15 March 2014
FamilySearch: Germans From Russia Obits & NC Estate Files
The following are showing as "new" or "updated" on FamilySearch since our last post:
14 March 2014
Updated on FamilySearch-New England Nat. Petitions and US SSDI
The following are showing as updated on FamilySearch since our last update:
13 March 2014
Archivist Confirms Rampley's Carthage College "Academy" Attendance
It is always good to confirm suspicions when possible.
A recent post about James Edward Rampley indicated that I had probably determined why he was listed an attendee of Carthage College in the 1890s and yet only showing on a 1940 census enumeration as having attended school through the 6th grade.
A private email from the archivist at Carthage College today confirmed my suspiscions. It says in part:
It seems possible that Rampley's parents wanted him to have more education that he could get within walking distance (or a horse trip) from his home in rural southern Hancock County. I am reasonably certain there was no nearby high school, but am not aware of just how many grades of education were available locally.
At this point, I'm not going to analyze the ages of Rampley's classmates. Given that the archivist confirmed my assumption about the Academy, such work seems like overkill and not a productive use of my research time.
I wanted to make certain that the Edward Rampley shown in the catalog was actually the James Edward Rampley I already knew about (son of James and Elizabeth (Newman) Rampley) and not a "new" one. Sometimes when researching unusual names, the researcher never likes to have any unknown people with the last name hanging around as a loose end. Based upon the archivist's email, I don't have a new Rampley in Hickory Ridge, Hancock County, Illinois.
If only I could have found out his grades.
Note: the Carthage College Catalog (1890-1902) is online at Hathitrust. Just click on "full view."
A recent post about James Edward Rampley indicated that I had probably determined why he was listed an attendee of Carthage College in the 1890s and yet only showing on a 1940 census enumeration as having attended school through the 6th grade.
A private email from the archivist at Carthage College today confirmed my suspiscions. It says in part:
Edward attended the Carthage Academy during the academic years 1893-94 and 1894-95 and was from Hickory Ridge, IL. The Academy was a prep school associated with the college...
It seems possible that Rampley's parents wanted him to have more education that he could get within walking distance (or a horse trip) from his home in rural southern Hancock County. I am reasonably certain there was no nearby high school, but am not aware of just how many grades of education were available locally.
At this point, I'm not going to analyze the ages of Rampley's classmates. Given that the archivist confirmed my assumption about the Academy, such work seems like overkill and not a productive use of my research time.
I wanted to make certain that the Edward Rampley shown in the catalog was actually the James Edward Rampley I already knew about (son of James and Elizabeth (Newman) Rampley) and not a "new" one. Sometimes when researching unusual names, the researcher never likes to have any unknown people with the last name hanging around as a loose end. Based upon the archivist's email, I don't have a new Rampley in Hickory Ridge, Hancock County, Illinois.
If only I could have found out his grades.
Note: the Carthage College Catalog (1890-1902) is online at Hathitrust. Just click on "full view."
Genealogical Standards are Specific and Vague
I'm still reading Genealogy Standards. Reading it again is perhaps a more accurate word.
It is important for those who purchase the book, either as a part of their certification process or just as a part of their own genealogical education, that they remember what the Genealogy Standards is not. It is not a complete how-to book. It is not a list of sources. The Genealogy Standards is a list of benchmarks against which genealogical research is to be measured and compared.
It is not a specific how-to guide, but standards guidelines in any profession are not usually how-to guides. That's what classes and other trainings are for. It's short and to the point, more in the sense of reminders for what a researcher should be doing instead of a specific list of sources to check.
I don't read Genealogy Standards with the intent of seeing a list of suggestions that will help me with my Rufus D. Stephens, my Benjamin Butler, or my Hinrich Mueller. However, as I read the standards, particularly the ones in regards to documentation and research, I should be asking myself:
It is important for those who purchase the book, either as a part of their certification process or just as a part of their own genealogical education, that they remember what the Genealogy Standards is not. It is not a complete how-to book. It is not a list of sources. The Genealogy Standards is a list of benchmarks against which genealogical research is to be measured and compared.
It is not a specific how-to guide, but standards guidelines in any profession are not usually how-to guides. That's what classes and other trainings are for. It's short and to the point, more in the sense of reminders for what a researcher should be doing instead of a specific list of sources to check.
I don't read Genealogy Standards with the intent of seeing a list of suggestions that will help me with my Rufus D. Stephens, my Benjamin Butler, or my Hinrich Mueller. However, as I read the standards, particularly the ones in regards to documentation and research, I should be asking myself:
- have I done that when I researched?
- have I analyzed each piece of information that I already have?
- was I thinking about those writing suggestions when I put together a summary of my research?
There's more to the standards than that, but it's a start.
The writing standards are helpful even if the only person for whom you are writing is yourself.
If there is something in the Genealogy Standards that you do not understand, ask or post the question to a mailing list or a genealogical research group. There may even be a definition for a term with which you do not agree entirely (I personally don't view evidence as the "answer," tentative or otherwise [p. 67 Genealogy Standards] to a question, but that's a subject for another post). It is ok if you don't agree with everything. Your genealogical world will not end. Standards are standards, not edicts. My personal view point of the Genealogy Standards is that reading them can enhance your research.
It's also my personal view point that concern about standards, research accuracy, and documentation does not make one an "elitist genealogist." Elitist genealogists are ones who do not want to admit their conclusions may be incorrect and who refuse to listen to others. That attitude has absolutely nothing to do with reading the Genealogy Standards.
Rufus D. Stephens and Other Early Settlers--Are There Clues Sitting There?
I'm returning to Rufus D. Stephens in hopes of making some headway on this War of 1812 veteran from Ontario County, New York.
An 1851 "History of the Pioneer Settlement of Philps and Gorham's Purchase and Morris' Reserve...," by O. Turner (published in Rochester by William Alling) mentions Rufus D. Stephens and several other early settlers in his portion of Ontario County, New York as shown below in this portion of page 525:
It has been a little while since I've mentioned Rufus D. Stephens, but I believe this one is the same Rufus D. Stephens who appears in Ontario, Canada, and Michigan through the early 1850s.
The problem is that there are two Rufus Stephens in New York in and around 1810--the 1810 census lists one in Lewis County and this one in Ontario County, New York. Newspaper accounts of a manslaughter case suggest that there was a Rufus D. Stephens in Herkimer County between 1800 and 1810.
