How do you treat errors found in censuses?

Question

It is common to find census errors by the enumerators, most often bad spelling, or wrong name completely. That is sometimes compounded by further errors made by the transcriber. Is there a suggested way to note those errors in the biography?

Parentheses/brackets in the biography following the error to note it, and the correction? Sometimes the correction and explanation is lengthy, and a footnote might be appropriate. But if there is a general footnote for the census citation at the end of the paragraph, then there could be several footnotes for a single paragraph. That wouldn't be a problem for me, but I've seen comments that indicate multiple footnotes for one item are confusing.

Thoughts? Ideas? Thanks much!

Comments

What worked for me was contacting familysearch.org

They had Fordwick for a first name of my ancestor. I provided the correct spelling and some evidence that my version was correct. They changed it to Frederick.

---

That's a good solution for errors made by the transcriber, Frank, but it wouldn't work for errors made by the enumerator, since those errors are actually in the record. I found, for example, in three consecutive censuses the name "Trenton," "Fenton," and "Clinton." As it turns out, Fenton was the correct name. I inserted a note [sic.- should be Fenton] for the two erroneous names. One I found that fits your scenario: actual verified name "Coyle." Enumerator put "Coil." FS transcriber entered "Cail." When I searched Coyle or Coil, the search didn't find my party. I actually found it another way: luck! So I could let FS know about the transcription error, but I would need to note the enumerator error in the biography.

Answer 1

On my 3rd Gr. Gf. Profile:  Coxwain William W Halstead 

"1860 United States Federal Census" is in error, so I added: (Disambiguation: Wm's neighbor on Line #7, Occupation: '''Master Boatman'''; should be attached to William on Line # 12 instead.) . I may be using incorrect terminology to describe this error.

Also: 

• U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995. 1870. Title : Oswego, New York, City Directory, 1870. Page: 335. Film frame: 171. Halstead, Wm, Halstead, Henry. Listed: Laborer & boatman. (these occupations are in reverse order). ancestry.comViewed by: Vickery-352 on: 2 April 2016. JPV IV :)

Comments

Thanks, John, that's pretty much the way I had decided to do it, but I wanted to check to see if there was a preferred method, or a better one I had not come up with.

---

Jim, Thanks for the star.

 On occasion I have used:

(sic) 

but I feel that sometimes a deeper explanation is needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic JPV IV :)

Answer 2

At the moment I'm not worrying about the errors in Censuses and just trying to find the proper censuses.  At the moment I'm entering Ancestry.com censuses, and after I've gone around  I'll start adding the FamilySearch versions.  My idea is to have enough sources for, for instance, being able t be sure about a birth date and that we're dealing with the same people in all the Censuses being linked to in each profile.  The RootsSearch tool makes the limiting factor how much time it takes to flesh out a profile.  Of course perhaps the new tool Chris talked about a bit ago may help speed things up.  

Anyway, I figure once you have all the censuses and other sources, it should be easy to summarize the results either by making a research note or by adding any variations from the birth names to appropriate data fields.

Answer 3

When I know the error is truly an error - like E*mo for my great aunt, I just put (Elmo) behind it.I figure the bio given her correct name and birth, so it's an obvious error and needs no explanation.

I came across one today a young man was called James and Jeremiah. At the moment I don't know if he is James, Jeremiah , or James Jeremiah. So I just put the questionable name  (James?) (Jeremiah?) behind it.