Another Ancestry.com Slider Quirk - Orpha Hildreth

I received an email from Genea-Musings reader, Glenn in Kentucky, and he had a quirk happen with one of his searches using the Ancestry.com sliders.  He permitted me to post about it:

Glenn's search terms on the Ancestry.com "Search" tab were:

*  Check the "Match all terms exactly" box
*  Given name:  Orpha
*  Last name: [blank]
*  Event: Birth [select from dropdown menu]
*  Birth date:  1889 +/- 1 year [select from dropdown menu]
*  Birth location:  Kentucky, USA [select from dropdown menu]
*  Family member:  Spouse [select from dropdown menu]
*  Spouse's last name:  Hildreth

The search screen looks like this:

The Search Results look like this:

Glenn started tweaking the sliders without changing the data.  He changed the "Born" slider to plus or minus 5 years, and saw:

No matches!  He didn't change the birth year, yet br broadening the range to 1884-1894, he got no matches.  We can see that there is a 1930 U.s. census record in screen two above.  Why is this?

I changed the slider to plus or minus 10 years, and the one match appears:

When I did the search above, I noted that the Slider for given name was initially set at the third setting, meaning "Exact, sound alike, and similar."  I wondered if there would be more matches if I moved the slider to the next setting ("Exact, similar, sound alike and initials"), so I did that, and saw:

Another match appeared for the right person...and all I supposedly added was the initials.

I tried to duplicate Glenn's quirk with several of my own ancestors, and could not duplicate this particular problem.  Glenn said in an email that he had seen comments about similar problems on the Ancestry message boards also.

It appears to me that Ancestry.com has a few coding problems in their slider feature.  I imagine that they will sort it out and fix it in the next week or two.  We all want to have confidence that we receive the results that reflect our search field entries.

Thank you to Glenn for providing this quirk example.  It led me to research and write the previous post about An Ancestry.com Search Quirk, and Slider Numbers.

The URL for this post is:

Copyright (c) 2014, Randall J. Seaver

An Ancestry.com Search Quirk, and Slider Numbers

I wrote about the Ancestry.com Sliders in My Ancestry.com Sliders Have Appeared - My First Look at Using Them yesterday, and have spent some more time "playing" with them.

I've found at least one quirk so far, and want to show it so that readers are not surprised when they encounter it.  Yesterday, I started my search using "Not Exact" search terms.  Today, I'm going to start with "Match all terms exactly."

Study 1:

On the "Search" tab with the "Advanced Form," I used my great-grandfather Henry Austin Carringer (1853-1946) as the target person. This is usually how I start most of my searches.  The search field entries are:

*  "Match all terms exactly" box checked
*  First name:  "hen" [using the wild card to catch spelling variations]
*  Last name:  "car*ger" [using the wild card to catch spelling variations]
*  Event:  "Birth" selected from "Event" dropdown menu
*  Birth Year:  "1853" and "+/- 2 years" [selected from drop down menu]
*  Birth Location:  "Pennsylvania, USA" [selected from dropdown menu]

Here is the search form:

Here are the Results of my search:

Even though I requested an exact search for the four search fields, only the Birth Location slider is shown in the "Exact position.  The First name and Last name sliders are shown in the "Exact, sounds like, and similar" position.  The Birth year slider is in the "+/- 2 years" position, which is correct.

Why aren't the Given Name and Last Name sliders in the "Exact" position?  Perhaps it's because I used a wild card in both of them?  

So I went back and put the full names in the search fields, with the same Birth year andl ocation information.  Here are the results:

Even though I specifically said I wanted only "Exact" matches when I used the full Given Name and Last Name, the two name sliders are shown in the "Exact, Sounds Like, and Similar" position. 

My question is: "If I ask for Exact matches, why don't I receive only exact matches?"  

Another question:  "Is this a designed "feature" - to give the users more than they want to have in their search results?"  Or is it a design flaw?  Does Ancestry think that users don't know how to use the name settings?  I know that those name settings are not widely known by audiences in my presentations on using Ancestry.com.  

Study 2:

Study 2-A:

I wondered how many matches would be returned if I put the two Name sliders for the full name of Henry Carringer in different positions, while keeping the Birth date and location sliders in the same position as above.  Here are my results:

1)  With the Last Name in the "Not Exact" position:

*  Given Name in "Not Exact" position:  52
*  Given Name in "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, and Initials" position:  22
*  Given Name in "Exact, Sounds like and similar" position:  16
*  Given Name in "Exact and similar" position:  16
*  Given Name in "Exact" position:   16

2)  With the Last Name in the "Exact, Similar, Sounds Like, and Initials" position:

*  Given Name in "Not Exact" position:  438
*  Given Name in "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, and Initials" position:  28
*  Given Name in "Exact, Sounds like and similar" position:  17
*  Given Name in "Exact and similar" position:  17
*  Given Name in "Exact" position:   17

3)  With the Last Name in the "Exact, Sounds like, and Similar" position:

*  Given Name in "Not Exact" position:  438
*  Given Name in "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, and Initials" position:  28
*  Given Name in "Exact, Sounds like and similar" position:  17
*  Given Name in "Exact and similar" position:  17
*  Given Name in "Exact" position:   17

4)  With the Last Name in the "Exact and Similar" position:

*  Given Name in "Not Exact" position:  52
*  Given Name in "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, and Initials" position:  22
*  Given Name in "Exact, Sounds like and similar" position:  16
*  Given Name in "Exact and similar" position:  16
*  Given Name in "Exact" position:   16

5)  With the Last Name in the "Exact" position:

*  Given Name in "Not Exact" position:  48
*  Given Name in "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, and Initials" position:  21
*  Given Name in "Exact, Sounds like and similar" position:  16
*  Given Name in "Exact and similar" position:  16
*  Given Name in "Exact" position:   16

Isn't that interesting?  For this example, the "Not Exact," the broadest, slider position gives the same results as the "Exact and Similar" slider position.  

Study 2-B:  

What about keeping the Given name in the same position and varying the Last Name?  Here are the results:

1)  With the Given Name in the "Not Exact" position:

*  Last Name in "Not Exact" position:  52
*  Last Name in "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, and Initials" position:  438
*  Last Name in "Exact, Sounds like and similar" position:  438
*  Last Name in "Exact and similar" position:  52
*  Last Name in "Exact" position:   48

2)  With the Given Name in the "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, and Initials" position:

*  Last Name in "Not Exact" position:  22
*  Last Name in "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, and Initials" position:  28
*  Last Name in "Exact, Sounds like and similar" position:  28
*  Last Name in "Exact and similar" position:  22
*  Last Name in "Exact" position:   21

3)  With the Given Name in the "Exact, Sounds Like, and Similar" position:

*  Last Name in "Not Exact" position:  16
*  Last Name in "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, and Initials" position:  17
*  Last Name in "Exact, Sounds like and similar" position:  17
*  Last Name in "Exact and similar" position:  16
*  Last Name in "Exact" position:   16

4)  With the Given Name in the "Exact and Similar" position:

*  Last Name in "Not Exact" position:  16
*  Last Name in "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, and Initials" position:  17
*  Last Name in "Exact, Sounds like and similar" position:  17
*  Last Name in "Exact and similar" position:  16
*  Last Name in "Exact" position:   16

5)  With the Given Name in the "Exact" position:

*  Last Name in "Not Exact" position:  16
*  Last Name in "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, and Initials" position:  17
*  Last Name in "Exact, Sounds like and similar" position:  17
*  Last Name in "Exact and similar" position:  16
*  Last Name in "Exact" position:   16

For this example, it didn't make any difference where the given name was set for the last three positions.  That probably reflects the small number of persons that meet the other criteria for the Last name, the birth year and the Birth location.  

I have a problem with the "Not Exact" setting results for both the given Name and the Last Name.  There were only 52 matches - it's like the search did not consider Given names other than Henry or H or last names other than the "Exact" name and its "Sound like" variants.  

I've only done this for one person, who has only 8 records and 8 tree photos in the Ancestry collection.  The 17th match is for a Henry McCormick, which is somehow associated as a similar or sounds like name with Henry Carringer.  

Of the 52 matches for the Given name = "Not Exact" and Last name = "not exact, 8 records are for the Exact person, 8 photos are for the exact person, 5 are for a middle initial H with a Carringer (or sounds like) last name, and 31 first names are different but for a Carringer (or sounds like) last name.  

This second study may show why Ancestry.com doesn't make an "Exact Search" request start out as an "Exact Search" as shown by the slider position in the first study.  It looks like it doesn't make a lot of difference.

I think two of my conclusions here are:

*  Don't use the "Not Exact" Given name setting with the "Not Exact" Last name setting for a broad search.  It does not cast the broadest search for a person.

*  Use the second setting - "Exact, Similar, Sounds like, or Initials" - for the Last Name and the "Not Exact" setting for the "Given Name" in order to cast the broadest search.  Your "best matches" will still be at the top of the results, but you may need to look down the list for the matches where a Given name is a middle initial in a record.

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2014/03/an-ancestrycom-search-quirk-and-slider.html

Copyright (c) 2014, Randall J. Seaver

MyHeritage Team Photographs Israeli Cemetery and Saves it to BillionGraves

I received this via email from MyHeritage today:

================================================

I wanted to let you know that the MyHeritage Israel team just kick-started our global initiative that we recently announced together with BillionGraves, to digitally preserve the world's cemeteries.

We decided that it was important to go out as a team and experience the process of photographing and documenting gravestones using the BillionGraves app, and so 80 members of the MyHeritage team went on a grey and cloudy Sunday morning to the local cemetery - Segula - located in Petah Tikva, Israel. In just 3 hours we captured over 50,000 gravestone images and completed nearly 70% of the entire cemetery. 