The question is whether or not the Herkimer County Rufus D. Stephens in the one who appears in Ontario County.
Under the premise that people travel in general clusters, I am going to look for the names in this list of early settlers in the 1810 and 1800 census, hoping to see where they were from. The hope is that several of them were from Herkimer County, which would lend some credence to the theory that Rufus D. in Ontario County is the same one that was in Herkimer County.
That most certainly would not be direct evidence.
But it would help.
An 1851 "History of the Pioneer Settlement of Philps and Gorham's Purchase and Morris' Reserve...," by O. Turner (published in Rochester by William Alling) mentions Rufus D. Stephens and several other early settlers in his portion of Ontario County, New York as shown below in this portion of page 525:
The problem is that there are two Rufus Stephens in New York in and around 1810--the 1810 census lists one in Lewis County and this one in Ontario County, New York. Newspaper accounts of a manslaughter case suggest that there was a Rufus D. Stephens in Herkimer County between 1800 and 1810.
The question is whether or not the Herkimer County Rufus D. Stephens in the one who appears in Ontario County.
Under the premise that people travel in general clusters, I am going to look for the names in this list of early settlers in the 1810 and 1800 census, hoping to see where they were from. The hope is that several of them were from Herkimer County, which would lend some credence to the theory that Rufus D. in Ontario County is the same one that was in Herkimer County.
That most certainly would not be direct evidence.
But it would help.
12 March 2014
Organizing Genealogical Information Class--Sunday discussion series
By popular demand...we've added a section of this class with Sunday discussions...
Need to grow your research skills this year? 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. Previous registrants for other sections who need to enroll in this section should email me for login information. Register via this link
March 2014 Class-Sunday discussion option
Need to grow your research skills this year? 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. Previous registrants for other sections who need to enroll in this section should email me for login information. Register via this link
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
Lecture downloads:
- 14 March
- 21 March
- 28 March
- 4 April
Discussions are at:
- 16 March 1:30 pm.-2:15 pm.Central Time
- 23 March 1:30 pm.-2:15 pm.Central Time
- 30 March 1:30 pm.-2:15 pm.Central Time
- 6 April 1:30 pm.-2:15 pm.Central Time
Lectures and discussions will be via GotoMeeting.
Register via this link
Or use this webpage:
http://rootdig.blogspot.com/2014/03/organizing-genealogical-information.html
Register via this link
Or use this webpage:
http://rootdig.blogspot.com/2014/03/organizing-genealogical-information.html
Monteville Harness Deeds in the 1880 Era Newspaper
One of the things American newspapers used to publish with regularity were deeds and other various "courthouse" news. As more newspapers come online in digital format, it becomes easier to locate these references.
Such is the case with Monteville Harness of Adams County, Illinois, for whom I was able to find two deeds and a "master's sale" notice in the Quincy [Illinois] Whig from the 1880s.
It also becomes necessary for the researcher to realize that what they find in the newspaper may be incomplete, in a variety of ways and that these references were merely to alert the public that there was a new owner to a piece of property or, in the case of the master's sale, that property was going to be sold. The newspaper should not be considered a complete index to these records, but merely a convenient finding aid.
Three references were located for Monteville.
All three beg for further research. The 1885 and 1887 deeds may contain additional information--at the very least a more specific legal description. It may be that the name of Harness's wife is included on the deed and was simply omitted from the newspaper. Additional follow up on these references would suggest determining how Harness came to own the land in question.
The 1886 court case potentially centers on the 1885 deed since the parties involved are the same. The women are not listed in the deed entry in the newspaper, but they were parties to the suit. It can be reasonably assumed that the women in question are the wives of the two men. They would have had an interest in the property and the proceedings given their marriage to their husband.
Deed work was on the list for completing an exhaustive search on Monteville Harness. The newspaper work was easier to do because it could be done online and the location of these references made the point that a search of land records would not be for not.
Such is the case with Monteville Harness of Adams County, Illinois, for whom I was able to find two deeds and a "master's sale" notice in the Quincy [Illinois] Whig from the 1880s.
It also becomes necessary for the researcher to realize that what they find in the newspaper may be incomplete, in a variety of ways and that these references were merely to alert the public that there was a new owner to a piece of property or, in the case of the master's sale, that property was going to be sold. The newspaper should not be considered a complete index to these records, but merely a convenient finding aid.
Three references were located for Monteville.
All three beg for further research. The 1885 and 1887 deeds may contain additional information--at the very least a more specific legal description. It may be that the name of Harness's wife is included on the deed and was simply omitted from the newspaper. Additional follow up on these references would suggest determining how Harness came to own the land in question.
The 1886 court case potentially centers on the 1885 deed since the parties involved are the same. The women are not listed in the deed entry in the newspaper, but they were parties to the suit. It can be reasonably assumed that the women in question are the wives of the two men. They would have had an interest in the property and the proceedings given their marriage to their husband.
Deed work was on the list for completing an exhaustive search on Monteville Harness. The newspaper work was easier to do because it could be done online and the location of these references made the point that a search of land records would not be for not.
Has Ancestry.com's Drop Down List Heard of Boyle, New York?
Ancestry.com's places continue to frustrate.
According to the drop down list, there's no entry for Boyle in Ontario County, New York.
Yet when I search the 1810 census at Ancestry.com for Rufus Stevens, sure enough there are entries in Boyle, New York as shown below.
There is a workaround by using a keyword:
That does require that the location be entered in with that precise spelling in the Ancestry.com database for the census year being searched. It also requires that that location be the one that was used in the specific census in question.
Ancestry.com does appear to perform the search correctly. However, if you forget what you looked for as a keyword, it won't appear as a search parameter on your results screen:
So you will have to remember what you searched for, especially if there are no results.
There are numerous places that Ancestry.com does not have in their "dropdown" list that do appear in database results. It's not just Boyle, Ontario County, New York.
According to the drop down list, there's no entry for Boyle in Ontario County, New York.
There is a workaround by using a keyword:
That does require that the location be entered in with that precise spelling in the Ancestry.com database for the census year being searched. It also requires that that location be the one that was used in the specific census in question.
Ancestry.com does appear to perform the search correctly. However, if you forget what you looked for as a keyword, it won't appear as a search parameter on your results screen:
So you will have to remember what you searched for, especially if there are no results.
There are numerous places that Ancestry.com does not have in their "dropdown" list that do appear in database results. It's not just Boyle, Ontario County, New York.
