There is an intriguing article titled "A Woman 140 Years Old" in The Ohio Democrat (of New Philadelphia, Ohio] newspaper dated 21 June 1877, page 4 (on http://www.ancestry.com/).
The article reads:
"A Woman 140 Years Old
"The oldest human being in the world is Senora Peras Glen, a Mexican woman, who lives in San Gabriel Mission, California. She is 140 years old. He age is declared to be a matter of undisputed record. She was born in Lower California, and removed to San Diego in 1758, and her name was then registered on the books of the old mission. In 1770 she removed to San Gabriel Mission, where she has lived ever since in an adobe house, with only a ground floor. She eats only the plainest food, and has been a tobacco smoker all her life until fifteen years ago, when she turned over a new leaf, signed the anti-tobacco pledge, and quit drinking wine at the same time. She was married at thirteen, and has had eleven children. She is now living with her youngest - a baby of eighty-three. A photographer in Rochester, N.Y., has paid a visit to the ancient dame, and taken a series of photographic and stereoscopic views of her. It is a singular fact that her hair, once white as snow, is now turning black and silky. If she lives another half century or so, she will at this rate be restored to blooming girlhood again."
How about that? Can it possibly be true? But the Mission San Diego de Alcala was founded in 1769, and Mission San Gabriel Archangel in 1771. She had a daughter at age 57? This doesn't sound right.
Another newspaper article in the Los Angeles (CA) Herald dated 9 June 1878 notes:
"A Notable Death - The Oldest Woman in the world
"Eulalia Perez de Guilen, who it is claimed had reached the patriarchal age of 143 years, died at the residence of her daughter, at the Mission San Gabriel, Los Angeles county, on Friday nite. She was born at Loreto, Baja Cal., where she married and resided until she became the mother of two children. With her two children, one an infant at the breast, she accompanied her husband, who was a soldier, and who was a member of a small detachment of troops sent by land from Loreto to San Diego not long after the founding of missions in Alta California by the Franciscan friars. She remained in San Diego, where her husband was stationed, some years and until Mr. Guilen was transferred to the mission of San Gabriel, then comparatively a new mission, to which place she accompanied him. She was the mother of a large family of children. While living in San Diego she acted as midwife, and after coming to San Gabriel she followed that calling both at the mission and in this city. Some of her family or connection attempted, about two years ago, to take the old lady to the Centennial, but as other members of her family were unwilling to have their ancestor carried off to be shown as a curiosity, proceedings were instituted in the courts here to restrain the commission of what they looked upon as almost a sacrilegious act. Since then the old lady has lived with her daughter at the mission of San Gabriel."
Well, there's a different story - still over 140 years, but a lot more believable detail.
The Wikipedia entry for Mission San Gabriel Archangel says "... buried among the padres is centenarian Eulalia Perez de Guillén Mariné, the 'keeper of the keys' under Spanish rule; her grave is marked by a bench dedicated in her memory."
The Wikipedia biography of Eulalia Perez de Guilen indicates her birth year as 1766. When she died in 1878, she was actually about 112 years old. That's more believable.
I checked the 1850, 1860 and 1870 census indexes on Ancestry and didn't see an obvious listing for here.
The classical California history books tell parts of this story, but not as well as the Wikipedia entry does.
Isn't it funny how newspapers publish the wildest stories? And this was a good one!
UPDATED: One of the references in the Wikipedia entry is this:
California's Centenarian: Eulalia Pérez de Guillén National Genealogical Society Quarterly June 1962, Volume 50 Number 2 (Washington, DC: National Genealogical Society, 1962).
Saturday, May 10, 2008
How did mom get so smart?
All through my school years, I knew that my mother, Betty Virginia (Carringer) Seaver, was a really smart person. She seemed to know what I was doing, what I was studying, who I was playing or hanging with, what my interests were, all without asking a single question. If I was having trouble with homework, she would say "just ask if you need any help." It was like she "had eyes in the back of her head." Did she have spies at school? A pipeline to the teacher(s)? Did she talk to my friends' mothers all the time? Or was it just life experience, and her background as a student and as a teacher? I think it was the latter.
I was the first child of three boys, but she was an only child of only children. She always said that she was really lucky, that she was protected, nurtured and spoiled as a child, that she was an excellent student all through her school years. Mom attended Brooklyn Elementary School at 30th and Ash Streets in San Diego, then Woodrow Wilson Junior High on El Cajon Blvd, San Diego High School at Russ Blvd and 12th Avenue near downtown San Diego (graduating in 1937), and finally San Diego State College (graduating with a BA in 1941). She was the first of her direct family line to even attend college, let alone graduate. Her parents had a high school education, and her grandparents probably no more than a 9th grade education (although I don't know) - actually that might be better than a high school education now - see here!
