The four-day BYU Family History Conference just finished today in Provo, Utah. There were many presentations by experienced and renowned speakers on topics of interest to genealogy researchers. The course schedule and talk descriptions are on the web site.
Michael de Groote summarized at least eight talks in his articles for the Mormon Times - you can read them from the Family History link on the publication. I read several of these summary articles and gleaned some tips and information.
The Ancestry Insider, Mark Tucker and Janet Hovorka tweeted through several talks on Twitter - providing highlights from the talks. The hashtag #byugen was used for the conference. It was fun to read the tweets in almost real time. The problem with reading the tweets is that the latest updates are at the top of the list...so you don't get the natural flow of the talk. You start at the end of the conference, or the day, or the talk. Maybe Mr. AI, Mark and Janet will pull their tweets together into posts for all of us to read in the right order (I did this for the Jamboree, but it was a challenge). Thanks, AI, MT and JH!
Mark Tucker posted his slide presentation on his ThinkGenealogy blog in Navigating Research with the GPS – July 2009 Update. He also posted his three-page syllabus material here for the talk. If you have some spare time it is worth printing off the syllabus pages and then scrolling through Mark's slide presentation. I gain more knowledge and insight every time I go through his presentation. Thank you, Mark, for being so open with your presentation material - doing this is different from most presenters at genealogy conferences.
No - it's not almost as good as being there! But it's better than not having any information at all about the talks at the conference.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Same house, 103 years later?
While I was writing my 18 April 1906 - San Francisco - They Were There! last night, I got to wondering about the house in my picture below.
Is the house still there? If so, what does it look like? I realized that I didn't know where 4135 19th Street in San Francisco was located. So I used Google Maps to find the neighborhood and saw:
The house at 4131 19th Street is the light blue house just to the right of the beige/brown house on the left. It is a two-story house, with a garage and entry built in front of the older two-story structure.
Is the house still there? If so, what does it look like? I realized that I didn't know where 4135 19th Street in San Francisco was located. So I used Google Maps to find the neighborhood and saw:
Ah, it's just south of Market Street and just west of Castro Street, on the south side of 19th Street, in the Castro District. Google Maps has the Street View available for this neighborhood, so I clicked on that and was able to see the houses on the block.
After a bit of playing around with the Street View, I managed to get this screen shot (full screen by the way) of a house currently 4131 19th Street:
The house at 4131 19th Street is the light blue house just to the right of the beige/brown house on the left. It is a two-story house, with a garage and entry built in front of the older two-story structure.
In the top photo of the house in 1906, you can see the bottom two-pane windows on the right with another two-pane window above, the entry door up a staircase on the left with a smaller window with a small porch above the entry door. In the bottom 2008 (?) photo, you can see the same features, but the entry door is probably now a window. The staircase, entry door and first-floor windows are hidden by the garage and new street-level entry.
It appears that they have added another "slice" of building between the 1906 building and the beige/brown building on the left that includes the new entry to the house on the first floor.
I have absolutely no doubt that this is the same building! I can hardly wait to go visit it the next time we are in San Francisco. My brother-in-law told me that the house had been replaced - he will be surprised to see this!
Have you used Google Street Maps to find ancestral homes of your families? Are the homes still there? Do they still look similar to what they did many years ago? Try it - have fun!
Are you ready to embrace these changes?
Dick Eastman posted the link to the Mormon Times article Genealogists encouraged to embrace change by Michael de Groote published yesterday.
In the article, the Chief Genealogical Officer at FamilySearch, David Rencher, noted that technology continually changes and that all researchers at the Family History Library, and at the Family History Centers, will have to adapt to the loss of:
* Microfilm (eventually... cost of raw film is soaring)
* The International Genealogical Index (on microfiche and FHL/FHC computers)
* Pedigree Resource File (on CDROMs and FHL/FHC computers)
* Family History Library Catalog (on CDROMs at FHL/FHCs)
* Census Indexes (on CDROMs at FHL/FHCs)
* Personal Ancestral File (PAF) software (no new versions)
To see the future of genealogy at the Family History Library and the Centers, see the examples at FamilySearch Labs. The article notes:
"Change is to be expected, he explained, as products and services go through a natural life cycle. Several popular family history products and services are at the end of their usefulness as technology provides better solutions."
The vision driving the FamilySearch Indexing program and the FamilySearch Record Search projects. is that the information on the 2.5 million microfilms and 1.5 million microfiche sets in the Granite Mountain Vault will be digitized and available on a really big computer system, accessible at the FHL and FHCs, and at home on each of our computer systems. LDS members will do their TempleReady work using the New FamilySearch system.
