Happy 3rd Blogiversary to me! This has been a slow year for blog posts, but GreatGreats is hanging in there. I think the other stuff is getting under control and I can back to genealogy pretty soon...
|Alhambra CA; ED 19-668, ancestry image # 20 of 42|
I ran a general search for Ray and Mom. They came up at the top of my search, nineteen pages after their parents and brother. According to the index, they are childen of and in the household of Ethel Magnuson, along with 14 other people, all listed as part of Ethel's family. Hmmm...Ethel's "family" live on different streets and have lots of different surnames!
|Alhambra CA; ED 19-668, ancestry image # 39 of 42|
Here's a part of the left margin. By the many hand-drawn, horizontal lines and the street names for every couple of entries, it's "clear" that for whatever reason, the enumerator used this page to enter names somehow left off of their rightful page. It is obvious that the enumerator never intended for these entries to be new households.
For Mom & Ray, the visitation numbers on the image 39 match that of their parents' on image 20. But few of the visitation numbers on image 39 are indexed as written. All entries on images 39 and 40 appear to be additions by the enumerator. Image 41 is marked that it was done by the "OFFICE." Image 42 is entirely blank.
Some of the entries on these 42 pages are indexed correctly as residing in Alhambra. However, many are indexed as residing in San Gabriel. I can understand how the "San Gabriel" got there, but why is it inconsistently?
I've started annotating/commenting on Ancestry.com's indexed info on these 3 pages. It will take quite a while to "fix" all the transcription (and enumeration) errors and to add comments to make it easier for researchers to "reunite" families.
So, yet another example that we must always check the original image and read the whole page!