The Power of the Crowd in Fixing Ancestry.com Slider Searches
Earlier today I posted search results that made no sense to me on Ancestry.com.
Within an hour, I had the probable answer to my problem: I was using the "sliders" on the results page to modify my searches and had "exact" checked on the search page as shown below:
If you want to use the sliders on the search results page, have the "Matches all terms exactly" box on the search screen unchecked.
Lesson learned.
Thanks to Russ W. and Roger M. for commenting on this.
Within an hour, I had the probable answer to my problem: I was using the "sliders" on the results page to modify my searches and had "exact" checked on the search page as shown below:
Lesson learned.
Thanks to Russ W. and Roger M. for commenting on this.
Stevens Finds Stephens in 1810, but not the other way around...apparently
[note: this post has been modified since it was originally posted as the "problem" has been discovered--it was in a setting on my search box. The modifications to the original post are in red.]
Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm making a mistake. Russ W. tried to validate these results for me and was unable to do so. When I went back an hour later and searched again the results were correct if the "exact" button is left unchecked on the search entry page.
I searched for Rufus Stevens in the 1810 census index at Ancestry.com using the slider to perform a search on both the first and last names as:
Makes perfect sense.
But...
I also searched for Rufus Stephens in the 1810 census at Ancestry.com using the slider to perform a search for both the first and last names as:
I only obtained one: the Rufus Stephens in Lewis County, New York. Note: at 11:15 am on 12 March 2014, I obtained correct results for this search--the same three entries as above--but to obtain the correct entries the "exact" search button on the search page must be left unchecked.
It would appear to me that the results should be the same and they now are--after all Stephens and Stevens are soundex equivalents and they certainly sound alike (at least in English).
And, if a search for Stevens using "exact, sounds like, and similar" locates Stephens entries, shouldn't a Stephens search using "exact, sounds like, and similar" locate Stevens entries?
Or am I doing something wrong? If I am, I'd be happy to post a correction.
I'm still not certain what I was doing wrong. And really wish I knew.
Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm making a mistake. Russ W. tried to validate these results for me and was unable to do so. When I went back an hour later and searched again the results were correct if the "exact" button is left unchecked on the search entry page.
I searched for Rufus Stevens in the 1810 census index at Ancestry.com using the slider to perform a search on both the first and last names as:
"Exact, sounds like, and similar"Three results were obtained:
- Rufus Stevens in Vermont
- Rufus Stevens in Ontario County, New York
- Rufus Stephens in Lewis County, New York
Makes perfect sense.
But...
I also searched for Rufus Stephens in the 1810 census at Ancestry.com using the slider to perform a search for both the first and last names as:
"Exact, sounds like, and similar"
I only obtained one: the Rufus Stephens in Lewis County, New York. Note: at 11:15 am on 12 March 2014, I obtained correct results for this search--the same three entries as above--but to obtain the correct entries the "exact" search button on the search page must be left unchecked.
It would appear to me that the results should be the same and they now are--after all Stephens and Stevens are soundex equivalents and they certainly sound alike (at least in English).
And, if a search for Stevens using "exact, sounds like, and similar" locates Stephens entries, shouldn't a Stephens search using "exact, sounds like, and similar" locate Stevens entries?
Or am I doing something wrong? If I am, I'd be happy to post a correction.
I'm still not certain what I was doing wrong. And really wish I knew.
11 March 2014
Following up on the Boiling Blood Letter
This is something of a followup post to the "Boiling Blood in the Prairie Farmer." If you're a reader who is after some genealogy methodology advice, source suggestions, research hints, or Standards waxings, consider moving on...this isn't really one of those posts.
I thought quite a bit before posting the letter my Great-granddad Fred Ufkes had published in the Prairie Farmer in 1944. It wasn't a simple factual letter about the goings on during the war or the price of grain, which is what I had really expected. The letter was filled with the emotion and frustration of a father with two sons in a war on another continent. My families are not ones that leave behind troves of letters and other documents that provide a glimpse into their political and personal views. The letter in the Prairie Farmer is one of the few letters I have written by any ancestor.
Ufkes would have been fifty-one at the time he wrote the letter. Three of his five children were still in Illinois. His oldest son was married with a three-year old daughter. The two younger children (a son and a daughter) were still living at home. Times were still not easy-the Great Depression was not yet over and Ufkes still had a mortgage on his farm.
The telephone workers strike of 1944 was what precipitated Ufkes' letter to the Prairie Farmer. It is not known if he wrote similar letters to local papers. What is clear is that he thought war time was not an ideal time for workers to strike. Despite his frustration, his letter ends on the hope that the situation that precipitated the strike can be solved. It is clear how he felt about those who told their members to strike during war time and he even goes so far as to compare the telephone workers' wages with that of soldiers serving in the war.
Two of Ufkes' sons were serving in World War II at the time. Both would have been in their early twenties. Communication during the war was limited and there's no doubt that the family was concerned about the welfare of their two sons. Fortunately both sons returned home from the war, attended college under the GI Bill, married, and raised families.
During an earlier war, times were different and German families were reticent. In fact, Ufkes' father was asked in 1915 about his opinion on President Wilson and he did not have anything to say. Times were different in 1915 than they were in 1944.
Family tradition has it that during the World War I era, there was an altercation at the nearby Lutheran Church involving the minister and group opposed to the congregation's use of German in church services and during Sunday School. Family story is that one of the non-Germans spoke up in their defense and diffused the situation. Fred and his wife, Tena, would have been a young couple at this time with only one child. The rest of their children were born after World War I was over.
By the time of the next world war, times had changed. The Ufkes family was not the only one from their German Lutheran congregation to send sons to fight in the war. They were fortunate in that their sons came home. Not every family was so lucky.
Today Fred and Tena Ufkes and their four sons rest in the Illinois prairie at the Lutheran cemetery a few miles from their home. The oldest son John, his wife, and their two infant children are buried in the same lot as their parents. The sons who were in the service, Alvin and LeRoy, are buried along with their younger brother, Herb, east of the other family members.
Like most of their generation, my two uncles who were in the war rarely discussed it. The statement was made once that they were simply glad to be home and I imagine that they were.
 |
| Immanuel Lutheran Cemetery, Harmony Township, Hancock County, Illinois, tombstones of Tena and Fred Ufkes- central part of cemetery--west of Ufkes brothers' stone. Picture taken by Michael John Neill, December 2013 |
 |
| Fred Ufkes, about 1920 original in collection of Michael John Neill |
Ufkes would have been fifty-one at the time he wrote the letter. Three of his five children were still in Illinois. His oldest son was married with a three-year old daughter. The two younger children (a son and a daughter) were still living at home. Times were still not easy-the Great Depression was not yet over and Ufkes still had a mortgage on his farm.