It was the largest event of its kind ever held in Israel. In fact, BillionGraves told us that this was the largest single-day cemetery project held so far using the BillionGraves app. With the fast pace growth of the app, it is sure to be surpassed soon with other similar cemetery projects.

As we know, most of the world's cemeteries have never been systematically documented nor has their information made available online. In addition, age and exposure to the elements are rendering gravestones illegible, making this project even more urgent. This initiative is really important for genealogists and for everyone in order to make family history available to all. 

We are calling on people around the world to join us in this project, and we are happy to help and guide people in the process with advice and resources. We invite everyone to visit  http://billiongraves.com/myheritage to register and download the application. This will help millions of people to discover the final resting place of their ancestors and relatives and the information it includes. 

Please read more about our activity in the official blog post: http://blog.myheritage.com/2014/03/myheritage-employees-digitize-an-entire-cemetery-to-kickstart-global-initiative/

We'd be happy if you would embed our photo slideshow (please see the special file with HTML code attached). Feel free to use any of the photos from our blog post.

Please help us spread the word about this global mission and gather support for preserving this rich information for generations to come.

If you know about any society that will like to use the app for their cemetery project, let them know my email and we will share all our knowledge and help them get organized with pleasure.

=========================================

The MyHeritage blog post has photographs of the MyHeritage team at work.  

This would be a wonderful project for a genealogical society to undertake.  

It would be interesting to know what advice and guidelines the photographers were given as to getting permissions to photograph, defining which area of the cemetery to photograph, photo settings, lighting issues, etc.  

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2014/03/myheritage-team-photographs-israeli.html

copyright (c) 2014, Randall J. Seaver

Tuesday's Tip - Check Out New Hampshire Resources on FamilySearch

This week's Tuesday's Tip is to:  Check out genealogy resources for New Hampshire on FamilySearch record collections and the Research Wiki.

New Hampshire is one of my ancestral states, so I'm very interested in the online resources available for the state, several counties, and the towns where my ancestors resided.

The New Hampshire page on the FamilySearch Research Wiki discusses the history of the state, lists the counties, the state resources available.

By clicking on the light green button titled "New Hampshire Online Records" the reader can see all of the Online Records available on many genealogy websites:

There are 14 record collections for New Hampshire in the FamilySearch Record Collections at present (type "new hampshire" in the search field at the top of the left-hand frame as shown below):

The 14 record collections for New Hampshire include:

*  New Hampshire, Birth Records, Early to 1900, 480,354 records, updated 12 Feb 2014
*  New Hampshire, Births and Christenings, 1714-1904, 401,037 records, updated 05 Dec 2013
*  New Hampshire, Cheshire County, Probate Estate Files, 1886-1900, Browse Images, updated  24 Dec 2013
*  New Hampshire, County Naturalization Records, 1771-2001, Browse Images, updated 30 Oct 2013
*  New Hampshire, County Probate Estate Files, 1769-1936, Browse Images, updated 02 Nov 2013

*  New Hampshire, County Probate Records, 1660-1973, Browse Images, updated 30 Oct 2013
*  New Hampshire, Death Certificates, 1938-1959, Browse Images, updated 31 Jan 2014
*  New Hampshire, Death Records, 1654-1947, 581,056  records, updated 12 Feb 2014
*  New Hampshire, Deaths and Burials, 1784-1949, 248,856  records, updated 05 Dec 2013
*  New Hampshire, Hillsborough County, Manchester, Cemetery Records, 1800-2007, Browse Images, updated 24 Dec 2013

*  New Hampshire, Marriage Records, 1637-1947, 501,128  records, updated 12 Feb 2014
*  New Hampshire, Marriages, 1720-1920, 442,376  records, updated 05 Dec 2013
*  New Hampshire, Naturalization and Probate Records, 1643-1948, Browse Images, updated 31 Oct 2013
*  New Hampshire, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1636-1947, Browse Images, updated 24 Dec 2013

The collections with "Browse images" are not indexed, but they are waypointed into sections such as County, record type, volume number, etc.  In general, these collections were digitized from microfilm images. 

As always, check the list of historical record collections occasionally to see if more record collections have been added or updated. 

The URL for this post is:   http://www.geneamusings.com/2014/03/tuesdays-tip-check-out-new-hampshire.html

Copyright (c) 2014, Randall J. Seaver

My Ancestry.com Sliders Have Appeared - My First Look at Using Them

I no sooner posted Where Did My Ancestry.com Sliders Go? How I Search Without Them this morning, and the next time I brought up Ancestry.com and did a search the "sliders" appeared.  I didn't have time to update the post this morning, so I decided to write a new post about them tonight.

1)  I did the same search as in this morning's post - Isaac Seaver, born in 1823 in Massachusetts (with default settings, no exact match box checked, etc.).  Here are the Results on the "Categories" tab:

You can see the "Sliders" at the top of the left-hand panel under "Search Filters."  Since I entered data into four search fields on the search form, there are four sliders, one for each term.