My father, on the other hand, dropped out of high school, went to three different prep schools to get a high school degree, and then dropped out of Dartmouth College after injuring his knee. The last thing on his mind was education - it was all sports and girls.
After college graduation, Mom received a contract from the San Diego School District to teach Art at Woodrow Wilson Junior High School. This had a wonderful consequence, as I discussed in "The Wedding I Really Appreciate." She also taught Art and English at Memorial Junior High and Pacific Beach Junior High.
In our home at 2119 30th Street, we had a bookcase filled with the World Book encyclopedia, travel books, and adventure novels from the 1900 to 1940 time frame. We subscribed to the San Diego Union newspaper, and received the Saturday Evening Post, Life and Look magazines in the mail. These provided a wealth of learning opportunities for current affairs, geography, economics, etc. We discussed current affairs and had competitive games at the dinner table (and everywhere else, it seemed).
My mother was a very creative person. She majored in Art, and painted watercolors in the 1940's (escape from little boys?), made pottery in the 1950's, and created copper enamel scenes, ornaments and jewelry in the 1960's to 1980's (escape from big boys?). One of her social activities was to go to the Enamel Artists Guild meetings in Balboa Park regularly, and to contribute to art shows at local galleries.
Looking back over my life experiences with Mom, the qualities that stand out to me are patience and grace. Nothing seemed to faze her. Somehow she raised three active, educated, happy boys and she seemed to do it without yelling, beating or bribing. She was competitive without being aggressive or mean. She laughed easily.
Here is a picture of our family in 1976 - the occasion is my brother Scott's wedding - he was the youngest and last to marry. Mom's work raising three boys is done now, and she obviously enjoys the moment here. I'm the one on the left (age 32), my brother Stan is the curly guy on the right (age 29), and Scott is the hippie looking guy in the middle (age 20). Mom and Dad have aged gracefully (Dad was 64, Mom was 56).
I was the first child of three boys, but she was an only child of only children. She always said that she was really lucky, that she was protected, nurtured and spoiled as a child, that she was an excellent student all through her school years. Mom attended Brooklyn Elementary School at 30th and Ash Streets in San Diego, then Woodrow Wilson Junior High on El Cajon Blvd, San Diego High School at Russ Blvd and 12th Avenue near downtown San Diego (graduating in 1937), and finally San Diego State College (graduating with a BA in 1941). She was the first of her direct family line to even attend college, let alone graduate. Her parents had a high school education, and her grandparents probably no more than a 9th grade education (although I don't know) - actually that might be better than a high school education now - see here!
My father, on the other hand, dropped out of high school, went to three different prep schools to get a high school degree, and then dropped out of Dartmouth College after injuring his knee. The last thing on his mind was education - it was all sports and girls.
After college graduation, Mom received a contract from the San Diego School District to teach Art at Woodrow Wilson Junior High School. This had a wonderful consequence, as I discussed in "The Wedding I Really Appreciate." She also taught Art and English at Memorial Junior High and Pacific Beach Junior High.
In our home at 2119 30th Street, we had a bookcase filled with the World Book encyclopedia, travel books, and adventure novels from the 1900 to 1940 time frame. We subscribed to the San Diego Union newspaper, and received the Saturday Evening Post, Life and Look magazines in the mail. These provided a wealth of learning opportunities for current affairs, geography, economics, etc. We discussed current affairs and had competitive games at the dinner table (and everywhere else, it seemed).
My mother was a very creative person. She majored in Art, and painted watercolors in the 1940's (escape from little boys?), made pottery in the 1950's, and created copper enamel scenes, ornaments and jewelry in the 1960's to 1980's (escape from big boys?). One of her social activities was to go to the Enamel Artists Guild meetings in Balboa Park regularly, and to contribute to art shows at local galleries.
Looking back over my life experiences with Mom, the qualities that stand out to me are patience and grace. Nothing seemed to faze her. Somehow she raised three active, educated, happy boys and she seemed to do it without yelling, beating or bribing. She was competitive without being aggressive or mean. She laughed easily.
Here is a picture of our family in 1976 - the occasion is my brother Scott's wedding - he was the youngest and last to marry. Mom's work raising three boys is done now, and she obviously enjoys the moment here. I'm the one on the left (age 32), my brother Stan is the curly guy on the right (age 29), and Scott is the hippie looking guy in the middle (age 20). Mom and Dad have aged gracefully (Dad was 64, Mom was 56).
