Rise up, O Genea-philes... it's Saturday Night ... and time for more Genealogy Fun!
Your mission, should you decide to accept it (and I hope that you do...), is to:
1) Determine which of your ancestors has appeared in the most census records - any census! (this topic was suggested by reader bgwiehle in an email several weeks ago. Thanks bg!).
2) Tell us about it in your own blog post, in a comment to this post, in a Facebook Status post or a Google + Stream post.
Here's mine:
After reviewing my database, I think that the ancestor with the most entries in the Census records is Abigail A. "Abbie" (Vaux) Smith (1844-1931), one of my second great-grandmothers. Her entries include:
* 1850 U.S. Census: Aurora, Erie, New York, in the Samuel and Mary Ann Vaux family: Abagail Vaux was age 5, born in NY.
* 1860 U.S. Census: not found; probably in Burnett, Dodge, Wisconsin.
* 1870 U.S. Census: Benton, Taylor, Iowa: Abbie Smith, wife of Devier Smith, was age 26, born in New York, with children Della, David and Mary Smith
* 1875 Kansas State Census: Lincoln, Cloud, Kansas: Abbie A. Smith, wife of D.J. Smith, was age 30 born in New York, with children D.A., D.D., and M.A. Smith
* 1880 U.S. Census: Shannon, Pottawatomie, Kansas: Abba A. Smith, wife of D.J. Smith, was age 37 born in New York, with children David D. and Mamie Smith.
* 1880 U.S. Census: Blue Rapids, Marshall, Kansas: Abagail A. Smith was age 36 born in New York, with children Della, David and Mary A. Smith, and parents Samuel Vaux and Mary A. Vaux.
* 1885 Kansas State Census: Clyde, Clay, Kansas: Abby A. Smith, wife of D.J. Smith, was age 41 born in New York, with children Della, D.D. and Matie Smith.
* 1885 Nebraska State Census: McCook, Red Willow, Nebraska: Albie Smith, wife of D.J. Smith, was age 41 born in New York, with children Della and Matie Smith.
* 1900 U.S. Census: San Diego, San Diego, California: Abby A. Smith, widow, born Oct 1844, age 55, born NY, resided with Henry A. and Della A. Carringer.
* 1910 U.S. Census: San Diego, San Diego, California: Abby A. Smith, widow, age ??, born NY, resided with Henry A. and Della A. Carringer.
* 1920 U.S. Census: San Diego, San Diego, California: Abbie A. Smith, widow, age 75, born NY, resided with Henry A. and Della A. Carringer.
* 1930 U.S. Census: San Diego, San Diego, California: Abby A. Smith, widow, age 85, born NY, resided with Henry A. and Della A. Carringer.
Abbie died 11 September 1931 in San Diego.
By my list above, Abbie A. "Abbie" (Vaux) Smith was enumerated in 8 U.S. Census(twice in 1880, none in 1860)between 1850 and 1930 ,and in 3 State Census, for a total of 11 Census records. Seven different versions of her given names was used!
The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/saturday-night-genealogy-fun-who-has.html
Copyright(c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver
Welcome to my genealogy blog. Genea-Musings features genealogy research tips and techniques, genealogy news items and commentary, genealogy humor, San Diego genealogy society news, family history research and some family history stories from the keyboard of Randy Seaver (of Chula Vista CA), who thinks that Genealogy Research Is really FUN! Copyright (c) Randall J. Seaver, 2006-2024.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Surname Saturday - WIESER (????)
It's Surname Saturday, and I'm "counting down" my Ancestral Name List each week. I am skipping #501 (since I don't have a name for William Hutchison's (ca 1745-1826) mother) so I am up to number 505: Margriet Wieser (ca 1726-????). [Note: The 6th great-grandfathers have been covered in earlier posts]
My ancestral line back to Margriet Wieser is:
1. Randall J. Seaver
2. Frederick Walton Seaver (1911-1983)
3. Betty Virginia Carringer (1919-2002)
6. Lyle Lawrence Carringer (1891-1976)
7. Emily Kemp Auble (1899-1977)
14. Charles Auble (1849-1916)
15. Georgianna Kemp (1868-1952)
30. James Abram Kemp (1831-1902)
31. Mary Jane Sovereen (1840-1874)
62. Alexander Sovereign (1814-1907)
63. Eliza Putman (1820-1895)
126. John Putman (1785-1863)
127. Sarah Martin (1792-1860)
252. Peter Victorse Putman (1760-1835)
253. Sarah Mary Kinnan (1761-1841)
"In about 1745, he married Margaret Wies, who may have been the daughter of Nicholas Wies. Margaret's name is also found in the records as Greitje Wiser.
"In 1749, Victor and Margaret Potman lived in the Minisink Valley of the Delaware River, possibly on the New Jersey side above the Water Gap, across the river at Smithfield, Pennsylvania. Their three daughters were baptized at the Dutch Reformed Church of Smithfield, Pennsylvania which served both banks of the Delaware River."
So I'm looking for a Wies/Weis or Wieser/Weiser/Wiser, probably in northeastern Pennsylvania or northwestern New Jersey in the 1710 to 1750 time period.
I have done no original research on this family or the Wies/Wieser/Weiser/Wiser line.
The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/surname-saturday-wieser.html
Copyright(c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver
My ancestral line back to Margriet Wieser is:
1. Randall J. Seaver
2. Frederick Walton Seaver (1911-1983)
3. Betty Virginia Carringer (1919-2002)
6. Lyle Lawrence Carringer (1891-1976)
7. Emily Kemp Auble (1899-1977)
14. Charles Auble (1849-1916)
15. Georgianna Kemp (1868-1952)
30. James Abram Kemp (1831-1902)
31. Mary Jane Sovereen (1840-1874)
62. Alexander Sovereign (1814-1907)
63. Eliza Putman (1820-1895)
126. John Putman (1785-1863)
127. Sarah Martin (1792-1860)
252. Peter Victorse Putman (1760-1835)
253. Sarah Mary Kinnan (1761-1841)
504. Victor Davidse Putman, born before 9 April 1721 in Monmouth, New Jersey, United States; died 1765 in Morris, New Jersey, United States. He was the son of 1008. David Janse Putman and 1009. Helena. He married about 1746 in New Jersey, United States.