The Family History Library Catalog is already available on the Internet and will be upgraded with links to digital databases when www.GenSeek.com becomes available. The paper copies of the Genealogy Research Guides are mostly online as HTML and PDF files, and are being replaced by information on the FamilySearch Wiki. The Census Indexes are all available in digital format on several websites with searchable indexes.
I read somewhere that the IGI will be split into two databases - one with the extracted records, and one for the LDS-member submitted records - and will be available on FamilySearch Record Search. I'm not sure if the Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource Files will also be available on FamilySearch RecordSearch. does anyone know?
Will the Family History Library, and Centers, of the future be one big room with big rooms full of rows of computer stations? With no microfilm readers, microfiche readers, books on the shelves, photocopy machines, how-to guides in racks, etc.? There are many challenges to make this happen.
Will there even be a "brick-and-mortar" Family History Library in Salt Lake city, or Family History Centers spread all over the world? If all of the microfilm and microfiche resources in the FHL system are available in digital format to researchers at home, why even have physical libraries and centers? I can see at least three reasons:
1) There are many books, manuscripts and periodicals on the shelves at the FHL and FHCs that are still in copyright protection and cannot be digitized without agreement of the copyright holder.
2) The FHL and FHCs provide valuable consulting services to researchers, LDS members and non-members alike.
3) The FHL and some FHCs have free access to online commercial databases (Ancestry, Footnote, WorldVitalRecords, Godfrey, etc.) that include records not available at the FHL in any format.
One of my favorite quotations is "All progress requires change, but not all change is progress." -- John Wooden.
In the present case, I think that these changes reflect progress and will help all genealogy researchers that embrace it.
I look forward to these changes, and am very impatient for them to occur, since my biological clock is ticking. Why am I looking forward to the changes? Because I know that many elusive ancestor problems will be solved when the original documents in digital format reveal the relationships and associations that are "hiding" on the microfilms and microfiches. Of course, they won't solve all of our research problems, but they will solve some of them and create many more research challenges for us to conquer.
In the article, the Chief Genealogical Officer at FamilySearch, David Rencher, noted that technology continually changes and that all researchers at the Family History Library, and at the Family History Centers, will have to adapt to the loss of:
* Microfilm (eventually... cost of raw film is soaring)
* The International Genealogical Index (on microfiche and FHL/FHC computers)
* Pedigree Resource File (on CDROMs and FHL/FHC computers)
* Family History Library Catalog (on CDROMs at FHL/FHCs)
* Census Indexes (on CDROMs at FHL/FHCs)
* Personal Ancestral File (PAF) software (no new versions)
To see the future of genealogy at the Family History Library and the Centers, see the examples at FamilySearch Labs. The article notes:
"Change is to be expected, he explained, as products and services go through a natural life cycle. Several popular family history products and services are at the end of their usefulness as technology provides better solutions."
The vision driving the FamilySearch Indexing program and the FamilySearch Record Search projects. is that the information on the 2.5 million microfilms and 1.5 million microfiche sets in the Granite Mountain Vault will be digitized and available on a really big computer system, accessible at the FHL and FHCs, and at home on each of our computer systems. LDS members will do their TempleReady work using the New FamilySearch system.
The Family History Library Catalog is already available on the Internet and will be upgraded with links to digital databases when www.GenSeek.com becomes available. The paper copies of the Genealogy Research Guides are mostly online as HTML and PDF files, and are being replaced by information on the FamilySearch Wiki. The Census Indexes are all available in digital format on several websites with searchable indexes.
I read somewhere that the IGI will be split into two databases - one with the extracted records, and one for the LDS-member submitted records - and will be available on FamilySearch Record Search. I'm not sure if the Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource Files will also be available on FamilySearch RecordSearch. does anyone know?
Will the Family History Library, and Centers, of the future be one big room with big rooms full of rows of computer stations? With no microfilm readers, microfiche readers, books on the shelves, photocopy machines, how-to guides in racks, etc.? There are many challenges to make this happen.
Will there even be a "brick-and-mortar" Family History Library in Salt Lake city, or Family History Centers spread all over the world? If all of the microfilm and microfiche resources in the FHL system are available in digital format to researchers at home, why even have physical libraries and centers? I can see at least three reasons:
1) There are many books, manuscripts and periodicals on the shelves at the FHL and FHCs that are still in copyright protection and cannot be digitized without agreement of the copyright holder.
