Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
This is a warning to users of pre-1850 census index CDs.
In the Introduction to the 1800 Census Index CD (#312), it describes the numbers given with the entries as the first five digits referring to males and the second five digits referring to females. That is how it should be; that is how the original census data were taken. However, that is not how it is with much of the data on these CDs, which have the genders THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
If you wish to confirm that this switching of genders has occurred, just check the entries on CD#312 for the following names in the state of "PA." I deliberately searched for entries that had households of only one gender and with the head-of-household having a given name of unambiguous gender (in all cases, I've only used examples for which the values of the last two digits were 00, so as not to confuse the issue):
Susannah Abbington..00110-00000-00
Mary Abbott.........31020-00000-00
Rachell Abbott......10010-00000-00
Mary Adams..........00101-00000-00
Paul Abbott.........00000-00001-00
John Adams..........00000-00010-00
Martin Adams........00000-00100-00
Mathew Adams........00000-00110-00
I also checked my 1810 Index CD, #313. Here, the Virginia entries have females first, while the New York entries have males first.
Here are some VA, 1810 examples:
William Abbot......00000-00100-00
James Abbott.......00000-00100-00
William Abernathy..00000-00100-00
Jonathan Ackiss....00000-00100-00
John Acklen........00000-00010-00
Edward Adams.......00000-00100-00
Lucy Abbott........00021-00000-00
Betey Adams........11010-00000-00
Prudence Adams.....02010-00000-00
In point of fact, I came across one inconsistent entry for VA in 1810, namely:
David Abbey........00001-00000-00
but all the others I found were as above, with females first.
Here are a few NY in 1810 entries:
David Abbot........00100-00000
Calvin Abbott......20010-00000
William Abeel......00001-00000
Catharine Abraham..00000-00011
Betey Ackerman.....00000-00101
Mary Ackerman......00000-01021
I haven't checked all states or all disks (it's a tedious process to find the rare household with only one gender, and I obviously didn't even get very far into the "A's").
I believe it is imperative, not just to maintain FTM's own credibility, but to prevent what must be an astronomical amount of "bum leads" and mass confusion and errors among end users, for FTM (Broderbund>TLC) to issue a thorough and *correct* description of the census data on these CDs. It should be enclosed with all new disks sold, and it should be MAILED OUT TO ALL EXISTING DISK OWNERS.
There's no point in FTM trying to cover this up. In fact, it is their duty to make it public. However, I'm not optimistic that they will because...
I found a message in the FTM archives alerting FTM to this problem back in May. For those who wish to confirm it, here is the URL
http://www.familytreemaker.com/_rnews_/archive/messages/365.html
I have also posted vigorously in FTMTECH-L over the past few weeks, with NO response from FTM, even though their representative was answering other queries to the list at that time.
The worst revelation of all came with my own careful re-reading of the Introduction to disk #312 (1800 census index), which stated:
"Weaknesses . . .
"6. In a few cases, the format of the information is inconsistent. Although most of these errors have been corrected, occasionally you may find data in the wrong fields."
THEY KNEW FROM THE OUTSET THAT THE DATA WERE SWTICHED!! I guess the lawyers could have a field day defining "a few" and "occasionally," but I'd say there are what appear to me to be MAJOR "format inconsistencies" on the disks. And, of course, the rub is that you don't know when the gender-order is correct or when it's not.
FTM has probably insulated themselves from litigation with their disclaimer, but that doesn't excuse what I see as a gross lapse of integrity on their part. They obviously knew the data were flawed, so THEY HAD AN OBLIGATION TO TELL US that the genders were switched ON A LARGE PERCENTAGE of the data. Think of the confusion and errors these disks must be creating!
Yes, we all know to double check with the original source, but we also assume the data provider has made a reasonable attempt to keep the error rate low. And we also have some expectations as to the *kinds* of errors we should expect in census data. What we do not expect is for the genders to be switched! This kind of error catches us totally off guard. It would have been better for them to have left the numerical data off than to have published it in this condition. Bad data are NOT better than no data!
I guess all we can do is spread the word amongst us users that a LOT of the numerical data on the Broderbund census index CDs have the genders reversed. I can tell you that knowing such is the case cleared up some knotty problems for me.
I expect FTM to get some backlash over this fiasco. But my feeling is that when something's gone awry, energy should be expended to fix it, not in useless ranting and recrimination. But I must say honestly that I'm having to keep a lid on my anger over this. I have wasted a lot of time trying to reconcile these numbers to situations where I knew the composition of the family, knew where they were in the census year, yet could not make the numbers agree -- that is, wasting time looking elsewhere when in fact I had actually found what I was looking for -- until I realized I needed to switch the genders. I do not take kindly to having my time wasted -- not to mention the time it's taking to post these messages, but I feel a moral obligation to do so. I'm afraid others may not take this discovery as calmly and philosophically as I have. All I can say is, put on your asbestos undies, FTM, and get passed this calamity as quickly and as gracefully as possible. The way to do that is to acknowledge the mistake and do what you can to mediate the damage. And the way to do that is to compile a list of the localities with switched genders, post it online, and mail it to everyone who registered their purchase of the CDs. It isn't any big deal for us as end users to have to consult a list of switched genders now and again. It is a big deal to unknowingly believe the data mean one thing, when in fact they mean just the opposite.
Before I close...
I am not a chronic whiner and I am not down on the company. In fact, I'm a stockholder in the company (BROD>TLC). I bought BROD because I admired the company's products and thought it was a good investment. As a genealogist, I have to be upset by the *unexpected* unreliability of the data, but my upset is no doubt compounded by my loyalty to BROD, and now especially by the lack of response from FTM. There are other good investments out there, and I'm a person who acts on their principles.
Diana
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/archive/messages/95.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|