Saturday, September 7, 2013

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun - Where Were They 150 Years Ago?

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)  Determine where your ancestral families were on 1 September 1863 - 150 years ago.

2)  List your ancestors, their family members, their birth and death years, and their residence location (as close as possible).  Do you have a photograph of their residence from about that time, and does the residence still exist?

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

Here's mine:

The ancestors living in 1863 would be most of my great-grandparents, many of my great-great-grandparents, and perhaps some 4th great-grandparents.  Here is a Pedigree chart back to the great-greats:


1.  Isaac Seaver (1823-1901) and Lucretia Smith (1828-1884), my 2nd great-grandparents,  resided in Westminster, Worcester County, Massachusetts with their four children: Frank Walton Seaver (1852-1922, my great-grandfather), Benjamin, Elizabeth and Ellen.  I don't know exactly where they lived.

2.  Abigail (Gates) (Seaver) Seaver (1797-1867), my 3rd great-grandmother, and Isaac's mother, resided with her 2nd husband, Isaac Seaver, in Westminster, Worcester County, Massachusetts.  I don't know exactly where they lived.

3.  Elizabeth Horton (Dill) Smith (1791-1869), my 3rd great-grandmother, and Lucretia Smith's mother, resided in Medfield, Norfolk County, Massachusetts.  I don't have a picture of the house, but have located the property.

4.  Edward Hildreth (1831-1899) and Sophia Newton (1834-1923), my 2nd great-grandparents) resided in Northborough, Worcester County, Massachusetts with their daughter, Hattie Hildreth (1857-1920, my great-grandmother).  I don't know exactly where they lived.

5.  Sophia (Buck) (Brigham) (Newton) Stone (1797-1882), my 3rd great-grandmother, and Sophia  Newton's mother, resided in Westborough, Worcester County, Massachusetts with her third husband, Jonathan Stone (1795-1868).  I don't know where they lived in 1863.

6.  James Richman (1821-1912) and Hannah Rich (1824-1911), my 2nd great-grandparents, resided in Rhode Island or eastern Connecticut in 1863 with their children Thomas Richmond (1848-1917, my great-grandfather), James, Louisa, Elizabeth, Emma and Hannah.  I don't know where they lived in 1863.

7.  John Richman (1788-1867), my 3rd great grandfather, father of James Richman, resided in Hilperton, Wiltshire, England.  I don't know exactly where he lived.

8.  John Rich (1792-1868), my 3rd great-grandfather, father of Hannah Rich), resided in Hilperton, Wiltshire, England.   I don't know exactly where he lived.

9.  Henry Arnold White (1824-1885) and Amy Frances Oatley (1826-1864), my 2nd great-grandparents, resided in Killingly, Windham County, Connecticut with their children Ellen, Julia White (1848-1913, my great-grandmother), Emily, Henry and Frederick.  I think that I have located their residence.

10.  Jonathan Oatley (1790-1872) and Amy Champlin (1798-1865), my 3rd great-grandparents, parents of Amy Oatley,  resided in Killingly, Windham County, Connecticut.  I think that I have located their residence.

11.  David Jackson Carringer (1828-1902) and Rebecca Spangler (1832-1901), my 2nd great-grandparents, resided in Columbus City, Louisa County, Iowa with their children, Harvey Edgar, Henry Austin Carringer (1853-1946, my great-grandfather) and Effie.  I don't know exactly where they lived.

12.  Henry Carringer (1800-1879), my 3rd great-grandfather, resided in Columbus City, Louisa County, Iowa, probably with his children Mary, Louisa and Harvey.  I believe that I have located his farm land.

13.  Devier J. Smith (1839-1894) and Abbie Vaux (1844-1931), my 2nd great-grandparents, resided in Rolling Prairie, Dodge County, Wisconsin with their daughter, Della (1862-1944, my great-grandmother).  I don't know exactly where they lived.

14.  Ranslow Smith (1805-1873) and Mary Bell (1805-1865), my 3rd great-grandparents, and parents of Devier J. Smith, resided in Rolling Prairie, Dodge County, Wisconsin.  I know exactly where they lived and have a photograph of the Inn they ran dating from 1930.

15.  Samuel Vaux (1814-1880) and Mary Ann Underhill (1815-1883), my 2nd great-grandparents, resided in Burnett, Dodge County, Wisconsin, with their children James, Elizabeth and Amos.  I know where their land was.