In her later years, Mom really enjoyed reading historical, political, mystery and crime fiction books, and had her own little lending library at her home (I was one of her best customers!). She added to it every month, but re-read many of them over time. She kept her mind active until she died - she loved to watch Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy, and we often conversed about current affairs, politics, and sports.
However, she didn't want to talk much about boring old Family History. She would identify photos and tell me stories about people, but she didn't really care about those old dead people that she didn't know, notwithstanding the "The Ancestry of Betty Virginia Carringer" book I gave her in 1994 for her 75th birthday.
I've always figured that I'm a chip off this wonderful genetic block - I tell myself that I'm happy, creative, witty, educated, intelligent, curious, reflective, patient (yeah, right!), lifelong reader, etc. - just like Mom. I guess I got the genealogy gene from Dad. It's not a bad combination, and I'm really proud of - and thankful for - Mom's accomplishments in life.
However, she didn't want to talk much about boring old Family History. She would identify photos and tell me stories about people, but she didn't really care about those old dead people that she didn't know, notwithstanding the "The Ancestry of Betty Virginia Carringer" book I gave her in 1994 for her 75th birthday.
I've always figured that I'm a chip off this wonderful genetic block - I tell myself that I'm happy, creative, witty, educated, intelligent, curious, reflective, patient (yeah, right!), lifelong reader, etc. - just like Mom. I guess I got the genealogy gene from Dad. It's not a bad combination, and I'm really proud of - and thankful for - Mom's accomplishments in life.
Saving computer images at the FHC
I was down at the San Diego Family History Center yesterday and worked a bit on the computer system collecting 1851 Canada census images for my Kemp, Sovereen and Putman families an Ancestry Institution (yes, they have ALL of the Ancestry collections - US, Canada, UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc.).
The 1851 Census images are in PDF format so it was relatively easy to save them to a hard drive directory for copying to my flash drive later. However, the census image doesn't show the "source citation" - the film series, roll number, page number, etc. This information is on the summary page for the person searched for - how can I capture that (besides writing it down on a piece of paper in my Seaver-scrawl which I often misplace)?
My solution is to use OpenOffice 2.2 (OO) which is installed on the FHC computer systems. I open up a presentation format, create a number of blank pages, and then do the {ALT-Print Screen} key combination to copy the screen and then switch to the presentation program and paste it using a {Ctrl-V} key combination. In addition to capturing the PDF of the census page, I also captured a Zoomed image of the census record for my target families, along with the "person summary page" which listed the source data.
When I was done capturing images, I saved the OpenOffice document to the computer hard drive, inserted my flash drive, and copied the PDF and OO files to my flash drive, and then deleted the files I had created on the computer hard drive.
At home then, I copied the captured files to my hard drive, and can save each image in the OpenOffice presentation as a JPG file if I want to for transcription purposes. I also have a presentation ready-made to demonstrate to colleagues these techniques.
At the San Diego FHC, they don't have OpenOffice 2.2 listed in the Programs area of the Start menu for some reason. They used to just a month ago - I wonder why they took it out (I checked 5 different computers). No matter, I went to My Computer, Program Files and OpenOffice and found the "simpress.exe" file and clicked on it to open the presentation program. Worked like a charm! There are many ways around a roadblock!
I'm going to work on collecting the census records for my English ancestors the next time I'm down there.
The 1851 Census images are in PDF format so it was relatively easy to save them to a hard drive directory for copying to my flash drive later. However, the census image doesn't show the "source citation" - the film series, roll number, page number, etc. This information is on the summary page for the person searched for - how can I capture that (besides writing it down on a piece of paper in my Seaver-scrawl which I often misplace)?
My solution is to use OpenOffice 2.2 (OO) which is installed on the FHC computer systems. I open up a presentation format, create a number of blank pages, and then do the {ALT-Print Screen} key combination to copy the screen and then switch to the presentation program and paste it using a {Ctrl-V} key combination. In addition to capturing the PDF of the census page, I also captured a Zoomed image of the census record for my target families, along with the "person summary page" which listed the source data.
When I was done capturing images, I saved the OpenOffice document to the computer hard drive, inserted my flash drive, and copied the PDF and OO files to my flash drive, and then deleted the files I had created on the computer hard drive.
At home then, I copied the captured files to my hard drive, and can save each image in the OpenOffice presentation as a JPG file if I want to for transcription purposes. I also have a presentation ready-made to demonstrate to colleagues these techniques.
At the San Diego FHC, they don't have OpenOffice 2.2 listed in the Programs area of the Start menu for some reason. They used to just a month ago - I wonder why they took it out (I checked 5 different computers). No matter, I went to My Computer, Program Files and OpenOffice and found the "simpress.exe" file and clicked on it to open the presentation program. Worked like a charm! There are many ways around a roadblock!