The telephone workers strike of 1944 was what precipitated Ufkes' letter to the Prairie Farmer. It is not known if he wrote similar letters to local papers. What is clear is that he thought war time was not an ideal time for workers to strike. Despite his frustration, his letter ends on the hope that the situation that precipitated the strike can be solved. It is clear how he felt about those who told their members to strike during war time and he even goes so far as to compare the telephone workers' wages with that of soldiers serving in the war.
Two of Ufkes' sons were serving in World War II at the time. Both would have been in their early twenties. Communication during the war was limited and there's no doubt that the family was concerned about the welfare of their two sons. Fortunately both sons returned home from the war, attended college under the GI Bill, married, and raised families.
 |
| Immanuel Lutheran Cemetery, Harmony Township, Hancock County, Illinois, tombstones of Ufkes brothers LeRoy, Alvin, and Herbert. These graves are in the "back" of the cemetery, along the east side. Picture taken by Michael John Neill, December 2013. [Date of birth for living individuals have been removed. That is the only modification made to this image] |
 |
| Immanuel Lutheran Cemetery, Harmony Township, Hancock County, Illinois, tombstones of John H. and Dorothy Ufkes-- directly north of Fred and Tena Ufkes stone. Picture taken by Michael John Neill, December 2013. |
Family tradition has it that during the World War I era, there was an altercation at the nearby Lutheran Church involving the minister and group opposed to the congregation's use of German in church services and during Sunday School. Family story is that one of the non-Germans spoke up in their defense and diffused the situation. Fred and his wife, Tena, would have been a young couple at this time with only one child. The rest of their children were born after World War I was over.
By the time of the next world war, times had changed. The Ufkes family was not the only one from their German Lutheran congregation to send sons to fight in the war. They were fortunate in that their sons came home. Not every family was so lucky.
Today Fred and Tena Ufkes and their four sons rest in the Illinois prairie at the Lutheran cemetery a few miles from their home. The oldest son John, his wife, and their two infant children are buried in the same lot as their parents. The sons who were in the service, Alvin and LeRoy, are buried along with their younger brother, Herb, east of the other family members.
Like most of their generation, my two uncles who were in the war rarely discussed it. The statement was made once that they were simply glad to be home and I imagine that they were.
Before You Use BillionGraves
BillionGraves would like you to upload cemetery images to their site. I suppose they would like me to upload images as well. I'm not, but it's just a personal preference.
Before you share tombstone images with BillionGraves, take a look at their terms of service, which (last time I checked) was not linked to from their home page. I had to do a Google search to find it. I've taken a look at the terms of service for the site and have chosen not to participate.
Know what the "deal is" before becoming a part of anything. It's ok to give things away as long as you are aware of what you are giving up.
If the terms of use for BillionGraves aren't clear to you, see what the Legal Genealogist had to say about them. BillionGraves can do what they want with the pictures you submit and you can't say a thing about it. Period. Because it was in the terms of use. It is the user's responsibility to read the terms of use before participating.
I'm not saying you should participate or not participate. That's your decision, not mine. Just be informed before you make decision. If how they may use your pictures doesn't bother you, that's ok. I just don't like people being surprised.
And don't get all frustrated if they eventually sell your pictures as part of something.
It was in the fine print.
Just like that foreclosure clause on a mortgage.
Before you share tombstone images with BillionGraves, take a look at their terms of service, which (last time I checked) was not linked to from their home page. I had to do a Google search to find it. I've taken a look at the terms of service for the site and have chosen not to participate.
Know what the "deal is" before becoming a part of anything. It's ok to give things away as long as you are aware of what you are giving up.
If the terms of use for BillionGraves aren't clear to you, see what the Legal Genealogist had to say about them. BillionGraves can do what they want with the pictures you submit and you can't say a thing about it. Period. Because it was in the terms of use. It is the user's responsibility to read the terms of use before participating.
I'm not saying you should participate or not participate. That's your decision, not mine. Just be informed before you make decision. If how they may use your pictures doesn't bother you, that's ok. I just don't like people being surprised.
And don't get all frustrated if they eventually sell your pictures as part of something.
It was in the fine print.
Just like that foreclosure clause on a mortgage.
Published Before They Were Dated
Don't get me wrong. I really like Hathitrust and use it regularly.
I find things on it that I would not find elsewhere.
However, there is one nuance with their cataloging that I don't quite understand and that frustrates my research efforts as shown in the image below.
The "American Baptist year-book 1893-1897" indicates a published date of 1868.
The "American Shorthorn herd book v 83" from 1914 indicates a published date of 1846.
This makes searching by publication date difficult.
I think that the published year may be the first year the item in the series was published, but I'm not certain. The three items noted in the image appear to be publications of an "annual" nature and perhaps that is the problem.
Comments welcomed.
Note: these search results were obtained by searching for "rampley" on a full text search at approximately 10:30 a.m. central time today.
I find things on it that I would not find elsewhere.
However, there is one nuance with their cataloging that I don't quite understand and that frustrates my research efforts as shown in the image below.
The "American Shorthorn herd book v 83" from 1914 indicates a published date of 1846.
This makes searching by publication date difficult.
I think that the published year may be the first year the item in the series was published, but I'm not certain. The three items noted in the image appear to be publications of an "annual" nature and perhaps that is the problem.
Comments welcomed.
Note: these search results were obtained by searching for "rampley" on a full text search at approximately 10:30 a.m. central time today.
10 March 2014
Is the Same Signature Enough?
If two signatures match, are the writers the same person?
On the surface the answer seems "yes." And on the surface it seems like the answer to this question would always be clear.
And probably if the handwriting is a match, the writers are the same person. Sometimes though, determining whether or not the handwriting for two signatures is a "match" is a subjective process, especially if the signatures are not carbon copies of each other.
The top two signatures are for the same person. The rationale for this belief is that image 1 and image 2 are taken from the pre-emption claim for John Lake. Lake's claim was completed in the mid-1860s. Clearly the same man as the claimant signed all the claimant documents in the file.
