The following databases are showing as updated at FamilySearch since our last update:
Montana, Teton County Records, 1881-2012
Montana, Pondera County Records, 1910-2012
09 April 2014
A Few More Photo Identification Comments
The original post on photo identification was one of our more popular posts, so I could not resist doing one more.
This is an image of a photograph of my great-grandparents and their children. In hindsight, I could have put more text on it than I did.
Just remember to only stick to what you know in your textual information on the picture. If the photograph requires analysis or suggests a variety of scenarios put that discussion elsewhere. The text on the photograph should focus on the picture, how you got it, how you identified the people in it, and when you made the image.
Discuss grandma's hairstyle elsewhere and do the same with who "looks like who." Those are interesting discussions to have, but concentrate on the origin of the photo in your text that you add to the image. There are two main reasons why other researchers will benefit from your text:
- they can see how the photograph "got to you."
- they can determine if the informant likely knew who the people were or not
In this case, I did include the nickname of one son (Babe). I don't think I ever heard him called Carl. Cecil also went by Pete, but didn't use either name exclusively. I always have to stop and think about what Uncle Babe's real name is. Uncle Pete's I don't.
My Grandma, Ida (Trautvetter) Neill is the young girl on the right. My own daughter looks a lot like her, but that's something for a blog post--not commentary on the picture itself.
Getting to the Goals On Philip Troutfetter
Philip Troutfetter has the potential to be one of those genealogical "rabbit holes" from which one can never escape. There seems to be a never-ending amount of information on him.
There's not really an infinite amount of information on Philip Troutfetter, but reading the very end of the letter a post office inspector wrote about him in 1900 reminded me a of sources I have not tried:
The potential exists for some really neat records with some potentially "neat" discoveries to be made.
But...
The questions are "what is my goal?" and "will that goal be served by locating these records?" The records of the consul may be expensive to obtain and I'm still working on even making initial contact with Pinkertons. Finding out everything about Philip Troutfetter is interesting and provides some fascinating insight into the very late 19th and early 20th centuries. But is worth the cost to obtain this insight? What do I really want to know about Philip?
I already have pretty good information on where Philip was born, who his parents were, when and where he married, and when and where he died. If the items the investigator mentions can be located, they will likely only provide secondary information on those events in his life and I already have more reliable sources for those items.
I may get some details on Troutfetter's time in Cuba and South America and that may be interesting. There is the chance that the investigations may provide some details about his family or his lifestyle. The key word here is "chance." I need to remember that the investigation is only concerned with finding Troutfetter and documenting his crimes. Investigators of this type are not interested in compiling family histories of their charges. They would only be interested in his background if it was determined that it would help their case. And, as already mentioned, information on his origins and early life would be secondary at best.
Some of the information could be interesting and some may even be a bit scandalous. But it all still depends upon how much I'm willing to pay for "interesting."
And that's something I should think about before I spend too much time and money accessing these records (unless blog readers start sending me massive amounts of email wanting to know more...).
There's not really an infinite amount of information on Philip Troutfetter, but reading the very end of the letter a post office inspector wrote about him in 1900 reminded me a of sources I have not tried:
- the Pinkerton private investigation company's records (I've actually contacted them once, but heard no reply)
- the records of the U. S. Consul in Columbia (which should be at the National Archives)
 |
| Letter from W. T. Sullivan to Chief Post Office Inspector, 6 July 1900, investigation of Philip A Troutfetter (aka P A Taylor), W. T. Sullivan files, Kansas Historical Society |
But...
The questions are "what is my goal?" and "will that goal be served by locating these records?" The records of the consul may be expensive to obtain and I'm still working on even making initial contact with Pinkertons. Finding out everything about Philip Troutfetter is interesting and provides some fascinating insight into the very late 19th and early 20th centuries. But is worth the cost to obtain this insight? What do I really want to know about Philip?
I already have pretty good information on where Philip was born, who his parents were, when and where he married, and when and where he died. If the items the investigator mentions can be located, they will likely only provide secondary information on those events in his life and I already have more reliable sources for those items.
I may get some details on Troutfetter's time in Cuba and South America and that may be interesting. There is the chance that the investigations may provide some details about his family or his lifestyle. The key word here is "chance." I need to remember that the investigation is only concerned with finding Troutfetter and documenting his crimes. Investigators of this type are not interested in compiling family histories of their charges. They would only be interested in his background if it was determined that it would help their case. And, as already mentioned, information on his origins and early life would be secondary at best.
Some of the information could be interesting and some may even be a bit scandalous. But it all still depends upon how much I'm willing to pay for "interesting."
