(Not So) Wordless Wednesday - Post 196: Randy and Gramp in the Park

 I am posting photographs from my family collections for (Not So) Wordless Wednesday (you know me, I can't go wordless!).    

Here is a small photograph from the Seaver/Carringer family collection handed down by my mother in the 1988 to 2002 time period:  

This is a picture of me sitting on my maternal grandfather's knee while on an outing somewhere - perhaps at El Monte Park in Lakeside northeast of San Diego.  This must have been taken in about 1945 since I look to be about age 2 in this photo.  Lyle Carringer, my grandfather "Gramp," was age 54 in 1945.

I've been trying to figure out what Lyle has in his left pants pocket - perhaps it's a watch chain or a dog leash.  The resolution on the picture is not fine enough to see it clearly.


The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/03/not-so-wordless-wednesday-post-196.html

Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver 

What Columns of the 1940 U.S. Census Will be Indexed?

I was wondering which columns of the 1940 United States Census would be indexed.

I recently heard that Ancestry.com would be indexing every column (I think I heard Kendall Jefferson say this in his Keynote talk at the Escondido Family History Fair on 3 March, but I didn't write it down at the time).

What about the FamilySearch Indexing project to index the 1940 U.S. Census?  As part of my FamilySearch Indexing task to prepare for the 1940 Census, I indexed the sample batch page available on the FamilySearch Indexing site.  Here is what the screen for this sample batch looks like:

While indexing this batch, I wrote down the column numbers headings that will be indexed:

Line Number

3.  Household Number
7.  Surname
7.  Given Name(s)
7.  Titles or Terms (like Rev., Jr. Sr., V, etc.)
8.  Relation
9.  Sex
10.  Race or Color
11.  Age
12.  Marital Status
15.  Place of birth
17.  Residence in 1935 - City/Town
18.  Residence in 1935 - County
19.  Residence in 1935 - State/Foreign Country

That's it - 14 columns to input.  Out of 34.  The FamilySearch Indexing effort will not include the following:

1.  Street name
2.  House number
4.  Home owned or rented
5.  Value of home, if owned, or monthly rental, if rented
6.  Does this household live on a farm?
13.  Attended school or college any time since March 1, 1940.
14.  Highest grade of school completed?
16.  Citizenship of the foreign born
20.  Residence in 1935 - On a Farm?
21.  Was this person at Work for pay or profit in private or non-emergency Govt. work during week of March 24-30?
22.  If not, was he at work on, or assigned to, public Emergency Work (WPA, NYA, CCC, etc.) during week of March 24-30?
23.  Was this person Seeking Work.
24.  If not seeking work, did he have a Job, business, etc.?
25.  Indicate whether engaged in home housework (H) or school (S), unable to work (U), or other (Ot).
26.  Number of hours worked during week of March 24-30, 1940
27.  Duration of unemployment up to March 30, 1940-in weeks.
28.  Occupation - Trade, profession, or particular kind of work
29.  Industry or business
30.  Class of worker
31.  Number of weeks worked in 1939 (Equivalent full-time weeks)
32.  Amount of money wages or salary received (including commissions)
33.  Did this person receive income of $50 or more from sources other than money wages or salary?
34.  Number of Farm Schedule

Frankly, I understand why those columns will not be indexed by FamilySearch Indexing.  There is little to be gained by indexing these other columns in terms of searching the census.  The important columns for searching - name, sex, race, age, place of birth - are included.

The column that I wish they had indexed is the occupation.  The other columns, including the two sampling rows on each page, will provide extensive information about the person and family lifestyle, and is the major reason why the census schedule should be accessed and transcribed or abstracted by researchers.

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/03/what-columns-of-1940-us-census-will-be.html

Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver

Tuesday's Tip - Find 1940 EDs Using Steve Morse One-Step Location Tools

This week's Tuesday's Tip is:   Find the Enumeration Districts (ED) in 1940 where your ancestral families lived using the 1940 Census Tutorial Quiz (http://stevemorse.org/census/quiz.php) on the Steve Morse One-Step website.

Why should you do this?  If you are going to search for your ancestral families in the 1940 U.S. Census before there are every-name indexes available (projected to be the last quarter of 2012), you will need to know the Enumeration District for every address.  When you know the ED, you can then search for your ancestral family  by looking at the images one by one online at http://1940census.archives.gov.