505. Margriet/Grietje Wies/Wieser, born about 1726, died New Jersey, United States.
Children of Victor Putman and Margaret Wieser are:
i. Maria Putman, born Bef. 08 October 1749 in Smithfield, Monroe, Pennsylvania, United States;
ii. Elizabeth Putman, born Bef. 28 April 1751 in Smithfield, Monroe, Pennsylvania, United States;
iii. Sarah Putman, born Bef. 12 August 1753 in Smithfield, Monroe, Pennsylvania, United States;
iv. David Putman, born Abt. 1755 in probably Northampton, Pennsylvania, United States;
v. Johannes Putman, born Abt. 1757 in probably Sussex, New Jersey, United States; died before 14 December 1798 in Newton, Sussex, New Jersey, United States; married Sina.
vi. Peter Victorse Putman, born about 1760 in probably Sussex, New Jersey, United States; died 03 October 1835 in Barrington, Yates, New York, United States; married Sarah Mary Kinnan 20 March 1780 in Wantage, Sussex, New Jersey, United States.
The only clue in the relatively sparse records I have for Margriet Weiser's parents is a man named Nicholas Weiser. Mark Putman, who shares the early generations of this line with me, notes:
"In 1749, Victor and Margaret Potman lived in the Minisink Valley of the Delaware River, possibly on the New Jersey side above the Water Gap, across the river at Smithfield, Pennsylvania. Their three daughters were baptized at the Dutch Reformed Church of Smithfield, Pennsylvania which served both banks of the Delaware River."
So I'm looking for a Wies/Weis or Wieser/Weiser/Wiser, probably in northeastern Pennsylvania or northwestern New Jersey in the 1710 to 1750 time period.
I have done no original research on this family or the Wies/Wieser/Weiser/Wiser line.
The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/surname-saturday-wieser.html
Copyright(c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver
Friday, July 20, 2012
1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 6: McKnew in California
I proposed a methodology for evaluating the accuracy and completeness of the 1940 United States Census indexes on Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org in 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 1: Methodology.
In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 2: Carringer in California, I displayed my comparison tables and found that Ancestry had 8 more Carringer entries than FamilySearch, and my judgment was that Ancestry was more correct on 7 of them, and FamilySearch for one..
In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 3: Seaver in California, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 I displayed my comparison tables for Seaver entries in California, and found that FamilySearch had 22 more entries (147 entries) than Ancestry.com (125 entries). I analyzed all of the Ancestry unique entries, plus the ones that disagreed but were indexed by name correctly. My judgment for accuracy tally in these posts was: Ancestry = 13, FamilySearch = 29, Both wrong = 4, No decision = 7.
I want to move on to another surname in California - McKnew. This is my wife's great-grandparents surname, and her grandmother's maiden name, and I think this study may be interesting because of the "Mc" prefix to this surname.
Here is the top of Table 1 for this group:
In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 2: Carringer in California, I displayed my comparison tables and found that Ancestry had 8 more Carringer entries than FamilySearch, and my judgment was that Ancestry was more correct on 7 of them, and FamilySearch for one..
In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 3: Seaver in California, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 I displayed my comparison tables for Seaver entries in California, and found that FamilySearch had 22 more entries (147 entries) than Ancestry.com (125 entries). I analyzed all of the Ancestry unique entries, plus the ones that disagreed but were indexed by name correctly. My judgment for accuracy tally in these posts was: Ancestry = 13, FamilySearch = 29, Both wrong = 4, No decision = 7.
I want to move on to another surname in California - McKnew. This is my wife's great-grandparents surname, and her grandmother's maiden name, and I think this study may be interesting because of the "Mc" prefix to this surname.
Here is the top of Table 1 for this group:
There were 12 entries for an exact search for "McKnew" in California on Ancestry.com, and all of them were indexed the same way by FamilySearch. However, there were 23 total entries on FamilySearch. Here is Table 2that lists the six family units that were indexed as "McKnew" on FamilySearch but not on Ancestry:
The discussion on each of these is:
1) George McKnew (ED 15-43C, page 64A) was indexed on Ancestry as "Mc Knew."
The complete surname is McKnew...it appears that Ancestry.com indexed this with a space between Mc and Knew. FamilySearch has the better index entry IMHO.
2) Alice M. McKnew (ED 60-1050, page 2A) was indexed on Ancestry as "Mc Knen."
The "w" looks like a "w" to me - there is an 'n' three letters over. FamilySearch has the better index entry.
3) Alfred H., Gertrude, C. Rodney, Mari Jane and Richard A.McKnew (ED 38-498, page 6A) were indexed as "Mc Knew" on Ancestry.
Again, there is a space between the c and K. FamilySearch has the better index entry, IMHO.
4) Alfred and Alice McKnew (ED 38-557A, page 61B) were indexed as"Mc Knew" on Ancestry.
Similar to the last one, FamilySearch has the better index entry.
5) Anna McKnew (ED 38-579, page 62A) was indexed as "Mc Knew" on Ancestry.
Another one where Mc and Knew were separated. FamilySearch has the better index entry.
6) Harry G. McKnew (ED 42-1, page 9B) was indexed as"Mc Iven" on Ancestry.
Besides putting the space between Mc and Knew, the Ancestry indexer read "Knew" as "Iven." There is an I in the first name of the person above that should have been a clue,and the 'n' at the end was in the surname above. FamilySearch has the better index entry.
7) In addition, the birthplace entry for Frank McKnew (ED 60-1070, page 9A, #1 on the Ancestry list) was indexed as "Washington" while FamilySearch indexed it as "DC."
