[or-roots] more census whining

[Chris & Bill Strickland]

Just remember, the original census *is* the original record, just as it 
is.  It may be hard to read at times, and at other times there seem to 
be inexplicable errors -- all these transcriptions do is assist one in 
interpreting the original record for themselves, they are not a 
substitute for the original, as someone else has transcribed them.

 I will confess, I like Ancestry's index searching algorithms -- they 
can help one find where to look in the original, and they make it 
relatively easy to look at a reproduction of the actual record, but 
since even the originals, as we have access to them, are them selves 
reproductions, where does this charade stop?

A couple of items that show up for me -- a family in the 1800's with a 
newborn (I can't recall who at the moment) is recorded twice in the same 
census on about the same day in two different places not near each other 
-- another, my dad, born January, 1919 (I have the birth cert and 
numerous family records), is not listed in the 1920 census, neither with 
his family, nor anywhere else in the immediate area.

Just a couple conundrums where you would have liked to have been in the 
room when the census taker was getting his information.  Maybe that was 
the trouble, too few female census takers (were there any?).

Bill Strickland