And that's something I should think about before I spend too much time and money accessing these records (unless blog readers start sending me massive amounts of email wanting to know more...).
08 April 2014
New/Updated on FamilySearch: UT and MT Materials
The following databases are showing as new or updated since our last posting:
Montana, Meagher County Records, 1866-2012
Utah, Juab County Records, 1847-1948
Montana, Meagher County Records, 1866-2012
Utah, Juab County Records, 1847-1948
Updated on FamilySearch-Hamilton County, OH Records
This database is showing as "updated" on FamilySearch as of today:
Ohio, Hamilton County Records, 1791-1994
I can't tell how it is different--or even if the difference is significant. I continue to hope that FamilySearch provides a little more detail on what's been updated, but so far that has not happened.
Ohio, Hamilton County Records, 1791-1994
I can't tell how it is different--or even if the difference is significant. I continue to hope that FamilySearch provides a little more detail on what's been updated, but so far that has not happened.
Obtaining Post Office Investigations into Philip Troutfetter
It has been some time since I've written about Philip Troutfetter, so for those who are new readers, here is a quick summary:
Stay Tuned.
- He owned and ran a newspaper in Thomas County, Kansas, in the 1890s
undated photo of Philip Troutfetter,
courtesy Kansas State Historical Society - He homesteaded in Colorado and also had a timber claim there in the 1890s
- He married in Colorado in the late-1890s and later had two girlfriends at the same time that he was married
- He borrowed money from his mother-in-law in the late 1890s (at least $5000) and never paid it back
- He worked in Cuba as a newspaper reporter for a short time
- His associate C. F. W. Neely was involved, along with Estes G. Rathbone, in a Cuban stamp fraud scandal of over $100,000. Troutfetter was cleared of any involvement in this scandal.
- He spent time in Columbia investigating gold mining operations for C. F. W. Neely
- He was arrested in a Boston, Massachusetts restaurant in 1902 based upon charges filed by his former mother-in-law. He was eventually cleared.
- Troutfetter used the alias P. A. Taylor
Troutfetter was investigated by the United States Postal Service around the turn of the 20th century for his peripheral involvement in the Cuban stamp scandal. One of my current goals is to see what records of the investigation remain at the National Archives and I have someone working on accessing those records. I'm hoping they mention something of his time in Cuba and South America.
And yes, he's related to me as he's a member of the Hancock County, Illinois, Trautvetter family from which I descend as well.
Stay Tuned.
07 April 2014
Ole Man Jones, Mushroom Huntin', Chianina Cattle, and Copyight in the Dirt
[This post about old farming practices somehow turned into one on copyright.]
Some days I think I learned everything I need to know about copyright on the farm.
As a kid, I never understood the way old man Jones* farmed south of town. His corn was never as green as that of his neighbors, it was always full of weeds, and the rows didn't even look really straight. When I asked Dad what was wrong, he said Jones was farming the way they did forty years ago and probably wasn't going to change. However, it was Jones' property and it was his to do with as he saw fit. The neighbors probably thought they could have "gotten more good out of that farm," and that Jones probably wasn't making any money off the land, but that didn't matter.
The neighbors had no right to it--even if they could utilize it in a better way. The amount of money he made was not the point. Jones paid his taxes and that was all that mattered.
Copyright works the same way--it's not about whether the writer is making money off the material he writes. The writer of the material can use it as they see fit--just like Jones did his farm.
We'd occasionally go mushroom hunting when I was a kid. I never really liked morels, but that didn't matter, we went hunting for them anyway. I was always well-aware of the property line on west pasture, the back forty, and any other timber we had. Farm kids always know where the property line is--it was ingrained from childhood and from time spent fixing fence. And...no matter how many mushrooms you might see on the other side of the fence on the neighbor's property, you kept your rear on your own place. We weren't to go trespassing on the neighbor's property and we weren't to take anything off the neighbor's property--not even mushrooms they were just going to let die and would never notice.** We didn't want anyone trespassing on our place and we afforded others the same respect.
Copyright works the same way. You don't take what is not yours and tell others that it is. Of course you can use small amounts under "fair use," but you can't use larger amounts of someone else's material. I never thought to take just one mushroom under "fair use."
Of course, the neighbor can't copyright ideas or facts. If he starts raising Chianina cattle and appears to be turning a profit, there's nothing to stop me from raising my own.
Of course, I cannot copyright specific facts about my ancestor, just like my neighbor can't stop me from raising Chianina cattle. But I do have copyright to creative material I write about my ancestor and I have a right to that material whether I make money from it or not, just like old man Jones was entitled to farm in a manner less productive than his neighbors. I also have the right not to have others steal my material, just like I wasn't supposed to take mushrooms off the neighbor's land.