2)  I can still edit the search form by clicking on "Edit Search" (below the sliders) or by hitting the "r" key (a hot key for "refine search), as shown below:

 On the screen above, I can use the search filters for Given name, Last name, and Location fields by clicking on the "Use default settings" link to show the dropdown menus - as I showed in this mornings post.  I didn't change anything for the search.

3)  Back on the Results page, I slide the search filter sliders to the settings I want to use.  I chose:

*  Given name:  position #2 - "Exact, similar, sounds like, and initials"
*  Last name:  position #3 - "Exact, sounds like, and similar"
*  Birth year:  position #4 - +/-  2 years"
*  Birth place:  position #5 - "State"

Before I click the "Update" button, the sliders look like this:

3)  I clicked the green "Update" button on the screen above, and saw the Results that reflected my slider settings:

And the "Records" tab results show them also:

  As before, the results above are mostly for "my" Isaac Seaver, because the search found them based on the search criteria I chose using the sliders.  

4)  I was curious just what each position for each slider type was, so I hovered my mouse over the slider at each position (with #1 being the broadest, and #6 being the most exact) and found that:

a)  Given name:

*  Position #1:  Not exact
*  Position #2:  Exact, similar, sounds like, and initials
*  Position #3:  Exact, similar and sounds like
*  Position #4:  Exact and similar
*  Position #5:  Exact

b)  Last name:

*  Position #1:  Not exact
*  Position #2:  Exact, similar, sounds like, and initials
*  Position #3:  Exact, similar and sounds like
*  Position #4:  Exact and similar
*  Position #5:  Exact

c)  Birth date:

*  Position #1:  Not exact
*  Position #2:  +/- 10 years
*  Position #3:  +/- 5 years
*  Position #4:  +/- 2 years
*  Position #5:  +/- 1 year
*  Position #6:  Exact

d)  Location:

*  Position #1:  Not exact
*  Position #2:  Country
*  Position #3:  State and adjacent states
*  Position #4:  State
*  Position #5:  Exact

Sliders for other events will be similar, I think.  For instance, a Death year slider will be similar to the Birth year slider.

The next question I have is "how many matches do I receive based on varying the positions."  I'll try to work that up in the next day or two.

5)  Please note that the new slider settings are very similar to the settings that the user can select on the "Search" tab page for names, dates and locations.  They just made them easier to use without going back to the "Search" page.  The key is to select wisely, and to be sure to click on the green "Update" button to see the new results.

The so-called "New Search" is not really "new" any longer.  It;'s been around for three or four years, and the search algorithms have been manipulated in an effort to bring the user the best set of results possible.

Users need to understand that the search results are dependent upon the user input - if the user inputs a name, date or location that is grossly inaccurate, the search engine is not likely to have records at or near the top of the list of Results.  That's the user's fault, not the search engine's fault.

I like and appreciate all of the Search features added by the Ancestry.com user experience team over the past few years.  They have made it possible to  find records for my ancestors much more efficiently and faster than ever before.  I appreciate that!

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2014/03/my-ancestrycom-sliders-have-appeared-my.html

Copyright (c) 2014, Randall J. Seaver

Amanuensis Monday - Post 209: 1827 Deed of John Treat to Amos Underhill in Erie County, New York

Genea-blogger John Newmark (who writes the excellent TransylvanianDutch blog) started his own Monday blog theme many months ago called Amanuensis Monday. What does "amanuensis" mean? John offers this definition:  

"A person employed to write what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another."  

The subject today is the deed by John and Eunice Treat selling land in Aurora, Erie County, New York to Amos Underhill in 1827 [starts on left-hand page on the image below]:

Here is my transcription of this entry (handwritten portions in italics) in Erie County, New York, Land Records, Liber 20, Page 240 (accessed in the "New York, Land Records, 1630-1975" collection on https://FamilySearch.org):

[on page 240]

1  John Treat to Amos Underhill
2  This indenture made the seventh day of March in the year ofo ur
3  Lord one thousand eight hundred and twentyseven.  Between John Treat
4  and Eunice his wife of the first part and Amos Underhill of the second part
5  Witnesseth  that the said party of the first part for and in consdieration
6  of the sum of three hundred and twelve dollars and fifty cents, to them in
7  hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt thereof is
8  hereby confirmed and acknowledged have granted, bargained, sold, remised, 
9  released, aliened and confirmed and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell,
10 remise, release, alien and confirm unto the said party of the second
11 part and to his heirs and assigns forever. All that certain piece & parcel of
12 land situate in the town of Aurora, County of Erie and State of New\
13 York, being part of lot number twelve in said town.  Bounded as follows,
14 viz: Beginning at the north east corner of said lot and running South-
15 westerly along the margin of the highway, about five chains and seventy
16 five links to the margin of the highway running northwesterly, thence
17 four chains and fifteen links along the margin of said highway
18 to the north line of said lot thence east along said line about seven
19 chains to the place of beginning containing about one acre and thirty
20 one rods of land be the same more or less, according to the plan laid
21 down in the margin hereof.  Together with all and singular the
22 hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging in anywise
23 appertaining and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders
24 unto, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest

[page 241]

25 claim or demand whatsoever of the said party of the first part either in law or
26 equity of, in, and to the above bargained premises with the said hereditaments
27 and appurtenances.  To Have and To Hold the 
28 said premises as above described with the appur-
29 tenances unto the said party of the second
30 part and to his heirs and assigns forever.
31 And the said party of the first part, for themselves
32 and their heirs, executors and administrators do
33 covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and
34 with the said party of the second part his heirs
35 and assigns that at the time of the ensealing
36 and delivery of these presents he is well seized
37 of the premises above conveyed as of a good, sure,
38 perfect, absolute and defensible estate
39 of inheritance in the law in fee simple,
40 and that the above bargained premises with
41 quiet and peacable possession of the said party of the second part, his heirs 
42 and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to
43 claim the whole or any part thereof they will forever warrant and and Defend.
44 In witness whereof the party of the first part have hereunto set their hands
45 and seals the day and year above written.
46 Signed, Sealed and Delivered                   John Treat, S.S.
47 In the presence of  Oren Treat                Eunice Treat S.S.

48 Erie County Ss.  Be it remembered that on this 8th day of March A.D. 1827
49 came before me James Enos a Commissioner to take the acknowledgment
50 of Deeds &c. John Treat whom I know to be the person described who ac-
51 knowledged that the signed, sealed and delivered the same for the uses and 
52 purposes therein contained and I having examined the same and finding
53 therein no material, interlineations, or evasions, do allow the same to be
54 recorded.                                     James Enos.  Com-r.

55 State of New York, Erie County Ss.  Be it remembered that on the fifth
56 day of February 1833 personally appeared before me Peter M. Vosburgh
57 Commissioner of deeds for the County of Erie, the within named Eunice
58 Treat well known to me to be the wife of the withing named John Treat
59 and being by me examined separate and apart from her said husband,
60 acknowledged that she had executed the within deed for the uses and
61 purposes therein mentioned and freely and voluntarily and without
62 any fear or compulsion from her said husband and there appearing
63 herein no material interlineations and the same being satisfactory
64 to me.  I do allow the same to be recorded.
65                                                                     P.M. Vosburgh
66                                                                    Commissioner of Deeds

67 Recorded, Examined and Compared with the original Feb'ry
68 15th 1833 at 3/4 past 1 o'clock P.M.
69                                                               Noah P. Sprague, Clerk

There is a sketch of the land location on the deed page image above:

According to the land description, the plot that Amos Underhill bought in 1827 is in the small triangle in the northeastern corner of the map, bounded by the two crossing highways.  

The source citation for this deed is:

"New York, Land Records, 1630-1975," Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, FamilySearch(https://familysearch.org : accessed 10 December 2012), digital image of clerk's copy, "Erie County, N.Y. Deeds, 1832-1833 Volume 20-21," Volume 20, Pages 240-241 [stamped] (image 125 of 549), James and Eunice Treat to Amos Underhill, written 7 March 1827, recorded 5 February 1833, from FHL US/CAN Microfilm 590018, original records at Erie County, N.Y. courthouse, Buffalo, N.Y.

Amos and Mary (Metcalf) Underhill are my fourth great-grandparents.  They came to Erie county before the War of 1812.  This is not the first land that they owned in Erie County, New York.  They sold this piece of land in 1936.

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2014/03/amanuensis-monday-post-209-1827-deed-of.html

Copyright (c) 2014, Randall J. Seaver

Where Did My Ancestry.com Sliders Go? How I Search Without Them

I was using my laptop computer on Friday night while I was in Hemet, and was happy to see that I had sliders for refined searching on Ancestry.com when I was logged into Ancestry.com.  I tried them out, and considered writing a blog post that night about them, but figured i'll wait until Monday to do that.  So here's the Monday post...

I don't have Ancestry.com sliders today, and I have no clue why.  I'm in the same Ancestry.com account.  I'm searching the same person.  But no sliders.  

Here's my proof:

1)  The "Search" tab screen:

Note that I have information in the following fields:

*  Exact match box not checked.
*  First and middle names:  Isaac
*  Last name:  Seaver
*  Event:  Birth [selected from dropdown list]
*  Year:  1823
*  Birthplace:  Massachusetts, USA [selected from dropdown list]

2)  The results page (using the "Records" tab to see the "best match" records found at the top of the list:

Note that there are NO sliders at the top of the left-hand panel for some reason.  All of my Facebook Friends have them for default-type searches, why don't I?  Ancestry.com is teasing me...