Clearly, the FamilySearch index entry is more accurate.
To summarize, there are 12 differences found between the Ancestry.com index entries and the FamilySearch.org index entries for the McKnew surname in California.
My scorecard for the differences and the one indexing error is Ancestry = 0, FamilySearch = 12.
Ancestry apparently indexed 12 entries for this name in California with "McKnew" and another 9 as "Mc Knew." They also indexed two entries that spelled "Knew" wrong. My guess is that Ancestry.com did not have rigorous standards about names with a prefix like "McKnew." I think that FamilySearch instructed indexers and arbitrators to not put a space between the prefix and the name, and a search for "mcknew"and"mc knew" provide the same matches (also for McNally, Fitz Randolph, O'Connell, etc.).
I think that I've done enough of these comparisons so that I can draw some conclusions, which I will do early next week.
The URL for this post is:http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/1940-us-census-index-comparisons-post-5.html
Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver
Follow-Up Friday - Whither FHISO and GEDCOM X?
On Fridays, I try to capture the most useful, interesting and challenging comments from the previous week.
This week, I'm going to concentrate on my post on Wednesday, 18 July, titled Whither FHISO and GEDCOM X? Observations and Commentary.
1) Louis Kessler said:
"I'm surprised you think all the activity you talked about that happened since RootsTech (only 5 months ago) has quietened down.
"I guarantee that if you go to BetterGEDCOM or go to GEDCOMX and post a comment, you will get a number of responses quite quickly. GEDCOM X's coming out with its conversion tool only 6 weeks ago was very significant, and they are assessing and incorporating all the feedback as we speak.
"As far as FHISO goes, there is an excellent dedicated international group of people involved in that, and there are rumblings that they are working diligently behind the scenes to get the major players on board with them. They can use support from respected genealogical community members such as yourself. If you'd like to get involved, I'm sure they'll accept you with open arms."
It was not to be.
In the months since RootsTech, the FHISO organizers have worked to devise opportunities for and communicate with FamilySearch, but they have opted to continue developing GEDCOM X in a proprietary fashion. If widely adopted, it will become what is known as a de facto standard.
In its own right, FamilySearch makes decisions that are in its best interest. While we may continue to hope for better outcomes, accepting and respecting the decisions of others is a golden rule in community standards development.
What does this mean for Randy and others? In a community standards organization, everyone's needs are considered, and the democratic process rules. This is not required when the work is proprietary. In the case of GEDCOM X, FamilySearch decides which needs are met and which are not.
What does this mean for FHISO? We can assume that GEDCOM X satisfies the requirements of its author, FamilySearch. So, ironically enough, the organization from which the need for FHISO was expressed is unlikely to have need for, nor reason to support, FHISO.
No one likes complications, but without the support of FamilySearch, things for FHISO become complicated by rules and guidelines. For example, because FamilySearch engages in developing proprietary standards, it is possible FHISO will not be able to establish itself as a community standards organization.
The organizers have opened a dialog about the complications with American National Standards Institute (http://ansi.org/), and we are communicating with vendors as part of this process.
We thank you, Randy, for your blog article. It will help FHISO widen the public comment about developing community standards and the organization.
One community, one standard. We are stronger and better together. Let's sort out the issues and start making things happen.
Here's how your readers can find more information or get involved.
(1) Comments are always welcome on the FHISO blog or on the FHISO Open Discussion page at the BetterGEDCOM wiki. http://fhiso.org/blog/
http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/FHISO+Open+Discussion
(2) FHISO representatives attend the open BetterGEDCOM meeting held Monday mornings (1:00 EDT/US). A part of each meeting is set aside for questions, answers and discussion about FHISO.
http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/Developers+Meeting
(3) Join the organizing effort. We are now a nine member international group; usually on five different continents, though today we are on six. Most of our work is done asynchronously (e-mail or common workspace). We hold a GoToMeeting session weekly (Wednesday at 1:30 EDT/US); attendance is encouraged, but optional. Those interested should email fhiso@fhiso.org.
(4) Speak out and let us know about it. If you blog or develop a posting about FHISO, send a notice to us at fhiso@fhiso.org .
If you are interested in learning more about standards and conformity assessment, check out http://www.standardslearn.org/"
This week, I'm going to concentrate on my post on Wednesday, 18 July, titled Whither FHISO and GEDCOM X? Observations and Commentary.
1) Louis Kessler said:
"I'm surprised you think all the activity you talked about that happened since RootsTech (only 5 months ago) has quietened down.
"I guarantee that if you go to BetterGEDCOM or go to GEDCOMX and post a comment, you will get a number of responses quite quickly. GEDCOM X's coming out with its conversion tool only 6 weeks ago was very significant, and they are assessing and incorporating all the feedback as we speak.
"As far as FHISO goes, there is an excellent dedicated international group of people involved in that, and there are rumblings that they are working diligently behind the scenes to get the major players on board with them. They can use support from respected genealogical community members such as yourself. If you'd like to get involved, I'm sure they'll accept you with open arms."
and:
"And Randy, in your post, you've given an incorrect link to my "Whither GEDCOM X?" posting. It should be: http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=1096"
My response: I appreciate your viewpoint as someone working in the FHISO trenches. To me, it seemed like the discussion went dormant, at least in "public." I don't check the BetterGEDCOM or GEDCOM X forums on a regular basis, and I should. I was part of the BetterGEDCOM group for several months, and expressed my views then, and dropped off because the discussion went over my head.
I was away for two days, but now have fixed the URL to your blog post. My apologies!
@0 Pat Richley-Erickson commented, and provided links to her posts on this topic:
"Ol' Myrt here couldn't agree more with your simple request for genealogy file transfer upgrades and adherence by all genealogy technology com. See my response to your post, too lengthy for this space in FHISO or GEDCOM X, Oh My!"
My response: Pat has several more posts on this:
Please read the comments on these posts also.
