I'm Getting A Flip-Pal

I have finally decided to purchase a  Flip-Pal  for my own personal use.  We will be occasionally blogging about my use of the scanner as well as my opinion about how it works and what my experience with it is.

I've decided to use it simply for its portability. I have one relative who has pictures of relatives that I do not have that I'm hoping to scan. My mother also has some pictures that I would like to scan as well, although she does have a scanner with her computer. The sooner I scan these materials, the better.

Disclosure: I am an affiliate of the company that sells the  Flip-Pal --full disclosure here--so I will make small commission on sales you make if you click on  Flip-Pal  links on my site. However, posts will not be glorified ads for the  Flip-Pal  as those sorts of posts irritate me and I'm certain irritate readers as well. The intent is to allow readers to see how I'm using it and how it works for me. There will be no "copied and pasted" press-releases or company-created promotional as a part of any blog posts. 

Time Moves On

I am in the boat that I am assuming readers are. I have materials that have not been converted to digital format and the longer I wait to do that, the greater the chance something happens to the items and they are gone forever. I encourage readers to convert materials they have to digital format--whether you use the equipment I do or you use something else. Just do it.

And new images always make good fodder for post topics. 

Stay Tuned!

Cawiezells in 1870--Now to Find 1860?

A while ago on Genealogy Tip of the Day we discussed this family and my attempts to locate them in the 1870 census. We've located the Cawiezell family in Davenport, Scott County, Iowa, in both 1870 and 1880 federal censuses and in the 1856 Iowa state census in part thanks to the efforts of some of the Genealogy Tip of the Day fans on our Facebook page.

The search does not end there.

I'm attempting to locate the family in passenger manifests as part of an upcoming Casefile Clues article. I'm also trying to locate them in the 1860 US federal census as well. The 1860 census is not crucial and it may be that manual search of the census is the best approach to take. A higher priority is the location of the Cawiezells on passenger manifests.

Challenges with this family are that the place of birth can be either Switzerland or Germany and that Antoine sometimes went by variants of that name or of his middle name Christian.

The enumerations are below.

1856 Iowa

1856 Iowa State Census, Scott County, Iowa, Davenport Township, page 516 (stamped upper left), Antoine Cavataselle household; digital image, Ancestry.com , obtained 11 July 2013.

1870 Federal

1870 U. S. Census, Scott County, Iowa, Davenport Township, dwelling 280, family 289, Anton Catwizell household; digital image, Ancestry.com obtained 1 January 2013.

1880 Federal

1880 U. S. Census, Scott County, Iowa, City of Davenport, 1st Ward, page 2B, dwelling 6, family 10, Marie Cawitzel, 1019 8th Street; digital image, Ancestry.com obtained 1 January 2013.

Sometimes even names that are unusual are difficult to find. Stay tuned, we hope to have an update.

More Ancestry.com Suggestions

I never received any type of response from Ancestry.com in response to my post "What I Want on Ancestry.com," but I didn't really expect to. Two other ideas came to mind while reading through some of the responses to my initial posting. There's no doubt some researchers do these things manually, but if Ancestry.com wants to be more "user-friendly" and "enhance my user experience" these would be nice additional features.
 

More Than One Shoebox

It would be nice to have more than one shoebox in which to "dump" records or items that I find on Ancestry.com. The reality is that most researchers do at least a little "jumping around" while using Ancestry.com. Even if working on just one family, it would be nice to be able to put material into different shoeboxes. Sometimes I do not want to "tie" a record to a person if I'm not quite certain I have the right person. Unconnecting them later can easily be forgotten.

A "Could Be Pile"

I would like some way to "tag" a record as it "could be" John Smith without actually tying the record to my actual John Smith in my database. It would be nice to have a way to quickly pull up my "potential John Smiths" within Ancestry.com. I really have no preference for how this is implemented but don't see a similar feature as of the time this blog post is being written.


I'll list more as I think of them. Ancestry.com is probably not listening, but that's ok. If they don't there's always the chance another company or organization will. Sometimes I think is Ancestry.com more focused on gathering than it is on research. But that may simply be a response to the market.

Believed to be Fee Simple

This image comes from the inventory of the real estate of Barbara Haase who died in Hancock County, Illinois, in 1903. She owned small lot in Warsaw, Illinois, which this inventory addresses. The executor notes that "this Administrator [sic] cannot say what the Real interest of the deceased was in this property but believes it to be a fee simple."

How could the "administrator" not know what type of title Barbara had in the property?