The "Matching Records" at the top of the list of 92,420 matches include these records for "my" Isaac Seaver (born 1823, died 1901):

1.  Ancestry Family Tree entry for Isaac Seaver (1823-1901)
2.  1900 U.S. Federal Census for Isaac Seaver (1823-1901)
3.  1880 U.S. Federal Census for Isaac Seaver (1823-1901)
4.  1870 U.S. Federal Census for Isaac Seaver (1823-1901)
5 to 19:  Public Member Tree photos for records and pictures of Isaac Seaver (1823-1901)
20 to 22:  Birth Records for Isaac Seaver in 1823 from Mass. Town and Vital Records, 1630-1988.  (not duplicates, different entries)
23.  Death Record for Isaac Seaver in 1901 from Massachusetts Vital Records, 1841-1915.
24.  1860 U.S. Federal Census for Isaac Seaver (1823-1901)
25.  1850 U.S. Federal Census for Isaac Seaver (1823-1901)
26. U.S. Civil War Draft Registration, 1863-1865 for Isaac Seaver (1823-1901)
27.  Westminster, Mass. 1864 Militia List for Isaac Seaver from Mass. Town and Vital Records, 1630-1988 (this was a new find for me)
28.  Find A Grave Index entry for Isaac Seaver (1823-1901)
29.  Westminster, Mass. 1865 Militia List for Isaac Seaver from Mass. Town and Vital Records, 1630-1988 (this was a new find for me)
30.  Marriage Record for Isaac Seaver and Alvina Lewis in 1888, from Mass. Town and Vital Records, 1630-1988.
31 and 32.  Marriage Record for Isaac Seaver and Lucretia Smith in 1851 from Mass. Town and Vital Records, 1630-1988.  (not duplicates, different entries)
33.  Westminster, Mass. 1866 Militia List for Isaac Seaver from Mass. Town and Vital Records, 1630-1988 (this was a new find for me)
34 and 35.  Marriage Record for Isaac Seaver and Lucretia Smith in 1851 from Mass. Town and Vital Records, 1630-1988. (not duplicates, different entries)
36.  Marriage Record for Isaac Seaver and Juliet Glazier in 1846 from Mass. Town and Vital Records, 1630-1988.
37.  Marriage Record for Isaac Seaver and Lucretia Smith in 1851 from Mass. Vital Records, 1841-1915.
38.  Marriage Record for Isaac Seaver and Alvina Bradley in 1888 from Mass. Vital Records, 1841-1915.
39.  Marriage Record for Isaac Seaver and Alvina Lewis in 1888 from Mass. Vital Records, 1841-1915.
40.  Marriage Record for Isaac Seaver and Juliet Glazier in 1846 from Mass. Vital Records, 1841-1915.
41.  Isaac Seaver Civil War Soldier Record and Profile, 1861-1865
42 to 45.  Public Member Tree Photos and Scanned Documents
47.  Marriage Record of Lucretia Smith (to Isaac Seaver) in Mass. Marriage Records, 1840-1915.
48.  Eliza A. Seaver Marriage Record to Isaac Seaver in Vermont Vital Records, 1720-1908 [not my guy]
49 and 50.  Marriage Record of Lucretia Smith (to Isaac Seaver) in Mass. Town and vital Records, 1630-1988.

Out of the top 50 matches, 49 of them are for my Isaac Seaver.  There are more matches for him in the set of 50 records also - especially City Directory matches.  However not all of the matches are "my guy."

3)  I clicked on the "Categories" tab on the Results page and saw the list of categories with records that match my search criteria:

Note that there are no sliders in the left-hand panel...still.

I could search within each Category item if I wanted to, and the matches would, generally, put "my guy" at the top of the list.

For instance, for the 1900 U.S. census, here is the top of the list:

Still no sliders in the left-hand panel.

5)  I clicked on the link for the record at the top of the 1900 U.S. Census list above, and saw:

6)  Doesn't everybody start with "easy" searches like this - with only a name, birth date (if known) and birth place (if known), and just default matches?  The Ancestry.com search engine find records very efficiently that match your search field criteria.  And it presents the "Best Matches" at the top of the "Records" tab listing.  I think that is fantastic.

I entered data into four search fields - given name, last name, birth year, birth place (think of four stars).  The first 41 matches found records for all four of them (with a birth year variance of 1 year).  Granted, I had the birth year in the Photos attached to my Ancestry Member Tree.

Because I started with "default" matches for everything, it found a lot of matches (92,420 of them).  For my search above, the system looked for four star matches, then three-star, two-star, etc.

7)  If I clicked the "Exact match" box at the top of the search screen, I would get many fewer matches because I'm narrowing the search.  But I would also miss the variant name spellings of the given and last names.  Or I can use wild cards for the names and find variant spellings.

I can choose refined settings for the given name, last name, add some range to the birth year, etc.  For instance, the Given Name settings include:

All you have to do is click on the "Use default settings" link and pick from the dropdown box.

The Last Name settings are similar  (just click on the "Use default settings" link):

And the Location settings have refinements too (just click on the "Use default settings" link):

8)  I realize that I used someone with lots of records and uploaded images in my tree to do this blog post.  I will get similar results for every 19th and 20th century ancestor I search for.  Records are sparser before 1850, but the search processes above should work before 1850 also, but with fewer matches for "my guy."

