[or-roots] Ancestry.com vs HQ census

[Leslie Chapman]

I may  have to revise my certainty about images coming from different reels.
Superficially HQ and Ancestry seem to be using different reels for Uncle Ed
since the latter is a quite clear page though I had to digitally enhance it
pretty severely to read names more than a line or two below Unk, but on
closer examination I believe Ancestry did indeed use the same image,
possbily from a different reel, but the same image. I was pretty sure what
Linda and I looked at for her this am came from different images, that is
the microfilm for the two sources seemed to me to be certainly different.
For Unk it looks to me like Ancestry just did a better job on the same reel,
though again I might be wrong. The HQ reel clearly shows drag marks down the
right hand side of the page and has a loop of hair or other debris in the
middle of the page that the other image doesn't have so maybe they are not
the same. The big issue though is I can now read the whole page in Ancestry
clearly and I am sure even digitally enhanced some of the people in the
lower part of the page on HQ will still not be visible. I would swear
however the first time I looked at the page on HQ it was almost a blank
white sheet.

Les

-----Original Message-----
From: or-roots-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us
[mailto:or-roots-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us]On Behalf Of Kith-n-Kin
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:54 AM
To: 'or-roots mail list'
Subject: Re: [or-roots] Ancestry.com vs HQ census


Good point Les!

I have a sub to Ancestry and use it as my "first" research tool. However,
when something is blurry, or too dark, or whatever, I go to my local
library's HeritageQuest subscription (which I get from home) and check
there. Sometimes the images are better, sometimes not.

Sometimes there is a page missing on Ancestry -- the person's in the index,
but not on the linked image (315), and when you check, you see that the
images go 314, 316 -- so I go to HQ to see, by browsing or the index, if I
can find the person.

The reverse is also true, of course, but because the index in Ancestry is
more comprehensive, I use it as a start.

Good point about Uncle Edward also. It's amazing what a little time and
distance from a problem will do for our eyes <G>.

Pat
Tucson, AZ

-----Original Message-----
From: or-roots-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us
[mailto:or-roots-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us] On Behalf Of Leslie
Chapman
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:49 AM
To: Oregon List
Subject: [or-roots] Ancestry.com vs HQ census

Linda and I were comparing census pages on the two sources. In this instance
Ancestry was illegible and I note that it isn't a manner of handling, but in
fact the two emails were from two different reels of microfilm. You folks
want to keep that in  mind when you can't read the info on one source try
the other.

I've been ranting for years about not being able to read Great Uncle Edward
on the 1900 Census in Empire and went to look at it today and for some
reason all this time I thought he was in the middle of the page, actually he
is the first family and quite legible. Huh? The rest of the page is
completely unreadable in Heritage Quest though.

Les C

_______________________________________________
or-roots mailing list
or-roots at listsmart.osl.state.or.us
http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/or-roots


_______________________________________________
or-roots mailing list
or-roots at listsmart.osl.state.or.us
http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/or-roots
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1969 - Release Date: 02/24/09
06:43:00