2) The FHL and FHCs provide valuable consulting services to researchers, LDS members and non-members alike.
3) The FHL and some FHCs have free access to online commercial databases (Ancestry, Footnote, WorldVitalRecords, Godfrey, etc.) that include records not available at the FHL in any format.
One of my favorite quotations is "All progress requires change, but not all change is progress." -- John Wooden.
In the present case, I think that these changes reflect progress and will help all genealogy researchers that embrace it.
I look forward to these changes, and am very impatient for them to occur, since my biological clock is ticking. Why am I looking forward to the changes? Because I know that many elusive ancestor problems will be solved when the original documents in digital format reveal the relationships and associations that are "hiding" on the microfilms and microfiches. Of course, they won't solve all of our research problems, but they will solve some of them and create many more research challenges for us to conquer.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
18 April 1906 - San Francisco - They Were There!
We all know what happened in the early morning on 18 April 1906 in San Francisco - and what happened afterwards. Much of the city of San Francisco was destroyed by earthquake and fire.
The Elijah McKnew family resided at 4135 19th Street in San Francisco during this time. They are enumerated at this address in the 1900 census. I posted this picture taken of the family in the days after the earthquake in my post Scanfest Today dated 7 September 2007.
The Elijah McKnew family resided at 4135 19th Street in San Francisco during this time. They are enumerated at this address in the 1900 census. I posted this picture taken of the family in the days after the earthquake in my post Scanfest Today dated 7 September 2007.
In the picture, Elijah and Jane McKnew are surrounded by four of their children on the sidewalk in front of their home. Loose bricks can be seen on the curb and in the street. There appears to be a small stove with a teakettle on the right in front of May McKnew. It looks like Jane McKnew has a skillet in her left hand and a pancake spatula in her right hand. Is that a trash can or ash can in front of Edna McKnew on the left? What is Leland McKnew standing in? Another can of some sort?
Were they cooking out on the street? It sure looks like it, doesn't it? Why would they be doing this? Were they staying out of their house because of broken water or gas pipes, or because of structural damage inside the house? Perhaps.
Look at their faces. I see a "we are going to make it, and have a good time making the best of it, even if we have to sleep in the yard" type of attitude on each of their faces. It's like they can't quite believe what happened to them, but they are going to survive.
And they did survive. Edna McKnew is my wife's maternal grandmother - she was age 22 when the earthquake hit. She married Paul Schaffner on 24 June 1906 in San Francisco and they had two daughters - and Edna Schaffner was Linda's mother. Linda was always very close to her grandmother, who lived to be 90 years old and see her first great-grandchild (our daughter) before she died in 1974.
In this case, this family survived a disaster, mainly because they lived in a place that did not shake down during the earthquake or burn down after the earthquake. I regret not having taken the time to talk to Linda's grandmother about her memories of the earthquake. It must have been one of the strongest memories of her life experiences. I wonder if my brother-in-law interviewed her before she died? I'll have to ask.
I wonder who took this picture? Somebody in the family? A local photographer passing by, or one who was making a living selling family photographs in the wake of the event? We may never know.
There are many articles and photographs of the effects of the 1906 earthquake at the Virtual Museum of San Francisco, and many other websites too.
Making Ancestry.com Index Updates
I posted yesterday about the Ancestry.com changes to their Record Image pages, at least for 11 census databases. In that post, I described the Record Image page, but did not discuss the changes that Ancestry.com has made to the user's capability to modify more than the name of a record.
When a user submits a modification to one or more parts of any record on Ancestry.com, the original index information is not changed - it is added to. Another entry is put into the database with the modified entry ("updated") submitted by the user.
Here is the process I used yesterday to modify the surname of one of my families that were incorrectly indexed in the 1870 U.S. census. I looked for my great-grandfather, born Henry Austin Carringer in 1853 in PA, and I knew that he lived in Iowa in 1870. He should be with his parents David J. and Rebecca Carringer and his brother Harvey Edgar Carringer. Finding him was a challenge because of how his name was indexed, but I eventually found him in the 1870 census in Washington County, Iowa indexed as Henry A. Current. Here is the screen shot of the census record:
As you can see, the name is difficult to read - the enumerator's scrawl is almost as bad as mine). I can understand how it was indexed as "Current" and not "Curruntr" or similar. I can almost see the letter "g" in the surname but it's hidden by Rebecca's "b". But I absolutely KNOW that the surname is "Carringer" based on other records, so I want to UPDATE the index for all five members of the family.