I usually start with exact matches (so that I get fewer extraneous matches), but with a 2-year range on birth year. When I do that, I miss the name variants and records that don't have a birth year or birth place associated with it.  So I often use wild cards to cover the name variants, and expand the birth year range and perhaps the birth place range to find more records.  When I find very little, then I use the "default settings" for all search fields, and go through the top 100 to 200 matches.  I rarely have to do that.

9)  So how do you search on Ancestry.com?  Do you use the exact matches or default matches first?  Do you add a birth year and birth place?  Do you use the "Records" tab or the "Categories" tab on the results page?

10)  I'm still wondering where my sliders went.  Maybe I should check the nearby Applebees.  Take my laptop.  Maybe they're there!

Frankly, I don't need them.  The name and location setting options cover them and I know how to use them.  If, or when, I get sliders, I will do a similar exercise for the same search above and tell you if anything different occurs.  I doubt that it will.

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2014/03/where-did-my-ancestrycom-sliders-go-how.html

Copyright (c) 2014, Randall J. Seaver

Best of the Genea-Blogs - 2 to 8 March 2014

Hundreds of genealogy and family history bloggers write thousands of posts every week about their research, their families, and their interests. I appreciate each one of them and their efforts.

My criteria for "Best of ..." are pretty simple - I pick posts that advance knowledge about genealogy and family history, address current genealogy issues, provide personal family history, are funny or are poignant. I don't list posts destined for daily blog prompts or meme submissions (but I do include summaries of them), or my own posts.

Here are my picks for great reads from the genealogy blogs for this past week:

* !2 Genealogical Resources to Look For at Your Local Library by Karin Hadden on The Art of Genealogy blog.  Karin found quite a few items of interest in your locals, what have you found?

*  Has Evernote Made Research Logs Obsolete? by Denise Barrett Olson on the Moultrie Creek Gazette blog.  Denise shares her use of Evernote to capture search results and documents as part of her genealogy research process.

*  Exploring New Formats for Genealogy Instruction by Amy Coffin on The We Tree Genealogy Blog.  Amy, and her readers, continue the discussion about conferences, institutes, seminars and other educational opportunities.  Read the comments too.

*  Find A Grave App Now Available! by Thomas MacEntee on the Hack Genealogy blog.  Thomas provides directions and commentary on the features of the new Find A Grave mobile app for iOS devices.

*  The Divorce by Michael Lacopo on the Hoosier Daddy? blog.  Michael found the divorce record in 1982 and it revealed much more than expected.

*  Tuesday's Tip:  Podcasts by Miriam Robbins on the Ancestories: The Stories of My Ancestors blog.  Miriam lists the available genealogy-oriented podcasts for our listening pleasure.

*  Conferences and New Formats by Karen Blackmore on Karen's Genealogy Oasis blog.  Karen shares her thoughts on conferences and other learning experiences.

*  Family History in 2050: DNA's Impact by Nathan W. Murphy on the FamilySearch Blog.  Well, this is different...seer or humorist?  I want to hear what the genetic genealogists have to say.

*  A Visit to the Rhode Island State Archives by Diane Boumenot on the One Rhode Island Family blog.  Diane shares her experiences at these Archives and some of the interesting records she found.  I need to go there...

*  Sliding Around: Ancestry Rolls Out New Sliders to Edit Search Results by Diane Haddad on The Genealogy Insider blog.  Diane describes this new feature on Ancestry.com.

*  How Do You Handle URLs in Citations? by Jill K. Morelli on the Genealogy Certification: My Personal Journal blog.  Great question, and interesting discussion.

*  My Commitment to PERSI by Jen Baldwin on the Ancestral Breezes blog.  Jen has been finding "good stuff" in PERSI.  Have you looked yet?

*  Who Do You Think You Are? Live 2014 by Emily Aulicino on the DNA - Genealem's Genetic Genealogy blog.  Emily reports on her WDYTYA? experience in London, and more.

These genea-bloggers wrote weekly pick posts and news summary posts this week:

*  NN Genealogy Things You Need to Know This Morning, Sunday, 2 Mar 2014; Monday, 3 Mar 2014; Tuesday, 4 Mar 2014; Wednesday, 5 Mar 2014; Thursday, 6 Mar 2014; Friday, 7 Mar 2014; Saturday, 8 Mar 2014 by Caroline M. Pointer on the 4YourFamilyStory.com blog.

*  Follow Friday ~ Fab Finds for March 7, 2014 by Jana Last on Jana's Genealogy and Family History Blog.

*  Friday's Finds - 3/7/14 by Julie Cahill Tarr on Julie's Genealogy & History Hub blog.

*  Saturday Serendipity (March 8,. 2014) by John D. Tew on the Filiopietism Prism blog.