For a great tutorial on how to use the 1940 U.S. Census Tutorial Quiz, watch Thomas MacEntee's "Navigating the 1940 U.S. Census" webinar (which is available for free only through 19 March) at http://www.millenniacorp.com/_videos/webinars/2012-03-07-1940/2012-03-07-1940.html.

The Unified 1940 U.S. Census ED Finder on the Steve Morse One-Step website is at http://stevemorse.org/census/unified.html.  Because I knew where my two Carringer families lived in San Diego in 1940 (from city directories and family papers), I was able to determine the Enumeration district for them within 30 seconds.  On the Unified ED Finder site, I entered the state, county, city, street number, street name, and three cross or back streets (all from drop-down menus).  It found EDs 62-63B and 62-63A.  I looked at the ED descriptions and am very sure that the Carringer residences are in ED 62-63B.

If you don't know the cross and back streets, you can use Google Maps to see the current street names around the block that contains your ancestors address.  Input the address to Google Maps (http://maps.google.com) and note the cross and back streets.

 If the current streets did not exist in 1940, then take a look at the 1940  Enumeration District maps on the National Archives Online Public Access site (http://www.archives.gov/research/search/).  Enter the terms [1940 census maps yourcity yourstate] into the search box.  For my case, I entered [1940 census maps san diego california] into the search box.  You then have to look through all of the matches that come up.  San Diego city has 142 EDs, and after clicking through several map pages, I found the block where my ancestors lived in ED 63.

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/03/tuesdays-tip-find-1940-eds-using-steve.html

Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver.

What I learned about the 1940 U.S. Census

I, along with about 150 other genealogists, enjoyed Joel Weintraub's presentation "Here Comes the 1940 U.S. Census" on Saturday, 10 March at the San Diego Genealogical Society meeting.

Joel's presentation style is unique - combining walking all around the room while showing hilarious, but corny, slides, plus providing excellent detailed information about his topic.  The audience was enthralled, entertained and informed for two hours.  Oh, he brought along original papers and books of census forms, enumerator handbooks, and more; he passed many of them around.

This old dog can still learn new things, and I learned a bunch, including (from my notes done the old fashioned way - handwritten on a sheet of paper - all errors are mine!):

*  The 1940 U.S. census had seven schedules.  The housing form schedules were destroyed before microfilming (unfortunate, since those forms had lots of interesting information about the buildings involved).

*  All 20th century census schedules were destroyed after being microfilmed.  That's why we cannot "go back" and view the "original" - we're stuck with the NARA microfilms (Gee, I hope we can still read the 1990 microfilms in 2062!).

*  The 1940 population schedule actually used five different forms, with two sides.  Each form had two sampling lines.  The form that we have seen, with the sampling on lines 14 and 29 on the A side, has lines 55 and 68 sampled on the B side.  This form was used for 80% of the Enumeration Districts (ED).  The other four forms had different sampling lines than the one with lines 14 and 29 on the A side.  Each ED used only one specific form.

*  The enumerators were supposed to write on the forms inside a folded case so that the persons being enumerated could not see what had been, or would be, written.  These folded cases were large and unwieldy.  You can see one on the Norman Rockwell painting of the census taker.

*  There was an enumerators handbook with detailed instructions on filling out the forms.  You can see the directions here.  Each enumerator had to turn in a daily report of the number of residences contacted and number of pages filled out.

*  There were 120,000 enumerators hired by the government.  For a population of 132 million, that works out to  about 1,100 names per enumerator on average or 27.5 pages (40 lines per page),

*  The enumerators were paid 4 cents per name, so the average wage was thus $44 for being an enumerator.

*  There was a trial run in two Indiana counties to determine how many persons would object to the questions.   About 2% resisted providing answers.

*  The purpose of the census was to count every person alive at 12:01 AM on 1 April 1940 at their usual place of residence.  If you were born after that time and day you should not have been counted.  Follow-up visits were made over the next two weeks to residences that did not respond on 2 April.

*  The person who gave the family information to the enumerator was marked with an X.  If someone else gave the information, their name should be in the left-hand margin.

*  The birth place of each foreign-born person was to be listed as the country as it existed on 1 January 1937 in order to circumvent the Nazi occupation of many European countries.  A state and city without a country was acceptable.