3) Alex commented:
"I am an end user who monitors BetterGEDCOM via RSS. I usually cannot make comment as the details is way too technical for me. When I do post, most go without answer or comment, I assume because they have been asked before, they have no interest to others or are below their knowledge."
and:
"I have asked the majority product contacts similar questions over the past 6 months. Most have said they would support any new standard, but none indicated they would support FHISO and few were involved in GEDCOM-X."
My response: I will look into using RSS for BetterGEDCOM - I didn't know that was possible. Thanks for asking the product contacts - it may be that the contacts don't want to reveal what they are doing for competitive reasons.
4) GeneJ wrote about some of the interactions between FHISO and FamilySearch:
"The need to organize FHISO was expressed from within FamilySearch by Gordon Clarke. He followed up by creating a BetterGEDCOM wiki page, "Developing the Organization." (Link follows.) An international group of volunteers worked on the project and delivered the governance framework for an international community standards organization at RootsTech 2012. Those involved in the project believed FHISO would be the platform by which FamilySearch's GEDCOM X made history, becoming the first standard developed by the community, for the community, serving genealogists, worldwide. http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/Developing+the+Organization
It was not to be.
In the months since RootsTech, the FHISO organizers have worked to devise opportunities for and communicate with FamilySearch, but they have opted to continue developing GEDCOM X in a proprietary fashion. If widely adopted, it will become what is known as a de facto standard.
In its own right, FamilySearch makes decisions that are in its best interest. While we may continue to hope for better outcomes, accepting and respecting the decisions of others is a golden rule in community standards development.
What does this mean for Randy and others? In a community standards organization, everyone's needs are considered, and the democratic process rules. This is not required when the work is proprietary. In the case of GEDCOM X, FamilySearch decides which needs are met and which are not.
What does this mean for FHISO? We can assume that GEDCOM X satisfies the requirements of its author, FamilySearch. So, ironically enough, the organization from which the need for FHISO was expressed is unlikely to have need for, nor reason to support, FHISO.
No one likes complications, but without the support of FamilySearch, things for FHISO become complicated by rules and guidelines. For example, because FamilySearch engages in developing proprietary standards, it is possible FHISO will not be able to establish itself as a community standards organization.
The organizers have opened a dialog about the complications with American National Standards Institute (http://ansi.org/), and we are communicating with vendors as part of this process.
We thank you, Randy, for your blog article. It will help FHISO widen the public comment about developing community standards and the organization.
One community, one standard. We are stronger and better together. Let's sort out the issues and start making things happen.
Here's how your readers can find more information or get involved.
(1) Comments are always welcome on the FHISO blog or on the FHISO Open Discussion page at the BetterGEDCOM wiki. http://fhiso.org/blog/
http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/FHISO+Open+Discussion
(2) FHISO representatives attend the open BetterGEDCOM meeting held Monday mornings (1:00 EDT/US). A part of each meeting is set aside for questions, answers and discussion about FHISO.
http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/Developers+Meeting
(3) Join the organizing effort. We are now a nine member international group; usually on five different continents, though today we are on six. Most of our work is done asynchronously (e-mail or common workspace). We hold a GoToMeeting session weekly (Wednesday at 1:30 EDT/US); attendance is encouraged, but optional. Those interested should email fhiso@fhiso.org.
(4) Speak out and let us know about it. If you blog or develop a posting about FHISO, send a notice to us at fhiso@fhiso.org .
If you are interested in learning more about standards and conformity assessment, check out http://www.standardslearn.org/"
My response: Thank you, GeneJ, for providing your perspective, and for the work FHISO has been performing. The money quote, for me, is about the contact with the ANSI organization and communicating with genealogy vendors.
The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/follow-up-friday-whither-fhiso-and.html
Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver
"Social Security Selling Dead Peoples' Identity for $10 a Pop"
Ernest Thode sent a link to this article on the Fox 8 website in Cleveland, Ohio (http://fox8.com/2012/07/19/social-security-selling-dead-peoples-identities-for-10-a-pop/), which was apparently written by Blake Ellis on CNN Money:
The article claims that:
"For $10, identity thieves can access the full name, Social Security number and other personal information of a dead person through a list of millions of deceased Americans, known as the Death Master File:"
and:
"Currently, the Social Security Administration provides the file to the Department of Commerce’s National Technical Information Service (NTIS), which then distributes it to more than 450 entities including state and local governments, hospitals, universities, financial institutions, insurance companies, and genealogy services. However, anyone can access the information through the NTIS website. To obtain records for one person, it costs $10. For an annual subscription with unlimited access to all of the files of deceased individuals, the price tag is $995."
and:
"And the identities of dead people aren’t just being stolen for tax-related fraud. A recent report from fraud prevention firm ID Analytics showed that identity thieves also steal the personal information to apply for credit cards, cell phones and anything else requiring a credit check. About 2.4 million deceased Americans each year get their identities stolen each year — amounting to a rate of more than 2,000 thefts per day."
Please read the whole article for context and statements by administrators, agitators and politicians.
Hmmm, my thoughts on this article are:
* The Department of Commerce charges $10 for a DMF/SSDI entry when many of us can find it for free! Ah,our government at work. If they charged $100 for an entry, would it reduce the number of identity thieves using this method?
* Does the DOC DMF entry provide more information than the genealogy sites? I really doubt it. The index has full name, date of birth, date of death, Social Security Number, year and state of application, and last known residence.
* The stated purpose of the DMF/SSDI is to PREVENT identity theft, not to promote it. The institutions that purchase it and use it are supposed to check the DMF whenever someone provides a SS number to determine if an identity theft is in progress. This check is supposed to include any credit check! Apparently, these institutions are aiding and abetting identity theft.
* The article mentions "Freedom of Information lawsuits" which are for images of the SS-5 application made by an individual by postal mail. This costs $27 each and takes weeks to obtain. My guess is that those are not the problem here...but that's probably too much detail for the reporter to process.