Readers are encouraged to go to the blogs listed above and read their articles, and add their blogs to your Favorites, Feedly, another RSS feed, or email if you like what you read. Please make a comment to them also - all bloggers appreciate feedback on what they write.

Did I miss a great genealogy blog post? Tell me! I am currently reading posts from over 1470 genealogy bloggers using Feedly, but I still miss quite a few it seems.

Read past Best of the Genea-Blogs posts here.

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2014/03/best-of-genea-blogs-2-to-8-march-2014_9.html

Copyright (c) 2014, Randall J. Seaver  

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun - A Fearless Females Prompt

It's Saturday Night - 

time for more Genealogy Fun! 

Your mission, should you decide to accept it (cue the Mission Impossible! music) is to:

1)  Read Lisa Alzo's blog post Back for a Fourth Year: Fearless Females: 31 Blogging Prompts to Celebrate Women's History Month on her blog, The Accidental Genealogist.  [Yes, I know it was last year, but Lisa's using the same list this year.]

2)  Choose one of her daily blog prompts from the list (this is March 8th, do that one if you don't want to choose another), and write about it.

3)  Tell us about it in a blog post of your own, in a comment to this blog post, in a Facebook post or a Google+ post.

Here's mine:

I'm going to choose the March 8th prompt :  "Did one of your female ancestors leave a diary, journal, or collection of letters? Share an entry or excerpt."

My great-grandmother, Della (Smith) Carringer (1862-1944) kept a scrapbook, wrote letters to family and friends, and kept a journal for at least one year, 1929.  I have transcribed the journal in my Della's Journal series.  

I have transcribed several of the letters that were in the "collection" of artifacts, ephemera and papers.  One of them has been very useful - a rough draft of a letter she wrote to at least one sister or cousin, and perhaps to several of them.  Here it is:

Letter from Della (Smith) Carringer to her "cousins" (unspecified). Undated, although it is probably October 1903. No envelope. The letter is on “Greetings from Southern California” letterhead, with three pictures (copyright 1901 by Edw. H. Mitchell S.F.):

San Diego
510 Watkins Ave.

Dear Cousins,

Your good letter recived and I was so surprised to hear of two more boys in the family but I know George is proud now the men always are when it is a boy. I always wanted a girl I think they are just as nice don’t you? Wish I could have had my two boys to raise together. Hope you all can keep yours they are so much company one for the other. But I am thankfull for my one boy. He will be twelve next month. He is doing nicely in school now. 

If it is not to much trouble when you write next time give me the childrens ages for I want to set down all of the cousins children and see how big a tree we will be in fifty years from now. Davie was fourty the 15th of this month so that makes the fourth to enter the four tens if Orpha & Nellie had lived. 1 I am the oldest. 2 Orpha next then 3 Nellie & 4 Davie. 5 (Ada dead). 6 Mary Dyar. 7 Matie Smith. 8 (Aggie Smith dead). Then 10 George 9 Myrtle Crouch. 11 Amy. 12 Willie C. 13 Lutie S. (dead). 14 Louie. Bert Vaux 15 (Ralph Crouch dead), 16 Bert Vaux. 17 Guy Vaux dead 19 Callie. I think 18 Gean Woodward was older than Callie but I do not know for shure. You know from there down Myrtle is older than George for I can remember her saying Monkey for Munger when he was a baby. You know from there down this younger generation of cousins.

20 Ada Woodward. 21 Verdie Dyar. 22 Roy Dyar. 24 Nellie Woodward. 23 Devier Carringer. 26. Chester Dyar. 27 Lyle Carringer. 25 Eva Smith. 28 Vern Dyar. 29 Ellen Doctor. 30 Lezzie Doctor. 31 Grace Doctor. 32 Mable Smith. 33 34 Will Cruchs 2 girls. 35 36 37 Amy 2 boys 1 girl. 38 39 40 Geo 2 girls 1 boy. 41 Orpha 1 girl. 18 Grand chil, 23 G Grand chil.

[no further information]

I finally figured out who the "parents" of this family are - it's Samuel and Mary Ann (Underhill) Vaux.  Note the 18 grandchildren and 23 great grandchildren comment.  The names of the children given on the list above are all children of the children of Samuel and Mary Ann (Underhill) Vaux. 

I think that this letter was sent to Della's aunt, Celia Ann (Vaux) (Redfield) Munger in Belleville, Kansas because she refers to George's having just had a son - George is certainly George Francis Munger of Belleville, who had a son, Frank E. Munger on 30 May 1903, and had two daughters before that.   The second boy that Della refers to is probably Amy (Munger) Doctor's son, Peter Doctor, who was born in August 1903 in Belleville.

I really do think that Della would be ecstatic that someone in the family found her collection and is using it to create a family tree.  I also think that she would be amazed at what I've found in her ancestry, and in her husband's ancestry also.  

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2014/03/saturday-night-genealogy-fun-fearless.html

Copyright (c) 2014, Randall J. Seaver