*  No address for the residence in 1935 was provided - only city, county, state, or R = Rural.  If a person resided in the same house in both 1935 and 1940, the enumerator was instructed to write "same place" (and therefore we know the address since it is provided on the 1940 enumeration).

*  There were special census days for transients (8 April) and hotels (9 April).  Page numbers for the follow-up visits start with 61A, and page numbers for the transients and hotels start on page 81A in each ED.

*  The enumerators did not add the numerical codes (used to tabulate the information) in the code columns - that was done after the enumeration at the National Archives.

*  The entries in the Income columns were supposed to be accurate for incomes up to $5,000, but above $5,000 the entries should read $5,000+.  Joel said that Congressmen objected to listing higher incomes.  A person could fill out a form and submit a sealed envelope with the income information.  However, the enumerator marked the ED, sheet and line number on it and the information was added to the forms later   About 2.3% of workers left the income section blank.

*  They estimated the "Undercount" in the 1940 census by comparing the enumerations with the Selective Service registration of all men (up to age 45?) in 1941.  They found that 13% of black males, and 3% of white males, were not enumerated in the 1940 census (a net of about 5% undercount).

*  The 1940 census was used to determine which blocks had Japanese-born individuals after the start of World War II, even though the government claimed they did not do that at the time.

*  The 1950 U.S. census had 20% sampling - six lines on a 30 page form.

All of that was in the first hour of the presentation.  In the second hour, Joel discussed how to use the Location tools on the Steve Morse One-Step website to find the Enumeration District (ED) number when you know an address - go to http://stevemorse.org/quiz.php.

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/03/what-i-learned-about-1940-us-census.html

Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver

Updated 7 p.m.:  Modified one paragraph to conform to what Joel wrote in his comment.

Ten Reasons Why I Use a Genealogy Software Program

Following the discussion about genealogists who enter information into their genealogy software in an evidenced-based manner or in a conclusion-based manner (see Michael Hait's collection of genea-blogger posts in “Evidence-based” and “Conclusion-based” software use), Susan Clark wrote Getting Down to Basics on her Nolichucky Roots blog.  In that post, she listed several possible reasons for using a genealogy software program, and then asked the BIG question:

Why do you use a genealogy database program?

My answers are:

1)  A genealogy database program - I have and use RootsMagic 5, Legacy Family Tree 7.5, Family Tree Maker 2012, and Family Tree Maker 16 - makes my research logging, data organizing, source citing, document transcribing or abstracting, conclusion making, proof arguing, report writing, and chart making easier than if I had all of my genealogy notes and supporting documents in surname or locality binders or folders.  The issues are time, space, consistency, readability, and ease of use.

2)  I'm making the effort to minimize my paper collection.  In 24 years of "research," I have collected over 40 linear feet of paper in either three-ring binders or in stacks in my genealogy cave.  I hesitate to show you this mess with a photograph, lest you think that I'm a hoarder.  I fear being buried in an earthquake, which is why I'm trying to not add to it.  I have added many of the Event assertions in the paper records to my genealogy database, but I have not sourced it completely yet (I'm about 25% there!  I've actually added about 2% over the past year).  

3)  With my database, which consists of my ancestral families, my wife's ancestral families, several cousins ancestral families, several one-name studies (Seaver, Carringer, Vaux, Dill, Buck, Auble, Richman), I have over 40,000 names in my database.  Yes, I've always been a name collector, and I'm trying hard to be an evidence-based genealogy researcher following Genealogical Proof Standard principles.  The problem is that I wasn't one for about twenty years, and therefore what is in my database needs lots of work to bring it up to snuff.  I can find any person in my database within about ten seconds from clicking the button to open my RootsMagic software, and can see what assertions, notes, sources and media that I have for that person, or their family.  If my paper collection was perfectly organized, it would take me much longer to find the right notebook, and find the right family, and the right person in that family. Since it's not perfectly organized, it takes me minutes, and some moving of piles or boxes, to find a specific person in my paper collection.  So - the software saves me lots of time.

4)  I receive several emails a week asking me about one of my ancestral families or a person in my one-name studies.  Often, I create a pedigree chart, a family group sheet or a narrative ancestors report to the correspondent.  I usually save them as a PDF file so that they can be used as a guide to my correspondent.  Again, this is an almost trivial time exercise - the reports or charts are created in seconds, and can be easily attached to an email for transmission.  The alternative?  Use a photocopier to make an image of page(s) from the notebooks and send them by postal mail; use a scanner to make a digital image and attach it to an email; or ignore the request.  Again - the software saves a lot of my time, and creates a more readable report or chart, plus I'm sharing my work with other researchers.