* The ID Analytics firm can't do simple mathematics; 2.4 million divided by 365 days a year is 6,575 thefts per day, not 2,000. My guess is that the 2.4 million number is wrong... perhaps they confused the number of persons dying each year (2,438,077 in 2010 in the SSDI) with the number of actual identity theft claims.
* Where are the Fact checkers for this article? Did they just blindly believe what the administrators, agitators and politicians were saying?
* How hard can it be for any government agency, and especially the IRS, to do a cross-check on ANY SSN with the DMF. I'll bet that could be easily programmed so no human being has to do anything but enter the SSN into a computer...oh, I forgot, it's the government that we're dealing with here.
Pardon my snark...
The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/social-security-selling-dead-peoples.html
Copyright(c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver
The article claims that:
"For $10, identity thieves can access the full name, Social Security number and other personal information of a dead person through a list of millions of deceased Americans, known as the Death Master File:"
and:
"Currently, the Social Security Administration provides the file to the Department of Commerce’s National Technical Information Service (NTIS), which then distributes it to more than 450 entities including state and local governments, hospitals, universities, financial institutions, insurance companies, and genealogy services. However, anyone can access the information through the NTIS website. To obtain records for one person, it costs $10. For an annual subscription with unlimited access to all of the files of deceased individuals, the price tag is $995."
and:
"And the identities of dead people aren’t just being stolen for tax-related fraud. A recent report from fraud prevention firm ID Analytics showed that identity thieves also steal the personal information to apply for credit cards, cell phones and anything else requiring a credit check. About 2.4 million deceased Americans each year get their identities stolen each year — amounting to a rate of more than 2,000 thefts per day."
Please read the whole article for context and statements by administrators, agitators and politicians.
Hmmm, my thoughts on this article are:
* The Department of Commerce charges $10 for a DMF/SSDI entry when many of us can find it for free! Ah,our government at work. If they charged $100 for an entry, would it reduce the number of identity thieves using this method?
* Does the DOC DMF entry provide more information than the genealogy sites? I really doubt it. The index has full name, date of birth, date of death, Social Security Number, year and state of application, and last known residence.
* The stated purpose of the DMF/SSDI is to PREVENT identity theft, not to promote it. The institutions that purchase it and use it are supposed to check the DMF whenever someone provides a SS number to determine if an identity theft is in progress. This check is supposed to include any credit check! Apparently, these institutions are aiding and abetting identity theft.
* The article mentions "Freedom of Information lawsuits" which are for images of the SS-5 application made by an individual by postal mail. This costs $27 each and takes weeks to obtain. My guess is that those are not the problem here...but that's probably too much detail for the reporter to process.
* The ID Analytics firm can't do simple mathematics; 2.4 million divided by 365 days a year is 6,575 thefts per day, not 2,000. My guess is that the 2.4 million number is wrong... perhaps they confused the number of persons dying each year (2,438,077 in 2010 in the SSDI) with the number of actual identity theft claims.
* Where are the Fact checkers for this article? Did they just blindly believe what the administrators, agitators and politicians were saying?
* How hard can it be for any government agency, and especially the IRS, to do a cross-check on ANY SSN with the DMF. I'll bet that could be easily programmed so no human being has to do anything but enter the SSN into a computer...oh, I forgot, it's the government that we're dealing with here.
Pardon my snark...
The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/social-security-selling-dead-peoples.html
Copyright(c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver
Thursday, July 19, 2012
1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 5: Seaver in California, Part 3
I proposed a methodology for evaluating the accuracy and completeness of the 1940 United States Census indexes on Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org in 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 1: Methodology.
In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 2: Carringer in California, I displayed my comparison tables and found that Ancestry had 8 more Carringer entries than FamilySearch, and my judgment was that Ancestry was more correct on 7 of them, and FamilySearch for one..
In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 3: Seaver in California, Part 1, I displayed my comparison table for Seaver entries in California, and found that FamilySearch had 22 more entries (147 entries) than Ancestry.com (125 entries). I analyzed all of the Ancestry unique entries, plus the ones that disagreed but were indexed by name correctly. My judgment for accuracy tally in this post was: Ancestry = 1, FamilySearch = 7, Both wrong = 4, No decision = 3.
In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 4: Seaver in California, Part 2, I displayed my second comparison table for Seaver entries in California. I analyzed the first half of the FamilySearch unique entries. My judgment for accuracy tally in this post was: Ancestry = 0, FamilySearch = 8, Both wrong = 0, No decision = 4.
This is the third of three posts for Seaver in California, and I'm going to work with the last 8 (of 16) families indexed as Seaver on FamilySearch, but which did not appear on Ancestry.com.
Here is the table for this group:
The discussion on each of these is:
* Charles H. and Everett H. Seaver (ED 60-258, page 62B) was indexed on Ancestry as "Server."
That is clearly a "v" not an "r". FamilySearch has the best index here.
* Mary Seaver (ED 37-37, page 4B) was indexed on Ancestry as "Surer."
This is a tough one. I can see how both indexed it the way they did. I can see the"e" (but not the classical lower case 'e') and the"a", and both are similar to others on the page. I can see the"v" but it looks like an "r" but not like the other lower case 'r's on the page. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Frank and Rose Seaver (ED 50-33, page 22A) was indexed on Ancestry as "Server."
Again, I can see how Ancestry indexed this as Server. However, the printed capital "A" in Seaver is consistent with all other capital A's on the page. The capital R's are different and also consistent on the page. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Mark and Teresa K. Seaver (ED 61-132, page 66A) was indexed on Ancestry as "Gea."
