Census record covers many people - which tags to use?

[JohnJ 0]

What's the best way to handle a census record that lists a family at some address?

 

I've been including a Residence tag for everyone listed in the Census record, but for large families that results in quite a bit of duplication, especially for the Memo field ("living with his Father, Mother and six siblings (Fred, Joe, etc.)"

 

Is there a better way, other than creating a source record for every Census record (I'm a lumper) with all the detail and then including a simple Census tag?

 

Thanks ... John.

[Terry Reigel 0]

I don't think a series of Residence tags with dates 10 years apart is the best solution - it begs the question of what about the years in between, and seems rather out of context.

 

Instead, I use a Cenus tag, which contains all the people listed in the household. The result is you get a statement that they were enumerated in the census at a particular place and time, which places the statement of residence in a reasonable context. I list the entire household in the output about the head(s) of household. For the others I state their relationship to the head(s), and also mention the spouse, parents, or children of that person if they were also present (and not the head of household). Of course you can include more or less information if you choose.

 

Details are in the "Managing Census Information" article on my website, link below.

[DeeWee 0]

I don't think a series of Residence tags with dates 10 years apart is the best solution - it begs the question of what about the years in between, and seems rather out of context.

 

The use of a list of residence tags for a person is something I am not happy with either, but which I nevertheless keep using, because I don't know of any alternative in following case: addresses that one gets from birth, death, marriage certificates. How can you include this information without having a series of residence tags with dates several years apart. Is there any solution for this?

 

Dirk

[Terry Reigel 0]

The use of a list of residence tags for a person is something I am not happy with either, but which I nevertheless keep using, because I don't know of any alternative in following case: addresses that one gets from birth, death, marriage certificates. How can you include this information without having a series of residence tags with dates several years apart. Is there any solution for this?

When I have a number of addresses over a period of time I generally combine them all into a single tag, or a series of tags worded and sorted to flow together. For an example, see the second paragraph of the sample narrative in my Flowing Narratives article.

[DuaneSmith 0]

I guess that I must be a simpleton because I just add all of the information from the census to the "Head" of the household and add everyone else in the household as "Witnesses" and when I do a report the sentence structure says that they appeared on a census with "Head". That seems to give all the information that I see as pertinent.

[Terry Reigel 0]

I guess that I must be a simpleton because I just add all of the information from the census to the "Head" of the household and add everyone else in the household as "Witnesses" and when I do a report the sentence structure says that they appeared on a census with "Head". That seems to give all the information that I see as pertinent.

Not at all. You should use whatever method meets your own needs.

 

I prefer to have the narratives for the Head of household list all the other members, but that's certainly not necessary. I also like to have the relationships of the various members stated, but again, that's not necessary either.

[jeffpiper 0]

I guess that I must be a simpleton because I just add all of the information from the census to the "Head" of the household and add everyone else in the household as "Witnesses" and when I do a report the sentence structure says that they appeared on a census with "Head". That seems to give all the information that I see as pertinent.

I do the same as you where the Head of the Household has the tag with the occupants as witnesses. I don't go as far as Terry including all the relationships in that tag but have structured the Head of Household sentence to include the other occupants. e.g.

 

[P] was listed as the head of the household in the 1891 census <[L]>< with [WO]>.<[M0]>

 

I use roles for each of the witnesses and split Memos to include all the info which I see as pertinent to the tag. e.g.

 

[W] was listed as the daughter of [R:Head Of Household] in the 1891 census <[L]>. <[W] was recorded as aged [WM2]>< born in [WM4]><[WM1],><and with an occupation of [WM3]><[M0]>

 

I will change the Head of household sentence eventually to be the same style as the other roles but at the moment have a mixture of ways the information was input and I need to clean up and change. I haven't been using the Split Memo long but it gives me what I want and does away with an additional Occupation tag.

[Alison 0]

I think I've gone role crazy as I've learnned TMG, but I've created a role for approximapte range in the occupation tag.

[P] was [M1] from about [D] to at least [M2].

It gets rid of the repetative nature, but still records the informtion from the census, draft records, misc. naturalization papers etc.

[jgr 0]

Details are in the "Managing Census Information" article on my website, link below.

Terry, I've spent a fair amount of time today working through the sentences used on the website, for which I thank you greatly. But I've come up with something odd in the census reports for one family when I then create a site in Second Site (v 1.08, Build 7).

