretation of a name for which I'm unsure. I sometime even try to find the same family in the 1910 census.
In some cases, the enhanced images at Ancestry are startlingly easier to read - in other cases, the image that come from FamilySearch is sharper. In many cases, it appears that a different filming has been used. I was not aware that Ancestry's indexers were people from other countries. That explains some of the obvious transcription errors and "far out" guesses I have encountered. If I'm not real certain about a name, there is comfort in knowing that at FS, another person will be submitting the same batch and the two interpretations can be compared. On the positive side for Ancestry, I have contributed to their "add an alternate name" feature, especially when the error seemed obvious.

[desta elliott]

At a recent DAR meeting, a group of us were talking about research and found out we all had problems finding relatives in the 1900 census. I am not sure why, it may have just been a coincidence. (I am an Ancestry subscriber)

[Jim Allen]

Many thanks to Dawna for helping clarify why the LDS selected the 1900 census records to index.

Regarding the suggestion by Happy Dae - near the top of this long string of comments - that "the FEDs" let them index the 1940 census in advance of the general release. The short answer, I'm pretty sure, is THEY CAN'T. No official at, or over, the Census Bureau would have this authority since, if I'm not mistaken, federal law forbids public access for seventy-some years. This would include the release to LDS indexers as well as the general public.

The only way around this would be for Congress to change the law. Given the current problems and state of affairs in Washington and the world, that probably "ain't gonna happen". It WOULD be nice, though - -.

[Glen F. Pritchett]

As a practicing genealogist for over 45 years now, I for one am pleased to see that FamilySearch (FS) is desirous of indexing the 1900 Federal Census (FC) using its own methods. Most researchers are well familiar with the fine job FS did decades ago with the indexing of the 1880FC. That job was so complete, FS allowed Ancestry.com to use it and it has become a defacto standard!!

The obvious problem with any of the census indexes is accuracy. Personally, "the more indexes, the better" as far as I am concerned. I've found research subjects in Proquest that I couldn't find in Ancestry.com indexes AND vice versa. Sometimes, I was able to "work backwards" to find someone I was pretty sure was in a geographic area because of the flexibility of one indexes search feature that did not exist in another.

It is my understanding that the 1930FC indexing was outsourced by Ancestry.com to a contractor in India. The apparent cultural difference may well help explain the high error rate in the Ancestry.com 1930FC index. Ancestry's counter argument to the outsourcing issue was that it was the only way to do the job in an economically feasible manner (volunteers were apparently not an option they considered). Even though Ancestry provides an option to comment about any name so "indexed" (i.e.; correcting the spelling, providing alternative name(s) OR full given birth name, etc.), the information posted for future researchers to view is NOT searchable. Therefore, only the most persistent of researchers will ever find a "puzzler" because of that serious flaw in Ancestry's management of their index.

FS approach is laudable in my view. Further, why not have those of a specific culture volunteer to do the indexing? As an example, who better to help transcribe the 1930 Mexico census than those of that specific country OR those that can speak Spanish? Seems to me such an approach will result in a far more accurate index we all can benefit from.

[Kate]

I too, have indexed part of the 1900 census, and I believe it is a good census for the LDS to have in their databases. I use Ancestry and Heritage Quest, and sometimes will spend at least half an hour searching for someone on Ancestry, which is name indexed, and finally find the name, only to find that it is correct on the census but not on the index. Or, on Heritage Quest, which I believe is still indexed by head of household, it is difficult if I know the name of a child but not the father or head.

At least it will give us a new place to look for our ancestors. :)

[c. l. nickens]

A few thoughts:
1) Mormon Church reindexing of anything Ancestry offers, censuses or otherwise, won't take as long as you think. The church is currently recruiting "pajama" volunteers to help do the work, and if what I see in my local area is multiplied worldwide, they could get thousands of them. Also what I see locally is that those who volunteer already have extensive experience with family history research and know what they're doing, which should lessen the percentage of error.
2) To make census records freely available to the public is perfectly in keeping with the Mormon church philosophy to make family history research as accessible and as inexpensive as possible. And to go to all the trouble of reindexing something so they can call it their own is perfectly in keeping with the LDS "can do" spirit.
3) But that doesn't lessen in any way the value of Ancestry.com. Ancestry's search parameters are far superior to those of LDS.org. For those stuck with misspelled names, causing ancestors to "disappear" from census records, there are two search techniques with which I have found success on Ancestry. One is to search the given name only, with very detailed date and location information, adding parent's birthplaces when possible. Another is to truncate surnames and/or given names. These search procedures are currently impossible in LDS.org.
4) I find the complaints about the cost of Ancestry a little ridiculous in today's world. How much are you paying for cell phone service, cable, satellite TV, DSL, or internet service in general, not to mention all those electronics you are about to give your children and grandchildren for Christmas? How much to do spend on sports equipment? Vacations? Cigarrettes and alcohol? When placed in perspective, the cost of Ancestry seems reasonable.

[Elizabeth Thomas]

Working at the local Family History Center, I have noted that when the LDS church did their work on the 1880 census, it was not digitally filmed as they have done for the 1900 censuses & subsequent census work they are initializing at their lab.

The fact that the poor scanning that is found on Ancestry.com when searching for names leads one to easy frustration, & one must go through so many files to see them. Yet, I must also add that when one is looking even in the 1900 census on the LDS lab site, one does come up with faster & easier access within the parameters we typed in, & one can go to the next or former page of that census.

The fact that every entry is gone over by more than one pair of eyes when typing the entries, plus another checker goes over the work is something that is commended, because of the need for accuracy. Of course, I'll add that the census taker took down whatever he thought he heard the person give, & did not necessarily ask how the person's name was spelled, nor was the census taker necessarily conversant with the foreign language the person might have spoken. Will we ever know what the prequisites for being a census taker were? ?? & just how highly educated were they when one looks at all the misspellings?

The fact that the LDS church also has the equipment and program that allows the individual to view those digital images so clearly is something to be commended, & I'm glad that they have already gone to other companies to help them be able to make such things available to online at the Family History Centers.

Elizabeth

[Toni DeGain]

I for one want to thank LDS for all the data they collect. As for the 1900 census, I have a subscription to A.com, but when I need records like the 1900 census, they want me to upgrade. Which I cannot afford. As for HQ, great if you have public library close to you that you can access, if not you are out of luck. And just because there is a library in your hometown doesn't mean they have HQ. Just my luck, my library doesn't and the one closest to me that does.....well you have to live in their city. So a resource like Family Search is a treasure.