The problem is that Barbara did not buy it herself. Her first husband purchased it in the early 1850s, only to die in 1855, leaving no will. Barbara later married and divorced Conrad Haase twice and she was not married at the time of her death.

It could have been possible that Barbara's title in the property was her dower interest in it or some type of life estate via her first husband. Most likely a search of property records had not been completed at the time the inventory was made.

Why did it matter whether her interest was a life estate or a fee simple title? Because it gets to the inheritance. If her ownership had been a life estate through her first husband, then the heirs of her first husband would have inherited the property.

If Barbara's ownership had been a fee simple title, then Barbara's heirs would have inherited the property upon her death. Those two groups of people were different. The heirs of Barbara's first husband included the families of Franciska Trautvetter and Louisa Meyers, children of Barbara and her first husband. The heirs of Barbara at her death were her six children: Franciska Trautvetter, Louisa Meyers, Conrad Haase (her son), Herman Haase, Anna Haase, and Helena Baker.

What title Barbara had did make a difference and because there was uncertainty at the time the inventory was compiled, the executor hedged his bets by using the word "believed." There is usually a reason when words like "believed" are used--they aren't thrown in a record simply to relieve boredom on the part of the clerk.

The resulting deeds involving this property were analyzed in an issue of Casefile Clues.

One Effer On the Farm

part of the 1722 estate of Samuel Sargent, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, file 19896; digital image made from Family History Library microfilm. 

This is part of the inventory of the estate of Samuel Sargent from Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Spellings sometimes are creative.

Would you have known that the item in the green box was meant to be Heifer? It's grouped with the livestock which makes it logical that the intention was to refer to a female of the bovine species that had not yet had a calf. The steer  and the heifer were probably about the same age which is why they were grouped together.And obviously, the heifer was not a cow which is why she was grouped separately. That's speculation, but I'm fairly certain heifer was the intended reference here.

What I Want On Ancestry.com

[opinion alert]

Let's keep this simple.

• I do not want fancy new Ancestry.com apps.
• I do not want to be able to "do my genealogy" on my phone.
• I do not want to scan my pictures from my phone.
• I don't want to harvest my Facebook site for potential umpteenth cousins a bazillion times removed.
• I do not want to search when I don't know what I'm looking for.
• I do not need matches on my tree that suggest my still living mother was born in 1695.

I would like the search results screen to let me "mark" an item as already viewed. That would make Ancestry.com a "durn site" more helpful in my research.  Do it just like it is shown in the picture. The big arrows are optional ;-)

Please. Please.  If you agree, please forward, share this post--url is below the image.

This page is http://rootdig.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-i-want-on-ancestrycom.html

FamilySearch Updated-New England Naturalization Petitions

This is showing as being updated as of 10 July 2013:

New England, Petitions for Naturalization, 1787-1931

Ancestry.com's Suggesting My Mother Was Born in 1695

To create a 5-generation chart for publication on my site, I replaced with names of my Dad and Mom with "Michael's Father" and "Michael's Mother" as they are still living.

Ancestry.com then proceeded to find matches for "Michael's Mother." This is a screen shot of the first match.

Screen shot current as of 10:00 AM 9 July 2013 from Ancestry.com. 

The details in my database indicate that my mother's parents died in 2003 and 2008. What parameter is set so loosely on Ancestry.com that someone being born in 1695 is a potential match as a child for someone who died in 2003?

Also, the dates of birth for my brother and me are still in the database (I just erased them from the screen shot) . We were born within the last fifty years. Ancestry.com thinks we have a mother who could be born in 1695?

There's been talk of "new search" at Ancestry.com versus "old search." We won't get into that here.

Matches like this one--clearly off--are too off to be helpful. Why do these matches concern me? Of course,  anyone can see that this match is not a real match. It's not the obvious incorrect suggestions that are truly bothersome. It is the ones that are not so obviously incorrect. They concern me because, without having any idea how the search query at Ancestry.com works and with seeing "results" like these, I have to wonder about other search results I get. If search parameters can't eliminate a woman born in 1695 as the child of someone who died in 2008 or can't see that someone born in 1695 cannot have children born in the later 20th century, what other "interesting" search results may be appearing?

Update on FamilySearch-Washington (State) County Records

This is showing as updated on FamilySearch as of today:

Washington, County Records, 1856-2009

There Is a Scale with the Brothers, the Dog, the Hat and the Case.

This is the last blog post with a "new" item I've just located in the Ufkes brothers picture--I promise. In an earlier post we discussed the hat and the case.