The details of copyright may be a a little murky, but the essence of it--it's all right there, plain as dirt.
* name changed
** we were only allowed to go on the neighbor's property if one of the cows got out onto the neighbor's property and as soon as she was back in, you could be certain we'd be fixin' fence.
Some days I think I learned everything I need to know about copyright on the farm.
Jones' Old Style Farm Techniques
The neighbors had no right to it--even if they could utilize it in a better way. The amount of money he made was not the point. Jones paid his taxes and that was all that mattered.
Copyright works the same way--it's not about whether the writer is making money off the material he writes. The writer of the material can use it as they see fit--just like Jones did his farm.
Mushroom Huntin'
Copyright works the same way. You don't take what is not yours and tell others that it is. Of course you can use small amounts under "fair use," but you can't use larger amounts of someone else's material. I never thought to take just one mushroom under "fair use."
Chianina Cattle
What Does This Have to Do With Copyright?
Of course, I cannot copyright specific facts about my ancestor, just like my neighbor can't stop me from raising Chianina cattle. But I do have copyright to creative material I write about my ancestor and I have a right to that material whether I make money from it or not, just like old man Jones was entitled to farm in a manner less productive than his neighbors. I also have the right not to have others steal my material, just like I wasn't supposed to take mushrooms off the neighbor's land.
The details of copyright may be a a little murky, but the essence of it--it's all right there, plain as dirt.
* name changed
** we were only allowed to go on the neighbor's property if one of the cows got out onto the neighbor's property and as soon as she was back in, you could be certain we'd be fixin' fence.
Monitoring the Mails in 1900
It has been a while since I've mentioned Philip Troutfetter on this blog, comments on another post reminded me of this letter I have from 1900 that discusses the investigation of Troutfetter by the United States Post Office.
W. T. Sullivan's papers are in the possession of the Kansas Historical Society, which is where they were obtained. He was an the inspector in charge of the Denver division of the Office of Post Office Inspector. This letter is dated 6 July 1900 and summarizes his investigation into Philip Troutfetter
The letter is fairly long, but the part of it that addresses the surveillance of the mail received by Troutfetter's sister, Mrs. A. J. Senter (of North Platte, Nebraska), is addressed here:
Sullivan goes on to mention that the Pinkerton Investigative Agency was also investigating Troutfetter. Attempts to locate those records have not brought forth any information.
The Genealogy Elite and the Genealogy Police
{opinion alert--we are also working on some research posts as well...so stay tuned for those as well]
According to some, high upon a mountain top, hidden among clouds and gray skies, are the genealogical elite. According to current mythology, they sit in judgement of virtually every genealogical statement that is made. It is possible they wear white robes and carry gilded copies of the genealogical proof standards in their glove-covered hands. However, no one really knows since they rarely appear face to face with any mere humans.
I have never been contacted by the genealogical elite so I can provide no evidence for their existence. The genealogical elite apparently dispense scathing criticism to researchers, bloggers, and writers. Their criticism is always negative and always harsh. They rarely share their knowledge freely with anyone, only dispensing it quarterly in journals that are only seen by other members of the genealogical elite and their minions: the genealogical police.
The genealogical police serve two purposes: protecting the genealogical elite and dispensing genealogical justice. The genealogical police are stationed at the bottom of the mythical mountain on which the genealogical elite reside. The genealogical police restrict access to the genealogical elite by use of defensive editing, grammar correcting, and an extreme enforcement of the genealogical proof standard.
According to some, high upon a mountain top, hidden among clouds and gray skies, are the genealogical elite. According to current mythology, they sit in judgement of virtually every genealogical statement that is made. It is possible they wear white robes and carry gilded copies of the genealogical proof standards in their glove-covered hands. However, no one really knows since they rarely appear face to face with any mere humans.
I have never been contacted by the genealogical elite so I can provide no evidence for their existence. The genealogical elite apparently dispense scathing criticism to researchers, bloggers, and writers. Their criticism is always negative and always harsh. They rarely share their knowledge freely with anyone, only dispensing it quarterly in journals that are only seen by other members of the genealogical elite and their minions: the genealogical police.
The genealogical police serve two purposes: protecting the genealogical elite and dispensing genealogical justice. The genealogical police are stationed at the bottom of the mythical mountain on which the genealogical elite reside. The genealogical police restrict access to the genealogical elite by use of defensive editing, grammar correcting, and an extreme enforcement of the genealogical proof standard.
I don't believe in the existence of the genealogical elite and I don't believe in the existence of the genealogy police.