 

In the 1880 and 1900 census, the parents are together and the children are listed: Father and Mother were in Whatever County. Their children One, Two and Three were listed as living with them. Each child's name was a hotlink in Second Site narrative style (they were also hotlinked in the grid style).

 

In 1910, the mother has finally kicked the old man out and the census listing says: Mother was in ThatThere County. Her children One, Two and Three were listed as living with her. But this time none of the children's names was a hotlink in Second Site narrative style (but they were hotlinked in the grid style).

 

I've gone over the sentences a dozen times and they're identical except for the year:

 

him

[P] <|and [PO]> appeared on the year Federal Census of< [LCI],>< [LCN],> [LS]<, at [LD]><, enumerated [D]>. <Their children [RG:with Parents] were listed as living with them.><His children [RG:with Father] were listed as living with him.> <[M]>

 

her

[P] <|and [PO]> appeared on the year Federal Census of< [LCI],>< [LCN],> [LS]<, at [LD]><, enumerated [D]>. <Their children [RG:with Parents] were listed as living with them.><Her children [RG:with Mother] were listed as living with her.> <[M]>

 

The same children are listed as witnesses each time.

 

I cannot for the life of me figure out why the kids are hotlinked in 1880 and 1900 but not in 1910. I've tested this and this repeats with any family -- the last census listing does NOT hotlink the kids.

 

Any ideas, or shall we punt this one over to John Cardinal?

-- jgr

[Terry Reigel 0]

Terry, I've spent a fair amount of time today working through the sentences used on the website, for which I thank you greatly.

You're welcome.

In 1910, the mother has finally kicked the old man out and the census listing says: Mother was in ThatThere County. Her children One, Two and Three were listed as living with her. But this time none of the children's names was a hotlink in Second Site narrative style (but they were hotlinked in the grid style).

I cannot for the life of me figure out why the kids are hotlinked in 1880 and 1900 but not in 1910. I've tested this and this repeats with any family -- the last census listing does NOT hotlink the kids.

My recollection is that Second Site by default only creates links for the first mention of a person in any one narrative. There is an option someplace in SS to change this so every mention becomes a link. Maybe that's what's going on.

[jgr 0]

My recollection is that Second Site by default only creates links for the first mention of a person in any one narrative. There is an option someplace in SS to change this so every mention becomes a link. Maybe that's what's going on.

That makes perfect sense to me and would also explain why the links are there in the grid format and disappear in the narrative format. Thanks!

[DeeWee 0]

I think I've gone role crazy as I've learnned TMG, but I've created a role for approximapte range in the occupation tag.

[P] was [M1] from about [D] to at least [M2].

It gets rid of the repetative nature, but still records the informtion from the census, draft records, misc. naturalization papers etc.

 

The reason why I am a bit sceptical to combine a number of occurances is illustrated by the following case:

I have an aunt who lived at a certain address, say Addr1 when her first and second child were born, when her children were married, when her husband declared the death of his father, when her grandchildren were born, when her husband died and now she still lives there. However, in the meantime, she lived at an other address, say Add2, for just a couple of years. However, I don't know of any events (marriages, births,..) which refer to Addr2. So if anyone would compile these data by the year 2100, I guess they will report she was living at addr1 from her marriage to her death, without mentioning the few years at Addr2. What do you think?

 

Dirk

[Alison 0]

The reason why I am a bit sceptical to combine a number of occurances is illustrated by the following case:

I have an aunt who lived at a certain address, say Addr1 when her first and second child were born, when her children were married, when her husband declared the death of his father, when her grandchildren were born, when her husband died and now she still lives there. However, in the meantime, she lived at an other address, say Add2, for just a couple of years. However, I don't know of any events (marriages, births,..) which refer to Addr2. So if anyone would compile these data by the year 2100, I guess they will report she was living at addr1 from her marriage to her death, without mentioning the few years at Addr2. What do you think?

 

Dirk

Personally I don't combine addresses for that very reason. Plus, when dealing with cities that renumbered thier addresses what looks like two houses may be one and vica versa; and don't even get me started about try to track addresses in a major city where virtully everyone lived in appartmnets but few records seem to list this fact. I do tend to combine occupations, but I'm always sceptical, and generally keep the surrieties on such statements low. I know I'm still running a risk her but reporting the same occupation three times in a ten year period was way to repetative of a nartive. I guess there's always a trade off there, between readabilitiy and not accedentally implying something as more cirtian than it actually is.

 

Alison