Specific street on census

Post by **emanday** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:46 pm

I know I've criticised Ancestry before about their "transcriptions" but actually discovering census entries for an entire family without surname has really got me flummoxed.

Jack,

You probably have more knowledge about censuses than anyone. How could this have happened? Why would have an enumerator have accepted this?

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:48 pm

Hi Sf,
I don't think you need worry!

Seems the enumerator just forgot to enter the surname for Michael & family.
Though you'd have thought it would've been noticed when the pages were checked...!

The surname mistake (SMYTH) perhaps belongs to GROS? as that's who SP get their data from.
Jack
--
ps, just noticed your reply Mary; haven't a clue!
But maybe Andrew will know - he's well clued up on the workings of the censuses.
Perhaps Michael did fill in his surname on the schedule he was given, but enumerator couldn't read it, or was unsure?
And forgot to go back and ask Michael to confirm what he wrote?
You can see i'm into the guesswork again....!

Post by **emanday** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:57 am

Well it might be guesswork, Jack, but it seems a very logical explanation to me.

It's lucky that there were boarders in the household, otherwise the chances of finding Michael and family would have been VERY slim

Post by **AndrewP** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:44 pm

The enumerator should have noted the surname was missing when he collected the householder's census form. My guess is that the surname was there then, but when the enumerator transcribed this information into the enumeration book, he missed it out and that went un-noticed when the book was submitted.

All the best,

AndrewP