16.  Amos Underhill (1772-1865), my 3rd great-grandfather, resided in Aurora, Erie County, New York.  I know where his land was.

17.  David Auble (1817-1894) and Sarah Knapp (1818-????), my 2nd great-grandparents, resided in Newark, Essex County, New Jersey with their children William, Frances, Charles Auble (1849-1916, my great-grandfather), Katherine, Anna and Cora.  I don't know where they lived exactly.

18.  Sarah (Cutter) Knapp (1785-1878), my 3rd great-grandmother, and mother of Sarah Knapp, resided in New Barbados, Bergen County, New Jersey with her son, Manning Knapp.  I don't know where they lived exactly.

19.  James Abraham Kemp (1831-1902) and Mary Jane Sovereen (1840-1874), my 2nd great-grandparents,  and parents of Georgianna Kemp (1868-1952, my great-grandmother) resided in Norfolk County, Ontario, Canada, with their daughter Sarah.  I don't know where they lived exactly.

20.  Abraham James Kemp (1795-1881) and perhaps Sarah Fletcher (1802-????), my 3rd great-grandparents, and parents of James Abraham Kemp, probably resided in Norfolk County, Ontario, Canada.  I don't know exactly where they lived.  

21.  Alexander Sovereign (1814-1907) and Elizabeth Putman (1820-1895), my 3rd great-grandparents, and parents of Mary Jane Sovereen, resided in Norfolk county, Ontario, Canada.  I have located their land.

22.  Frederick Sovereign (1786-1875) and Mary Jane Hutchinson (1792-1868), my 4th great-grandparents, resided in Norfolk County, Ontario, Canada.  I don't know where their land was.

So, I think that I have 43 ancestors living on 1 September 1863, 150 years ago, including:

*  6 Great-grandparents
*  18 2nd great-grandparents
*  17 3rd great-grandparents
*  2 4th great-grandparents

The URL for this post is:

Copyright (c) 2013, Randall J. Seaver


Surname Saturday - LNU (colonial Massachusetts)

It's Surname Saturday, and I'm "counting down" my Ancestral Name List each week.  


I am in the 7th great-grandmothers and I'm up to Ancestor #715, who is Rachel LNU (about 1680-1731) 
[Note: LNU = Last Name Unknown; the earlier great-grandmothers and 7th great-grandfathers have been covered in earlier posts].

My ancestral line back to this LNU family line is:

1.  Randall J. Seaver (1943-living)

2. Frederick Walton Seaver (1911-1983)
3. Betty Virginia Carringer (1919-2002)

4. Frederick Walton Seaver (1876-1942)
5. Alma Bessie Richmond (1882-1962)


10.  Thomas Richmond (1848-1917)
11.  Julia White (1848-1913)

22.  Henry Arnold White (1824-1885)
23.  Amy Frances Oatley (1826-1864)

44.  Jonathan White (1806-1850)
45.  Miranda Wade (1804-1850)

88.  Humphrey White (1758-1814)
89.  Sybil Kirby (1764-1848)


178.  David Kirby (1740-1832)
179.  Martha Soule (1743-1828)

356.  Ichabod Kirby (1710-1794)
357.  Rachel Allen (1708-????)


714.  Joseph Allen, born 04 March 1667 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; died 31 January 1735 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States.  He was the son of 1428. Joseph Allen and 1429. Sarah Holloway.  He married before 1700 in probably Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States.
715.  Rachel, born about 1680 in Massachusetts, died 10 April 1731 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States.

Children of Joseph Allen and Rachel are:
i. Lidia Allen, born 01 June 1700 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; died 01 November 1772 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; married Increase Allen 29 June 1721 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; born 19 August 1694 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; died 10 January 1771 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States.
ii. Phillis Allen, born 24 February 1703 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; died 01 June 1790 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island, United States; married Enos Gifford about 1724 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; born 01 February 1694 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island, United States.
iii. Joseph Allen, born 27 April 1704 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; married Ruth Smith 30 December 1725 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States.
iv. Rachel Allen, born 11 July 1708 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; married Ichabod Kirby 21 February 1733 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States.

v. Elizabeth Allen, born 03 March 1710 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; died after 10 December 1759 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; married Gideon Gifford 23 April 1730 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States; born 19 March 1706 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States.

