FamilySearch Indexing: US—1940 Federal Census, Project Links
Error: image is invalid or non-existent
Click Wiki Presentation to learn about making submissions. Use this page to ask all questions about this project. Please include a share batch number, if possible, for clarification. Hold the batch as long as possible before submitting it. Comments will be removed after review.
There is a "R" in City field but a rubber stamp has been applied saying "Same house". Go with the Same House? Or keep the R? SB 189253792 April Robertson - Admin/Owner of Facebook Unofficial Share Batch Group 04:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
In the "City, town, or village" column I have found many "R"s written. Should this be indexed as: "R" or "Rural"? I have had it arbitrated both ways and want to know what is correct. Project instructions seem to read, "Rural".
In the Marital Status column we've seen M crossed out and a 7 written in a few times now in share batches in the Facebook Group as well as in the Skype Group. How should this be indexed? Don't have a Share Batch #. Most times it's been individuals who are of a marriagable age but a few times it's been seen with 2 and 4 year olds. April Robertson - Admin/Owner of Facebook Unofficial Share Batch Group 01:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is a share batch for the above question. 189228131 Lines 34 and 37 for example. Beth Crowe
If you look all these marks are made in pencil. The info answered is in pen. I believe this is just a coding process, and the information that is crossed out is merely crossed out for the coding. Therefore, the correct entry for transcription is the originally entered information. For instance, if a child was 2, and it's crossed out and a 7 is written of to the right, the you enter 2. If a marital status was entered as M, then crossed out and a 7 is written to the right, then you enter M. Does this make sense? Do you agree FamilySearch?
I had a Delaware batch with four cases as described above. In all cases, the person was female, of marriageable age, marked as M (married), but no apparent spouse was on the page. Might be part of a pattern? Jon Lund