[or-roots] to ditto or not to ditto

[Leslie Chapman]

So that would explain the 4's  written in over my crossed out Chi codes, but I know I had one page where it seemed obvious to me M had been crossed out and an S that looked very much like 7, as did most of that writer's S's for single. I wonder if that was one of the things I got dinged for yesterday I didn't agree with?
Like I say I will call the loooong dashes ditto marks, but it's wrong.
les

--- On Sun, 4/8/12, W David Samuelsen <dsam52 at sampubco.com> wrote:

From: W David Samuelsen <dsam52 at sampubco.com>
Subject: Re: [or-roots] to ditto  or not to ditto
To: "or-roots mail list" <or-roots at listsmart.osl.state.or.us>
Date: Sunday, April 8, 2012, 6:17 PM

observe what is in the line just above. That's it.  No dash above, no ditto.

Married or Single or Unknown (usually really blank) or Widowed, use zoom 
in if necessary. It is not always crossed off and marked S because it is 
"7" in Bureau coding.

I have one family, head is marked as crossed M and 7 written above, but 
is he married, divorced, or widowed? It does not say.

I had another one, where it was crossed and "Wd" written above.

Anytime you see 7, ignore and use what was written before it was crossed.

There was a surname no one got right in one batch and I didn't get it 
right either because in next batch it was spelled very clearly as 
Steiner. The wrong ones?  Steiver and Steimer. Duh!

There are some situtations, you can't win.

It's the researchers who are ones who can send in feedback. We can do 
same when the indexes come out. Those Arbitration Results batches are 
your sources.

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/or-roots/attachments/20120408/46f49234/attachment.html>