Error on Census?

Tom, you've spotted a can of worms in your thoughtful scrutiny of what you're using. In fact, we could characterize your issue as one of analysis, rather than source citation. Citing this census page is simple enough. Probing deeper suggests the issue lies in the  arrangement of the data intrinsic in the record itself--and the implications it has for your conclusions about the people.

First, by expanding our examination to a broader range of pages at FamilySearch, we see that it's not just an issue of switching back and forth between the two districts you mention (Cook's and Davis's). As an overview:

• Image 376 (p383), Louisburg Dist., 1 October, nos. 987–994
• Image 377 (p383verso), Cook’s Dist., 2 Oct., nos. 995-100-
• Image 378 (p384), Perry’s Mill Dist., 2 Oct., nos. 1001-1006
• Image 379 (p384v), Louisburg Dist., 3 Oct., nos. 1007-1013
• Image 380 (p385), Davis Dist., 3 Oct., nos. 1014-1022
• Image 381 (p385v), Cook’s Dist., 4 Oct, nos. 1023-1029
• Image 382 (p386), Cook’s Dist., 5 Oct., nos. 1030-1038
• Image 383 (p386v), Cook’s Dist., 5 Oct., nos. 1039-1045
• Image 384 (p387), Cook’s Dist., 8 Oct., nos. 1046-1051
• Image 385 (p387v), Perry’s Mill Dist., 8 Oct., nos. 1052 ….
• Image 386 (p388), Perry’s Mill Dist., 10 Oct. …
• Image 387 (p388v), Perry’s Mill Dist.15 Oct. …
• Image 388 (p389), Perry’s Mill Dist. 15 Oct.…
• Image 389 (p389v), Cook’s Dist. … 16 Oct. ...
• Image 390 (p390), Perry’s Mill Dist., 17 Oct. ...
• Image 391 (p390v), Perry’s Mill Dist., 21 Oct. ... (end of district, with some interesting notes added)

Dwelling/household numbers are all consistent. The date pattern is chronological, but the census taker is switching in and out between four different districts.

As you noted, Ancestry organizes its images of this census differently from FamilySearch.

• FS presents the images exactly as they were filmed, which follows the sequence in which the pages were numbered and bound by the Census Bureau.
• Ancestry takes pages out of order and presents them according to the “district” cited at the top of the page. Therefore, when a household from, say, Cook’s District is begun on one page and finished on the next page on which a new district begins, Ancestry arbitrarily splits the household between those two districts.

For citation purposes, we would cite the district name that appears on the page on which the household begins. We would do this regardless of whether we were using the Ancestry arrangement or the FamilySearch arrangement.

However, the more important issue is why the census taker created that erratic cluster of pages. For this we would normally analyze several issues, starting with

• Who was the census taker? What can we find out about him that would explain his seemingly irrational thinking?
• Is there a significance to the dates? What was going on, on those dates? (If, for example, a cluster like this all appeared on a Sunday, we might hypothesize that the census taker gathered data at church. Or if it were Saturday, that he gathered it at a tavern or country store. In this case, using a perpetual calendar reveals that the dates cluster tightly on week days at first, then diverge into a couple of other patterns.
• On what days did Franklin County hold its court sessions in October 1850? Could the census taker have been gathering data there—given that court days often brought rural residents into town for celebrations of sort—rather than making rounds?

Ancestry’s rearrangement of the pages into districts suggests something else. You’ll notice that for each of the districts involved in this erratic cluster, there are a number of pages, with the pages from the above cluster being significantly out of chronological and numerical order with the rest of that district's series.

All things considered, my starting hypothesis at this point would be that the cluster of pages stamped pp. 383 through 390 verso represent cases in which the census taker went back into those districts to pick up strays that he missed when he made his first pass through each district. Perhaps these individuals were not then at home. Perhaps the weather conditions made it impossible for him to get into certain neighborhoods on his first trip.

And now, for all our readers who are wondering What does this matter?, the takeaway is this:  I’d be extremely hesitant to assign “neighbors” (and potential kin) to anybody on these pages without further study.  It would be instructive, for example, to compare each page of this 1850 cluster to the 1840 and 1860 enumerations to see if individuals had the same set of neighbors.

And then, of course, if we were using the Ancestry version, there’s that problem of those pages that begin with partial entries carried over from prior pages. For example, in Ancestry’s cluster of 15 images for Perry’s Mill, who were Calvin and David who appear at the top of image 10?  http://ancstry.me/2wksad6

Robyn 62, have you checked EE 6.51, which provides examples for the 1851 English census?

The example there is a census viewed on microfilm. For censuses we view online, we use the same format for the first layer (the identification of the census). In the second layer (the identification of the images and its provider, you would state something such as "imaged as ..." and then plug in a standard citation for online databases. EE 5.51 models that using the 1901 Welsh census.

If you wish to cite what you believe is the correct identification of the district (or any other piece of information), the standard way to make that correction is to place the correction in [square editorial brackets] and then, after the citation, explain the error and why you feel your information is correct. EE offers a variety of examples for handling corrections that you can find in the index under "correcting or noting errors"—for example, EE 7.38 (p. 354) which treats Michaelstow Parish's Bishop's Transcripts.