I'm going to work on collecting the census records for my English ancestors the next time I'm down there.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Where is Ancestry World Tree in the new Ancestry Search?
While comparing the "old Ancestry Search" and "new Ancestry Search" results and presentation, I noticed that there was at least one major difference.
On the old Ancestry search screen, I chose the "Family Trees" tab and entered a check in "Exact Search" and "Seaver" in the "Last Name" box. Here's the result:
As you can see, it found entries in Public Member Trees (3,799), Personal Member Trees (3,544), One World Tree (2,007) and Ancestry World Tree (11,646).
In the "new Ancestry Search," I checked "Exact matches" and put "Seaver" in the "Last Name" box. The Family Trees section is way down the results list, and I clicked on the link to See All Family Tree results. Here's what I see:
On the old Ancestry search screen, I chose the "Family Trees" tab and entered a check in "Exact Search" and "Seaver" in the "Last Name" box. Here's the result:
As you can see, it found entries in Public Member Trees (3,799), Personal Member Trees (3,544), One World Tree (2,007) and Ancestry World Tree (11,646).
In the "new Ancestry Search," I checked "Exact matches" and put "Seaver" in the "Last Name" box. The Family Trees section is way down the results list, and I clicked on the link to See All Family Tree results. Here's what I see:
In this list are Public Member Trees (12,109), Personal Member Trees (8,662), and One World Tree (6,925), plus several others (which were in the Vital Records section previously, I believe).
However, Ancestry World Tree is not included in the "new Ancestry Search" list. I wonder why? Is it because it is associated with Rootsweb and is now accessible only through Rootsweb (well, http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/)?
My other mystery is why there are more matches in "new Ancestry Search" than in "old Ancestry Search" for the Public, Personal and One World Trees? I get a different results list when I click on the two different search results. Hmmm, I wonder why?
The "old Ancestry" gave me only 3 matches (from 3 different databases) when I request "Isaac" in the "First Name" box and "Seaver" in the "Last Name" box - all for persons named "Isaac Seaver."
In the "new Ancestry," when I input "Isaac" in the "First Name" box and "Seaver" in the "Last Name" box it found 117 matches - including spouses, children and parents named Isaac. It did find 8 "Isaac Seaver" items from 8 different databases, but it found 109 records where there was no "Isaac Seaver" as the subject of the record. When I ask for a search for "Isaac" "Seaver," I expect to receive results for "Isaac Seaver."
So that seems to explain the differences in the two Search results!
I'm pretty sure that I don't like finding more people not named "Isaac Seaver" when I really want to find an "Isaac Seaver." The searches are hard enough without this help from the new Ancestry Search finding people I don't want to find.
Sometimes change is not always progress! Off my soapbox (and I don't mean to offend the Ancestry programmers - it's a hard job, I know, but I shared some of my concerns back in February and March).
New Ancestry Search available to everyone
On the 24/7 Family History Circle blog, Juliana Smith announced that the "New Ancestry Search Beta Now Available to Everyone" today.
I'm not sure that it's good news for everyone, but now everyone can try it out. I tried to point out some of the new "features" in my posts back in early April - here and here. Some people said they couldn't access the new Ancestry Search for some reasons - hopefully, they can now.
Frankly, it looks to me that the "new Ancestry Search" just changed the "look and feel" of the web pages and the presentation of the results obtained. Did the actual "Search Engine" change? Did they improve the search algorithms to make them faster or or more accurate? I don't know - it would be interesting to find out.
I've worked for more than two months in both the old and new Ancestry Search versions, and I really prefer the old "look and feel" and presentation of results. My opinion is that it took me fewer mouse clicks to find a record in the old system. It was easier to change an existing search. It was also easier to start a new search since the Search Box was usually at the bottom of each web page. In the new Search, you have to click on a link for each item, then fill in the boxes one at a time. That may be "user-friendly" but it takes a lot longer.
Now I'm wondering just how long the "old Ancestry Search" "look and feel" and results presentation will be around.
The one thing I do like in the new system is the listing of all matches for a given search - the Historical Records, Family Trees, Stories and Newspapers and Photo and Maps are all in one list when you get your matches. In the old system, you had to click on tabs for the four items.
Have you tried the "new Ancestry Search" yet? Do you like it? If not, have you told Ancestry about it - they do encourage feedback (a link is in the upper right-hand corner of the New Search screen).