Henry's name is highlighted in the index, so I clicked on the "Add Update" button on the left side of his name:
The popup box above offers to change either the Family Number, the Given Name, the Surname, the Estimated Birth Year or the Birth Place. I chose the Surname. Once I did that, another field appeared in the popup box and I had to choose between Transcription Error, Incorrect in Image, Nick Name, Maiden Name, Name Change or Variation.
I chose "Transcription Error" (even though it probably wasn't - now that I look carefully at the image, it should have been an "Incorrect in Image" reason). Once I selected "Transcription Error" then I could add the "correct" Surname to the bottom field in the popup box:
When a user submits a modification to one or more parts of any record on Ancestry.com, the original index information is not changed - it is added to. Another entry is put into the database with the modified entry ("updated") submitted by the user.
Here is the process I used yesterday to modify the surname of one of my families that were incorrectly indexed in the 1870 U.S. census. I looked for my great-grandfather, born Henry Austin Carringer in 1853 in PA, and I knew that he lived in Iowa in 1870. He should be with his parents David J. and Rebecca Carringer and his brother Harvey Edgar Carringer. Finding him was a challenge because of how his name was indexed, but I eventually found him in the 1870 census in Washington County, Iowa indexed as Henry A. Current. Here is the screen shot of the census record:
As you can see, the name is difficult to read - the enumerator's scrawl is almost as bad as mine). I can understand how it was indexed as "Current" and not "Curruntr" or similar. I can almost see the letter "g" in the surname but it's hidden by Rebecca's "b". But I absolutely KNOW that the surname is "Carringer" based on other records, so I want to UPDATE the index for all five members of the family.
Henry's name is highlighted in the index, so I clicked on the "Add Update" button on the left side of his name:
The popup box above offers to change either the Family Number, the Given Name, the Surname, the Estimated Birth Year or the Birth Place. I chose the Surname. Once I did that, another field appeared in the popup box and I had to choose between Transcription Error, Incorrect in Image, Nick Name, Maiden Name, Name Change or Variation.
I chose "Transcription Error" (even though it probably wasn't - now that I look carefully at the image, it should have been an "Incorrect in Image" reason). Once I selected "Transcription Error" then I could add the "correct" Surname to the bottom field in the popup box:
After putting "Carringer" in the "Add an update for Surname" field, I clicked on the orange "Submit Alternate" button and my "Member Contribution" was recorded, and shows up in the Index on the screen below:
Clicking on the orange "Close" button completed this "Update." I proceeded to do the same exercise for the rest of the D.J. Carringer (indexed as "Current" family - all five of them (daughter Effie appears below the edge of the screen below) and saw:
So I have successfully updated the surname for this family in the 1870 US Census. If the given names, birth year or birth place was erroneous, I could have updated them also. All of the other data is OK with me for this family.
Clicking on the orange "Close" button completed this "Update." I proceeded to do the same exercise for the rest of the D.J. Carringer (indexed as "Current" family - all five of them (daughter Effie appears below the edge of the screen below) and saw:
So I have successfully updated the surname for this family in the 1870 US Census. If the given names, birth year or birth place was erroneous, I could have updated them also. All of the other data is OK with me for this family.
Now when will this Update show up in the 1870 US Census index on Ancestry.com? I don't know - maybe days or weeks later. It's been about 24 hours already and they don't come up on a search for "Henry" and "Carringer" in the Ancestry.com search fields. I'll let you know when it does!
This Update or Correction feature is an excellent way to overcome Enumerator and Indexing errors and find elusive ancestors in the US census records. Of course, the users need to make the Updates for their families in order for another user to use the updated index to find the right people.
Is Ancestry.com the only company that offers this Update service and eventually adds the information to their databases? They are to be commended for this feature.
"Cemetery Sexton" in Graveyard Rabbit Online Journal
My latest "Digging for Answers" column on the topic of "Cemetery Sexton" is in the GraveYard Rabbit Online Journal. The article was posted by Julie Tarr yesterday.
Read the answer to the question "What is the job of a Sexton at the Cemetery?"
Read the answer to the question "What is the job of a Sexton at the Cemetery?"
Standardizing names in family trees
My post Are there standards for names in family trees? yesterday garnered a number of very helpful responses - thank you to all who took the time to provide their practices.
I have two major articles for readers to consider:
1) Rebecca, in a comment to my post, provided a link to the Genealogical Standards page on the International Institute of Jewish Genealogy webpage with links to an article by Gary Mokotoff, who wrote an article in AVOYTANU (XXIV, 3 (Fall, 2008), pp. 3-6) titled A Proposed Standard for Names, Dates and Places in A Genealogical Database. Section 1 of this article proposes standards for Names of persons that are logical and consistent.