Image 3 certain looks like it was signed by the same man. It was signed by a man who indicated he was of Chariton County, Missouri. My conclusion is that it was signed by the same man as the one who signed the pre-emption claim. My conclusion is not based simply on a comparison of the handwriting, although that is an important reason. But there is other reasons:
- There is only one John Lake in Chariton County, Missouri in the time period for both these documents
- Both of these documents involve a man who lived in Chariton County, Missouri
- The documents are from the same time period
That makes a pretty strong case for the signatures being the same person.
Handwriting looking the same is strong evidence--but the other reasons are crucial as well.
It never hurts to think about your conclusions and to challenge them. Sometimes your conclusion will not change...and sometimes it will.
Note: John Lake of Chariton County, Missouri, is my wife's ancestor. He was killed by Bushwackers towards the end of the Civil War, but that's another story.
I'm not certain the Genealogy Standards address analyzing signatures and I'm not certain I conducted an exhaustive search, but I did outline my reasons. And I know that clear analysis is an important element of the Genealogy Standards.
Warrants Issued After Death-Randall Fugate's Widow Gets a Warrant
In "Much Younger Brides...," we discussed items from a Revolutionary War pension application of Randall Fugate and his wife Eleanor.
Eleanor lived until the 1880s and her pension application includes significant doument on her life with Randall. Perhaps there are not as many details as a genealogist would like and not as many details as in a Civil War pension, but there are still good finds in the pension materials of this couple.
But there's more.
Eleanor (as Ellen) applied for and received a military warrant for 160 acres in the US Military Tract based upon Randall's service.
And the application for that warrant is separate from the pension.
With separate doumentation.
Some of the details will be the same, but there's always the possibility that different individuals provided testimony or that's just more detail in this application. No matter how you define an "exhaustive search," getting the bounty land application is necessary--even if the pension has already been obtained.
The warrant shown in this illustration was located on the Bureau of Land Management website, by searching for warrants issued to Randall F. Fugate. Searching for miltary warrants on the site is something I do for any Revolutionary War or War of 1812 veteran. Fugate's was issued in the 1850s, long after he was dead. A patent was eventually issused for property in Missouri based upon the warrant. The Fugates never settled in Missouri. Eleanor Fugate sold the warrant to a man who eventually patented the property. When searching the warrants, remember they could have been issued long after the veteran was deceased and for property in a location where the family never lived.
The warrants are at the National Archives in Washington, DC. We will have an update when copies have been received.
09 March 2014
An 1887 Suicide in Coffman's Harmony Township Barn
The first two images I have had for some time, it is just now that I sat down, put them together and realized what the solution was--at least in part.
In 1887, great-great-grandma Noentje (Grass) Ufkes writes a letter to her husband's sister's family in Nebraska. Must of the letter is local news of fellow Ostfriesens. Noentje mentions that Dirk Frieden shot himself in the barn of Enne Kofffman and that an "English" girl is mourning. Frieden does not appear to have been a relative, but the nature of his death piqued my interest.
There is no indication in the letter of precisely when the shooting took place, but it is reasonable to assume that it took place relatively close to when Noentje wrote the letter, maybe as early as the spring of 1887, but probably (an assumption) not before 1887.
The Quincy Daily Journal of 6 September 1887 contains a mention of an event that most likely is the one to which Noentje is referring.
The the last name of the landowner is the same, but the other names are slighly different. However, it would be odd for there to have been two Coffman farmers both of whom had men shoot themselves in their employer's barn in September of 1887.
Newspapers are notorius for getting the names of low-Germans incorrect, so I concluded that the names as written in Noentje's letter were correct. However, there is an A. K. Coffman living in Harmony Township, Hancock County, Illinois, in 1880 and enumerated as a farmer.
While I did not perform a manual search of all the entire area near where Noentje Ufkes lived and did not come close to searching all of "near Carthage," I believe this is the individual in whose barn the suicide took place.
The name matches the newspaper account. The last name is the same as the one in the Ufkes letter and Harmony Township is adjacent to Bear Creek Township in which Ufkes was living in 1887. It also seems probable that this A. K. Coffman is the one to whom the newspaper is referring seven years later. In fact, the farm on which Ufkes lived is on the extreme eastern border of Bear Creek Township--which borders Harmony Township. A plat map would confirm how "close" to the Ufkes family Coffman lived (or at least owned property), but it really doesn't matter where in Harmony Township he lived in the context of this problem--as it's all close to where Ufkes lived and close enough that any news would have reached the family fairly quickly.
Especially news of the suicide of an apparent fellow Ostfriesen.
But what of Enne Koffman to which Noentje Ufkes refers?
My working premise is that Noentje "translated" A. J. Coffman's first name (or perhaps his initials) to the closest low-German name she could. English speaking census takers translated names when taking the census. It is not a stretch to imagine German language letter writers doing the same thing, especially when the letter was written entirely in German.
At least now I know where the suicide took place. I still have more research to do on this event in local papers to see if there's any mention of the story behind the newspaper's use of the phrase "killing the farmer and marrying the widow" or Noentje's mention of "English" girl who is mourning.
The Quincy, Illinois, newspaper reference is not local, but finding it will help me search local papers which are not digitized and will require a manual search.
Genealogical Lessons:
 |
| 20 September 1887 letter [partial] written by Noentje Lena Ufkes of Basco, Hancock County, Illinois |
There is no indication in the letter of precisely when the shooting took place, but it is reasonable to assume that it took place relatively close to when Noentje wrote the letter, maybe as early as the spring of 1887, but probably (an assumption) not before 1887.
 |
| Quincy Daily Journal mention of Fayen suicide from 6 September 1887 |
The the last name of the landowner is the same, but the other names are slighly different. However, it would be odd for there to have been two Coffman farmers both of whom had men shoot themselves in their employer's barn in September of 1887.
Newspapers are notorius for getting the names of low-Germans incorrect, so I concluded that the names as written in Noentje's letter were correct. However, there is an A. K. Coffman living in Harmony Township, Hancock County, Illinois, in 1880 and enumerated as a farmer.