I'm not sure that it's good news for everyone, but now everyone can try it out. I tried to point out some of the new "features" in my posts back in early April - here and here. Some people said they couldn't access the new Ancestry Search for some reasons - hopefully, they can now.
Frankly, it looks to me that the "new Ancestry Search" just changed the "look and feel" of the web pages and the presentation of the results obtained. Did the actual "Search Engine" change? Did they improve the search algorithms to make them faster or or more accurate? I don't know - it would be interesting to find out.
I've worked for more than two months in both the old and new Ancestry Search versions, and I really prefer the old "look and feel" and presentation of results. My opinion is that it took me fewer mouse clicks to find a record in the old system. It was easier to change an existing search. It was also easier to start a new search since the Search Box was usually at the bottom of each web page. In the new Search, you have to click on a link for each item, then fill in the boxes one at a time. That may be "user-friendly" but it takes a lot longer.
Now I'm wondering just how long the "old Ancestry Search" "look and feel" and results presentation will be around.
The one thing I do like in the new system is the listing of all matches for a given search - the Historical Records, Family Trees, Stories and Newspapers and Photo and Maps are all in one list when you get your matches. In the old system, you had to click on tabs for the four items.
Have you tried the "new Ancestry Search" yet? Do you like it? If not, have you told Ancestry about it - they do encourage feedback (a link is in the upper right-hand corner of the New Search screen).
Los Angeles area resources
In my wanderings around the Internet, I occasionally find a really helpful web site that I save to my Favorites and use frequently. The other day, I wondered what resources there might be in the Los Angeles area besides the LA Public Library and the Southern California Genealogical Society in Burbank.
I found a link to the Los Angeles Regional Family History Center web site at http://www.larfhc.org/. This is a really great site - with lots of information about activities at the LARFHC in Santa Monica. Besides the summary information on the main page, there are links to many pages with information on specific topics. The webmaster, Jon Schweitzer, has done a wonderful job of collecting information and posting it and keeping it up-to-date.
The important pages, for me at least, include:
* LARFHC Online Genealogy Classes at http://www.larfhc.org/onlineclasses.htm. I checked out several, including the Land Research, Beginning Genealogy, Finding Birthplaces and Dates, and Genealogy Research on the Web.
* A comprehensive list of the Online Databases available at the LARFHC at http://www.larfhc.org/onlinedatabases.htm. This includes descriptions of the commercial databases that are FREE to use at this location.
* Book Holdings (http://www.larfhc.org/books.htm) and Microfilm/Fiche Holdings (http://www.larfhc.org/microsearch.html) at the LAR FHC.
* Southern California Libraries, Genealogical and Historical Societies at http://www.larfhc.org/resource.htm.
* Genealogy Resources on the Internet at http://www.larfhc.org/internet.htm.
There are many more useful and helpful pages.
I emailed Jon the other day to ask him to add the Chula Vista Genealogical Society to the list of Southern California societies and to add my blog to his Internet resources. He did these immediately, and has also provided some comments about the CVGS web page design!
I really appreciate all of the hard work that Jon and others have put into this web site to help Los Angeles area researchers do their genealogy work, and by extension the rest of us by making information freely available. The Los Angeles Regional FHC educational programs and holdings have excellent publicity through this site. I can hardly wait to visit this Regional FHC!!!
I found a link to the Los Angeles Regional Family History Center web site at http://www.larfhc.org/. This is a really great site - with lots of information about activities at the LARFHC in Santa Monica. Besides the summary information on the main page, there are links to many pages with information on specific topics. The webmaster, Jon Schweitzer, has done a wonderful job of collecting information and posting it and keeping it up-to-date.
The important pages, for me at least, include:
* LARFHC Online Genealogy Classes at http://www.larfhc.org/onlineclasses.htm. I checked out several, including the Land Research, Beginning Genealogy, Finding Birthplaces and Dates, and Genealogy Research on the Web.
* A comprehensive list of the Online Databases available at the LARFHC at http://www.larfhc.org/onlinedatabases.htm. This includes descriptions of the commercial databases that are FREE to use at this location.
* Book Holdings (http://www.larfhc.org/books.htm) and Microfilm/Fiche Holdings (http://www.larfhc.org/microsearch.html) at the LAR FHC.
* Southern California Libraries, Genealogical and Historical Societies at http://www.larfhc.org/resource.htm.
* Genealogy Resources on the Internet at http://www.larfhc.org/internet.htm.
There are many more useful and helpful pages.
I emailed Jon the other day to ask him to add the Chula Vista Genealogical Society to the list of Southern California societies and to add my blog to his Internet resources. He did these immediately, and has also provided some comments about the CVGS web page design!