2) Russ Worthington posted Data Base Clean Up - How to handle Names on the Family Tree Maker User blog yesterday. Russ is one of the real gurus on using Family Tree Maker and I greatly respect his opinions. He took each paragraph of my post and wrote his practices and comments. Some of Russ's practices differ from Gary Mokotoff's proposed standards. Russ also suggests checking the Family Tree Make Knowledge Base which address some of these questions.
I tried to use ? and ???? in FTM 16 and it creates a data entry error. What about in Legacy and RootsMagic? And in Ancestry family trees?
I really like Russ's idea of using five underscores (e.g., "_____" ) for an unknown name. It does make them stand out in reports. however, it is an illegal character in the Name field in Family Tree Maker 16. Using it would put all of the females with unknown surnames in one place in the index - right now I have "loose" women all over the place since a "Mary A." shows up as "A., Mary" in the index! I'm wondering if the underscore is an allowable character in other software programs like FTM 2009, Legacy, RootsMagic and Ancestry trees - I don't want to do this again!
Reader Barbara suggested adding using "Mary (____) w/o John Smith" in the name field to indicate that Mary with an unknown maiden surname is the wife of John Smith. This is similar to what I've done in some cases for widows who marry again. I guess for widows who marry again something along the lines of "Mary (_____) widow of Bert Jones, wife of John Smith" would work too.
Reader Miz J pointed out that Ancestry.com doesn't accept punctuation or parentheses in their family trees. These are characters that also create an error notice in FTM 16. Miz J also suggested using something like "Albert aka Bert Smith" in the name field in FTM 16 to avoid an error notice in FTM 16 and Ancestry. However, both "AKA" and "aka" create a data entry error because of capitalization), but "Aka" does not. Again, is this allowable in FTM 2009, Legacy and RootsMagic?
Reader David suggested to put "widow of Bert Jones" in the Suffix field. However, Russ pointed out that there is no suffix field in Family Tree Maker (all versions) so that won't work for me either. But it's a great thought!
Readers swe2sea, Miz J and GrannyPam said to just use the names you know and no others. If Mary [last name unknown] married John Smith and then Bert Jones, you can enter the two marriages and they will show up in reports. That would certainly eliminate a lot of spurious entries in my database!
I've poked around in FTM 16 and cannot figure out how to make an AKA show up in a genealogy report or family group sheet. I'm sure it can be done, but I can't figure it out myself, it seems.
Maybe one of the ASCII characters not associated with punctuation could be used for an unknown name. Actually, Fnu or Lnu would do, wouldn't they? No data entry error, all Lnus would be in one place in the index, etc. But I would have to learn the keystroke combination for the character, and cannot figure out how I did it before!
I'm open to other suggestions!
I have two major articles for readers to consider:
1) Rebecca, in a comment to my post, provided a link to the Genealogical Standards page on the International Institute of Jewish Genealogy webpage with links to an article by Gary Mokotoff, who wrote an article in AVOYTANU (XXIV, 3 (Fall, 2008), pp. 3-6) titled A Proposed Standard for Names, Dates and Places in A Genealogical Database. Section 1 of this article proposes standards for Names of persons that are logical and consistent.
2) Russ Worthington posted Data Base Clean Up - How to handle Names on the Family Tree Maker User blog yesterday. Russ is one of the real gurus on using Family Tree Maker and I greatly respect his opinions. He took each paragraph of my post and wrote his practices and comments. Some of Russ's practices differ from Gary Mokotoff's proposed standards. Russ also suggests checking the Family Tree Make Knowledge Base which address some of these questions.
I tried to use ? and ???? in FTM 16 and it creates a data entry error. What about in Legacy and RootsMagic? And in Ancestry family trees?
I really like Russ's idea of using five underscores (e.g., "_____" ) for an unknown name. It does make them stand out in reports. however, it is an illegal character in the Name field in Family Tree Maker 16. Using it would put all of the females with unknown surnames in one place in the index - right now I have "loose" women all over the place since a "Mary A." shows up as "A., Mary" in the index! I'm wondering if the underscore is an allowable character in other software programs like FTM 2009, Legacy, RootsMagic and Ancestry trees - I don't want to do this again!