While I did not perform a manual search of all the entire area near where Noentje Ufkes lived and did not come close to searching all of "near Carthage," I believe this is the individual in whose barn the suicide took place.
 |
| 1880 U S Census, Hancock County, Illinois, Harmony Township, Enumeration District 71, page 8D |
The name matches the newspaper account. The last name is the same as the one in the Ufkes letter and Harmony Township is adjacent to Bear Creek Township in which Ufkes was living in 1887. It also seems probable that this A. K. Coffman is the one to whom the newspaper is referring seven years later. In fact, the farm on which Ufkes lived is on the extreme eastern border of Bear Creek Township--which borders Harmony Township. A plat map would confirm how "close" to the Ufkes family Coffman lived (or at least owned property), but it really doesn't matter where in Harmony Township he lived in the context of this problem--as it's all close to where Ufkes lived and close enough that any news would have reached the family fairly quickly.
Especially news of the suicide of an apparent fellow Ostfriesen.
But what of Enne Koffman to which Noentje Ufkes refers?
My working premise is that Noentje "translated" A. J. Coffman's first name (or perhaps his initials) to the closest low-German name she could. English speaking census takers translated names when taking the census. It is not a stretch to imagine German language letter writers doing the same thing, especially when the letter was written entirely in German.
At least now I know where the suicide took place. I still have more research to do on this event in local papers to see if there's any mention of the story behind the newspaper's use of the phrase "killing the farmer and marrying the widow" or Noentje's mention of "English" girl who is mourning.
The Quincy, Illinois, newspaper reference is not local, but finding it will help me search local papers which are not digitized and will require a manual search.
Genealogical Lessons:
- Don't assume the newspaper is wrong.
- Anyone can translate any name--even in atypical directions.
- Newspapers a distance from the event may still contain a mention of the event. In this case that allowed me to get a date I could use to search other papers.
Broader Searches Give Me Fewer Results with the Ancestry.com Slider
If I'm doing something wrong, please inform me.
The broader a search is, the more results one should obtain. That's a basic premise of database searching.
If you want more results, make your more broad.
That's not what is happening for me at least on this search with the sliders at Ancestry.com
This search screen shows that obtained 194 results for my search of the 1900 census for John Coffmann as shown below--the last name is set to the second slider from the left.
I then broadened my search by moving the slider to the left.
Except I got 155 matches. Shouldn't there be more?
Am I doing something wrong?
Can anyone else replicate these searches?
I'd like to know what I'm not doing correct or what I am not understanding correctly.
The broader a search is, the more results one should obtain. That's a basic premise of database searching.
If you want more results, make your more broad.
That's not what is happening for me at least on this search with the sliders at Ancestry.com
This search screen shows that obtained 194 results for my search of the 1900 census for John Coffmann as shown below--the last name is set to the second slider from the left.
I then broadened my search by moving the slider to the left.
Except I got 155 matches. Shouldn't there be more?
Am I doing something wrong?
Can anyone else replicate these searches?
I'd like to know what I'm not doing correct or what I am not understanding correctly.
Still Unable to Browse ELCA Records at Archives.com
Sometimes the fault is with the site, not the researcher.
In 1887 a Hancock County, Illinois, farm hand kills himself. The event is mentioned in a letter written by my great-great-grandmother Noentje Ufkes in which she refers to him as Dirk Frieden. The newspaper reference to the apparent same event refers to him as a "Mr. Fayen." Since my great-great-grandmother wrote about the man in a letter to relatives, I assumed that the farm hand was an Ostfriesen immigrant as the Ufkes family was. I was also hoping to find him in the records of the nearby Immanuel Lutheran Church which most of the Ostfriesen immgirants attended--published online at Archives.com
That was easier to say than it was to do.
I didn't find Frieden/Fayen in a search. Archives.com won't simply let me click to the records of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America which it has on microfilm and browse those records until I get to the records of the Immanual Lutheran Church.
I decided to find a match in the funeral records of the church and browse until I found the funeral entries for 1887. Then I could manually view those entries for a name that could Frieden.
Noentje Ufkes died in 1902 and was buried from Immanual. Her entry was easily located.
The problem was that I could not browse forward. The "Prev" button was grayed out. I knew there were burial records from before 1902. Even if there weren't, the church register has other records from before 1902 (baptisms, christenings and marriage records which I've used). There has to be something "previous" in the records.
I tried Julie Cahill Tarr's suggested trick, but it didn't work. I changed the ImageID number in the URl for the 1902 funeral entry image to the previous number. Last time I checked 1 less than 114 is 113.
It would be easier if Archives.com would simply let me browse the images. My only option now-hoping the records from the 1880 era are actually on the site-is to find relatives in my database who attended Immanuel and died in the late 1880s.
I shouldn't have to do that.
It's not just me.
And sometimes it is not just you.
It is them.
Putting People in Pools
Some sites allow researchers to tie people to trees. Some allow researchers to temporarily store items of interest in a shoebox to sort through later. Others allow researchers to dump all the undesired results in a box of hidden people, never to be seen again. Instead of trees, shoeboxes, and hidden results I wish the online sites allowed us to create pools.
Trees force us to tie records to specific people, people who are usually tied to other people via relationships. I prefer not to tie people together until I am "reasonably" certain they are the same person. Untying records from people sometimes is not easy for some and for me, tying records to people prematurely is something I simply do not like to do. Shoeboxes serve a purpose, but mine tends to be a big dumping ground that resembles a bunch of receipts at tax time-all thrown together. Ignored results are in "one big box of ignored people" with no organization to it. How do I find all those people I ignored when searching for a Benjamin Butler that I now would like to go through again? It would be nice if the shoebox and undesired results could be somehow organized. I don't want to have to tie every record that I might need later to someone in a tree.
In fact, I don't often organize my research in "trees." Trees are used after I've got things reasonably figured out--not while I'm still figuring it out.
My research is often done in pools.
For years I was "stuck" on my Ira Sargent. There were several Iras who were contemporaries in Iowa and Illinois in the later 1800s and early 1900s. I never dreamed there would be so many. These Iras were born in the 1840s or so and in the same general area of New York, Canada, and Michigan. I may eventally discover that they are distantly related to each other and it's always possible that I prematurely eliminate a match. I knew a few of the entries were for my Ira (given what I knew about him), but not all could be him--no one can be in five census enumerations for the same year. As my research progressed, I couldn't be certain for all of the entries which Ira they were. But I couldn't tie them to specific Iras. I just knew that they were Iras and that a few were certainly mine, others might be mine, and others certainly weren't.
I put them in a pool....an Ira pool. Originally I wasn't certain how to sort out the various census references and other iems into specific Iras. I knew that all the references were to an Ira. I didn't want to tie them to one Ira in a tree. What would have been nice if I could have saved them in some sort of online "Ira pool" of matches.