I really appreciate all of the hard work that Jon and others have put into this web site to help Los Angeles area researchers do their genealogy work, and by extension the rest of us by making information freely available. The Los Angeles Regional FHC educational programs and holdings have excellent publicity through this site. I can hardly wait to visit this Regional FHC!!!
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Another "Family History is Really Bunk" article
The Spectator magazine in the United Kingdom has an article dated 30 April 2008 by Leo McKinstry titled "Sorry, But Family History Is Really Bunk." There are four pages to it, Page 1, page 2, page 3 and page 4.
Some snippets:
"Leo McKinstry says the current craze for genealogy reflects an unhealthy combination of snobbery and inverse snobbery, and is a poor replacement for national history"
"But the belief that there is something intrinsically interesting about a family’s origins is badly mistaken. Most people’s ancestry is as dull as their holiday snaps. As any reader of historical biography knows, by far the most boring passages in any such book are the early sections covering the subject’s forebears. But that does not deter the obsessives who think that their findings are ‘fascinating’. "
"The tragedy is that the family history boom has not led to a greater understanding of our nation’s past. While we beaver away on the net or in the archives, we have never been more ignorant about our island story. Genealogy is no substitute for a true sense of identity."
Interestingly, the author ascribes a political motive to the promotion of family history and genealogy research in the UK. Read the whole thing, and the comments too. I'm reminded of the brouhaha in the genealogy world a year ago about a similar article in Smithsonian magazine.
Not everybody thinks that family history research is worthwhile, notwithstanding all the efforts by genealogy bloggers!
Some snippets:
"Leo McKinstry says the current craze for genealogy reflects an unhealthy combination of snobbery and inverse snobbery, and is a poor replacement for national history"
"But the belief that there is something intrinsically interesting about a family’s origins is badly mistaken. Most people’s ancestry is as dull as their holiday snaps. As any reader of historical biography knows, by far the most boring passages in any such book are the early sections covering the subject’s forebears. But that does not deter the obsessives who think that their findings are ‘fascinating’. "
"The tragedy is that the family history boom has not led to a greater understanding of our nation’s past. While we beaver away on the net or in the archives, we have never been more ignorant about our island story. Genealogy is no substitute for a true sense of identity."
Interestingly, the author ascribes a political motive to the promotion of family history and genealogy research in the UK. Read the whole thing, and the comments too. I'm reminded of the brouhaha in the genealogy world a year ago about a similar article in Smithsonian magazine.
Not everybody thinks that family history research is worthwhile, notwithstanding all the efforts by genealogy bloggers!
The genealogy pub experience
A funny thing happened on the APG mailing list last night and today - it was like all these serious professional genealogists were giddy - and they probably needed to be after the heavy discussions about the Catholic Church records.
It started when Tom Kemp titled his post "1st genealogy pub in America - 284 years ago today." He meant the first "publication" but you wouldn't know it from the comments:
* Jodee said "The subject line got me excited, thinking there was actually a Genealogy PUB somewhere... :-)"
* Janessa added "I liked the idea of a genealogy pub too, until I got to thinking about the possible pickup lines there ... 'Been to any great cemeteries lately?' "
* Peggy added "So, would the bar be lined with microfilm readers and computers with Internet access? Beer and genealogy I think are very compatible!"
* Rhonda gurgled "I'm not a beer drinker, but I'd have a strawberry margarita with an extra shot of tequelia just to celebrate this day - now've I've got to mark it on my calendar for next year! "
* Richard had a great idea "The only rule for a genealogy pub is that there be no damned loud music That way the genealogists can tell their harrowing experience involved in learning the identity of great-great whatever., (Each person gets a turn, except if someone buys a round, he or she gets to go next."
* Chris said "I was thinking it would need some theme music, though - maybe like the theme from "Cheers". All we would need to do is change the line : 'Where everybody knows your name.' to 'Everybody knows surnames' "
* Drew added the lyrics: "OK, now we have to do the whole lyrics:
"Finding your roots in the world today takes everything you've got.
Taking a break from all your brick walls, sure would help a lot.
Wouldn't you like to find a way? Sometimes you want to go
Where everybody knows surnames, and they're always glad you came.
"You wanna be where you can see, our puzzles are all the same
You wanna be where everybody knows Surnames.
You wanna go where people know, sources aren't all the same,
You wanna go where everybody knows surnames.
***Drew Smith"
EXCELLENT WORK, Drew!
* Craig opined "Shucks, I thought if you bought a round you could skip having to tell anyone anything. Then you could just concentrate on the single malt and the pros and cons of proxy baptism."