Reader Barbara suggested adding using "Mary (____) w/o John Smith" in the name field to indicate that Mary with an unknown maiden surname is the wife of John Smith. This is similar to what I've done in some cases for widows who marry again. I guess for widows who marry again something along the lines of "Mary (_____) widow of Bert Jones, wife of John Smith" would work too.
Reader Miz J pointed out that Ancestry.com doesn't accept punctuation or parentheses in their family trees. These are characters that also create an error notice in FTM 16. Miz J also suggested using something like "Albert aka Bert Smith" in the name field in FTM 16 to avoid an error notice in FTM 16 and Ancestry. However, both "AKA" and "aka" create a data entry error because of capitalization), but "Aka" does not. Again, is this allowable in FTM 2009, Legacy and RootsMagic?
Reader David suggested to put "widow of Bert Jones" in the Suffix field. However, Russ pointed out that there is no suffix field in Family Tree Maker (all versions) so that won't work for me either. But it's a great thought!
Readers swe2sea, Miz J and GrannyPam said to just use the names you know and no others. If Mary [last name unknown] married John Smith and then Bert Jones, you can enter the two marriages and they will show up in reports. That would certainly eliminate a lot of spurious entries in my database!
I've poked around in FTM 16 and cannot figure out how to make an AKA show up in a genealogy report or family group sheet. I'm sure it can be done, but I can't figure it out myself, it seems.
Maybe one of the ASCII characters not associated with punctuation could be used for an unknown name. Actually, Fnu or Lnu would do, wouldn't they? No data entry error, all Lnus would be in one place in the index, etc. But I would have to learn the keystroke combination for the character, and cannot figure out how I did it before!
I'm open to other suggestions!
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Are there standards for names in family trees?
Since I merged six family trees into one large tree this month, I've been trying to clean up the mess in my "big" family tree database in Family Tree Maker 16.
[For those wondering why I'm still working in FTM 16, it's a long story. Mainly it is because I am real comfortable with it and can work fairly quickly in it, and then I can import the native FTW file to FTM 2009 and RootsMagic.]
I would really like to create a genealogy database that I can be proud of, with standardized naming conventions and the like.
When I looked in my index list for the names, I found that I have been very inconsistent with my naming conventions, including:
* (unknown) - I have some persons named (unknown) because I don't know either their first or last birth names. This is different from persons with no names at all who are listed asI deleted them because they had no connections to any other person in my tree. Should I use underscores like _____ for an unknown name? Should I use FNU for "first name unknown" and LNU for "last name unknown?"
* known first name and unknown last name. I could use underscores or LNU.
* unknown first name and known last name. I could use underscores or FNU.
* Persons found with more than one first name in the records. Or a diminutive like Harry for Henry, Bob for Robert, Bert for Albert or Herbert, Molly for Mary, Abbie for Abigail, Peggy for Margaret, Sally for Sarah, etc. I've been putting these in as "Henry/Harry" (without the quotes) and getting a notice from FTM that there's an unrecognized character.
* Persons found with a first name in one record and an obvious nickname in another. I've been doing the same thing as the diminutive, e.g. "Henry/Skip." These are usually nicknames and I've seen them input as Henry "Skip" with the nickname in quotes.
* Widows (and divorcees too) that marry again. I have a lot of "Mary Jones (widow Smith)" in my database because Tom Brown married Mary Smith in the records and she was the widow of Mr. Smith. Even worse, I have many of these loose widows without a known maiden name. I shouldn't be inputting her as "Mary Smith" because I don't know her maiden surname. Should I be inputting "Mary _____ Smith" or "Mary MNU Smith?' Or just "Mary _____," "Mary MNU" or "Mary LNU" and connect her to an unknown "FNU Smith."
* I've also seen the string "--?--" in genealogy periodicals and books for unknown names.
I note that the Rootsweb WorldConnect databases have:
* 60,920 entries for surname - LNU
* 11,052 entries for surname MNU
* 92,331 entries for surname - Unk
* 5,232,913 entries for surname Unknown
* 181,428 entries for surname (Unknown)
* 20,305 entries for surname --?--
* 124,687 entries for surname _____
* 1,166,278 entries for surname ?
* 8,117 for surname ?????
* 78 entries for surname Whoknows
* 64 entries for surname Dontknow
* 37 entries with surname Mystery
* 1,493 entries for surname Who
* 35 entries for surname Who?
Are there any standards for inputting these names into a genealogy database? Who has the authority to deal with this? Have there been extended discussions about these issues that I've missed in books, articles, blogs, message boards or mailing lists?
What do you do in your genealogy software database?