That's how I research and organize. Back in the day, I made cards for each entry I had on Ira in a census or other record. I could re-arrange the cards into little "pools" on a table.
Stacks may be a better word, but pools makes a better metaphor. I use pools and I think many other genealogists do as well.
Like most people, I work on more than one family at once. A shoebox with all items of interest can contain too many people and may easily contain "hopefuls" for completely different people on which I am working. I'd like to be able to have pools in my shoebox were I could put my "Ira matches," my "Benjamin Butler matches" and separate them from other people I have added to my shoebox. The shoebox doesn't have to have pools, but it sure could have folders that would serve the same purpose.
I'd like to organize my "ignore" people as well on sites that has that feature. Something that would allow me to set up pools (ok, folders) in a fashion like this:
Trees force us to tie records to specific people, people who are usually tied to other people via relationships. I prefer not to tie people together until I am "reasonably" certain they are the same person. Untying records from people sometimes is not easy for some and for me, tying records to people prematurely is something I simply do not like to do. Shoeboxes serve a purpose, but mine tends to be a big dumping ground that resembles a bunch of receipts at tax time-all thrown together. Ignored results are in "one big box of ignored people" with no organization to it. How do I find all those people I ignored when searching for a Benjamin Butler that I now would like to go through again? It would be nice if the shoebox and undesired results could be somehow organized. I don't want to have to tie every record that I might need later to someone in a tree.
In fact, I don't often organize my research in "trees." Trees are used after I've got things reasonably figured out--not while I'm still figuring it out.
My research is often done in pools.
For years I was "stuck" on my Ira Sargent. There were several Iras who were contemporaries in Iowa and Illinois in the later 1800s and early 1900s. I never dreamed there would be so many. These Iras were born in the 1840s or so and in the same general area of New York, Canada, and Michigan. I may eventally discover that they are distantly related to each other and it's always possible that I prematurely eliminate a match. I knew a few of the entries were for my Ira (given what I knew about him), but not all could be him--no one can be in five census enumerations for the same year. As my research progressed, I couldn't be certain for all of the entries which Ira they were. But I couldn't tie them to specific Iras. I just knew that they were Iras and that a few were certainly mine, others might be mine, and others certainly weren't.
I put them in a pool....an Ira pool. Originally I wasn't certain how to sort out the various census references and other iems into specific Iras. I knew that all the references were to an Ira. I didn't want to tie them to one Ira in a tree. What would have been nice if I could have saved them in some sort of online "Ira pool" of matches.
That's how I research and organize. Back in the day, I made cards for each entry I had on Ira in a census or other record. I could re-arrange the cards into little "pools" on a table.
- My Ira pool
- The Clayton County, Iowa Ira pool
- The Mason County, Illinois Ira pool
- Who knows which Ira, but I don't want to lose them, pool
Stacks may be a better word, but pools makes a better metaphor. I use pools and I think many other genealogists do as well.
Like most people, I work on more than one family at once. A shoebox with all items of interest can contain too many people and may easily contain "hopefuls" for completely different people on which I am working. I'd like to be able to have pools in my shoebox were I could put my "Ira matches," my "Benjamin Butler matches" and separate them from other people I have added to my shoebox. The shoebox doesn't have to have pools, but it sure could have folders that would serve the same purpose.
I'd like to organize my "ignore" people as well on sites that has that feature. Something that would allow me to set up pools (ok, folders) in a fashion like this:
- Ignored while searching for Ira Sargent
- Ignored while searching for Benjamin Butler
- Ignored while searching for Philip Troutfetter
- Ignored and never want to see again
I don't swim, but I sure wish the major websites would allow me to play in the pool.
08 March 2014
Rampley Was Not Exactly A College Student in 1893
I think I've got the answer to why the "college" attendee of the 1890s indicated in the 1940 census that he had only gone through the 6th grade. It wasn't the census that was wrong. It was my research that was incomplete.
Page 21 of the "Carthage College Catalog 1890-1895" on Mocavo.com suggests the reason:
Edward Rampley was in the "Middle and Junior Classes" of the Academic Department which is descried in the image above. The Academic Department was "designed for those preparing for college." When I went back and read the pages before the Rampley entry, there were entries for the "College" and the senior, junior, sophomore, and freshmen classes within the College. The "Academic Department" was styled as an "Academy" in the catalog, but was intended to prepare students for college work.
Rampley wasn't really attending Carthage College.
The 1940 census for Rampley implies a birth year of approximately 1879. This is consistent with what is known about Rampley. This would have made him approximately 14 when he attended in 1893--a little young for traditional college attendance during this time period.
What I also could have done, but chose not to based upon these two discoveries, was to have searched for Rampley's classmates in the census to approximate their ages. If the description of the "Academic Department" had not made the purpose of it clear, the ages of Rampley's classmates might have suggested that he really was not attending the College itself.
Genealogy Lessons:
Page 21 of the "Carthage College Catalog 1890-1895" on Mocavo.com suggests the reason:
Edward Rampley was in the "Middle and Junior Classes" of the Academic Department which is descried in the image above. The Academic Department was "designed for those preparing for college." When I went back and read the pages before the Rampley entry, there were entries for the "College" and the senior, junior, sophomore, and freshmen classes within the College. The "Academic Department" was styled as an "Academy" in the catalog, but was intended to prepare students for college work.
Rampley wasn't really attending Carthage College.
The 1940 census for Rampley implies a birth year of approximately 1879. This is consistent with what is known about Rampley. This would have made him approximately 14 when he attended in 1893--a little young for traditional college attendance during this time period.
What I also could have done, but chose not to based upon these two discoveries, was to have searched for Rampley's classmates in the census to approximate their ages. If the description of the "Academic Department" had not made the purpose of it clear, the ages of Rampley's classmates might have suggested that he really was not attending the College itself.
Genealogy Lessons:
- Don't assume the census is wrong. In this case it was correct.
- Read the entire document--the earlier section of the catalog explained what the "Academic Department" was.
- Look at the neighbors for clues--in this case classmates. Their ages would have suggested that Rampley (and they) were not traditional aged college students.
- Avoid drawing conclusions until the research is really done.
The original post about James Edward Rampley is here.
07 March 2014
Bill West's A Week of No Ancestry.com Challenge
Bill West posted his "Week Without Ancestry.com Challenge" yesterday on his blog. It was done with a little prompting from me after I saw some of the conversations he was having in social media regarding the permanent switch on Ancestry.com to "new search."