There is another item that sort of looks out of place in this picture: a scale.

The significance of this clue is debatable. However, there is no debate the item appears in the picture--which can be seen in its entirety here.

Are you looking at the entire picture?

Thinking About FindaGrave Again & Are There Better Pictures?

I'm still working on a discussion of suggestions for citation and information analysis of images and other information located on Find A Grave.

Users of Find A Grave should be aware that sometimes (not always) it may be possible to get a better picture than the one that is on Find A Grave. In some cases, a better picture will not provide any additional information, especially if the stone is relatively modern or easy to read. In other cases it may be that a picture taken from a different angle, at a different time of day, or at a different time of year may result in a picture with additional clarity. Picture takers are human. The type of camera may also make a difference as well. Some stones are difficult to photograph and a "better" image may simply not be possible. There are times when actually being in the cemetery viewing the stone allows for the best reading of the stone to take place and there may be nuances that no picture will catch.

Astronauts say the real thing doesn't compare to pictures. I'm not certain we can compare looking at tombstones with looking at Earth from outer space, but hopefully you get the idea.

I prefer to transcribe the stone from the picture if at all possible.

And all of us should be thankful for the information that is available on Find A Grave. This is not meant to be a negative criticism of the site, but to serve as a reminder to those of us who use the site for our own research.

A Hat in the Tree

Sometimes we get so focused on one or two things in a document or piece of ephemera that we fail to notice additional details. Those unnoticed details may be significant clues or they may not be. The problem is that if we never notice them, we never know if they were significant or not.

Sometimes it takes someone else looking at an item and calling our attention to those details before we even notice them. And sometimes when those details are later pointed out to us we can't help noticing first every time we look at the item or wonder how we ever missed them.

The first image in this blog post is one of my grandfather John H. Ufkes (on the right) and two of his younger brothers (LeRoy and Alvin) taken at their parents' home near Basco, Hancock County, Illinois, in the early 1930s. I knew who identity of the people in the picture and had initially (for some strange reason) focused on learning the name of the dog (it's Scamper). Based upon the house, I would guess that this photograph was taken on the west side of the home (which is no longer standing).

But there was more to the picture.

A friend on Facebook noticed that there was a hat and some sort of case in the photo as well.  For some reason those two items had not caught my attention.

And sure enough, there they were.

Are they significant clues? I'm not really certain. But I do know one thing--I'll be keeping my eyes peeled for items in the trees and bushes from now on. One has to take information where one can get it.

I Made It--Warts and All

[opinion alert]

There's been talk of "ethical plagiarism" lately. I'm not certain there is anything ethical about it at all.

All the content I post on my blogs and in my newsletter is generated by me. There is no "copy and paste approach" to writing here. I do not knowingly use someone else's material, either completely or in part. It is simply not the way I operate and also because I generally like to put my own "spin" on things and rarely agree with anyone else enough to copy their material and say it is my own anyway. I do have an editor/proofreader who edits Casefile Clues (and does a wonderful job), but the rest of the content seen on my blogs appears unedited. There are times where the lack of a proofreader for my other materials is painfully obvious.

I write the following blogs:

• Daily Genealogy Transcriber
• Genealogy Tip of the Day
• Rootdig
• Genealogy Search Tip

It Is Not Easy

I do know that it is not easy generating content for multiple blogs and a newsletter. It takes time. My writing colleagues in genealogyland can vouch for that. Research, organizing material, creating rough drafts, and refining material takes effort in order to generate fresh, original content. And it is frustrating when others assume they can use that content themselves without asking and without giving credit.

Can't Anyone Use Anything?

In a word, no. Fair use allows for limited use of material that has been created by someone else as long as credit is given. The concern here is when entire paragraphs and large sections of material are simply "copied." I am well aware that once information is online anyone can take it and use it. Just because one has the opportunity to do something does not make it right to do it. Are the documents and materials I write about public records? Yes they are and anyone who wants to write about them is welcome to do so. Their writing should be their own.

Don't You Repeat?

Do I write about similar topics more than once? Of course. There are only a finite number of topics available to the writing genealogist. And there are families that I write about more than once--generally because new records have been discovered or new conclusions have been drawn. And, I'll be the first to admit that, in the four years I've written Genealogy Tip of the Day there have been similar tips or suggestions. But I've never copied a tip from someone else. Do I get ideas when reading material from others? Of course. All genealogists read--it's in Genealogy Code (page 3, paragraph 1), but reading something is different from copying and taking and passing it off as your own.