* Bob asked "More to the point -- is there a genealogical pub in Kansas City that I canvisit next week during the NGS Annual Conference in the States?"
* Melinde said "This has real potential. Anyone else thinking a "Callahan's CrossTimeSaloon" for genealogists?"
* Craig (wearing his kilt) added "Aye, lass but you would be misunderstanding our purpose. As much as we like that single malt Irish whiskey, it be Scots single malt we be after. The the strictly cash policy, well you know how Scots are with cash. And in that is our pain and our joy."
* Helen asked "Ok. Can Norwegians join in? After all, the Irish are just ship-wrecked Norwegians who couldn't find their way home."
Whew. What a wonderful thread ... wasn't that fun? Witty? Educational too. We could use more threads like these sometimes, eh?
I missed out on this frivolity and fun, having a full genealogy day where I was away from my email for about 8 hours yesterday.
Thanks to all of the APGers who contributed...I hope they don't mind me excerpting them here for a coherent story. er, thread.
Of course, I sort of hoped that the Chula Vista Genealogy Cafe would morph into something like a genealogy pub - where "you can get any genealogy info you want at Randy's restaurant..."
It started when Tom Kemp titled his post "1st genealogy pub in America - 284 years ago today." He meant the first "publication" but you wouldn't know it from the comments:
* Jodee said "The subject line got me excited, thinking there was actually a Genealogy PUB somewhere... :-)"
* Janessa added "I liked the idea of a genealogy pub too, until I got to thinking about the possible pickup lines there ... 'Been to any great cemeteries lately?' "
* Peggy added "So, would the bar be lined with microfilm readers and computers with Internet access? Beer and genealogy I think are very compatible!"
* Rhonda gurgled "I'm not a beer drinker, but I'd have a strawberry margarita with an extra shot of tequelia just to celebrate this day - now've I've got to mark it on my calendar for next year! "
* Richard had a great idea "The only rule for a genealogy pub is that there be no damned loud music That way the genealogists can tell their harrowing experience involved in learning the identity of great-great whatever., (Each person gets a turn, except if someone buys a round, he or she gets to go next."
* Chris said "I was thinking it would need some theme music, though - maybe like the theme from "Cheers". All we would need to do is change the line : 'Where everybody knows your name.' to 'Everybody knows surnames' "
* Drew added the lyrics: "OK, now we have to do the whole lyrics:
"Finding your roots in the world today takes everything you've got.
Taking a break from all your brick walls, sure would help a lot.
Wouldn't you like to find a way? Sometimes you want to go
Where everybody knows surnames, and they're always glad you came.
"You wanna be where you can see, our puzzles are all the same
You wanna be where everybody knows Surnames.
You wanna go where people know, sources aren't all the same,
You wanna go where everybody knows surnames.
***Drew Smith"
EXCELLENT WORK, Drew!
* Craig opined "Shucks, I thought if you bought a round you could skip having to tell anyone anything. Then you could just concentrate on the single malt and the pros and cons of proxy baptism."
* Bob asked "More to the point -- is there a genealogical pub in Kansas City that I canvisit next week during the NGS Annual Conference in the States?"
* Melinde said "This has real potential. Anyone else thinking a "Callahan's CrossTimeSaloon" for genealogists?"
* Craig (wearing his kilt) added "Aye, lass but you would be misunderstanding our purpose. As much as we like that single malt Irish whiskey, it be Scots single malt we be after. The the strictly cash policy, well you know how Scots are with cash. And in that is our pain and our joy."
* Helen asked "Ok. Can Norwegians join in? After all, the Irish are just ship-wrecked Norwegians who couldn't find their way home."
Whew. What a wonderful thread ... wasn't that fun? Witty? Educational too. We could use more threads like these sometimes, eh?
I missed out on this frivolity and fun, having a full genealogy day where I was away from my email for about 8 hours yesterday.
Thanks to all of the APGers who contributed...I hope they don't mind me excerpting them here for a coherent story. er, thread.
Of course, I sort of hoped that the Chula Vista Genealogy Cafe would morph into something like a genealogy pub - where "you can get any genealogy info you want at Randy's restaurant..."
Mom and Me - I Smile for the Camera
Dear footnoteMaven has come up with another excellent Carnival - I Smile for the Camera. The first Carnival is a picture showing mother's love.
Well, I found this one in my family picture collection - I think it qualifies!
Well, I found this one in my family picture collection - I think it qualifies!
Who is the baby? Moi!!!! The picture was probably taken in early 1944 in front of my parents rented house at 577 Twin Oaks Avenue in Chula Vista.
Needless to say, the love I felt from my mother captured in this photo lasted her whole life, for which I am grateful and thankful. In retrospect, I wish that I had spent more time with her throughout our married life.