Underlying my challenge was the belief I have that most genealogists have significant amounts of material untranscribed, unorganized, and unalyzed in their paper and virtual files. Clues just sitting there for the picking. Leads that never get noticed. I also perhaps vainly thought Bill needed a diversion from Ancestry.com.
And many researchers have people in their "trees" that they've never looked for in actual records, either microfilm or digital copies. FamilySearch has growing numbers of those materials every day.
I am one of those genealogists myself who occasionally spends too much time "fiddling" around on database sites not getting anything done. One more search turns into three hours with nothing to show for it.
I'm not certain if I'm taking the Ancestry.com challenge. But, I bet if I did, I'd have a long list of things to search for on Ancestry.com the minute the week was up---all because I spent some serious time analyzing what I already had.
Instead of trying to harvest more search results and more hits.
Give it a thought. If you let go of some of your online sites for a week and got really into what you've already got, what discoveries would you make?
Maybe it's even time for a "Week Without Facebook."
Underlying my challenge was the belief I have that most genealogists have significant amounts of material untranscribed, unorganized, and unalyzed in their paper and virtual files. Clues just sitting there for the picking. Leads that never get noticed. I also perhaps vainly thought Bill needed a diversion from Ancestry.com.
And many researchers have people in their "trees" that they've never looked for in actual records, either microfilm or digital copies. FamilySearch has growing numbers of those materials every day.
I am one of those genealogists myself who occasionally spends too much time "fiddling" around on database sites not getting anything done. One more search turns into three hours with nothing to show for it.
I'm not certain if I'm taking the Ancestry.com challenge. But, I bet if I did, I'd have a long list of things to search for on Ancestry.com the minute the week was up---all because I spent some serious time analyzing what I already had.
Instead of trying to harvest more search results and more hits.
Give it a thought. If you let go of some of your online sites for a week and got really into what you've already got, what discoveries would you make?
Maybe it's even time for a "Week Without Facebook."
FamilySearch Updates-1900 & 1920 Census, Pittsburgh Deaths, Indiana Marriages
The following are showing as updated since our last FamilySearch update:
Paging Mifs Stephens-Whatever Her First Name Is
I was actually looking for Rufus Stephens, but ran across Mifs Stephens instead.
When I saw this search result on Ancestry.com, I was pretty certain I knew what was going on. I was really doubtful there was a "Mifs" Stephens.
Seeing the occupation of milliner in the search results made me more convinced that "Mifs" was not really "Mifs."
The actual image from the census leads me to conclude the actual entry is "Miss Stephens." During the time period in question what looks like an "fs," isn't. It is a double "s." I realize that there are people who transcribe what it "looks" like, but it is important to realize what was meant. In old German script, an "L" looks quite a bit like an English "B." If I encounter that handwriting in the records of an American church, do I transcribe it was it "looks" or what was meant? I'd go with the intent.
In this case, the census enumerator has already set the precedent for not listing women by their names. The "Widow Graham" is listed right above "Miss Stephens." The enumerator is simply following his apparent pattern by using women's first names.
Another good instance of where searching without the first name may help you locate the person of interest.
And another good instance of looking at an entry in the context of other entries on the page or record.
06 March 2014
Some Thoughts on the Demise of Old Search at Ancestry.com
If you've no interest in Ancestry.com, just bypass this post.
I posted this to my personal Facebook page, but thought I'd post it here as well. Warning: there is a swear word in this post.
This will sound odd coming from me, but that's ok. Keeping people guessing is a good thing.
I'm not happy with "new search" either. I liked "old search."
That said, I'm not going moan about the changes any more. While I think from a standpoint of standard research methodolgy, the vague nature of some search terms is problematic...I'm just going to work around it. Hell, it may even be fodder for blog posts.
I've got too many problem people to write up, too many articles to write, too many records to transcribe, and too many 18th and 17th century laws to figure out to devote any more time to what search Ancestry.com has decided in their non-infinite wisdom to use. Yeah, I used that word. No one has infinite wisdom. If they did, they'd fix the weather, cure cancer, and create world peace. They sure as hell wouldn't waste their infinite wisdom on Ancestry.com's search. At least I hope not.
One wise sage, in response to an issue of much greater concern than Ancestry.com search said to me in response to that matter, "what is, is." If the wise old sage can make that remark about that situation, I can make that remark about Ancestry.com.
And as I mentioned in response to Bill West's post "genealogy existed before Ancestry.com and genealogy will exist after Ancestry.com. Sort of like groceries are still around even though A and P has come and gone."
And if you don't know what the A and P is....well, that just proves my point.
Moving on. Clark Sargent and Mary Dingman are dead, but they wait for no one.
I posted this to my personal Facebook page, but thought I'd post it here as well. Warning: there is a swear word in this post.
This will sound odd coming from me, but that's ok. Keeping people guessing is a good thing.
I'm not happy with "new search" either. I liked "old search."
That said, I'm not going moan about the changes any more. While I think from a standpoint of standard research methodolgy, the vague nature of some search terms is problematic...I'm just going to work around it. Hell, it may even be fodder for blog posts.
I've got too many problem people to write up, too many articles to write, too many records to transcribe, and too many 18th and 17th century laws to figure out to devote any more time to what search Ancestry.com has decided in their non-infinite wisdom to use. Yeah, I used that word. No one has infinite wisdom. If they did, they'd fix the weather, cure cancer, and create world peace. They sure as hell wouldn't waste their infinite wisdom on Ancestry.com's search. At least I hope not.
One wise sage, in response to an issue of much greater concern than Ancestry.com search said to me in response to that matter, "what is, is." If the wise old sage can make that remark about that situation, I can make that remark about Ancestry.com.
And as I mentioned in response to Bill West's post "genealogy existed before Ancestry.com and genealogy will exist after Ancestry.com. Sort of like groceries are still around even though A and P has come and gone."
And if you don't know what the A and P is....well, that just proves my point.
Moving on. Clark Sargent and Mary Dingman are dead, but they wait for no one.
Ancestry.com's Old Search Bites the Dust
According to my sources, the "old search" at Ancestry.com is gone.
If you are unhappy with Ancestry.com's abandonment of the "old search" send an email here: searchfeedback@ancestry.com.
Whether it makes any difference remains to be seen.
If you are unhappy with Ancestry.com's abandonment of the "old search" send an email here: searchfeedback@ancestry.com.
Whether it makes any difference remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)