However, there is one thing that I don't do.

I don't use other people's work without giving them credit. I don't copy what someone else has put together and use it as my own. There are two reasons for this:

• it's not just unethical--it's stealing to use someone else's work. 
• I like to put my own spin on just about everything. That's just the way I roll.

Do I write about the same things as other people? Sure. There are only so many genealogical topics about which one can write. And sometimes material may sound similar, particularly if two writers have had a similar "genealogical education" and set of research experiences. But usually even genealogists who agree about things will phrase their results and conclusions differently, depending upon their own personal preference and what "speaks" to them the most.

But Isn't A Lot Of Your Stuff Free Anyway?

All of my blogs are free to subscribe to and the Facebook pages associated with those blogs are free as well. And several of us interact regularly on those pages, sharing ideas and information, giving out research tips, etc. But let's be real here: there is no such thing as "free." Virtually all of us who generate genealogical content online and who are not independently wealthy, retired, or married to a spouse with a benefitted job, use our "free" content to generate income in some other way, via affiliate ads, speaking engagements, newsletters, etc. We have to eat, the mortgage has to be paid, the kids need shoes, etc. Even some who are retired use their genealogical blog to at least pay for an Ancestry.com subscription. Whether or not the creator is generating revenue really isn't the point.

 Taking what is not yours and using it is still taking what is not yours. And it is wrong.

Bottom Line

If you didn't make it, don't take it.

What you see on any blog I write is my own creation. Too bad there are people that cannot say that.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps

A tip about the maps was posted to Genealogy Tip of the Day and in response to emails, we've created this very short list of sites.

• Library of Congress
• Newberry Library--Chicago
• Penn State University
• Wikipedia article--lots of links

Libraries that have access to ProQuest may have access to Sanborn maps for the state in which the library is located--ask. The maps are usually not online free--but there are exceptions. 

Try a Google search for "sanborn insurance maps yourstate" to see what finding aids you can locate.

Social Security Death Index Updated as of 4 July 2013

The Social Security Death Index is showing as updated on FamilySearch as of 4 July:

United States Social Security Death Index

Citing a Copy of a Copy

One of the items used in the latest issue of Casefile Clues was a copy of a deed that was used as an exhibit in a court case from 1924. The deed was one of several brought in as evidence as they helped in determining ownership to a farm whose owner was deceased. I decided that I really did not need to obtain a copy of the actual deed from the land records.

Why Not?

One reason is that a person has to simply draw the line somewhere when obtaining additional records takes time and costs money. The second is "how necessary is it to get the original?" in the context of the research problem. I was using the court case to determine relationship and establish residences of descendants as of the date of the case. The original deed was not going to assist with that. The content of the deed was not debated during the court case and all parties agreed as to its content. I decided that the record copy of the deed (which was what was in the deed book) had a minimal chance of providing any "new" information and that the record copy was likely a typed transcription of the original deed anyway.

But How to Cite It?

That was a slight problem, but really not a difficult one. I could not cite the original deed--I don't have it.I could not cite the record copy from the Adams County Recorder's Office--I don't have that either. What I do have is the copy that was an exhibit in a court case--so that's what I cite:

Adams County, Illinois, Circuit Court Files, Case 5228 (1924), Bertha Janssen, et al. v. Bernhard Dirks, et al., “Exhibit B” Quit claim deed from Anke T. Dirks to Heipke Dirks; County Clerk’s Office, Quincy; FHL microfilm 1,904,526.

Not really very difficult.

The good stuff was the rest of the court case and that's what we discussed in the issue of Casefile Clues in which this document was included.

Philip Troutfetter--A Wife and Two Girlfriends

We've discussed Philip Troutfetter in this blog before. The Illinois native migrated with his parents to western Kansas in the late 1800s. Philip travelled throughout the Americas and was involved in several exploits.  Most of my work on Philip has centered on his time in Cuba and South America. Philip's legal troubles actually centered on his time in Colorado and on money that his mother-in-law loaned to him during his marriage. Philip was cleared of those fraud charges brought against him by his mother-in-law, but after reading this item from the Rocky Mountain News, it is easy to see why his in-laws might have been none too happy with him.

According to the newspaper account, Troutfetter's wife remained in Colorado Springs after their 1896 marriage and he was living in Denver where he passed himself off as a single man and "was supporting two women." It is unknown how accurate the newspaper account is, but there may have been a grain of truth to the accusations.