Here is my Mother's Day tribute to my mother last year. Reading this again brought tears to my eyes, a prayer to my heart and thankfulness to my head.
The WeRelate Genealogy Wiki
When the WeRelate web site (http://www.werelate.org/) started up last year, I was really impressed by the potential of the web site and the wiki concept. Like several others, I uploaded one of my databases to try it out, and found that it was easy to use. I posted about my experiences at http://randysmusings.blogspot.com/2007/08/testing-werelateorg-wikigenea.html.
My WeRelate home page is at http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User:Rjseaver. I noted today that four other people are "watching" my page - including bloggers Harold Henderson, Denise Olson and Apple.
Occasionally, I receive a notice via email that someone has edited one of my pages and I check it out. However, I haven't added anything to my people/families since I uploaded the database in August 2007.
I really like the wiki concept. The site is very readable once you figure out how to navigate it. I haven't fully explored it myself -- and I need to, I think, in order to better understand and use it. They have some tutorials for users at http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:Tutorials. The creators and dedicated users of WeRelate are trying hard to improve the web site and make it user-friendly.
The main page for WeRelate claims that there are over 1,500,000 people/families in this genealogy and family history wiki. This pales in comparison to other "user-submitted" web sites, but it is the most for a wiki site. On WeRelate, each person and family has an "article."
There is an interesting discussion about "junk genealogy" and some visitor statistics in the article at http://www.werelate.org/wiki/WeRelate_talk:Junk_Genealogy. The visit statistics for April show that they had 11,432 unique hits.
I wonder why more people aren't using the site? It may be just a lack of publicity, or it may be the fear that the submitted data will be "stolen" or "sold." Some people seem to be loyal to the web site where they have placed their data.
My opinion is that every web site of this type needs a "critical mass" of information before the larger group of "family tree genealogists" find it, no matter how many announcements and blog posts are written. People check Ancestry One World Tree and Public Member Trees, FamilySearch Ancestral File, Rootsweb WorldConnect and other user-submitted databases to find others researching the same person or family because they have submitted data to them or know about them.
Apparently, WeRelate doesn't have that critical mass yet. I hope they do soon, because I think it can be a real benefit to genealogy researchers everywhere. I fear that only a small percentage of researchers are aware of WeRelate.
If you are thinking about uploading your genealogy database (in a GEDCOM file format) to a FREE database, I encourage you to do so at www.werelate.org. It has, in my opinion, the best ease of use, user interfaces, person and family information, and highest potential to be of real help to the genealogy researcher community.
My WeRelate home page is at http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User:Rjseaver. I noted today that four other people are "watching" my page - including bloggers Harold Henderson, Denise Olson and Apple.
Occasionally, I receive a notice via email that someone has edited one of my pages and I check it out. However, I haven't added anything to my people/families since I uploaded the database in August 2007.
I really like the wiki concept. The site is very readable once you figure out how to navigate it. I haven't fully explored it myself -- and I need to, I think, in order to better understand and use it. They have some tutorials for users at http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:Tutorials. The creators and dedicated users of WeRelate are trying hard to improve the web site and make it user-friendly.
The main page for WeRelate claims that there are over 1,500,000 people/families in this genealogy and family history wiki. This pales in comparison to other "user-submitted" web sites, but it is the most for a wiki site. On WeRelate, each person and family has an "article."
There is an interesting discussion about "junk genealogy" and some visitor statistics in the article at http://www.werelate.org/wiki/WeRelate_talk:Junk_Genealogy. The visit statistics for April show that they had 11,432 unique hits.
I wonder why more people aren't using the site? It may be just a lack of publicity, or it may be the fear that the submitted data will be "stolen" or "sold." Some people seem to be loyal to the web site where they have placed their data.
My opinion is that every web site of this type needs a "critical mass" of information before the larger group of "family tree genealogists" find it, no matter how many announcements and blog posts are written. People check Ancestry One World Tree and Public Member Trees, FamilySearch Ancestral File, Rootsweb WorldConnect and other user-submitted databases to find others researching the same person or family because they have submitted data to them or know about them.
Apparently, WeRelate doesn't have that critical mass yet. I hope they do soon, because I think it can be a real benefit to genealogy researchers everywhere. I fear that only a small percentage of researchers are aware of WeRelate.
If you are thinking about uploading your genealogy database (in a GEDCOM file format) to a FREE database, I encourage you to do so at www.werelate.org. It has, in my opinion, the best ease of use, user interfaces, person and family information, and highest potential to be of real help to the genealogy researcher community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)