I know nothing about Rachel LNU's parents or ancestry, or even her birth date and place.  Any help from cousins here?

The URL for this post is:

Copyright (c) 2013, Randall J. Seaver

Friday, September 6, 2013

Ancestry.com "New Search" Results With Wild Card Names

In the present series, I have compared "Old Search" results with "New Search" results n Another Ancestry.com "Old Search" vs. "New Search" Comparison (assuming not exact matches on names), in Ancestry "Old Search" and "New Search" Comparison with Exact Matches (with exact matches on names); both studies used my third-great-grandfather, Henry Carringer (1800-1879) as the subject.  

In this post, I want to show the power and usefulness of using wild cards for names and using the flexibility of the locality settings for events.

What is a "Wild Card?"  On Ancestry.com, the user can use "?" to represent one character in a first or last name, and "*" to use any number of characters (including none) in a first or last name.  However, there have to be three non-wild characters in the name, and one of the non-wild characters has to be to first or last character in the name.  So, for the Carringer name:

*  The following wild card names will return results:  Car*, Car*ger, C*ger, C*g?r, C*r*n*r, ?a*ng*r, C?r*ng*, ???*ger, etc.  
*  The following wild card names would not return results:  ?arring*, C*r, ???*er, etc.

Why would a user want to use a wild card for a name?  My main reason is to find records with misspelled or misindexed names.  However, if a user does not add other search terms to narrow the search a bit, the user may be inundated by record matches that are not their target person.  So there is a "middle ground" for using wild cards - use the narrowing search terms but keep them not exact so that you don't limit the search too much but you drive the best matches to the top of the Results list.  

I will use Henry Carringer (1800-1879) as the example again.  In the previous posts, I found 7 records in the Ancestry databases that applied to him.  Let's see if I can find him again with one search, and with his records near the top of the Results list:

My usual practices include not using many vowels in my wild card searches, and not using double consonants or a long string of consonants.  Users should think about how the name sounds - what consonants are heard when it is spoken, and which letters can be misinterpreted when handwritten.

A)  I decided to start with a relatively simple set of name wild cards:

*  First name:  He*n*r* (because he was of German descent, there may be records for "Henrich" or "Heinrich")
*  Last name:  C*ger (because one or more of the consonants in the name may be missing).

I also narrowed my search by adding these Facts:

*  Birth Fact, Year: 1800 plus/minus 2 years (not exact); Birthplace: Pennsylvania, USA (default settings, which means not exact)
*  Death Fact:  Year: 1879 plus/minus 2 years (not exact); Birthplace: Iowa, USA (default settings, which means not exact)

I chose to make these Fact settings "not exact" so as to avoid the situation found in the "Exact Match" post - if the record does not have the Fact, the results are not matched.

I also chose only "Historical Records" and "Stories and Publications" in the "Collection Priority" section of the search fields.

Here is the screen with the filled-out search fields:


Here are the results for this specific search using wild card names (2 screens shown):



There were 9,697 matches found for this search.  I have shown the "Records View" above; a user could choose the "Categories View" and then checked each database listed.

Here are the database records I found for my Henry Carringer (1800-1879) with the approximate number on this list of 9,697 matches:

1)  1870 U.S. Federal Census: Henry Caringer, born 1801 in PA
2)  Web, Iowa Find A Grave Index, 1800-2012:  Henry Carringer, born 1801, died 1879
3)  Iowa Cemetery Records, 1662-1999: Henry Carringer, born 1798, died 1876
6)  1860 U.S. Federal Census: Henry Carringer, born 1800 in PA
9)  Web, Rootsweb Cemetery Index, 1800-2010: Henry Carringer, born 1801, died 1879
73)  Selected U.S. Federal Census Non-Population Schedules, 1850-1880:  Henry Carringer, 1870
140)  1840 U.S. Federal Census:  Henry Carringer
153)  1830 U.S. Federal Census:  Henry Carriger

I looked through the first 500 matches and stopped.

B)  My second search using name wild cards was similar.  I added a letter to the last name - the search terms I used were:

*  First name:  He*n*r* (because he was of German descent, there may be records for "Henrich" or "Heinrich")
*  Last name:  Ca*ger (because one or more of the consonants in the name may be missing).