5)  Genealogy software enables me to easily upload all or part of my family tree data, using either a GEDCOM file export or a direct upload (FTM 2012 to Ancestry Member Tree), to an online family tree website for sharing and collaboration.  Some software programs will permit the user to easily add information to the FamilySearch Family Tree, and a program like AncestorSync promises to permit a direct upload of your database from a specific software program to a specific online family tree (coming soon!).  There is no way I want to type in even 1,000 persons in an online family tree.  

6)  I transcribe or abstract from images of documents directly into the Notes of my genealogy software program using a multiple windows technique.  I know where all of this material is - it's in my genealogy software program notes.  I don't have to search through my computer file folder system to find a specific document, assuming that I transcribed or abstracted it in the first place.  I either did or didn't - and can find out within seconds of opening my software program.  Hell, I keep it open all day just to save on the five seconds it takes to start up from scratch (I just checked the time - five seconds!  Opening it twelve times a day - I save a whole minute every day!).  

7)  My handwriting was poor to begin with, and it's gotten worse.  I cannot read some of the notes I made over five years ago.  It is faster for me to type than to write longhand (butt hen there'st het ypos...my figners are osmetimes faster than my brain).  Ergo - use the software, and damn the typos!  I keep finding them in everything I've typed.  I'm my own editor, as my readers know!

8)  I can feed my blogs, newsletter articles or email by copying and pasting material from the Notes in software, or from the reports created using the software, including source citations.  I don't have to type anything from scratch - so that my names, dates, places, sources, etc. are accurate (subject to editing in the software) and consistent in format.  

9)  If I wish, I can do online research from within my genealogy software program by accessing websites, capturing document images, adding source citations, etc.  I don't do that much now, but I can see the benefits of doing it.  I prefer to search online with my browser, and then type the new information into the database.  The exception is narrative, where I will copy and paste it and then edit it.  I resist attaching documents on Ancestry.com to my database because I can never be sure that the correct Events are entered and the sources for most of Ancestry's databases really suck.  I do capture the documents to my computer file folders and work with them, and sometimes attach them to persons in my program with a free-form source citation created using Evidence! Explained guidelines.

10)  Lastly, I can create web pages, wall charts and narrative books using my genealogy software.  The challenge is, of course, editing the narrative, getting the images in the right place, and making an index.  My opinion is that an imperfect book, or a deathly boring genealogy book, is much better than no book at all.  I'm not trying to sell books, or write peer-reviewed periodical articles here.  I think I understand why most professional genealogists want to write their own narrative with names, dates, places, notes, sources, proof arguments, and conclusions.  

Of course, all of the above assumes that I have collected sufficient and accurate data for each person of interest, entered my data into the software completely and accurately, with correct spelling and grammar, etc.  I admit to being imperfect in this regard - I'm still looking for original or derivative source material (especially probate, deed and military information) of my ancestral families.  I'm adding content to the database as I find it from my research work (often with a time delay when the "to-be-entered" pile stacks up), and I'm doing lots of editing of the material that I already have in the database (adding Events and source citations).  I will never be DONE with this task, but there will lots of stuff for other researchers to discover (and correct?) when it is all online or in published (but probably boring) books.

Where would I be without genealogy software?  I would not be as far along in my research, I'd have several rooms full of paper (ah, the Seaver ancestry room, the Carringer ancestry room, ...), and it would be even more difficult to find anything in a short period of time.  However, I'm sure that the three-ring binder collection would be better organized than it is now, having lain fallow for at least fifteen years.

Each of us is different, with skills and knowledge and experience - no two of us does things exactly the same way when we perform genealogy research at a repository or online, when we write or type the information we gather, how we cite sources or analyze data, or how we draw conclusions.   Many persons do one or more  of these tasks much better than I do, and a few do all of them superbly.  They're the ones writing the best how-to books, speaking at conferences, judging CG and AG applications, etc.  They're the ones I'm trying to learn from in the limited years I have left on this spinning globe.

I think that my readers can come up with at least ten more reasons to enter genealogy information into a genealogy software program.

