<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body>Les,<BR>
<BR>
Heritage Quest has all the census records from 1790 to 1930. It just doesn't have all the years indexed. They just added the 1880 index.<BR>
<BR>
Instead of using Search you select Browse and then limit it by census year, state, county, etc. For the 1880 census, I find my person on the LDS index and find the location and the page number. Then I go to Heritage Quest to see the census record. <BR>
<BR>
I usually use Ancestry at my local Family History Library to find census records for my ancestors. But I save census images on my hard drive for my direct ancestors through HQ by using the Browse feature. That way I can link a census image to the person in my genealogy program.<BR>
<BR>
Cheryl<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
<BR>
> From: reedsportchapmans@verizon.net<BR>> To: or-roots@www.sos.state.or.us<BR>> Subject: [or-roots] HQ 1880 census<BR>> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:44:43 -0700<BR>> <BR>> Sue sent me the images I was looking for, and then mentions she got them<BR>> from Heritage Quest which startled me since I have been using it for two or<BR>> three years and never noticed they had 1880.<BR>> <BR>> Turns out they just added it.<BR>> <BR>> So then she tells me Joseph is listed as sister in the Ancestry.com index<BR>> also which leads me to believe as I have for some time that the LDS index<BR>> and apparently Ancestry index also are based on an index created when the<BR>> Census was taken.<BR>> <BR>> The reason I say this is there is absolutely nothing in the images of this<BR>> census to lead anyone to call Joseph his mother's sister. My hypothesis is<BR>> that in the original notes Christiana was listing her children; then adding<BR>> after Rachel "and her next sister is" and so on, in the process of<BR>> transferring this info from notes to some index form the transcriber<BR>> converted the relationship to Rachel to each child's relation ship to the<BR>> mother. The fact that there is no occupation listed for the last child in<BR>> the Census image might bear this out, but I don't think the indexes were<BR>> created from original notes, so how the heck did that mistake get in there<BR>> since the children are all clearly marked correctly as son or dau.<BR>> <BR>> Oh well enough of my blather.<BR>> <BR>> Les<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> or-roots mailing list<BR>> or-roots@sosinet.sos.state.or.us<BR>> http://sosinet.sos.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/or-roots<BR><BR></body>
</html>