I also narrowed my search by adding these Facts:

*  Birth Fact, Year: 1800 plus/minus 2 years (not exact); Birthplace: Pennsylvania, USA (default settings, which means not exact)
*  Death Fact:  Year: 1879 plus/minus 2 years (not exact); Birthplace: Iowa, USA (default settings, which means not exact)

I chose to make these Fact settings "not exact" so as to avoid the situation found in the "Exact Match" post - if the record does not have the Fact, the results are not matched.

I also chose only "Historical Records" and "Stories and Publications" in the "Collection Priority" section of the search fields.

Here are the search Results (again in the "Records View", first 3 screens shown:





Here are the database records I found for my Henry Carringer (1800-1879) with the approximate number on this list of 599 matches:

1)  1870 U.S. Federal Census: Henry Caringer, born 1801 in PA
2)  Web, Iowa Find A Grave Index, 1800-2012:  Henry Carringer, born 1801, died 1879
3)  Iowa Cemetery Records, 1662-1999: Henry Carringer, born 1798, died 1876
4)  1860 U.S. Federal Census: Henry Carringer, born 1800 in PA
5)  Web, Rootsweb Cemetery Index, 1800-2010: Henry Carringer, born 1801, died 1879
8)  Selected U.S. Federal Census Non-Population Schedules, 1850-1880:  Henry Carringer, 1870
15)  1840 U.S. Federal Census:  Henry Carringer
16)  1830 U.S. Federal Census:  Henry Carriger

I looked through all 599 matches and stopped.

C)  It is apparent that the second search with name wild cards found all of the matches on the first page of matches.

Interestingly, this name wild card search found the 1870 Non-Population Schedule entry for Henry Carringer, which did not have the birth date or birthplace indexed.  That match was found in the list for the last post, but was not on the list for the first post (I didn't go far enough down the list).

Interestingly, neither search found the 1850 U.S. Federal Census for Henry Casinger because the age was indexed as 36 rather than 50.  I thought that the results would go further afield than just the range of years I requested with the box checked as not exact, but they didn't.  If I had expanded the birth year range to, say, 1795 to 1815, the 1850 census result would have been found; however, there would have been more total matches.

D)  The conclusions I draw from this study include:

*  Different wild card searches produce different results.  In general, the more characters you use, the fewer matches you receive.
*  If the user uses too many alphabetical characters, all of the relevant results may be limited even with wild cards.
*  Narrowing the search using "not exact" dates and locations should drive the relevant matches for the target person to the top of the "Records View" match list.
*  Narrowing the search using "exact" dates and locations may miss relevant records.
*  For results with many matches, the "Categories View" might be easier to work with than the "Records View"
*  If the results do not find an expected record for the target person (such as the 1850 U.S. census for Henry Carringer), then search that database separately and use all of the tricks (exact name, wild cards, expand the date range, remove birthplace, first name only in a county, etc.) one at a time or in combination.  You may find them!

The URL for this post is:

Copyright (c) 2013, Randall J. Seaver


Follow-Up Friday - Interesting and Helpful Reader Comments

It's Friday again (every week, it rolls around very fast these days as the sands in my lifeglass run out) and time to see what Genea-Musings readers think and say:

1)  On It's Really Not That Easy! (posted 28 August 2013):

a)  Chris said:  "The origin of Thomas Trowbridge of Dorchester & New Haven, as being from Taunton, Somerset, England is very clear. The Trowbridge Genealogy, shown in the episode, cites many original documents verbatim in the text, including on pages 46-47, portions of New Haven Land Records, volume 1, page 202 which state - 

“ '… I Thomas Trowbridge of Taunton in ye County of Somerset, Gen. doe hereby make ordaine, constitute and depute and in my place and stead put my three sons Thomas Trowbridge and William Trowbridge of Newhaven and James Trowbridge of Dorchester in ye Bay in New England in ye ports of America beyond ye seas …'

"You can see the Trowbridge genealogy in its entirety at http://books.google.com/books?id=VWEbAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Thomas+Trowbridge+Genealogy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5tEpUrvBB9e44APs_4DgDQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false 

"Other articles that detail the Trowbridge ancestry in England in considerable detail with documentation in include 'The Trowbridge Ancestry in England,' prepared for Francis Bacon Trowbridge [author of the above Trowbridge genealogy] by Donald Lines Jacobus, published in The American Genealogist, 71 (1942): 129-37; and Charles Fitch-Northen, 'The Trowbridge Ancestry,' The Genealogist, 9 (1988): 3-39."