Date: Friday, May 6, 1898  

Paper: Denver Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)  

 

Page: 5--obtained on  Genealogybank 

A reporter apparently went the residence but was unable to obtain further information. The phrase "all the people in the house" makes me wonder who else might have been living there and what sort of dwelling it was.

Date: Friday, May 6, 1898  

Paper: Denver Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)  

 

Page: 5 --obtained on  Genealogybank  

The newspaper account does not name the in-laws of Troutfetter. Their names are known to me, but newspapers are not known for providing all the details we'd like to have and the information they do provide may or may not be reliable. Troutfetter's divorce record may provide details of his Denver exploits. The newspaper account does not imply he was divorced--that is known from other records. One cannot assume simply based upon the newspaper account that there was a divorce, although it would appear to have been likely.

Moving Forward

City directories may also be helpful in this case (as the parents may be listed there before they apparently moved) and all the relevant individuals should be located in the 1900 census. Even if the family is not at the 1343 St. Charles address in 1900, viewing the household entry in 1900 may allow me to determine if it was a multiple family dwelling or not.

You never know what you will find when you search for your own family on  Genealogybank.

Half of Webinar Sales Donated to Cyndislist

I've known Cyndi Howells of Cyndislist fame since she was one page and I can't be outdone by Thomas MacEntee at Geneabloggers, who has offered a freebie to those who donate to Cyndislist.

So we're giving half of all webinar sales from now until 7 July 2013 to Cyndislist. Our prices are reasonable as it is--the highest price we have is $8.50 and several are lower than that. There's over thirty topics to choose from.

That's right--half!

Cyndi does not charge to use her site which has been free since it first went up over 17 years ago. Her site currently has over 320,000 genealogy links. Cyndislist is a one-woman show--just like here (except I'm not a woman). There is no office full of support staff unless you count her dogs and Cyndi recently invested in a major upgrade of her site. 

So that Thomas doesn't feel alone, we've put this offer on our site. After all, he did include that challenge in his post.

You must use this list to create your purchase order in order for us to track the sales. 

The webinar page to view to credit Cyndist list with any purchase is this one. Clicking on that link will "tag" your order so we know to credit her properly. Any sales made from this page will be credited to the Cyndislist account and half of the purchase price will be donated to Cyndislist. A win-win situation, improve your research skills and help Cyndislist at the same time.

Thanks!

This page is http://rootdig.blogspot.com/2013/07/half-of-webinar-sales-donated-to.html

In Defense of No Revolutionary War Ancestors

As of the writing of this blog post, I have no ancestors who served in the military during the American Revolution. I also have no close family connections with anyone who was "famous" during the Revolutionary War era.

And that's ok.

Part of it is sheer numbers. My maternal ancestors did not arrive in the United States until the 1850s and after when Prussia's takeover of the area of northern Germany in which they lived. My great-grandfather Neill's family were 1860 era Irish immigrants. My great-grandfather Trautvetter's family were 1840-1850 era German immigrants. That only leaves my paternal great-grandmothers' families as those with ancestors in the "United States" before the American Revolution. And few of them seemed to have been actively involved.

I do have an ancestor who signed the Maryland Association of Freemen (James Rampley, Harford County) and one who gave wheat to the revolutionary cause (John Tinsley, Amherst County, Virginia), but none of my ancestors were in the revolutionary military.

And that's ok.

Genealogical research is about determining who our ancestors actually are. It's not about proving connections to people to whom we want to be connected or how many well-known kin are lurking in our family tree. It is about being as accurate as we can and accurately representing those individuals we are fortunate enough to locate.

In the spirit of the July 4th holiday, a low-German "motto" and response is particularly appropriate:

"Eala Frya Fresena---Lever dood as Slaav"

 Just a little something to think about.

Citing Columns In a Table--from Casefile Clues

Those who have an interest in citations may wish to take a look at how we're citing information compiled into a table in an upcoming issue of Casefile Clues.

New Search Versus Old Search at Ancestry.com

There's a survey at Ancestry.com for those who use "old search."

Readers can let Ancestry.com know their opinions here http://ancestry.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ubNXU8IiQcxqVD

I've given them several opinions. Apparently enough that I did not receive an invitation to Ancestry.com's conference call on the new versus old search.

Oh well. 

That Little "Adv."

Newspapers can provide a variety of clues--not just records of vital events and "major stories." Advertisements and smaller notices can provide clues as well. The smaller the newspaper and the more rural the area where your ancestor lived, the more likely it is that there is some mention in the newspaper. A search of Clinton County, New York, newspapers located such references to Theodore Hoontes.