The Ancestry entry is obviously wrong. The surname could be Seaner, however. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Loren Laughlin and Bruce Arnold Seaver (ED 60-894, page 4B) was indexed on Ancestry as "Seavers." This family is on two pages:
This is interesting, because FamilySearch indexed the parents as "Seavers" and the sons as"Seaver." There were probably two different indexers on FamilySearch. I looked for other small s's on both pages and they are not similar to whatever is after the 'r' in Seaver on the parents entry. I think the entry should be "Seaver" and therefore 2 entries (the parents) on FamilySearch are wrong and 4 entries on Ancestry are wrong.
* Thayer W., Gladys M. and Joseph Seaver (ED 60-1260, page 4A) was indexed on Ancestry as "Seauer."
My judgment is that it is an "n" or a "v" in Seaver, rather than a "u." I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Orin J. and Agatha Seaver (ED 60-1272, page 6B) was indexed as "Seaner" on Ancestry.
I found other lower case "n" and "v" letters on the page, and I think it was written as an 'n'. Ancestry has the better index entry.
* Russell and Pauline Seaver (ED 42-3, page8B) was indexed as "Sewer" on Ancestry.
This is a difficult one because of the cramped handwriting. I magnified it more on the Ancestry site:
I see an "eav" there rather than an "ew"there. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
For this portion of the Seaver surname indexing in California, I counted up: Ancestry = 2, FamilySearch = 14, both wrong = 2, no decision = 0.
The totals for the Seaver entries in California in the Ancestry and FamilySearch indexes are:
* Ancestry has the best index entry = 3
* FamilySearch has the best index entry = 29
* Both wrong = 4
* No decision = 7
Looking at percentages, it appears that of the 147 total entries on both sites, FamilySearch had 7 wrong (4.8%) and Ancestry had 33 wrong (22.4%).
Of course, those numbers might be reversed with more comparisons with different names in different places. We do need more data here.
The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/1940-us-census-index-comparisons-post-4_19.html
Copyright(c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver
In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 2: Carringer in California, I displayed my comparison tables and found that Ancestry had 8 more Carringer entries than FamilySearch, and my judgment was that Ancestry was more correct on 7 of them, and FamilySearch for one..
In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 3: Seaver in California, Part 1, I displayed my comparison table for Seaver entries in California, and found that FamilySearch had 22 more entries (147 entries) than Ancestry.com (125 entries). I analyzed all of the Ancestry unique entries, plus the ones that disagreed but were indexed by name correctly. My judgment for accuracy tally in this post was: Ancestry = 1, FamilySearch = 7, Both wrong = 4, No decision = 3.
In 1940 U.S. Census Index Comparisons - Post 4: Seaver in California, Part 2, I displayed my second comparison table for Seaver entries in California. I analyzed the first half of the FamilySearch unique entries. My judgment for accuracy tally in this post was: Ancestry = 0, FamilySearch = 8, Both wrong = 0, No decision = 4.
This is the third of three posts for Seaver in California, and I'm going to work with the last 8 (of 16) families indexed as Seaver on FamilySearch, but which did not appear on Ancestry.com.
Here is the table for this group:
The discussion on each of these is:
* Charles H. and Everett H. Seaver (ED 60-258, page 62B) was indexed on Ancestry as "Server."
That is clearly a "v" not an "r". FamilySearch has the best index here.
* Mary Seaver (ED 37-37, page 4B) was indexed on Ancestry as "Surer."
This is a tough one. I can see how both indexed it the way they did. I can see the"e" (but not the classical lower case 'e') and the"a", and both are similar to others on the page. I can see the"v" but it looks like an "r" but not like the other lower case 'r's on the page. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Frank and Rose Seaver (ED 50-33, page 22A) was indexed on Ancestry as "Server."
Again, I can see how Ancestry indexed this as Server. However, the printed capital "A" in Seaver is consistent with all other capital A's on the page. The capital R's are different and also consistent on the page. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Mark and Teresa K. Seaver (ED 61-132, page 66A) was indexed on Ancestry as "Gea."
The Ancestry entry is obviously wrong. The surname could be Seaner, however. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Loren Laughlin and Bruce Arnold Seaver (ED 60-894, page 4B) was indexed on Ancestry as "Seavers." This family is on two pages:
This is interesting, because FamilySearch indexed the parents as "Seavers" and the sons as"Seaver." There were probably two different indexers on FamilySearch. I looked for other small s's on both pages and they are not similar to whatever is after the 'r' in Seaver on the parents entry. I think the entry should be "Seaver" and therefore 2 entries (the parents) on FamilySearch are wrong and 4 entries on Ancestry are wrong.
* Thayer W., Gladys M. and Joseph Seaver (ED 60-1260, page 4A) was indexed on Ancestry as "Seauer."
My judgment is that it is an "n" or a "v" in Seaver, rather than a "u." I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
* Orin J. and Agatha Seaver (ED 60-1272, page 6B) was indexed as "Seaner" on Ancestry.
I found other lower case "n" and "v" letters on the page, and I think it was written as an 'n'. Ancestry has the better index entry.
* Russell and Pauline Seaver (ED 42-3, page8B) was indexed as "Sewer" on Ancestry.
This is a difficult one because of the cramped handwriting. I magnified it more on the Ancestry site:
I see an "eav" there rather than an "ew"there. I think FamilySearch has the better index entry.
For this portion of the Seaver surname indexing in California, I counted up: Ancestry = 2, FamilySearch = 14, both wrong = 2, no decision = 0.
The totals for the Seaver entries in California in the Ancestry and FamilySearch indexes are:
* Ancestry has the best index entry = 3
* FamilySearch has the best index entry = 29
* Both wrong = 4
* No decision = 7
Looking at percentages, it appears that of the 147 total entries on both sites, FamilySearch had 7 wrong (4.8%) and Ancestry had 33 wrong (22.4%).
Of course, those numbers might be reversed with more comparisons with different names in different places. We do need more data here.
The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/1940-us-census-index-comparisons-post-4_19.html
Copyright(c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver
Treasure Chest Thursday - 1900 U.S. Census Record for Frank W. Seaver Family
It's Treasure Chest Thursday - time to look in my digital image files to see what treasures I can find for my family history and genealogy musings.
