Here are the relevant SMITHs
STF Sedgeley All Saints bp16/1/1841 Nancy d/o -/Rhoda, of Ettingshall
STF Sedgeley All Saints bp16/1/1841 Rhoda d/o -/Rhoda, of Ettingshall
STF Pattingham bp12/3/1843 Valentine s/o George/Rhoda, bsk.mkr of Towcester NTS
STF Kinver bp23/3/1847 Emanuel s/o George/Rhoda, bsk.mkr, trav
STF Kinver bp19/3/1849 Silence d/o George/Rhoda, trav’g bsk.mkr
STF Pattingham bp29/1/1851 Ephraim s/o George/Rhoda, bsk.mkr of P
STF.DUD Kingswinford bp2/3/1853 Enoch s/o George/Rhoda bsk.mkr Gipsy enc’d Cole Lane
1861WOR-2058/103/48 George (40) cl.pg.mkr, Rhoda (40) +9
1871STF-2929/59/10 George (55) bsk.mkr, Rhoda (42) +8
1871STF-2929/59/10 Valentine (25) bsk.mkr, Merchina (BUCKLAND) (23) +3
1891STF-2307/9/11 Enoch (38) trav’g hkr, Polly (40) +1
1891STF-2455/99/33 Ephraim (35) pg.mkr, Elizabeth (29) +5
1901STF-2762/9/10 Emmanuel (40) bsk.mkr, Joanna (50) +1
They are linked to other SMITHs at the same parishes and census extracts so it is worth following them up.
The full piece number, for example, 2762/9/10 is made up of the piece number (2762) the folio number (9) and the page number (10). Sometimes, when looking at the original image, the foliio number is unseen because it occurs on the previous page and this leads to mistakenly calling the folio number the 'page' number.
There is nothing wrong with saying 'Ancestry'. If it is the source then you can quote the source without breaking any laws. Also, transcribing a census entry is not a breach of copyright although it is annoying if it is not transcribed accurately.
TL