In the course of my nearly thirty years of genealogical experience, I have only been on the receiving end of encouragement of "big names" in the genealogical field. I have never received disdain or biting criticism and I've never received any nasty emails. On those times when I have been wrong about something, I've received either suggestions or questions that were asked politely in order to get me to think myself through my mistake. In fact, I have found well-respected genealogists to be more approachable than "well-known" individuals in other fields.
Publishing genealogical conclusions online, either in a "tree," a blog, or a website makes it easy for others to learn of your conclusions. And it makes it easy for someone with a different conclusion or who may not understand how you reached your conclusion to contact you. Someone who sees your conclusions and asks you where you got them or how you reached them is not being "elite." Someone who points out that there are a number of sources that run contrary to your conclusion is not being "elite." I am one who wants to know that I have made a conclusion that needs to be revised (translation: "I made a mistake.") Those people are simply searching for information on their ancestors. And isn't that what we all are doing?
If a correspondent is rude or condescending, that's one thing--but simply asking you a question does not make that person elite. I want my research to be as accurate as possible. If someone helps me to better my research or my research skills, I may call them many things, but elite is not one of those words.
Calling someone names because they disagree with me is something I gave up in third grade.
[here's my post on why citation and methods matter]
In the course of my nearly thirty years of genealogical experience, I have only been on the receiving end of encouragement of "big names" in the genealogical field. I have never received disdain or biting criticism and I've never received any nasty emails. On those times when I have been wrong about something, I've received either suggestions or questions that were asked politely in order to get me to think myself through my mistake. In fact, I have found well-respected genealogists to be more approachable than "well-known" individuals in other fields.
Publishing genealogical conclusions online, either in a "tree," a blog, or a website makes it easy for others to learn of your conclusions. And it makes it easy for someone with a different conclusion or who may not understand how you reached your conclusion to contact you. Someone who sees your conclusions and asks you where you got them or how you reached them is not being "elite." Someone who points out that there are a number of sources that run contrary to your conclusion is not being "elite." I am one who wants to know that I have made a conclusion that needs to be revised (translation: "I made a mistake.") Those people are simply searching for information on their ancestors. And isn't that what we all are doing?
If a correspondent is rude or condescending, that's one thing--but simply asking you a question does not make that person elite. I want my research to be as accurate as possible. If someone helps me to better my research or my research skills, I may call them many things, but elite is not one of those words.
Calling someone names because they disagree with me is something I gave up in third grade.
[here's my post on why citation and methods matter]
05 April 2014
Samuel Ooms Confused with Simon Holmes
Wrong names are the very bane of the genealogist's existence. This 1805 document could clear up the issue for a descendant of Simon Ooms.
This statement is from a document made out in 1805 in Philadelphia by Ooms--from the Seaman's Protection Certificates 1791-1861 posted digitally on FamilySearch. It is not often there's evidence of a "wrong" spelling right on the document. Apparently Simon Ooms sounded like Samuel Holmes to the individual filling out the document. It is easy to see how Ooms and Holmes could be confused.
I guess we should be glad there was no whiteout in 1805.
Ooms did sign his name further down on the document. It's possible that he recognized the error himself. Given that could sign his name it is also possible he could read.
We should all be so lucky as to have documents like this one in our past.
I guess we should be glad there was no whiteout in 1805.
Ooms did sign his name further down on the document. It's possible that he recognized the error himself. Given that could sign his name it is also possible he could read.
We should all be so lucky as to have documents like this one in our past.
Getting the Adams County, Illinois, Deeds for Montvill Harness
As mentioned in an earlier post, Montvill Harness sold $5000 worth of property in Adams County, Illinois in the 1880s.
The question is "how did he obain it?"
It seems interesting that a child who lived with his adopted family in 1870 and 1880 has property worth $5000 to sell in the 1880s. I've made contact with a researcher in Adams County, Illinois who will get copies of the deeds of sale for me and who will search the indexes to determine (if possible) how Montvill obtained the property.
Montvill married Jennie Meltabarger in Adams County in 1881. It is possible that the acquisition of the property revolved around Jennie and not Montvill.
The newspaper indicates the deeds of sale were recorded. There may be deeds of acquisition or there may not. If Montvill (or his wife) inherited the property in the 1880s, common practice Illinois at the time was not to record a deed, particularly if there was a will involved. Adams County has a tract index which allows searchers to search for deeds based upon location. I'm hoping that answers the question.
If not, we'll have to go from there.
New Webinars: FamilySearch, Illinois Genealogy, Determining Migration Chain
FamilySearch
This presentation will focus on search techniques
and strategies for using FamilySearch.
This presentation is aimed at beginning and intermediate level researchers.
Presentation will concentrate on database search techniques, determining the origin
of specific image sets, and making effective use of search parameters.
Presentation will be via several extended examples. 15
April 2014- 9 PM Eastern, 8 PM Central 6 PM Pacific. Register
here.
Illinois
Genealogy
Geared towards
advanced beginners and intermediate researchers, it focuses on local
records in Illinois, what makes Illinois different from other states, and on larger
statewide facilities in Illinois. 22 April
2014- 9 PM Eastern, 8 PM Central 6 PM Pacific. Register
here.
Determining Your Own
Migration Trail/Chain.
This lecture discusses ways to find
the names of your ancestor's associates and ways to determine how your ancestor
fit into a larger chain of migration. Migration chains are not just for those
with immigrant ancestors. Geared towards advanced beginners and intermediate
researchers. 17 April 2014- 9 PM Eastern, 8 PM Central 6 PM Pacific. Register
here.
URL for this page:
http://rootdig.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-webinars-familysearch-illinois.html
URL for this page:
http://rootdig.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-webinars-familysearch-illinois.html
Needing A Speaker for Your Evening Meeting?
Looking for a speaker for your genealogy society's regular monthly meeting? With today's technology, I can present to your group's evening or weekend meeting without travelling to your site.
What you'll need:
What you'll need:
- high-speed reliable internet connection
- dependable computer or other online device with ability to project image on screen and connect into a sound projection system
- no special software
We will test before the presentation to make certain equipment is working.
I use GotoWebinar to give the presentation. Your society does not need a subscription to GotoWebinar.
Contact me at mjnrootdig@gmail.com for details and possible topics. Please include day and time of your regular meetings.
The Copyright of a Photograph: Sharing is Helping
Eric Zorn has a column in tomorrow's Chicago Tribune which illustrates some misconceptions regarding the copyright of individual photographs. Those with an interest in the topic can view my response here. I won't bore readers with the entire text in this blog post.
Is This Heipke Miller?
Despite years of looking, I was never able to find an even close match for on a passenger list for my German-born ancestor Heipke Miller.
Born in Etzel, Ostfriesland in 1832, Heipke's first known existence in the United States is her 27 December 1856 marriage in Quincy, Illinois, to Bernard Dirks. Her 1900, 1910, and 1920 census enumerations in Honey Creek Township, Adams County, Illinois all indicate an immigration year of 1854.
Experimenting with wildcards on Ancestry.com resulted in a probable match for Heipke. This result was obtained by searching for:
The screen shot shown below was the only name match that appeared to be even a reasonable match. Other matches for the first name were individuals whose first name was Hopkins.
The year is consistent with Heipke's state year of immigration in the 1900-1920 census. The destination of Michigan was a concern as no information on Heipke indicated she was ever in Michigan. Of course, Michigan could have been a short-term initial destination for Heipke or details on her Michigan settlement could simply have never been passed down.
It turns out that the Haipkens Miller on the 1854 manifest was not even going to Michigan. The lines on the manifest are somewhat slanted and a careful pairing of the entries indicated that Haipkens' destination was Illinois. That was consistent with family tradition on Heipke which indicated she came directly to Illinois--or at least that is were she was by her December of 1856 marriage.
The actual image shows the entry for Haipkens with a green line.
Given how Heipke is pronounced, spelling her name as Haipkens on the manifest would not be unreasonable.
I'm not 100% certain this is my Heipke. However, the information on Haipkens is consistent with what is known about about my Heipke:
Born in Etzel, Ostfriesland in 1832, Heipke's first known existence in the United States is her 27 December 1856 marriage in Quincy, Illinois, to Bernard Dirks. Her 1900, 1910, and 1920 census enumerations in Honey Creek Township, Adams County, Illinois all indicate an immigration year of 1854.
Experimenting with wildcards on Ancestry.com resulted in a probable match for Heipke. This result was obtained by searching for:
- H*pk* as a first name
- M*ller as a last name
The screen shot shown below was the only name match that appeared to be even a reasonable match. Other matches for the first name were individuals whose first name was Hopkins.
It turns out that the Haipkens Miller on the 1854 manifest was not even going to Michigan. The lines on the manifest are somewhat slanted and a careful pairing of the entries indicated that Haipkens' destination was Illinois. That was consistent with family tradition on Heipke which indicated she came directly to Illinois--or at least that is were she was by her December of 1856 marriage.
The actual image shows the entry for Haipkens with a green line.