[For those wondering why I'm still working in FTM 16, it's a long story. Mainly it is because I am real comfortable with it and can work fairly quickly in it, and then I can import the native FTW file to FTM 2009 and RootsMagic.]
I would really like to create a genealogy database that I can be proud of, with standardized naming conventions and the like.
When I looked in my index list for the names, I found that I have been very inconsistent with my naming conventions, including:
* (unknown) - I have some persons named (unknown) because I don't know either their first or last birth names. This is different from persons with no names at all who are listed as
* known first name and unknown last name. I could use underscores or LNU.
* unknown first name and known last name. I could use underscores or FNU.
* Persons found with more than one first name in the records. Or a diminutive like Harry for Henry, Bob for Robert, Bert for Albert or Herbert, Molly for Mary, Abbie for Abigail, Peggy for Margaret, Sally for Sarah, etc. I've been putting these in as "Henry/Harry" (without the quotes) and getting a notice from FTM that there's an unrecognized character.
* Persons found with a first name in one record and an obvious nickname in another. I've been doing the same thing as the diminutive, e.g. "Henry/Skip." These are usually nicknames and I've seen them input as Henry "Skip" with the nickname in quotes.
* Widows (and divorcees too) that marry again. I have a lot of "Mary Jones (widow Smith)" in my database because Tom Brown married Mary Smith in the records and she was the widow of Mr. Smith. Even worse, I have many of these loose widows without a known maiden name. I shouldn't be inputting her as "Mary Smith" because I don't know her maiden surname. Should I be inputting "Mary _____ Smith" or "Mary MNU Smith?' Or just "Mary _____," "Mary MNU" or "Mary LNU" and connect her to an unknown "FNU Smith."
* I've also seen the string "--?--" in genealogy periodicals and books for unknown names.
I note that the Rootsweb WorldConnect databases have:
* 60,920 entries for surname - LNU
* 11,052 entries for surname MNU
* 92,331 entries for surname - Unk
* 5,232,913 entries for surname Unknown
* 181,428 entries for surname (Unknown)
* 20,305 entries for surname --?--
* 124,687 entries for surname _____
* 1,166,278 entries for surname ?
* 8,117 for surname ?????
* 78 entries for surname Whoknows
* 64 entries for surname Dontknow
* 37 entries with surname Mystery
* 1,493 entries for surname Who
* 35 entries for surname Who?
Are there any standards for inputting these names into a genealogy database? Who has the authority to deal with this? Have there been extended discussions about these issues that I've missed in books, articles, blogs, message boards or mailing lists?
What do you do in your genealogy software database?
Footnote.com price goes up on 1 August
I received an email from Footnote.com telling me that the cost of an annual subscription to Footnote would increase from $69.95 to $79.95 on August 1. However, they are offering a renewal for $59.95 to existing subscribers.
I took the opportunity to renew for another year at the $59.95 price.
I renewed, and then signed out and clicked on the Join Now link to see what the subscription will cost to someone that subscribes now:
* Basic membership is FREE
* Monthly subscription is $11.95 per month
* Annual membership is $59.95 per year.
You can see what the free and subscription plans offer here.
I took the opportunity to renew for another year at the $59.95 price.
I renewed, and then signed out and clicked on the Join Now link to see what the subscription will cost to someone that subscribes now:
* Basic membership is FREE
* Monthly subscription is $11.95 per month
* Annual membership is $59.95 per year.
You can see what the free and subscription plans offer here.
Ancestry.com Changes Record Image Pages
The Ancestry.com blog had two posts yesterday about changes to the Record Image Pages, Editing the Index and the Member Connect feature. You can read them at:
* Enhanced Editing and Image Page by Anne Mitchell. This post points out that there are only a few databases using this feature - the 1860 and 1870 US census, the 1861 and 1971 Canada census, and the 1861 and 1871 UK census.
* Member Connect: Discover More by Connecting with Other Members by David Graham. This post provides detail about Member Connect, including its presence on the Record Image page.
I wanted to try the Enhanced Image Page feature, so I signed into Ancestry and my home page came up:
Hmm, doesn't look like it did before. There's a big blob of "Recent Member Connect Activity" right at the top where the handy Search Box used to be. Do I really care that some other researcher added a record to an obscure ancestor in their database? But, I can change my home page - right? I can delete this feature or at least move it down on the page to where I cannot see it but could find it if I cared to.
I clicked on the "Customize this page" and, after a wait of several minutes, this page came up:
Umm, "There was a problem handling your request. Please try again in a moment." I waited at least three moments, and hit Refresh... and my system locked up big-time. After ten minutes of waiting and fuming, I went in to get cleaned up and came back after 15 minutes and everything seemed to work again. Lesson learned: Don't try to customize your home page right after a major change has been made. It looks like nobody else liked it either!
OK, on to the new Record Image Viewer! I looked for the 1870 census image for Seaver Torgerson (I mentioned him back in Tracking Torger in the Census Records), and when I clicked on "View Image" I saw (with my Windows menus showing):
There is the image in the middle, the index results are at the bottom, and on the right sidebar are tabs for the Member connect and Source. When I go to full screen, the image view expands:
For the 1870 US Census, the index information shown is Family Number, surname, given Name, Age, Estimated Birth Year, Gender, Race and Birthplace. The user can edit all of the Index information, not just the names.
* Enhanced Editing and Image Page by Anne Mitchell. This post points out that there are only a few databases using this feature - the 1860 and 1870 US census, the 1861 and 1971 Canada census, and the 1861 and 1871 UK census.
* Member Connect: Discover More by Connecting with Other Members by David Graham. This post provides detail about Member Connect, including its presence on the Record Image page.
I wanted to try the Enhanced Image Page feature, so I signed into Ancestry and my home page came up:
Hmm, doesn't look like it did before. There's a big blob of "Recent Member Connect Activity" right at the top where the handy Search Box used to be. Do I really care that some other researcher added a record to an obscure ancestor in their database? But, I can change my home page - right? I can delete this feature or at least move it down on the page to where I cannot see it but could find it if I cared to.
I clicked on the "Customize this page" and, after a wait of several minutes, this page came up:
Umm, "There was a problem handling your request. Please try again in a moment." I waited at least three moments, and hit Refresh... and my system locked up big-time. After ten minutes of waiting and fuming, I went in to get cleaned up and came back after 15 minutes and everything seemed to work again. Lesson learned: Don't try to customize your home page right after a major change has been made. It looks like nobody else liked it either!
OK, on to the new Record Image Viewer! I looked for the 1870 census image for Seaver Torgerson (I mentioned him back in Tracking Torger in the Census Records), and when I clicked on "View Image" I saw (with my Windows menus showing):
There is the image in the middle, the index results are at the bottom, and on the right sidebar are tabs for the Member connect and Source. When I go to full screen, the image view expands:
Just above the image are two rows of links or buttons to:
* Maximize Image
* Print
* Order
* Share
* Options
* Zoom In
* Zoom In
* Zoom Out
* Magnify
* Report Problems
The page number is off to the right with back or forward arrows for navigation within a township.
On the right sidebar, the Source tab provides information about the Citation, Information and Description. This is probably the best feature on the Enhanced page - now I don't have to click back to the Record page to see the page number, microfilm and roll number, etc.
I scrolled down to see the lines that were in the index at the bottom of the screen. Torger and his wife were the last two rows on the image:
For the 1870 US Census, the index information shown is Family Number, surname, given Name, Age, Estimated Birth Year, Gender, Race and Birthplace. The user can edit all of the Index information, not just the names.
There is one really neat feature added to this enhanced image page that I had not heard about - the Magnify tool. If you click the "Magnify" link in the second menu row, you can magnify a small portion of the image - as shown below:
I think that is really helpful and even cool. Of course, I would love to be able to magnify more of the image (for presentation reasons!).
I think that is really helpful and even cool. Of course, I would love to be able to magnify more of the image (for presentation reasons!).
If the use does not want the Index lines at the bottom or the Member connect/Source information at the right, they can click on the "Maximize Record" in the first menu row:
Again, this is a useful feature, especially if someone is transcribing the record information into a genealogy program or to paper.
Again, this is a useful feature, especially if someone is transcribing the record information into a genealogy program or to paper.
I wondered what the "Options" button did, so I clicked on it:
The Options available are (with a check mark for those currently used):
* Use the Advanced viewer
* Use Enhanced Images
* Use Compressed Images
* Use Image Thumbnail
Are you confused by all of these changes? There is a handy "Help" link at the top right of the screen. I clicked on it and a new window showed me:
I really like all of the Record Image changes, and love the index, source and magnify features. They've made a really big deal about Member Connect, and, frankly, it doesn't really excite me much - just me, I guess.
I will deal with correcting items in the Index feature in another post since this one got pretty long.
What do you think? Do you like the enhanced record image page? What about Member Connect? Is it useful on the home page? Tell Ancestry on their blog or comment here - they usually read my posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)