My comment:  Thank you, Chris, for providing more information about Thomas Trowbridge.


a)  Geolover helped:  "Jacob Layman could not sell the land to Cornelius Feather. As your certificate for issuance of Patent shows, it was Cornelius who paid the Land Office, and he to whom the Patent was to issue. Jacob could only sell his "interest" in the tract.

"If you have not checked for details in the Warrant and Patent Registers, or looked at the copy of the original Survey (date of survey is part of the story), you can find them from the PA State Archives Land Office records gateway, here:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=3184&&SortOrder=100&level=4&parentCommID=3162&menuLevel=Level_4&mode=2

"Sometimes there are little details about someone's not having fulfilled some part of the land procedures in the registers, and occasionally the Surveyor also comments."


My comment:  Thank you for the additional information and corrected interpretation of the document.  I will see what I can find on the Pennsylvania Archives site.


a)  Densie said:  "I prefer Old Search because the way I have it set up is much more compact, enabling me to scan through it much more quickly than New Search. New Search requires much more scrolling through "pages" of hits, even when using the Category tab.  I don't think I find more hits with Old Search, it's about the same. Just much faster to do."

My comment:  That's the only unique reason I've seen to prefer "Old Search."  I like the "New Search" presentation because my old eyes don't have to squint to see the details.  Truly in the ye of the beholder!

b)  T commented:  "To muddy the waters and get a bit off topic, I got different results in a search, both when I was paid and when I wasn't, than did my cousin who had the world subscription even though we were both looking for people in the U.S. I got so frustrated with her because she didn't see the person I was talking about by giving directions such as third one down on the second page. Come to find out her results were never the same as mine."

My comment:  I think that it is much more likely that you and your cousin used somewhat different search field entries and search check marks to find and compare the results.  That's been my experience while working with colleagues and readers on identical search problems.

c)  Karen Sipe noted:  "You state that we are not to use "exact match." What happens to your search results when you do?

"I almost always use exact match so it keeps more of the unwanted search people out of the results. This means fewer people to scroll through and faster easier searching at least for me."


My comment:  I addressed using "Exact Match" in Ancestry "Old Search" and "New Search" Comparison with Exact Matches (posted 5 September 2013).

In that post, I also showed why you might want to rely only on Exact Matches with full name spellings.


a)  Goneresearching said:  "After the RootsTech 2012 presentation on FamilyTree I went into FamilySearch thinking I'd correct the incorrect and source it properly but what I found made me want to cry. 

"The Dunham entries I wanted to work on I could not because they were IOUS (Individuals of Unusual Size) -- all of them. Guys with different names were smashed together as one person (when they were clearly not the same guy) and at the same time married to the same woman multiple times (when they should have been merged). Add to that the same kids multiple times and then multiple parents. 

"And different people are editing them each thinking the guy is someone else. It is a mess. 

"Yes, it is a nice thought/plan for 'one tree' but there is no good way to un-knot the spaghetti even with scissors. I'm in the process of submitting unmerge information to FamilySearch for them to do in newFamilySearch but it takes a couple days just color-coding person identifiers for just one Dunham guy and then writing it out who is really who. And I still don't know if they'll do the correction.  All I wanted to do was source some information on my guys so the correct info was out there, but it is taking longer to get it cleaned up than it would to do the sourcing.

"I thought I was alone in this problem. It sounds like you got a case of it too."


b)  Donna noted:  "I've been working on my tree as well and it is a nightmare to try to get the duplicates merged. Additionally, If the first name wasn't fully gender specific, many people input them twice - one of each gender. You can't merge people of opposite genders and you can't delete the profile either. So you have to contact Family Search with the information and let them take care of it. There are also many people of the same or similar name with no parents, no spouse, little to no information on when or where they might have been born, so those are going to just remain cluttering up space with nobody ever able to guess who they have been intended to be. It is my opinion FamilySearch should clean up their own mess."