A 1914 reference  indicated Hoontes was working as a peddler in Plattsburg, New York, when his license changed from "peddlers license on foot" to "peddlers license with one horse."

The Plattsburgh Press, 2 July 1914, p. 3

There may or may not be city records regarding Hoontes and this license. It may very well not be worth pursuing those records--depending upon the research goals in mind with Hoontes. Hoontes was married to a daughter of an ancestor and it is unlikely that records of his license will assist in that search.

By 1923, Hoontes had apparently changed his business pursuits.

Plattsburgh Daily Press, 22 August 1923, p. 8

It's not a huge clue, but this 1923 newspaper "Notice" for T. Hoontes indicated he was starting a shoe shining business in Plattsburg, New York. The "adv" at the end of the notice indicated that the item was actually an advertisement and not a news item. It is always possible that T. Hoontes is not the same Theodore Hoontes from the earlier reference.

Of course, how big a clue any one item is depends upon other known information. This notice indicates that Hoontes was living when the notice was submitted to the paper (probably shortly before it was published) and that he probably was living in the area.

July-August 2013 Organizing Genealogical Information Course

Need to grow your research skills this summer? Consider taking our homework-optional class! If you have registered you should have received your welcome message--email me at mjnrootdig@gmail.com if you did not.

Organizing Genealogical Information:

A Short Course

With Michael John Neill

(scroll down for specific schedule)

Organizing information is an important part of genealogical research—perhaps more important than the actual research. This short course (only 4 sessions) is intended to provide the students with exposure to a variety of ways to organize information with an emphasis on problem-solving. The course will consist of four lectures (topics and schedule below), problem assignments, virtual follow-up discussions, group discussion board interaction, and student submission of work (optional). There is no assigned grade—you get from this what you put into it. Students will also be able to share their work and ideas with other students.

Citation of sources is important, but presentations will not focus on citation theory.

This time the course will be presented a little bit differently. Students will be able to download the lecture and view it at their convenience--ideally all on the same day that the download link is sent to registered students.

Course registration is only $30 for this run of the course. Class size is limited to 30 to encourage group interaction. Attendees will need to register 24 hours before the class starts. If you registered for a previous session and were not able to actively participate--email me to be put in this series at no charge.

• Assignment/Study 1—Charts, Charts, and More Charts (we will discuss a variety of charts and table to organize your information and your searches—all students work on same problem
• Assignment/Study 2—4 Step Research Process (we will discuss a four-step process to research organization)—pick your own problem
• Assignment/Study 3— Constructing Families from pre-1850 Census (discuss of how to ascertain family structure from pre-1850 US census records)---all work on same problem
• Assignment/Study 4— Problem Solving Chart (problem-solving techniques not discussed in previous lectures)– pick your own problem

Register via this link.

Lecture downloads:

• 21 July
• 28 July
• 4 August
• 11 August

Discussions:

• 23 July 8:45 PM Central
• 25 July 8:45 PM Central
• 7 August 8:45 PM Central 
• 14 August 8:45 PM Central

Lectures and discussions will be via GotoMeeting.

Register via this link.

To view this email as a web page, visit:
http://genealogytipoftheday.blogspot.com/p/summer-2013-organizing-genealogical.html

Thanks!

Michael
-----------------------------------
Michael John Neill
Genealogy Tip of the Day
http://genealogytipoftheday.blogspot.com

Why You Should Read the Backs of Those Reports

This report filed 17 December 1877 in the guardianship case of the children of Lucinda Barcus in Champaign County, Illinois, contained several reports and accounts. Routine stuff for the most part.

Sometimes it is tempting to quickly scan over the procedure parts of these documents-with the dates and recording information--in order to get to the good stuff.

That's a mistake.

The top of the document shown above contained a clue about the name of the one child.

The reference to "Laura (or Ellen) Barcus" confirmed that the two names were referring to the same person. Researchers are not always fortunate to find contemporary evidence of "multiple" names and often have to rely on an analysis of the evidence to show that two people with different names are the same person.

This was not a difficult find. But it did require the researcher to read everything, even that boring legalese on the back of the record.

My Blogs and Newsletter

For those of you who did not know, this is not my only genealogy blog. Here's list with the links. Enjoy!

• Daily Genealogy Transcriber
• Genealogy Tip of the Day
• Rootdig
• Genealogy Search Tip

You can subscribe to any of the above blogs for free.

My how-to newsletter Casefile Clues is also available by subscription, but there is a charge.