I'm not 100% certain this is my Heipke. However, the information on Haipkens is consistent with what is known about about my Heipke:
- year of immigration
- age
- origin of Hanover
It can't be completely certain this is my Heipke. Moving forward, I can search for other names on the manifest with a destination of Illinois to see if any of them strike a familiar chord. I can also search for those names to see if any of them lived near Heipke in Adams County, Illinois.
And if I had never performed a wildcard search, I might never have found her.
04 April 2014
Updated on FamilySearch:RI 1935 State Census
The following database is showing as "new/updated" on FamilySearch:
Rhode Island, State Census, 1935
Rhode Island, State Census, 1935
03 April 2014
Updated on FamilySearch: MD Wills, IL Naturalization Index; OH Cuyahoga Probates
These are showing as updated on FamilySearch since our last update:
Did the Manslaughter and Bigamy Charges Leave any Court Record Behind?
Reading every newspaper article, even when they seem repetitive, can prove helpful. Sometimes one newspaper mentions a clue that another one does not.
I've gotten back on track with Rufus D. Stephens. I'm trying to connect my known Rufus D. with this Rufus D. who was involved in a manslaughter case in New York in 1805.
Reading through all the newspaper items brought to light that he was also tried for bigamy as well.
Apparently neither charge stuck.
Even when you have one article on an event, consider searching for more. My scanning for more items on located references which may help jumpstart my work on Rufus. My current goal is to determine if there are court records for him in Herkimer County.
Or at least explain why he left Herkimer County.
Of course, I still have to prove the Herkimer County Rufus is the same one who appears in western New York and in Michigan and Ontario.
I've gotten back on track with Rufus D. Stephens. I'm trying to connect my known Rufus D. with this Rufus D. who was involved in a manslaughter case in New York in 1805.
 |
obtained onGenealogybank.com |
 |
obtained onGenealogybank.com |
Even when you have one article on an event, consider searching for more. My scanning for more items on located references which may help jumpstart my work on Rufus. My current goal is to determine if there are court records for him in Herkimer County.
Or at least explain why he left Herkimer County.
Of course, I still have to prove the Herkimer County Rufus is the same one who appears in western New York and in Michigan and Ontario.
Independent Information Items and Unrelated Origins
I'm still reading Genealogy Standards and I'm still occasionally confused.
Page 69 of the Board for Certification of Genealogists' Genealogy Standards defines "independent information items" as "sources or information items that have unrelated origins, thus reinforcing rather than duplicating each other."
I'll put aside my confusion with "sources or information items" (from my viewpoint, "sources" provide "information" so the use of the word "or" here slightly confuses me) and focus on "independent" as needing to have "unrelated origins."
What does "unrelated origins" actually mean and are any pieces of information really independent and of unrelated origin?
My grandmother, Ida (Trautvetter) Neill, was born in 1910 in Hancock County, Illinois. Her mother was there at the time; the doctor probably was there; and I'm guessing her father (and five older siblings) were in the general area as well.
I have quite a few sources that include information on Grandma's birth, but if I group them based upon the likely informant, there's really three groups:
Page 69 of the Board for Certification of Genealogists' Genealogy Standards defines "independent information items" as "sources or information items that have unrelated origins, thus reinforcing rather than duplicating each other."
I'll put aside my confusion with "sources or information items" (from my viewpoint, "sources" provide "information" so the use of the word "or" here slightly confuses me) and focus on "independent" as needing to have "unrelated origins."
What does "unrelated origins" actually mean and are any pieces of information really independent and of unrelated origin?
My grandmother, Ida (Trautvetter) Neill, was born in 1910 in Hancock County, Illinois. Her mother was there at the time; the doctor probably was there; and I'm guessing her father (and five older siblings) were in the general area as well.
I have quite a few sources that include information on Grandma's birth, but if I group them based upon the likely informant, there's really three groups:
- Grandma's birth certificate--with information provided by the doctor
- Grandma's baptismal record--she was five year of age when baptized, with information provided by Grandma's parents
- Grandma's marriage record, death certificate, obituary, and other records created after Grandma's marriage where Grandma is the informant
Information Grandma provided about her birth is secondary information. She knew it because she was told it. So really there's just two groups sources containing information--the birth certificate with information provided by the doctor being one group and the other group being everything else (where either Grandma's parents provided the information or Grandma did--with all that information actually coming from Grandma's parents).
It is the "independent" and "unrelated origins" that I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around, particularly the "unrelated origins." The doctor and Grandma's mother are independent of each other. Neither one had to tell the other that a baby was born to Ida (Sargent) Trautvetter on 1 September 1910. Ida (the mother) obviously knew it as did the doctor. Their knowledge of the birth is independent of each other.