The treasure today is the 1900 United States Census record for my great-grandparents and their family in Leominster, Massachusetts:
Here's a closeup view of the Frank W. Seaver family entry:
The extracted information for the family, residing at 149 Lancaster Street in Leominster, taken on 8 June 1900, is:
* Frank W. Seaver -- head of household, white, male, born June 1852, age 47, married, for 26 years, born Massachusetts, parents born Massachusetts/Massachusetts, a teamster, 0 months not employed, can read, can write, can speak English, rents home
* Hattie L. Seaver -- wife, white, female, born Nov 1856, age 43, married 26 years, mother of 3 children, 2 living, born Massachusetts, father born Massachusetts, mother born Vermont, can employed, can read, can write, can speak English
* Fred W. Seaver -- son, white, male, born Oct 1876, age 24, single, born Massachusetts, parents born Massachusetts/Massachusetts, a painter of combs, can read, can write, can speak English
* Harry C. Seaver -- son, white, male, born March 1885, age 15, single, born Massachusetts, parents born Massachusetts/Massachusetts, a painter of combs, can read, can write, can speak English
* Sophia Hildreth -- mother-in-law, white, female, born September 1835, age 64, widow, mother of 1 child, 1 living, born Massachusetts, father born Maine, mother born Massachusetts, can read, can write, can speak English
The source citation for the census image is:
1900 United States Federal Census, Worcester County, Massachusetts, population schedule, Leominster; Enumeration District 1645, Sheet No. 16, dwelling #258, family #371, Frank W. Seaver household; online image, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National Archives Microfilm Publication T623, Roll 692.
There are several entries on this census record that don't match other information that I have, including:
* Hattie L. (Hildreth) Seaver was born in November 1857, not November 1856.
* Sophia (Newton) Hildreth was born in September 1834, not September 1835.
* Sophia (Newton) Hildreth's birthplace was Vermont, not Massachusetts. Note that Hattie's mother's birthplace is listed as Vermont. Sophia is Hattie's mother.
If I did not know that Sophia Hildreth was Hattie's mother, there is a major clue in this record since Sophia is listed as Frank's mother-in-law.
The URL For this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/treasure-chest-thursday-1900-us-census.html
Copyright (2012), Randall J. Seaver
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Whither FHISO and GEDCOM X? Observations and Commentary
The unveiling of FHISO (Family History International Standards Organisation, www.fhiso.org) at RootsTech 2012 in February was a highlight of the conference, as was the announcement of GEDCOM X by FamilySearch as a replacement for GEDCOM.
I posted about these topics in:
* Family History Information Standards Organization (FHISO) Formed
* Day 4 in SLC - RootsTech Day 2 Afternoon/Evening
* Glimpses of GEDCOM X
Other geneabloggers in attendance wrote about these topics also, for example:
* The Ancestry Insider summarized Ryan Heaton: A New GEDCOM.
* RootsTech Learning #3 - GEDCOM X and/or BetterGEDCOM and/or FHISO by Bart Brenner on the Stardust 'n' Roots blog.
* RootsTech Day 2 and Final Thoughts and Random Notes from RootsTech on Louis Kessler's Behold Blog.
Since RootsTech 2012, there were some announcements and blog posts about GEDCOM X and FHISO.
* GEDCOM X 2012-06-05: Thanks for your feedback, Specs, Diagrams, and Illustrations and The GEDCOM 5.5 to GEDCOM X Conversion Tool on the FamilySearch Github GEDCOM X blog. There are many more posts on this page!
* You can read the FHISO announcements at http://fhiso.org/announcements/press-releases/. I note that Ancestry.com is the ONLY Founding Member to date.
* Tamura Jones wrote GEDCOM X Origin and GEDCOM X Converter on his Modern Software Experiences blog.
* Louis Kessler wrote Whither GEDCOM X on the Louis Kessler's Behold Blog.
And now things are nice and quiet... too quiet to my liking. Did everything stop for the summer? Shouldn't there be more announcements, progress reports, blog posts, discussions, etc? Perhaps they are happening behind closed doors. I have no information beyond what I've read above.
I'm curious, because this subject will significantly affect every genealogist who wants to build a family tree, whether in genealogy software or in an online family tree, attach records and sources from historical record collections to their trees, or all of the above.
I know what I want as a genealogist, a family tree builder and user, and for the genealogy community at large. My "wants" for GEDCOM X, or whatever it's eventually called, include:
* I want standards for entering genealogy data into software programs or online trees.
* I want those standards to be broadly adopted - meaning that every software provider, historical records provider and online family tree provider accepts the standards and utilizes them.
* I want something like FHISO, as laid out on the www.fhiso.org web site, to develop and approve the new standard with openness, lack of dominance by any one entity, balance between interests, and consensus and agreement as the goal.
* My main want is that I want it to work well, right out of the box, and I want it to be a significant improvement over the current GEDCOM.
* I want genealogy software to be able to interact with online family trees and historical record collections, without the glitches and problems that currently plague many programs and sites.
* I want source citation standards to incorporate modern models, such as the Evidence! Explained models. I want source citations to be easily created and passed cleanly between historical record collections, online trees and genealogy software.
* I want an impartial group of users to test it and compare results with current programs and online trees. I want those tests reported while they occur rather than a "stamp of approval" from an unknown group of testers.
* I want it to be transparent so that I can figure out what it's doing...I really, really, really don't want a "black box" piece of software that I need customer support for. I really, really, really don't want a proprietary system from any entity that says "just trust us, and you all have to do it our way."
* I want more information, not less, from all of the parties involved.
Yo, FamilySearch, FHISO, BetterGEDCOM, OpenGen, Tamura, Louis, Ancestry Insider, other interested parties -- what more do you know, what are you doing, and what can we do to move this project to fruition and completion???