What say you?  Agree? Disagree?  Have at it!!

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/03/ten-reasons-why-i-use-genealogy.html

Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver

Amanuensis Monday - Administration Papers for Alpheus B. Smith Estate

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

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

The subject today is the administration papers filed on the estate of Alpheus B. Smith (1802-1840) of Medfield, Norfolk County, Massachusetts.  This record is in:

Norfolk County (Massachusetts) Probate Court, "Probate docket books, and record books (1793-1916)," Family History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah, on 142 microfilm reels.  Volume 73, Page 239 (accessed on FHL US/CAN Microfilm 842817), Administration, Estate of Alpheus B. Smith, dated first Tuesday of February 1840.

The image of this record is: 

The transcription of the deed is (handwritten portions underlined and in italics): 

Decree [in right margin]

ADMINISTRATION

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Norfolk SS.  At a court of Probate holden at Dedham in said County on the first Tuesday of February A.D. 1840.

It appearing upon the representation of Hinsdale Fisher of Medfield in the County of Norfolk, that Alpheus B. Smith of Medfield in said county of Norfolk, yeoman, lately died intestate, having at the time of his decease goods and estate in said county, and leaving Elizabeth H. Smith his widow and two children his next of kin: And the said Hinsdale Fisher at the request of the widow, of said intestate, having requested administration of the goods and estate of said deceased, and having given bond in the form prescribed by law, in the penal sum of Sixteen hundred dollars, with George Fisher of Medfield and Charles Harding of Medfield as sureties: It is thereupon ordered and decreed that said Hinsdale Fisher be and he hereby is appointed and admitted to said trust: And it is also ordered that said Administrator give notice of his appointment, within three months, by causing notifications thereof to be posted up in two or more public places in said Medfield and also to be published three weeks in the newspaper called the Norfolk Democrat printed at Dedham.

.............................................................................................. S. LELAND, Judge of Probate.

Warrant to Appraise [in right margin]

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Norfolk SS.  At a Court of Probate holden at Dedham in said County on the first Tuesday of February A.D. 1840.

Administration of the goods and estate of Alpheus B. Smith late of Medfield in said County, yeoman, deceased, having been granted to Hinsdale Fisher of Medfield in the County of Norfolk.  It is therefore ordered that Seth Chenery, Stephen Turner & David Clark of said Medfield be and they hereby are authorized and required to appraise, upon oath, all the real estate, goods and chattels, rights and credits of the said deceased, and to make a true and perfect Inventory, of all said Estate, except such provisions and other articles as were necessary for the reasonable subsistence of his family for forty days after his decease, and such necessary articles, not exceeding $115 in value, as have been allowed his widow by order of Court, and the same so made to deliver to the said Administrator to be by him returned to the Court of Probate for said County.

........................................................................................  S. LELAND, Judge of Probate.

 Letter of Administration [in right margin]

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  

Norfolk SS. By the Honorable Judge of the Court of Probate for the County aforesaid.

To Hinsdale Fisher of Medfield in the County of Norfolk, GREETING:

Whereas, by a decree of the Court of Probate, holden at Dedham in said county of Norfolk, on the first Tuesday of February A.D. 1840.

You the said Hinsdale Fisher were duly appointed Administrator of the goods and estate of Alpheus B. Smith late of Medfield in said County, yeoman, deceased;

You are therefore commissioned in the said trust, and required to give notice of your said appointment by causing notifications thereof to be published three weeks in the newspaper called the Norfolk Democrat printed in Dedham and also to be posted up in two or more public places in said Medfield within three months, and to make affidavit thereof before some Justice of the Peace, and to return the affidavit so made, with a copy of your notification into the Probate office of said County, within one year.

This was the official piece of paper that granted Hinsdale Fisher to be the Administrator of the estate of Alpheus B. Smith.  Apparently, he was named administrator at the request of the widow of Alpheus, Elizabeth H. Smith.  

Hinsdale Fisher had quite a few duties to perform.  First, he gave a $1,600 bond with two other persons as sureties.  Then he was supposed to post a notice of his appointment in two or more public places in Medfield, and in a local newspaper for three weeks running.  He had to receive the inventory of the estate and return it to the Court after it was completed.  He had to report all of this to the Probate Court within one year.  More tasks were to come...