But is it of unrelated origin?
Wouldn't people's recollections of most events have "related origins," since their knowledge of the event stems from their joint participation in the event? Two scientists working on different continents can have no contact with each other and independently discover the same result. Two people who have first hand knowledge of a baby's birth likely were both there at the time.
I completely understand determining (as best as possible) whether or not pieces of information have the same "points of origin." That's what I did with Grandma--there's her birth certificate with information which came from the doctor and what he remembered and then there's Grandma's christening record and information Grandma eventually provided, all of which likely originated with Grandma's parents (since they told her when she was born).
But the doctor and great-grandma's knowledge of Grandma's birth does have "related origins" (at least to me) as they were at the same event. Their knowledge of her birth is not "unrelated."
Maybe I'll just stick with "independent information items" and leave it at that.
02 April 2014
Does Unexact at FamilySearch Include Soundex?
Many genealogists leave "exact" boxes unchecked when performing searches because more is better. Many genealogists also have unspoken assumptions about what searches do when "exact" boxes are checked. Those assumptions can get one in trouble.
Apparently an "unexact" search at FamilySearch does not include Soundex variants--at least not always.
The last names of Goldenstein and Goldenstien are Soundex equivalent (G435-check it out here). There's two reasons for this:
A search for "Voke Goldenstien" does find the entry.
The fact that the first name is checked as exact does not matter.
It is pretty clear that FamilySearch does not view the last names of Goldenstein and Goldenstien as "similar" enough to return the same results (with "unexact" unchecked) for these searches.
The search for William (checked) and Goldenstein (unchecked) returns 29 hits as shown below:
The search for William (checked) and Goldenstien (unchecked) returns 29 hits as shown below:
Clearly FamilySearch does not consider these names "close enough" to bring all of them up when an "unexact" search is the desired search option.
One would not expect the transposition of two vowels towards the end of a name of this length to matter, especially when the vowels in question are "i" and "e."
It's always advised to experiment with any "unexact" search. If you didn't code it, you don't know how it searches.
Apparently an "unexact" search at FamilySearch does not include Soundex variants--at least not always.
The last names of Goldenstein and Goldenstien are Soundex equivalent (G435-check it out here). There's two reasons for this:
- the only differences in the two spellings involve vowels and Soundex ignores vowel sounds
- the differences in the names are after the third consonant sound (not counting the initial letter) and Soundex does not consider any consonant sound after the third non-initial letter. Even if consonants this "far down" in the name are switched, the Soundex code does not change.
Consequently one would expect a search for "Voke Goldenstein" with exact unchecked at FamilySearch in their 1880 index to find an entry for Voke Goldenstien. After all, those last names are Soundex equivalent and an "unexact" search "should" catch Soundex equivalents at FamilySearch.
Nope..not quite.
It does not as shown below. The search for Voke Goldenstein (with last name unexact) finds no results:
A search for "Voke Goldenstien" does find the entry.
The fact that the first name is checked as exact does not matter.
It is pretty clear that FamilySearch does not view the last names of Goldenstein and Goldenstien as "similar" enough to return the same results (with "unexact" unchecked) for these searches.
The search for William (checked) and Goldenstein (unchecked) returns 29 hits as shown below:
The search for William (checked) and Goldenstien (unchecked) returns 29 hits as shown below:
Clearly FamilySearch does not consider these names "close enough" to bring all of them up when an "unexact" search is the desired search option.
One would not expect the transposition of two vowels towards the end of a name of this length to matter, especially when the vowels in question are "i" and "e."
It's always advised to experiment with any "unexact" search. If you didn't code it, you don't know how it searches.
This Blog's Goals
The goals of this blog are pretty simple.
We want to get you to think about:
We want to get you to think about:
- how you research
- how you search
- how you share
- how you preserve
- how you analyze
We don't claim to have all the answers and we don't claim to know everything. We don't write about every genealogy topic under the sun either. No one is an expert on everything. We personally avoid anyone who claims they know everything.
What I do know is that those who don't think about the five bulleted items above tend to miss out on quite a bit in their ancestral quest, in more ways than one.
When you react without thinking is when you make mistakes and perpetuate myths.
And genealogy is not about myths.
01 April 2014
A Recorded Copy of the Patent
I'm at a crossroads of sorts on obtaining information on Montvill Harness' property in Santa Fe County, New Mexico.
Armed with the legal description of his homestead, I emailed the county office responsible for the recording of deeds in Santa Fe County to see what it would cost to obtain a copy of:
- the recorded copy of the deed of acquisition (the patent)
- the recorded copy of the deed (or land transaction) where the property left Montvill's possession.
The "deed of acquisition" in this case it the land patent from the federal government. What I'll probably get is simply a recorded copy of that patent. Given that the patent was probably recorded in the county in the late 1910s, it will most likely be typed. I'm not even certain why I requested it.
I have a copy of the patent from the National Archives. I probably don't need a copy of the recorded copy of the patent. The patent from NARA is the original record of the patent. The recorded copy is a derivative copy and it's doubtful there's some notation on it that reveals some big detail.
What I want is a copy of the land transaction where the property is transferred from Montvill's possession to another person's ownership. The clerk couldn't find it. Of course it was the document I really wanted that the clerk could not find.
There are several possible reasons for this. Some are more possible than others. Those main reasons are:
- it was never recorded
- it was indexed wrong
- the clerk overlooked the entry in the index
- the property was transferred by a will and there is not a deed recorded
- the property was transferred by some other court action and no deed is recorded (doubtful that this transaction would generate some type of deed with the judge as grantor)
The copy of the record copy of the patent is only $1. I may request it simply to find out when it was recorded. I may ask the clerk to look at the following page to see if it also mentions the property in question in case the deed of acquisition and disposition were recorded one right after the other.
Pictures With Nary A Whit of Provenance
I originally shared this picture on Facebook only including the image. That wasn't a good idea.
I remembered a few posts about photographs I wrote a while back concerning documentation on digital images genealogists make of photographs and how important that documentation is.
I realize that metadata can be stored in the file, so please don't send me lectures about that. Many people simply copy and paste the image. They don't save the actual file that was a part of the webpage. They don't look to see if there was any sort of additional data about the picture that was a part of the actual file. If they don't see it, then it's not there.
I've decided that my posting of photos as I go forward should include something like I've added to this picture. It doesn't change the image at all, but it does provide the viewer some clue as to where the picture came from, it's provenance, and the ability to actually contact me or at least know who originally posted the picture.
I realize that someone could still "cut off the documentation." Users of the image can also do that with the "metadata" if they download the original image. There's no guarantee that the source data will be preserved or used by others. There's no guarantees of how any image is used once it is posted to the internet.
But at least in my publication of the materials, I've included that information and if someone comes across copies of my blog posts with the pictures the source information will be there.
Any thoughts?
I remembered a few posts about photographs I wrote a while back concerning documentation on digital images genealogists make of photographs and how important that documentation is.
I realize that metadata can be stored in the file, so please don't send me lectures about that. Many people simply copy and paste the image. They don't save the actual file that was a part of the webpage. They don't look to see if there was any sort of additional data about the picture that was a part of the actual file. If they don't see it, then it's not there.
I've decided that my posting of photos as I go forward should include something like I've added to this picture. It doesn't change the image at all, but it does provide the viewer some clue as to where the picture came from, it's provenance, and the ability to actually contact me or at least know who originally posted the picture.
But at least in my publication of the materials, I've included that information and if someone comes across copies of my blog posts with the pictures the source information will be there.
Any thoughts?
Ancestry.com New Search and Sliders Webinar-New Session on 3 April
There was a recording issue with the webinar that I hosted last week on using new search and "sliders" at Ancestry.com. I have rescheduled another session on 3 April 2014 so that a complete recording can be made. If you downloaded a copy of the original webinar, you are already on the list to get a link to the complete recording when it is completed.
A description of the presentation:
The webinar includes a discussion of using the database search feature at Ancestry.com, focusing on how to use exact searches to mimic "old search" as much as possible. A few generalize search strategies are discussed along with ways that I prefer to search. We showed attendees how to tweak their own searches and ways to experiment and interact with search. It is possible to get good results with the "new" search.
If you would like to attend the session live on 3 April 2014 at 8 PM central, you can register here. If you attended the first session, missed the first session, or ordered the original recording you do not need to register again and will be sent a link to download the corrected recording at no charge.
This page is:
http://rootdig.blogspot.com/2014/04/ancestrycom-new-search-and-sliders.html
A description of the presentation:
The webinar includes a discussion of using the database search feature at Ancestry.com, focusing on how to use exact searches to mimic "old search" as much as possible. A few generalize search strategies are discussed along with ways that I prefer to search. We showed attendees how to tweak their own searches and ways to experiment and interact with search. It is possible to get good results with the "new" search.
If you would like to attend the session live on 3 April 2014 at 8 PM central, you can register here. If you attended the first session, missed the first session, or ordered the original recording you do not need to register again and will be sent a link to download the corrected recording at no charge.
This page is:
http://rootdig.blogspot.com/2014/04/ancestrycom-new-search-and-sliders.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)