I have some questions too:
* Has FHISO progressed - has it obtained more members and sponsors? Is it working with ALL of the genealogy software providers, online family tree sites and historical record collection providers? Does it have end user (genealogists) input?
* Has FHISO created a broader framework to create genealogy and family history standards? Does it have models in work?
* Is FamilySearch participating in FHISO? I recall at RootsTech they said that they supported it. Is the FHISO governance discussed at RootsTech being applied in GEDCOM X?
* Is the FamilySearch GEDCOM X going to be a "black box" or an "open source" feature?
* Is there an open repository for GEDCOM X comment documents? Can I read the input from all of the participants, including FamilySearch, about GEDCOM X?
* What will happen if no other entity, or only some entities, adopts a standard proposed or implemented by another entity? If that occurs, will the software and website providers adopt all the standards of these entities if they release separate, and different, standards?
* How long will it take software providers to adopt and implement any new GEDCOM standard?
* Will the current GEDCOM standard be available forever?
I know that it's been only six months since RootsTech 2012, and just over a month since FamilySearch released the GEDCOM X papers noted above.
But...inquiring minds want to know!! I look forward to a significant discussion about these issues on the blogs and at upcoming conferences.
The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/whither-fhiso-and-gedcom-x-observations.html
Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver
I posted about these topics in:
* Family History Information Standards Organization (FHISO) Formed
* Day 4 in SLC - RootsTech Day 2 Afternoon/Evening
* Glimpses of GEDCOM X
Other geneabloggers in attendance wrote about these topics also, for example:
* The Ancestry Insider summarized Ryan Heaton: A New GEDCOM.
* RootsTech Learning #3 - GEDCOM X and/or BetterGEDCOM and/or FHISO by Bart Brenner on the Stardust 'n' Roots blog.
* RootsTech Day 2 and Final Thoughts and Random Notes from RootsTech on Louis Kessler's Behold Blog.
Since RootsTech 2012, there were some announcements and blog posts about GEDCOM X and FHISO.
* GEDCOM X 2012-06-05: Thanks for your feedback, Specs, Diagrams, and Illustrations and The GEDCOM 5.5 to GEDCOM X Conversion Tool on the FamilySearch Github GEDCOM X blog. There are many more posts on this page!
* You can read the FHISO announcements at http://fhiso.org/announcements/press-releases/. I note that Ancestry.com is the ONLY Founding Member to date.
* Tamura Jones wrote GEDCOM X Origin and GEDCOM X Converter on his Modern Software Experiences blog.
* Louis Kessler wrote Whither GEDCOM X on the Louis Kessler's Behold Blog.
And now things are nice and quiet... too quiet to my liking. Did everything stop for the summer? Shouldn't there be more announcements, progress reports, blog posts, discussions, etc? Perhaps they are happening behind closed doors. I have no information beyond what I've read above.
I'm curious, because this subject will significantly affect every genealogist who wants to build a family tree, whether in genealogy software or in an online family tree, attach records and sources from historical record collections to their trees, or all of the above.
I know what I want as a genealogist, a family tree builder and user, and for the genealogy community at large. My "wants" for GEDCOM X, or whatever it's eventually called, include:
* I want standards for entering genealogy data into software programs or online trees.
* I want those standards to be broadly adopted - meaning that every software provider, historical records provider and online family tree provider accepts the standards and utilizes them.
* I want something like FHISO, as laid out on the www.fhiso.org web site, to develop and approve the new standard with openness, lack of dominance by any one entity, balance between interests, and consensus and agreement as the goal.
* My main want is that I want it to work well, right out of the box, and I want it to be a significant improvement over the current GEDCOM.
* I want genealogy software to be able to interact with online family trees and historical record collections, without the glitches and problems that currently plague many programs and sites.
* I want source citation standards to incorporate modern models, such as the Evidence! Explained models. I want source citations to be easily created and passed cleanly between historical record collections, online trees and genealogy software.
* I want an impartial group of users to test it and compare results with current programs and online trees. I want those tests reported while they occur rather than a "stamp of approval" from an unknown group of testers.
* I want it to be transparent so that I can figure out what it's doing...I really, really, really don't want a "black box" piece of software that I need customer support for. I really, really, really don't want a proprietary system from any entity that says "just trust us, and you all have to do it our way."
* I want more information, not less, from all of the parties involved.
Yo, FamilySearch, FHISO, BetterGEDCOM, OpenGen, Tamura, Louis, Ancestry Insider, other interested parties -- what more do you know, what are you doing, and what can we do to move this project to fruition and completion???
I have some questions too:
* Has FHISO progressed - has it obtained more members and sponsors? Is it working with ALL of the genealogy software providers, online family tree sites and historical record collection providers? Does it have end user (genealogists) input?
* Has FHISO created a broader framework to create genealogy and family history standards? Does it have models in work?
* Is FamilySearch participating in FHISO? I recall at RootsTech they said that they supported it. Is the FHISO governance discussed at RootsTech being applied in GEDCOM X?
* Is the FamilySearch GEDCOM X going to be a "black box" or an "open source" feature?
* Is there an open repository for GEDCOM X comment documents? Can I read the input from all of the participants, including FamilySearch, about GEDCOM X?
* Will other historical record sites and online family trees adopt the FHISO standard, or FamilySearch's GEDCOM X, or any other new GEDCOM standard as a standard?
* What will happen if no other entity, or only some entities, adopts a standard proposed or implemented by another entity? If that occurs, will the software and website providers adopt all the standards of these entities if they release separate, and different, standards?
* How long will it take software providers to adopt and implement any new GEDCOM standard?
* Will the current GEDCOM standard be available forever?
I know that it's been only six months since RootsTech 2012, and just over a month since FamilySearch released the GEDCOM X papers noted above.
But...inquiring minds want to know!! I look forward to a significant discussion about these issues on the blogs and at upcoming conferences.
The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/whither-fhiso-and-gedcom-x-observations.html
Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)