Thank goodness for the form - it makes the court records much easier to read!

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/03/amanuensis-monday-administration-papers.html

Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver

Best of the Genea-Blogs - 4 to 10 March 2012

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

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

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


*  Copyright and the old family photo by Judy G. Russell on The Legal Genealogist blog.  Judy  explains how the photo taken in 1900 is still in copyright protection.  Interesting.


*  Five Golden Rules for Growing Our Family Trees Rule 1 Do Your Own Research by the writer of the My Family Roots Run Deep blog.  These are Kimberly Powell's rules, but the examples are this blogger's.


*  Lock, Stock and barrel by Pat Richley-Erickson on DearMYRTLE's Genealogy Blog.  Ol' MYRT shares when, how and why she enters data into her genealogy database, and what she does with disproved information.


*  Traveling with the Dead Ancestors by guest blogger Jennifer Wilson on the Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak Roots World blog.  Jennifer and her family went back to live in her ancestral country for awhile, and she has suggestions for those that want to do that also.


*  Source Citation vs. Proof by James Tanner on the Genealogy's Star blog.  James makes excellent points here discussing this issue.


*  The iPad and Power Point Presentations by Lucie LeBlanc Consentino on the Lucie's Legacy blog.  Lucie explains the process to making this work.


*  WDYTYA – 3×03 – Blair Underwood – The Nitpicker’s Version by Banai Feldstein on The Ginger Jewish Genealogist blog.  Banai always has the definitive post from a genealogists point of view.  


*  “Evidence-based” and “Conclusion-based” software use by Michael Hait on the Planting the Seeds blog.  Michael lists the blog posts from the recent discussion, and adds further discussion points.


Several genea-bloggers wrote weekly pick posts and news summary posts this week, including:  


*  Monday Morning Mentions by Lynn Palermo on The Armchair Genealogist blog.


*  Ruth's Recommendations by Ruth Blair on The Passionate Genealogist blog.


*  Genealogy Round Up, March 8 by Megan Smolenyak on the Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak's Roots World blog 


*  Follow Friday: This Week's Favorite Finds by Jen on the Climbing My Family Tree blog.


*  Genealogy News Corral, March 5-9 by Diane Haddad on the Genealogy Insider blog.


I encourage readers to go to the blogs listed above and read their articles, and add their blogs to your Favorites, Google Reader, RSS feed or email if you like what you read. Please make a comment to them also - all bloggers appreciate feedback on what they write.

Did I miss a great genealogy blog post? Tell me! I am currently reading posts from over 1200 genealogy bloggers using Google Reader, but I still miss quite a few it seems.

Read past Best of the Genea-Blogs posts here.

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/03/best-of-genea-blogs-4-to-10-march-2012.html

Copyright (c) Randall J. Seaver, 2012.

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun - How Many Surnames?

It's Saturday Night - time for more Genealogy Fun!

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to:

1)  Go into your Genealogy Management Program (GMP; either software on your computer, or an online family tree) and figure out how to Count how many surnames you have in your family tree database.

2)  Tell us which GMP you're using and how you did this task.

3)  Tell us how many surnames are in your database and, if possible, which Surname has the most entries.  If this excites you, tell us which surnames are in the top 5!  Or 10!

4)  Write about it in your own blog post, in a comment to this blog post, in a status or comment on Facebook, or in Google Plus Stream post.

NOTE:  If you can't figure out how to do this in your GMP, use the Help button and search for "count persons" then follow directions.  

Here's mine:

I'm going to use RootsMagic 5 because that's where I'm doing my current additions, deletions and editing and is my most up-to-date collection.  In RootsMagic 5, go to Reports, then Lists and scroll down to "Surname Statistics List."  I then chose "Frequency of Surnames" from the list presented.

That took about 20 seconds and I have a 124 page list!  I didn't count every one of them - there are 124 pages with 47 names per page, plus the last page has 19.  That's a grand total of 5,847 surnames in my database with 41,274 persons.  The top 10 are, with birth date ranges:

*  SEAVER - 4,167 persons, from 1608 to 2011
*  BUCK - 652 persons, from 1585 to 1965
*  SMITH - 618 persons, from 1526 to 2005
*  VAUX - 508 persons, from 1620 to 2006
*  FITZ RANDOLPH - 498 persons, from 1565 to 1884

*  DILL - 420 persons, from 1645 to 1993
*  RICHMAN - 345 persons, from 1622 to 1985
*  NEWTON - 317 persons, from 1690 to 1997
*  CHAMPLIN - 305 persons, from 1618 to 1903
*  CULVER - 270 persons from 1650 to 1981

I have 161 Mary's without a surname, and 144 Elizabeth's without a surname, and 205 persons without any name at all (there's a blank line for this one!).