c)  SearchShack commented:  "I've been working to clean up the duplicate SHACKFORDs in FSFT and am finding the same issues that you raise -- more so on the original settlers - 9 duplicates, then duplicates of their differing parents, etc. Also see the issue with anyone with lots of children as the parents were entered separately for each birth. I've made a small dent in cleaning up the tangles. It is very time consuming and frustrating but in my case it actually helps me think back through the genealogy relationships as I work through the corrections. Also but I'm now seeing a few others posting on these same trees via the WATCH feature and am getting replies and some new collaborations when I write to those others interested in the same family lines."

d)  Lauri observed:  "As I was connecting people in a family tree I also had one of these. Over 99 instances of the same person that needed to be merged. I got through some and then too many and couldn't merge anymore. The children have similar problems and it is a disaster. Decided at that point to just wait on that branch of the tree."

e)  John thought:  "It is time for the Powers That Be at FSFT to issue some guidelines/rules. For example: 
1. Governor is preferred over Gov, Gov., (Gov), (Gov.). In other words avoid abbreviations wherever possible.
2. Titles, like Governor, should be entered as a prefix, not as a suffix.
3. Christian names and surnames should be entered in standard upper and lower case format, e.g. Thomas Dudley, not Thomas DUDLEY
or THOMAS DUDLEY.
I am not saying the above rules are right or wrong. I just believe we need some rules."

e)  Geolover noted:  "FamilySearch Family Tree is chock-full of such messes. While all of the duplicates (with or without duplicate and/or incorrect spouses, children, parents) may have been combined in the older new.FamilySearch tree, some crew at FS has been separating out versions of individuals, and this may be what you are seeing. in new.FamilySearch one could not truly merge persons or undo what someone else had done, for the most part.

"Some of my ancestors have more than 100 duplicates in FS-FT. How could one even select the least wrong version to start with, in less than a couple of hours (if the program were running a lot faster than usual)?

"Stuff that was extracted from actual records and put in IGI years ago appears now in FS-FT stripped of any identifying information as to source.

"In my forays I've found that as 'sources' and reasons for presenting some data, people are giving internet trees, message board posts and 'from GEDCOM.'

"And some entity identified only as 'FamilySearch' keeps adding wrong dates, spouse(s) and as many as several sets of wrong parents to individuals I look at occasionally because they are subjects of Widely Held Mistaken Beliefs in myriad publications and trees.

"In addition to those problems, given the hodgepodge of database sources, place-name problems, cultural/social biases and rather odd programming bugs, it's hard to see this as a really viable vehicle for genealogical accuracy."

f)  Kellie Reeve opined:  "This is one of the reasons that I prefer WikiTree over the FamilySearch tree. These issues are addressed daily by some marvelous folks over there, and duplications are easily handled. Corrections and updates are easy to make, too. I wish FamilySearch luck with their endeavor, but I think they were at a disadvantage from the beginning."

My comment:  I'm glad that I'm not the only one with problems here, we can all commiserate together, I guess, until FamilySearch finds a way to deal with the problems.  I continue to think that the concept and implementation is pretty good and will be helpful, but the "problem children" in FSFT are going to be difficult to iron out.  


a)  Geolover advised:  "Concerning Knowledge Document 100446, FS has been moving a lot of stuff around -- and it is possible that document is available only to those with LDS accounts.  To find its equivalent, use the search box in the 2nd screen in your first image, search for 'merging.' You will find a list of articles, including one 'Cannot Merge Duplicate Records in Family Tree.'

"Left-click on the link (you can not open it in a separate tab or window in order to save it--another annoying feature) and an article with numerous links will open. I can not give you a URL because it does not have a separate URL from this 'product support' section. I do not know if this is a version of the Knowledge Document referred to in the manual, but it seems to cover the merging problem instances.

"Regarding the IOUS merging issues, so common among New England ancestors, these will disappear when FS-FamilyTree no longer synchronizes with the new.FamilySearch database. This is promised by early in 2014, when new.FamilySearch will become read-only and will be kept in existence for some unstated time period.

"There has been a delay in separating the two because the FS-FT program can not directly 'read' the material in new.FamilySearch, and there has been a major problem with transferring LDS Ordinance data to FT from n.FS and with developing the subroutine in FS-FT for handling LDS Ordinances.

"There will still be data-management problems with the IOUS individuals because the person-page will not display more than 100 versions of spouses, parents, etc. Only in a general tree search can you determine how many versions there might be for an individual and for each spouse. But such a search will not tell you how many permutations and combinations there may be."


