United States Census, 1900 (FamilySearch Historical Records)/Known IssuesEdit This Page
From FamilySearch Wiki
| This page was created by FamilySearch Historical Records personnel. It details problems identified within this collection and answers to those problems.
If you wish to comment, please visit the talk page to post your comments.
NOTE 1: Within this collection are 113 census records with a birth year range of 1530 – 1600. A few of these birth years are indexing errors, while most images indicate that the census taker recorded these dates as such. By subtracting the person's age as shown on the record or image from the census year 1900, the birth years are within the 1800’s.
NOTE 2: Within this collection there are some census pages with duplicate images. It has been determined that these will not be corrected at this time.
NOTE 3: Most missing records are available on microfilm. See Ordering Microfilm or Microfiche for instructions on ordering microfilm as well as finding a local FamilySearch Center where you can view the films.
Question #1: In the 1900 Census there are many records showing only an A or a B with a wildcard (*) in the name and birthplace fields. Should there be information in these fields?
Answer #1: If you come across records that show only an A or a B in the name or birthplace field with a wildcard (*) you can view the Image to see the correct information.
Question #2: I am seeing images that are reversed and/or rotated. Is there a way to view these images?
Answer #2: The images came to us on the NARA film this way. Your best option will be to hold a mirror up to the computer and read from the mirror for the reversed or mirrored images. If the images are rotated you can use the rotate option on the menu bar on the image itself until you have the image positioned correctly.
Question #3: Is it possible to verify if an enumerator has recorded information in error on census pages?
Answer #3: If you encounter a discrepancy recorded by an enumerator on a census page, it may be possible to reconcile it by looking at the previous and next page to see if the information on the pages fits together.
For example: Connecticut > New Haven > ED 377 New Haven city Ward 8 > Image 34 of 34 states that the Enumeration District is 88, Sheet 17A. However, by looking at the previous page, it is clear that the page should have been annotated as Enumeration District 377, Sheet 17B.
In other situations, the enumerator may have not recorded household numbers correctly, causing families to be combined incorrectly. Your best resource is to look at the image itself to verify family connections.
Question #4: Can you clarify the name of the town in the browse point ED 70 Kenton Hundred, Election District 1 Kemton town & Cheswold town (pt.) in Delaware, Kent County?
Answer #4: The correct name of the town is Kenton, not Kemton.
Question #5: Some of the images for Hillsborough, Florida are out of order in the section 0064 Precinct 6, Coex. Fort Brook (excl. Tampa City) Fort Brook town. How do I know where to look for the proper pages?
Answer #5: Each page actually has two parts, A and B. The chart below shows where you can find the images for the out of order pages. All other pages and images are in the correct order.
|5-6||3A and 3B|
|7-8||7A and 7B|
|9-10||6A and 6B|
|11-12||4A and 4B|
|13-14||5A and 5B|
|15-16||8A and 8B|
Question #6: I cannot find my ancestor in Indiana. Were there pages missed in indexing in Indiana? Answer #6: In Indiana > Tippecanoe County there were two images that were filmed with dual pages on the image. The bottom page was missed in indexing. You can view the image to verify who was missed in the indexing.
- ED 103 Fairfield Township Lafayette city Ward 7 Image 53
- ED 105 Lauramie Township (north half) Image 19
Question #7: I am looking for the Melwood District in Prince George’s County in Maryland. Can you help me?
Answer #7: The District of Melwood has been incorrectly indexed as Millwood. You can find it at the browse point Maryland > Prince George's- > ED 107 Election District 15, Millwood.
Question #8: I am looking for the town of Orford in Grafton, New Hampshire. Can you help me?
Answer #8: The town of Orford has been indexed incorrectly as Oxford. You will find Orford records in the browse point New Hampshire > Grafton > ED 70 Oxford town.
Question #9: Many of the images for Tiro Village, Auburn Township, Crawford County, Ohio are too blurry to read. Is there a way to see these images clearly?
Answer #9: These images are the best that we have available. The images are also blurry on the FamilySearch microfilm that the digital images were taken from. The original records are housed at the United States Bureau of the Census. Digital images of originals are housed at the National Archives, Washington, D.C. One would have to view these documents to see if the original records are damaged or are easier to read.
Question #10: I cannot find an ancestor in Muskingum County, Ohio. Were there images that were missed in the indexing?
Answer #10: Image 30 in the browse point ED 72 Falls Township, Precinct A Zanesville city Ward 5 sheet 1B has a second image below that is actually from ED 73 Falls Township, Precinct B Zanesville city Ward 5, sheet 1 A. This page was missed in the indexing. If you cannot find an ancestor from Falls Township, Zanesville City, Ohio, you can check image 30 in the browse point ED 72 Falls Township, Precinct A Zanesville city Ward 5.
Question #11: In Oklahoma Territory, Canadian, ED 21 Valley Township, images for Oak Township are also included. Is this correct?
Answer #11: The browse point Oklahoma Territory > Canadian > ED 21 Valley Township is mislabeled. ED 21 contains both Valley Townships and Oak Township.
Question #12: Several Enumeration Districts or pages from Enumeration Districts were missed when images were indexed. Can they be viewed somewhere else?
Answer #12: The following locations were missed in the indexing. They can be viewed by ordering the microfilms noted (See Ordering Microfilm and Microfiche) into a local FamilySearch Center and viewed there.
- Illinois, McDonough County, Bethel Township > Image 1 - Microfilm #1240320
- Pennsylvania, Berks, ED 0110 Spring Township, Precinct 1 (east Part) Images 33- 36 – microfilm # 1241379
- Utah, Box Elder, ED 207 Plymouth Precinct Fielding, page 4A – microfilm 1241682
- Marathon County, Wisconsin - ED 107 Wausau Town, ED 108 Wein Town, ED 109 Weston Town (part) and ED 110 Weston Town (part) - film# 1241798
Question #13: I cannot locate my ancestors in Gunnison, San Pete County, Utah. Are there records missing from there?
Answer #13: There is a page, Sheet 9B, missing in the browse point Utah > Sanpete > ED 124 Gunnison Precinct Gunnison town that would fit between images 17 and 18. The page was missed in indexing and was missed when the images were put online. To view this page you can order microfilm #1241686 by following the links in Answer #10. The page is available on Ancestry.com as well. Ancestry can be accessed free of charge at a FamilySearch Center near you.
Question #14: In Washington, Pierce County there are families that seem to be linked together incorrectly. Can you explain this?
Answer #14: In the browse point Washington > Pierce > ED 160 South Prairie and Wilkeson Precincts there are pages that appear to have been out of order when the records were filmed, specifically images 18-22, causing families to be linked together incorrectly. A closer look at the images may help you sort out correct relationships.
Question #15: In Arkansas, Izard County Velvet Hill Township does not exist. What is the correct township?
Answer #15: Arkansas > Izard > ED 168 Velvet Hill Township should be Violet Hill Township. Records indexed with a Residence Place of Velvet Hill Township should also be changed to Violet Hill Township.
Question #16: When I view the image associated with Philadelphia city Ward 1, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, District: 16, Sheet Number and Letter: 7A, an image for Perry County, District 150, Sheet Number and Letter: 4A appears (United States Census, 1900 > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia > ED 16 Philadelphia city Ward 1 > Image 13 of 29). How can I view the correct image?
Answer #16: Unfortunately, until the erroneous digital page is replaced online, you will have to order the microfilm 1241451 to view the image.
If you encounter additional problems with this collection, feel free to report them at email@example.com. Please include the following information:
- If searching a specific collection: please include the name of the collection; include all search criteria used, including name, event, dates and places.
- If browsing this collection: please include the full path you followed to where the problem occurred. The browse path is located above the Image viewer window.
For example: United States Census, 1900 > West Virginia > Kanawha > ED 61 Union district (Precincts 2-3 & 5) > Image 1 of 42.
- If you are reporting a technical issue: please include your operating system and browser version, such as Windows XP and Internet Explorer.
Your assistance will help ensure that future revisions will be considered.
Return to the United States Census, 1900 (FamilySearch Historical Records) Learn More page.
Return to the United States Census, 1900 collection at FamilySearch.org.
- This page was last modified on 11 August 2014, at 23:23.
- This page has been accessed 2,173 times.
Share Your Opinion!
Review redesigns of wiki pages and give your feedbackImprove the Wiki