Of course, if I added up all the persons without a surname, my LNU's are probably the biggest group on the list.


I didn't see a way to get a count on first names - can anyone figure this out in RootsMagic 5, or in another program?  

Surname Saturday - GRAY (England > Massachusetts)

It's Surname Saturday, and I'm "counting down" my Ancestral Name List each week.  I am now up to number 371, who is Lydia GRAY (1707-????), one of my 6th-great-grandparents. [Note: The 6th great-grandfathers have been covered in earlier posts] 

My ancestral line back through three generations of GRAY ancestors is:

1. Randall J. Seaver

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-before 1870)

46.  Jonathan Oatley (1790-1872)
47.  Amy Champlin (1798-1865)

92.  Joseph Oatley (1755-1815)
93.  Mary Hazard (1765-1857)

184.  Benedict Oatley (1732-1821)
185.  Elizabeth Ladd (1734-1814)


370.  Joseph Ladd, born 19 October 1701 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island, United States; died before March 1748 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island, United States.  He was the son of 740. William Ladd and 741. Elizabeth Tompkins.  He married 25 August 1731 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island, United States.
371.   Lydia Gray, born 16 October 1707 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island, United States; 


Children of Joseph Ladd and Lydia Gray are:  Deborah Ladd (1732-????); Joseph Ladd (1733-????); Elizabeth Ladd (1735-1814); William Ladd (1737-1800); Lydia Ladd (1740-????).


742.  Samuel Gray, born about 1681 in Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States; died 23 March 1712 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island, United States.  He married  13 July 1699 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island, United States.
743.  Deborah Church, born 12 March 1677 in Hingham, Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States; died 08 June 1772 in Lebanon, New London, Connecticut, United States.  She was the daughter of 1486. Joseph Church and 1487. Mary Tucker.

Children of Samuel Gray and Deborah Church are:  Samuel Gray (1700-1764); John Gray (1701-1702); Dorothy Gray (1704-????); Joseph Gray (1706-1706);  Lydia Gray (1707-????); Simeon Gray (1709-1742); Ignatius Gray (1711-1712).


1484.  Edward Gray, born before 15 April 1623 in Stapleford Tawney, Essex, England; died June 1681 in Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States.  He was the son of 2968. John Gray and 2969. Elizabeth Ward.  He married 12 December 1665 in Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States.
1485.  Dorothy Lettice, born 1634 in Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States; died 30 March 1726 in Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States.  She was the daughter of 2970. Thomas Lettice and 2971. Anne Savoy.

Children of Edward Gray and Dorothy Lettice are:  Edward Gray (1667-1726); Susanna Gray (1668-1727); Thomas Gray (1669-1721); Rebecca Gray (1670-????); Lydia Gray (1678-1771); Samuel Gray (1681-1712).


The only authoritative source I have is the Mayflower Families book on John Winslow, which provides several generations of the children of Edward Gray and his first wife, Mary Winslow.  My ancestor, Samuel gray, is by Edward's second wife, Dorothy Lettice.  

Follow-Up Friday - the Weekly Potpourri

It's Friday, and I like to review my genealogy week and respond to comments on my blog posts or from email.  

1)  I tested out the Legacy Family Tree 7.5 new Census Tools in Legacy Family Tree 7.5 Adds Census Year Reports and then watched Geoff Rasmussen's flash webinar today (go to www.legacyfamilytree.com/webinars  to see it -it's free for everyone).   During the webinar, I tried several things that worked:

*  Make a list for the 1940 census for one state.
*  Make a list for the 1940 census for one county.
*  Make a list for the 1940 census for one city or town.
*  Make a list for the 1940 census for only ancestral families (by tagging ancestors and then using that subset to make the list).

2)  I watched the Thomas MacEntee webinar from 7 March titled Navigating the 1940 U.S. Census.  Everyone who will be searching the 1940 US census before the index is available should watch this - it's free until 19 March.  Thomas works through the Steve Morse One-Step page 1940 ED Finder for several examples.  

