Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:16:17 -0600
Message-ID: <44038840.54819F6E@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:16:16 -0800
From: Robert Heiling <robh...@comcast.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.genealogy
Subject: Re: 1870 Census page number?
References: <4401D1F4.6030109@copper.net> <1PlMf.16687$2O6.15951@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> <dDtMf.437127$0l5.329553@dukeread06> <fGtMf.437146$0l5.123600@dukeread06> <3CKMf.442929$0l5.314643@dukeread06>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 52
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.20.43.214
X-Trace: sv3-tvjRr946Yi57fMXQcUueW8wxCasX8s/9r1lEDFITiUvaD93tBHEE+WhXNnG30nGPOBxptw94P15PpIc!mU/darmOjk5Hlny2gbRUkZMoUgMow690uHzJUkfPiUSmOI/G8KSmos9UmBqvAkC4f4Q=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32

I've been helping a cousin with his ancestry today and an image I pulled up for
Sonoma County, California was in single-page format. Yet one I have saved for my
own files for McLeod County, Minnesota is the double-page type. Perhaps the
different filming teams that did different states (and/or counties) followed
different sets of rules or interpreted them differently?

Bob

Huntersglenn wrote:
> 
> Another twist to this whole double-page thing for the 1870 -- I went to
> search an ancestor in Washington County, North Carolina, hoping to find
> him this time around because of that happening, and found that at least
> with that county, each page is showing up separately.
> 
> So, this isn't an across-the-board thing with the 1870 Federal Census
> image filming, and I wonder why?  Is it that they started out
> double-paging, and then decided to switch because it would make it
> harder for people to find someone, or did they start out filming each
> page individually and then went to double-paging to save money?
> 
> Of course, I'm sure we'll never know that answer <g>.
> 
> Cathy
> 
> Huntersglenn wrote:
> > Just want to add that it's my own fault, too, for not noticing the
> > double page.  I never let the page load fully before selecting the 200%
> > viewing option -- if I did, then I would have seen it was done that way.
> >
> > Guess that's what I get for not being patient enough for page loading
> > <grin>.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> > Huntersglenn wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder if that's why I've not been able to find some other people in
> >> the 1870 Federal Census?  Thanks for mentioning that they do that --
> >> it would be nice if both places would also mention that -- it would
> >> make searching a lot more thorough!
> >>
> >> Cathy
> >>
> >> Doug Corbin wrote:
> >>
> >>> He's on page 3. On both Heritage Quest and Ancestry each image covers
> >>> two pages. You have to move to the right to see the second page.
> >>>
> >>> Doug
> >>>
> >>>