My comment:  Thanks for the lead to the document.  I found it...and also read the Ben Baker presentation and handout from the BYU Conference.

I hear your message about IOUS - my best course is to wait until the link to nFS is broken before trying to deal with them.  That's OK, I have plenty of other work to do in FSFT.

b)  Jim Gill asked:  "I agree with your work process for unraveling FS-FT spaghetti. It will take me the rest of my life to unravel my ancestors lives, more if FS keeps dumping garbage into FT. Is there a forum some place where FS-FT users can exchange ideas, woes, problems, solutions?"

c)  Geolover answered Jim's question:  "Jim Gill, a lot of the problems and tricks for dealing with FamilySearch Family Tree are dealt with in the large how-to document for which Randy gave a link.

"There is a message board for discussion of FamilySearch site issues, including FS-Family Tree:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics

"It has no topical subdivisions, and you can not sort posts by subject, but you can use the rather primitive keyword search at upper right to determine if your question or problem may already have been addressed there. Most problems that users have encountered have been discussed, some at great length."


6)  That's enough for this week.  Thank you to my Genea-Musings readers who often are more knowledgeable about genealogical records and events than I am.  


copyright (c) 2013, Randall J. Seaver


Thursday, September 5, 2013

Ancestry "Old Search" and "New Search" Comparison with Exact Matches

I posted Another Ancestry.com "Old Search" vs. "New Search" Comparison yesterday with my third great-grandfather, Henry Carringer (1800-1879) as the subject in an effort to demonstrate that there is no real difference between the results of the two searches.  For that post, I did the comparison with the "Exact Matches Only" box unchecked.  My reasoning for that was that many searchers don't know about, or prefer to not use, the "Exact Matches Only" box.  

I received a comment from Karen who said:

"You state that we are not to use 'exact match.' What happens to your search results when you do?

"I almost always use exact match so it keeps more of the unwanted search people out of the results. This means fewer people to scroll through and faster easier searching at least for me."


Here is what happens when I do an "Exact Match" search in both "Old Search" and "New Search," again using Henry Carringer as the example:

1)  In "Old Search" I added these entries to the search box fields on the "Search" tab:

*  Clicked on the "Historical Records" tab (highlighted in green below)
*  Clicked on the "Exact matches only" box
*  First & Middle Name(s):  Henry
*  Last Name:  Carringer
*  Birth Year:  1800 plus/minus 5 years
*  Birth Country: USA (pick from list)
*  State: Pennsylvania (pick from list)



Here are the "Old Search" matches for the exact match search above (listed by Category and database because "Exact match" was selected):


The only record that matched was the 1860 U.S. Census search.

Why was that?  I used the complete names for the person - and there are other records with slightly different spellings.  There are other records on Ancestry.com for this Henry Carringer, using this spelling, but I asked for records for a birth year of 1800 plus/minus 5 years and birth location of Pennsylvania, USA.  The other records don't provide both a birth date AND a birthplace.  Since I asked for "Exact," the computer provided only the exact matches.

2)  In "New Search" I added these entries to the search box fields on the "Search" tab:

*  Clicked the "Exact matches only" box
*  First & Middle Name(s):  Henry
*  Last Name:  Carringer
*  Any Event Year:  1800 plus/minus 5 years
*  Location: Pennsylvania, USA (pick from list)
*  Checked only "Historical Records" in "Collection Priority" area [this makes it similar to "Old Search")


And the results for Records found are identical (in the "Categories View"):


Because I chose to use the complete and correct name for Henry Carringer, plus a birth year and birth state, I did not get all of the results that I found in the earlier post because I asked for Exact matches and only one record had an Exact Match.  

3)  What happens when I take away the Birth Year and Birth Place, but still do an Exact Match search on just the name?

Here's the "Old Search" results:


I counted 77 matches on the list (it was a little longer than the screen capture shows).

Here's the "New Search" results for the identical search field entries:


There are 78 matches on the list.  Although the California Voter Registers database shows up in several categories, it is counted only once.  Several other databases appear in more than one Category, but are counted only once.  But the one "References, Dictionaries and Almanacs" match on the "Old Search" list didn't show up on the "New Search" list, and the two items in that category on "New Search" didn't show up on the "Old Search" list.

I guess I could do the comparison for a more common name, but I didn't.  Obviously, doing this for John Smith will result in thousands of matches in many databases that would be impossible to work through on this blog (most of my posts are too long already...).  

With thousands of search results for using only an exact name, the "Category View" is essential to find your target person.  For instance, the 1830 U.S. Census item for Henry Carringer may be the 100th match on the "Results View" list, but it would be easily found on the "1830 U.S. Census" database list of 4 matches.

Using the exact name, with an exact birth year and birth place, will not find all of the records unless the name was spelled correctly in all records and the records contained a birth year and birth place. If this is your preferred practice, you will probably miss some record matches.

4)  The point here is to show that "New Search" finds essentially the same results as "Old Search" does, no matter what search field parameters are used.  It's imperative for the user to understand what search field parameters they used.  If the user is not getting expected results, then they should look critically at their search field parameters.

The fix for the "Exact Match" problem noted above is to use wild cards for the names (to handle name spelling problems) and to narrow the search using birth years, or death years, or birth or death places, or relative names, etc. in your search.  We will use "New Search" to do this because it has more flexibility than "Old Search" and "Old Search" is going away soon.

In the next post in this series, I'll look at using wild cards to find the records for a person, and how narrowing the search can help the user find more records.


Copyright (c) 2013, Randall J. Seaver



Treasure Chest Thursday - Post 180: Pennsylvania Land Warrant for Cornelius Feather (1777-1853)

It's Treasure Chest Thursday - time to showcase some of the collected documents and other treasures of my ancestors.

This is a Pennsylvania Land Warrant for Cornelius Feather (1777-1853), my 4th great-grandfather, in Mercer County, Pennsylvania.



The transcription of this document is (handwritten portions in italics):

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, SS

WHEREAS, there hath been surveyed and returned into the Surveyor General's Office, agreeable to the acts of ^the 27th day f March 1813 3d April, 1792, and of the Act of March, 1811, and the 3d of April, 1833, a certain tract of Land, containing 203 Acs 23 ps and allowance situate in Salem township, Mercer county, on the actual settlement and improvement of Jacob Layman (Being Lot No. 963 in the 5th donation district.).

And Whereas, it appears from the depositions now presented, that the said settlement and improvement is such as is required by the above mentioned acts.

And Whereas, The said Jacob Layman, who by deed dated the 25th day of October AD 1823, Conveyed all his right and title unto Cornelius Feather 

and the said Cornelius Feather having paid the purchase money, at the rate of twenty dollars per hundred acres, together with the interest due thereon.  I have, therefore, accepted said survey,and direct a Patent to issue thereon, agreeably to the acts of 17th day of April, 1843, and 29th day of April, 1844.

In witness whereof, John Laporte Surveyor General, hath hereto set his hand, and caused to be affixed the Seal of said office, at Harrisburg, the Seventeenth day of April A.D. 1846.

I recently found this document in the Pennsylvania, Land Warrants and Applications, 1733-1952 database on Ancestry.com.  The database description says:

"This database contains land warrants, and warrant applications for the state of Pennsylvania.
"Land warrants contain descriptions of the land, information about boundaries, landmarks, previous owners, tenants, the amount of money paid, etc. Warrant applications contain less information than full warrants, which may contain maps and other information about the property.
"These records can be used in conjunction with census records, and to establish residency."

The Ancestry source citation for this collection is:

Ancestry.com. Pennsylvania, Land Warrants and Applications, 1733-1952 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.

Original data: Warrant Applications, 1733-1952. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania State Archives.


My interpretation of this document is that Jacob Layman was granted the original land warrant on Lot No. 963 in the 5th Donation district located in Salem township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania, and sold the land to Cornelius Feather in 1823 by deed.  Cornelius Feather received this document in 1846.  I located the land in Finding Pennsylvania Donation District Land Maps (posted 21 February 2013).

I need to obtain the deed for Jacob Layman selling this land to Cornelius Feather in 1823 in the Mercer County land records on Family History Library microfilm.  That's another item on my FHL to-do list!  I don't know the first name or last name of Cornelius Feather's wife, but this Jacob Layman is certainly one of his Associates in the FAN Club.  There may be a clue in the deed.  Or in other deeds.  

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2013/09/treasure-chest-thursday-post-180.html

Copyright (c) 2013, Randall J. Seaver