3)  I presented "Wikis for Genealogy Collaboration" and "Genealogy Blogging - What, Why, Where How" at the Escondido Family History Fair on Saturday, 3 March.  Unfortunately, the first page of my handout for the Wiki presentation was not included in the syllabus.  If you want a copy of my handout, please email me at rjseaver@cox.net.   Both talks were well received by the audience.  Yvette Porter-Moore took photos of me doing a presentation and posted them on Facebook.  She also posted a photo of she and I in front of the Chula Vista Genealogical Society exhibit also.  

I enjoyed Kendall Jefferson's (Of Ancestry.com) keynote talk on "Technology Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow - From Film to Facebook."  I also attended Gena Ortega's talk on "Getting the Most Out of RootsMagic 5" (comfy seats, and I learned several things about RootsMagic) and Brenda Danielson's talk on "Case Study of the Mysterious McGowans" (in costume and character - a fascinating story of researching which ancestor murdered another).

4)  Linda and I are signed up for the Legacy Family Tree Cruise (leaving Oslo, Norway on 12 May 2012, visiting LeHavre/Paris, Normandy beaches, Dublin, Liverpool, and Edinburgh and Oslo, returning on 21 May).  I agreed with Geoff Rasmussen of Legacy to make two presentations on the cruise to the captive audience...I'm looking forward to this.  This means that I won't be attending the NGS Conference in early May in Cincinnati.  We will be at the SCGS Genealogy Jamboree, however.

5)  In my post Dear AppleTree - Please Put in Privacy Controls, reader Gerry commented:

"Randy, you will never hear from a legitimate person at "Appletree" because that site is nothing more than a personal information scavenger. That's the big danger in online genealogy."

You're right, Gerry - they haven't answered yet after 8 days...  My opinion is that every family tree website should be responsive to their submitters, customers and users.  In this case, Appletree had been unresponsive to my emails and blog post.  I don't recommend submitting family tree information to AppleTree.  I wish someone had warned me several years ago, or that I had carefully read the Terms and Conditions.  


6)  My SDGS/CGSSD colleague, Del, experienced a problem with Family Tree Maker 2012 giving him a message "Family Tree Maker 2010- 2012 encountered an error and needs to close or stopped working."  His experience is interesting:

"I uninstalled and reinstalled FTM twice, thinking that would solve the problem.  Finally, I  called FTM technical support.  Very quickly the young lady said she was familiar with the problem, several others had also encountered it and she would e-mail me instructions for solving the problem.  The instructions covered Windows XP, Windows 7 and Windows Vista.  Essentially it involved going into drive C, Documents, Profile and Settings, selecting the Local Settings folder, opening the Application Data folder and deleting the Ancestry.com file.  I am not a real techy; but believe the problem might have been a glitch with the new "Synch trees" feature in FTM 2012.  However, that is solely speculation on my part--tech support said it was a Windows problem.  Anyhow, that solved my problem; but then I realized that my tree on Ancestry was a later version with 24 more individuals than the one I now had just reloaded on my FTM program. 

"Had I followed the instructions on FTM to "Upload and Sync with Ancestry", I would have uploaded the older version of the tree which had 24 fewer individuals and perhaps (I am not certain) lost the later version that was on Ancestry.  Anyhow, after checking with FTM tech support again, they showed me how to select Plan>New Tree and to select the option to select "Download from Ancestry", select the correct tree and then download from Ancestry back to FTM, thus making sure I had the latest tree on both Ancestry and FTM." 

The email contact from Family Tree Maker provided a link to the Help page for Opening Family Tree Maker 2010-2012, I receive an error message. How do I fix this? that Del referred to above.

Del didn't lose anything in this instance, but if he had changed information in both his Ancestry Member Tree and his desktop Family Tree Maker, he might have lost information.  FTM users beware!  Thank you, Del, for sharing and I hope this posting will prevent others from having similar problems.

7)  Am I being stalked?  A certain commenter sends me about ten comments a week along the lines of:

"Hi dear. This is a happy thing : )." and "Hi dear. Hope to get better."

I guess it could be worse! :)  I hope s/he gets better and quits commenting.  It's a pain to delete comments on a regular basis.

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/03/follow-up-friday-weekly-potpourri.html

Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver