...
This is the fourth and last post in a series that transcribes parts of my telephone conversation on 21 April with David E. Rencher, Chief Genealogical Officer for www.FamilySearch.org. Part 1 is here, Part 2 is here and Part 3 is here.
In the last five minutes of our conversation, I raised a question about GenSeek, the FamilyLink application to digitize the Family History Library Catalog (and other repository and online resources). David is not responsible for that application, and did not know the status of the project.
We talked briefly about the NGS Conference, and David said that I should not miss Jay Verkler's Opening Session presentation about "From the Granite Mountain to the Ends of the World." I noted that there are so many excellent speakers and topics that I'm wondering when I'll have time to sleep, and David's response was "Sleep is overrated." We signed off with my hope that we could meet in person in Salt Lake City next week.
I really enjoyed this conversation with David. Audio-taping it with my Olympus Voice Recorder made the call easier on me - I didn't have to take notes in order to recall what was said.
Transcribing the tape was not easy. We all speak around 80 to 100 words a minute, but I can type only 30 to 40 words a minute and can recall only 10 to 15 seconds of dialogue at a time, so transcribing this was a chore. I tried to capture the essence of what was said using our words, but eliminated the pauses, false starts and some extraneous words (many of them mine!). If I misinterpreted anything David said, it is my error, and I hope that he will contact me with corrections. Also, if he wants to add something to certain comments (extend the record, as they say in Congress), I will be happy to publish them.
David is very communicative and responsive, and speaks in complete sentences (one of my problems - I sometimes don't type in complete sentences!). I am sure that a written response to my questions and comments would have been more succinct, but that wasn't the opportunity here.
I will try to capture more of my thoughts about what David said in another post when I have time to gather my thoughts. I'm looking forward to hearing one of David's talks at NGS next week.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Saturday Night Genealogy Fun - FREE 1930 Census Data
Hey genea-fanatics - it's Saturday Night, time for more Genealogy Fun!!
What can be more fun than finding records online for FREE? Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to:
1) Go to www.Footnote.com. Pick one of your ancestral family members that was in the 1930 US Census and search for that person. The 1930 US Census is FREE through the end of April on Footnote.com. Are you a Footnote member already? Fine. If you are not, you will need to register to access the 1930 census, but they will not ask you for a credit card.
2) When you find the census image with your ancestral family member, figure out how to see the source citation (Hint: click the "About image" link): figure out how to Download the Image; figure out how to Print the image.
3) Extra credit: Can you create a Footnote Page for your family person? Footnote Pages are a way to create a page for a specific person and add family information, including facts, photographs and stories, to the Page to share with the world. (Hint: remember that popup box before you saw the census image? That's where you do it. Click on the "I'm Related" link, fill in the information, upload a picture if you want, and click on the person's name to create the Footnote Page.)
Here's mine:
Well, I tried to upload some images but Blogger is not cooperating. I'll try again later.
I registered for a free www.Footnote.com account using one of my email addresses.
I searched for and found my great-grandfather, Henry A. Carringer (1853-1946) residing with his wife and mother-in-law in San Diego, San Diego County, California on page 1-A, ED 37-116, NARA Series T626, Roll ??? (it doesn't provide the roll number! How dumb is that?).
I created a Footnote Page for Henry A. Carringer based on the 1930 US Census information. I could have added more photos, more facts, more family stories, and links to other information about Henry.
I realized I did not have a 1930 census record for Henry Carringer's brother, Harvey Carringer who also resided in San Diego. I went looking for one, and could not find it on either Footnote.com or Ancestry.com. No wonder I didn't have it!
What can be more fun than finding records online for FREE? Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to:
1) Go to www.Footnote.com. Pick one of your ancestral family members that was in the 1930 US Census and search for that person. The 1930 US Census is FREE through the end of April on Footnote.com. Are you a Footnote member already? Fine. If you are not, you will need to register to access the 1930 census, but they will not ask you for a credit card.
2) When you find the census image with your ancestral family member, figure out how to see the source citation (Hint: click the "About image" link): figure out how to Download the Image; figure out how to Print the image.
3) Extra credit: Can you create a Footnote Page for your family person? Footnote Pages are a way to create a page for a specific person and add family information, including facts, photographs and stories, to the Page to share with the world. (Hint: remember that popup box before you saw the census image? That's where you do it. Click on the "I'm Related" link, fill in the information, upload a picture if you want, and click on the person's name to create the Footnote Page.)
4) What other family members do you need to find on the 1930 US Census?
5) Tell us about your Fun - in your own blog post, in a comment to this post, or in a comment on Facebook.
Here's mine:
Well, I tried to upload some images but Blogger is not cooperating. I'll try again later.
I registered for a free www.Footnote.com account using one of my email addresses.
I searched for and found my great-grandfather, Henry A. Carringer (1853-1946) residing with his wife and mother-in-law in San Diego, San Diego County, California on page 1-A, ED 37-116, NARA Series T626, Roll ??? (it doesn't provide the roll number! How dumb is that?).
I created a Footnote Page for Henry A. Carringer based on the 1930 US Census information. I could have added more photos, more facts, more family stories, and links to other information about Henry.
I realized I did not have a 1930 census record for Henry Carringer's brother, Harvey Carringer who also resided in San Diego. I went looking for one, and could not find it on either Footnote.com or Ancestry.com. No wonder I didn't have it!
Surname Saturday - UNDERHILL (MA > NH > NY)
...
It's Surname Saturday, and I'm "counting down" my Ahnentafel list each week. I'm up to number 53, who is the mother of Devier James Lamphear Smith. Unfortunately, I do not know who the parents of Devier are, so I will move on to Number 55!
Number 55 in my Ahnentafel is Mary Ann Underhill (ca 1815-after 1880).
My ancestral line back through the five generations of my Underhill ancestral families:
1. Randall J. Seaver
2. Frederick W. Seaver (1911-1983)
3. Betty V. Carringer (1919-2002)
6. Lyle Lawrence Carringer (1891-1976)
7. Emily Kemp Auble (1899-1977)
12. Henry Austin Carringer (1853-1946)
13. Abbie Ardell Smith (1864-1944)
26. Devier James Lamphear Smith (1839-1894)
27. Abigail A. Vaux (1844-1931)
54. Samuel Vaux, born before 11 February 1816 in South Petherton, Somerset, ENGLAND, and died Aft. 1880 in prob. Marshall County, KS. He was the son of 108. James Vaux and 109. Mary Palmer. He married before 1839 in Aurora, Erie County, NY.
55. Mary Ann Underhill, born About 1815 in Aurora, Erie County, NY; died Aft. 1880 in prob. Marshall County, KS.
110. Amos Underhill, born 15 April 1772 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH; died 15 October 1865 in Aurora, Erie County, NY. He married 25 March 1801 in Piermont, Grafton, NH.
111. Mary/Polly Metcalf, born about 1780 in Piermont, Grafton County, NH; died before 1860 in Aurora, Erie County, NY. She was the daughter of 222. Burgess Metcalf and 223. Jerusha.
Children of Amos Underhill and Mary Metcalf are: Cyrus Metcalf (1804-1841); James Pierce (1809-1884); Almeda (1813-1859); Mary Ann (ca 1815-ca 1880); Frederick (1820-????)
220. John Underhill, born 20 June 1745 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH; died 1816 in Plainfield, Sullivan County, NH. He married 1767 in NH.
221. Hannah Colby, born 14 February 1744/45 in Amesbury, Essex County, MA. She was the daughter of 442. Joseph Colby and 443. Abigail Worthen.
Children of John Underhill and Hannah Colby are: Joseph (1770-1843); Amos (1772-1865); Nancy (1774-????); John (1776-1858); Susan (1778-????); Jonathan (1779-1875).
440. John Underhill, born 16 March 1720/21 in Salisbury, Essex County, MA; died 31 July 1793 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH. He married 21 October 1741 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH.
441. Joanna Healey, born 29 July 1718 in Hampton Falls, Rockingham County, NH; died August 1809 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH. She was the daughter of 882. William Healey and 883. Mary Samborne.
Children of John Underhill and Joanna Healey are: Betty (1742-1806); William (1744-1780); John (1745-1816); Molly (1747-1835); Moses (1749-1838); David (1751-1827); Samuel (1752-1828); Jeremiah (1755-1794); Sarah (1759-1838); Joanna (1764-????).
880. Sampson Underhill, born about 1692 in ENGLAND; died before 27 March 1732 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH. He married 15 January 1717/18 in Salisbury, Essex County, MA.
881. Elizabeth Ambrose, born 02 October 1698 in Salisbury, Essex County, MA; died before 1782 in NH. She was the daughter of 1762. Nathaniel Ambrose and 1763. Sarah Eastman.
Children of Sampson Underhill and Elizabeth Ambrose are: John (1721-1793); Jeremiah (1724-????); Moses (1726-1804); Hezekiah (1727-1800);
Are any readers, or searchers, descended from any of these Underhill families? If so, please let me know - email is rjseaver@cox.net.
It's Surname Saturday, and I'm "counting down" my Ahnentafel list each week. I'm up to number 53, who is the mother of Devier James Lamphear Smith. Unfortunately, I do not know who the parents of Devier are, so I will move on to Number 55!
Number 55 in my Ahnentafel is Mary Ann Underhill (ca 1815-after 1880).
My ancestral line back through the five generations of my Underhill ancestral families:
1. Randall J. Seaver
2. Frederick W. Seaver (1911-1983)
3. Betty V. Carringer (1919-2002)
6. Lyle Lawrence Carringer (1891-1976)
7. Emily Kemp Auble (1899-1977)
12. Henry Austin Carringer (1853-1946)
13. Abbie Ardell Smith (1864-1944)
26. Devier James Lamphear Smith (1839-1894)
27. Abigail A. Vaux (1844-1931)
54. Samuel Vaux, born before 11 February 1816 in South Petherton, Somerset, ENGLAND, and died Aft. 1880 in prob. Marshall County, KS. He was the son of 108. James Vaux and 109. Mary Palmer. He married before 1839 in Aurora, Erie County, NY.
55. Mary Ann Underhill, born About 1815 in Aurora, Erie County, NY; died Aft. 1880 in prob. Marshall County, KS.
110. Amos Underhill, born 15 April 1772 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH; died 15 October 1865 in Aurora, Erie County, NY. He married 25 March 1801 in Piermont, Grafton, NH.
111. Mary/Polly Metcalf, born about 1780 in Piermont, Grafton County, NH; died before 1860 in Aurora, Erie County, NY. She was the daughter of 222. Burgess Metcalf and 223. Jerusha.
Children of Amos Underhill and Mary Metcalf are: Cyrus Metcalf (1804-1841); James Pierce (1809-1884); Almeda (1813-1859); Mary Ann (ca 1815-ca 1880); Frederick (1820-????)
220. John Underhill, born 20 June 1745 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH; died 1816 in Plainfield, Sullivan County, NH. He married 1767 in NH.
221. Hannah Colby, born 14 February 1744/45 in Amesbury, Essex County, MA. She was the daughter of 442. Joseph Colby and 443. Abigail Worthen.
Children of John Underhill and Hannah Colby are: Joseph (1770-1843); Amos (1772-1865); Nancy (1774-????); John (1776-1858); Susan (1778-????); Jonathan (1779-1875).
440. John Underhill, born 16 March 1720/21 in Salisbury, Essex County, MA; died 31 July 1793 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH. He married 21 October 1741 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH.
441. Joanna Healey, born 29 July 1718 in Hampton Falls, Rockingham County, NH; died August 1809 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH. She was the daughter of 882. William Healey and 883. Mary Samborne.
Children of John Underhill and Joanna Healey are: Betty (1742-1806); William (1744-1780); John (1745-1816); Molly (1747-1835); Moses (1749-1838); David (1751-1827); Samuel (1752-1828); Jeremiah (1755-1794); Sarah (1759-1838); Joanna (1764-????).
880. Sampson Underhill, born about 1692 in ENGLAND; died before 27 March 1732 in Chester, Rockingham County, NH. He married 15 January 1717/18 in Salisbury, Essex County, MA.
881. Elizabeth Ambrose, born 02 October 1698 in Salisbury, Essex County, MA; died before 1782 in NH. She was the daughter of 1762. Nathaniel Ambrose and 1763. Sarah Eastman.
Children of Sampson Underhill and Elizabeth Ambrose are: John (1721-1793); Jeremiah (1724-????); Moses (1726-1804); Hezekiah (1727-1800);
Are any readers, or searchers, descended from any of these Underhill families? If so, please let me know - email is rjseaver@cox.net.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Devier J. Smith in 1880 Agricultural Census
...
Ancestry.com recently added more of the Non-Population U.S. Census Returns for the years 1850 to 1880 (see Ancestral Entrepreneurs: Details of 19th-Century Businesses Now on Ancestry.com on the Ancestry.com Blog for more details). The states covered include California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington Territory. The schedules covered include Agricultural, Industry/Manufacturers, and Social Statistics and Supplemental Schedules.
Are my ancestors in these non-population schedules? You bet! I decided to use the Ancestry.com New Search (with Default Settings, not Exact Match) to try out the new schedules. I put First Name = "Devier" and Last Name = Smith" into the search box for the Selected U.S. Federal Census Non-Population Schedules, 1850-1880, as shown below:
I had to scroll down to find the orange "Search" button (this still bothers me - it would be so much more efficient to put it at the top of the Search Box!). Here are the results from my "Ranked Search" with "Default Settings:"
Hey, Devier J. Smith is right at the top! And the only "Devier Smith" in this database. I need to search for "D.J. Smith" too - it may be further down this list of 54,060 matches that Ancestry.com found in less than ten seconds for my search criteria (isn't that amazing? Your speed may vary!).
I know that he was enumerated in 1880 in Shannon township, Pottawatomie County, Kansas in 1880, so that's my great-great-grandfather. Here's the record summary:
It doesn't tell me much, does it? I clicked on the "View original image" link and found:
Devier J. Smith is on line 6 on this 1880 Agricultural Census record. For this particular census, they stacked four pages of information on one page, so all of the information for this group of people is together:
What are the column headings and the information for Devier J. Smith?
1. The Name of the Person who Conducts this Farm: Smith, Devier J.
5. Acres of land: Improved: Tilled (including fallow and grass in rotation): 40
9. Farm Values: Of farm, including land, fences and buildings: $1600
12. Fences: Cost of building and repairing in 1879: $0
14. Labor: Amount paid for wages for farm labor in 1879, including value of board: $250
17. Grasslands: Average 1879: Mown: 150 acres
22. Horses of all ages on hand June 1, 1880: 15
24. Neat cattle and their products: On hand June 1, 1880: Working Oxen: 0
25. Neat cattle and their products: On hand June 1, 1880: Milch Cows: 20
32. Neat cattle and their products: Milk sold or sent to butter or cheese factories in 1879: 0 Gallons
35. Sheep: On hand June 1, 1880: 0
45. Swine: On hand, June 1, 1880: 0
46. Poultry on hand June 1st, 1880: Exclusive of spring hatching: Barn-yard: 0
49. Cereals: Barley, 1879: Area: 0 Acres
61. Pulse: Canada Peas (Dry), in 1879: 0 Bushels
63. Fiber: Flax - 1879: Area in Crop: 0 Acres
69. Sugar: Sorghum - 1879: Area in Crop: 0 Acres
74. Broom Corn, 1879: 0 Acres
84. Orchards, 1879: Apple: Acres: 0 Acres
91. Nurseries: Acres: 0 Acres
96. Market Gardens: Value of produce sold in 1879: $0
As you can see, a researcher can learn an awful lot about their ancestor's farm if they are in the Agricultural Census!!!
Note: The Agricultural census form for other years is different from the one above.
Ancestry.com recently added more of the Non-Population U.S. Census Returns for the years 1850 to 1880 (see Ancestral Entrepreneurs: Details of 19th-Century Businesses Now on Ancestry.com on the Ancestry.com Blog for more details). The states covered include California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington Territory. The schedules covered include Agricultural, Industry/Manufacturers, and Social Statistics and Supplemental Schedules.
Are my ancestors in these non-population schedules? You bet! I decided to use the Ancestry.com New Search (with Default Settings, not Exact Match) to try out the new schedules. I put First Name = "Devier" and Last Name = Smith" into the search box for the Selected U.S. Federal Census Non-Population Schedules, 1850-1880, as shown below:
I had to scroll down to find the orange "Search" button (this still bothers me - it would be so much more efficient to put it at the top of the Search Box!). Here are the results from my "Ranked Search" with "Default Settings:"
Hey, Devier J. Smith is right at the top! And the only "Devier Smith" in this database. I need to search for "D.J. Smith" too - it may be further down this list of 54,060 matches that Ancestry.com found in less than ten seconds for my search criteria (isn't that amazing? Your speed may vary!).
I know that he was enumerated in 1880 in Shannon township, Pottawatomie County, Kansas in 1880, so that's my great-great-grandfather. Here's the record summary:
It doesn't tell me much, does it? I clicked on the "View original image" link and found:
Devier J. Smith is on line 6 on this 1880 Agricultural Census record. For this particular census, they stacked four pages of information on one page, so all of the information for this group of people is together:
What are the column headings and the information for Devier J. Smith?
1. The Name of the Person who Conducts this Farm: Smith, Devier J.
2. Tenure: Owner: checked
3. Tenure: Rents for fixed money rental: Unchecked
4. Tenure: Rents for shares of products: Unchecked
5. Acres of land: Improved: Tilled (including fallow and grass in rotation): 40
6. Acres of land: Improved: Permanent meadows, orchards, pastures, vineyards: 0
7. Acres of land: Unimproved: Woodland and forest: 0
8. Acres of land: Unimproved: Other unimproved, including "old fields" not growing wood: 120
9. Farm Values: Of farm, including land, fences and buildings: $1600
10. Farm Values: Of farming implements and machinery: $200
11. Farm Values: Of livestock: $4000
12. Fences: Cost of building and repairing in 1879: $0
13. Cost of fertilizers purchased in 1879: $9
14. Labor: Amount paid for wages for farm labor in 1879, including value of board: $250
15. Labor: Weeks hired labor in 1879 upon farm (and dairy) excluding housework: $0
16. Estimated value of all farm productions (sold, consumed or on hand) for 1879: $1000
17. Grasslands: Average 1879: Mown: 150 acres
18. Grasslands: Average 1879: Not mown: 0 Acres
19. Grasslands: Products harvested in 1879: Hay: 1200 Tons
20. Grasslands: Products harvested in 1879: Clover seed: 0 Bushels
21. Grasslands: Products harvested in 1879: Grass seed0 Bushels
22. Horses of all ages on hand June 1, 1880: 15
23. Mules and Asses, all ages, on hand June 1, 1880: 0
24. Neat cattle and their products: On hand June 1, 1880: Working Oxen: 0
25. Neat cattle and their products: On hand June 1, 1880: Milch Cows: 20
26. Neat cattle and their products: On hand June 1, 1880: Other: 180
27. Neat cattle and their products: Movement 1879: Calves dropped:
28. Neat cattle and their products: Movement 1879: Cattle of all ages: Purchased: 0
29 Neat cattle and their products: Movement 1879: Cattle of all ages: Sold living: 0
30 Neat cattle and their products: Movement 1879: Cattle of all ages: Slaughtered: 0
31 Neat cattle and their products: Movement 1879: Cattle of all ages: Died, Strayed and stolen and not recovered: 0
32. Neat cattle and their products: Milk sold or sent to butter or cheese factories in 1879: 0 Gallons
33. Neat cattle and their products: Butter made on the farm in 1879: 0 Pounds
34. Neat cattle and their products:Cheese made on the farm in 1879: 0 Pounds
35. Sheep: On hand June 1, 1880: 0
36. Sheep: Movement 1879: Lambs dropped: 0
37. Sheep: Movement 1879: Sheep and lambs: Purchased: 0
38. Sheep: Movement 1879: Sheep and lambs: Sold living: 0
39. Sheep: Movement 1879: Sheep and lambs: Slaughtered: 0
40. Sheep: Movement 1879: Sheep and lambs: Killed by dogs: 0
41. Sheep: Movement 1879: Sheep and lambs: Died of disease: 0
42. Sheep: Movement 1879: Sheep and lambs: Died of stress of weather: 0
43. Sheep: Clip, spring 1880, Shorn and to be shorn: Fleeces: 0
44. Sheep: Clip, spring 1880, Shorn and to be shorn: Weight: 0 Lbs
45. Swine: On hand, June 1, 1880: 0
46. Poultry on hand June 1st, 1880: Exclusive of spring hatching: Barn-yard: 0
47. Poultry on hand June 1st, 1880: Exclusive of spring hatching:Other: 0
48. Eggs produced in 1879: 0
49. Cereals: Barley, 1879: Area: 0 Acres
50. Cereals: Barley, 1879: Crop: 0 Bushels
51. Cereals: Buckwheat, 1879: Area: 0 Acres
52. Cereals: Buckwheat, 1879: Crop: 0 Bushels
52. Cereals: Buckwheat, 1879: Crop: 0 Bushels
53. Cereals: Indian Corn, 1879: Area: 16 Acres
54. Cereals: Indian Corn, 1879: Crop: 800 Bushels
54. Cereals: Indian Corn, 1879: Crop: 800 Bushels
55. Cereals: Oats, 1879: Area: 20 Acres
56. Cereals: Oats, 1879: Crop: 500 Bushels
56. Cereals: Oats, 1879: Crop: 500 Bushels
57. Cereals: Rye, 1879: Area: 0 Acres
58. Cereals: Rye, 1879: Crop: 0 Bushels
58. Cereals: Rye, 1879: Crop: 0 Bushels
59. Cereals: Wheat, 1879: Area: 0 Acres
60. Cereals: Wheat, 1879: Crop: 0 Bushels
60. Cereals: Wheat, 1879: Crop: 0 Bushels
61. Pulse: Canada Peas (Dry), in 1879: 0 Bushels
62. Pulse: Beans (Dry), in 1879: 0 Bushels
63. Fiber: Flax - 1879: Area in Crop: 0 Acres
64. Fiber: Flax - 1879: Seed: 0 Acres
65. Fiber: Flax - 1879: Straw: 0 Acres
66. Fiber: Flax - 1879: Fiber: 0 Acres
67. Fiber: Hemp: 0 Acres
68. Fiber: Hemp: 0 Tons
69. Sugar: Sorghum - 1879: Area in Crop: 0 Acres
70. Sugar: Sorghum - 1879: Sugar: 0 Pounds
71. Sugar: Sorghum - 1879: Molasses: 0 Gallons
72. Sugar: Maple - 1879: Sugar: 0 Pounds
73. Sugar: Maple - 1879: Molasses: 0 Gallons
74. Broom Corn, 1879: 0 Acres
75. Broom corn, 1879: 0 Lbs.
76. Hops, 1879: Area: 0 Acres
77. Hops, 1879: Crop: 0 Lbs
78. Potatoes (Irish), 1879: Area: 1/16 Acres
79. Potatoes (Irish), 1879: Crop: 10 Bushels
79. Potatoes (Irish), 1879: Crop: 10 Bushels
80. Potatoes (Sweet), 1879: Area: 0 Acres
81. Potatoes (Sweet), 1879: Crop: 0 Lbs
81. Potatoes (Sweet), 1879: Crop: 0 Lbs
82. Tobacco, 1879: 0 Acres
83. Tobacco, Crop: 0 Lbs
83. Tobacco, Crop: 0 Lbs
84. Orchards, 1879: Apple: Acres: 0 Acres
85. Orchards, 1879: Apple: Bearing Trees: None
86. Orchards, 1879: Apple: Bushels: 0 Bushels
87. Orchards, 1879: Peach: Acres: 0 Acres
88. Orchards, 1879: Peach: Bearing Trees: None
89. Orchards, 1879: Peach: Bushels: 0 Bushels
89. Orchards, 1879: Peach: Bushels: 0 Bushels
90. Orchards: Total value of all kinds sold or consumed, 1879: $0
91. Nurseries: Acres: 0 Acres
92. Nurseries: Value of produce sold in 1879: $0
93. Vineyards: Acres: 0 Acres
94. Vineyards: Grapes sold in 1879: 0 Pounds
95. Vineyards: Wine made in 1879: 0 Gallons
96. Market Gardens: Value of produce sold in 1879: $0
97. Bees- 1879: Honey: 0 Pounds
98. Bees - 1879: Wax: 0 Pounds
99. Forest Products: Amount of wood cut in 1879: 0 Cords
100. Forest Products: Value of all forest products sold or consumed in 1879: $0
As you can see, a researcher can learn an awful lot about their ancestor's farm if they are in the Agricultural Census!!!
Note: The Agricultural census form for other years is different from the one above.
A Conversation with David E. Rencher - Part 3
...
This is the third post in a series that transcribes parts of my telephone conversation on 21 April with David E. Rencher, Chief Genealogical Officer for www.FamilySearch.org. Part 1 is here, and Part 2 is here.
Part 3 continues with information about FamilySearch Indexing and online record access:
Randy Seaver (RS): Let's switch gears here. Family Search Indexing - you have many thousands of people working on that --
David Rencher (DR): Three hundred thousand --
RS: Wow, and you have 2.4 million microfilms and another million microfiches, how many of those microfilms can you do with copyright issues and that sort of thing?
DR: I'm glad you went straight to the heart of the issue. Most people do not understand. When we started microfilming in 1938, no one envisioned the digital era. Most of those contracts were never negotiated in that way. Where we've picked up one film here, a dozen films there, 150 films here, we have to go back and we have to look at those contracts, and, oftentimes, look at it from the standpoint of whether or not we have the digital rights to post those images. Things change over the years. We just have to be very careful - we don't want to do anything that would damage our reputation in the archival community, we don't want to do anything that would jeopardize any of those relationships. We are very earnest in trying to do all that we can to maintain good working relationships with the archives. When we post images, we want to make sure that we have the right permission to do that.
RS: So are you going to be able to do most of them? It seems to me that a lot of what you have, the ones really important to me - the ones with high genealogical value - the probate records, the land records, the vital records - they're before 1920 and of government origins, and I guess that the repositories that hold the originals would be ecstatic to have digital access.
DR: Right. There's a certain percent that fall in that category. There's a certain percent that we won't image - and it's because they are either duplicate copies of the same records, for instance, we have two copies of the 1870 U.S. census, and so there's no reason to digitize both copies, because we know that one was photographically far superior to the other one, which was why we re-imaged it in the first place.
Think about a set of probate records in the courthouse, for example. Think about the fact that there are probate records themselves, and the indexes for the probate records. If we're indexing the probate records from the originals, do we need to image the indexes? We may choose not to image the rolls of indexes, and therefore create our own index from the original records, which overcomes the problem of an entry being left out of the index. When we say that we will image a certain portion of the 2.4 million rolls, but there's a good chance that we won't image all of them - all of them may not be image-worthy.
RS: How do you choose which films to image and index at this point in time?
DR: Right now, we're trying to do what we determine to be the highest priority ones, and we're starting a little bit different approach than we've had in the past. In the past, there's been a number of records, and we were indexing records at a different level. Today we're thinking in terms of complete record sets. Can we create a complete record set for a particular area. One of the difficulties we used to have with the International Genealogical Index, once you'd searched it, you weren't quite sure what you had searched. So your next step was to go back, then, and try to determine, if I just searched for this marriage in Alabama, which marriages records have I not now searched by virtue of searching the IGI? That would drive then: "Oh, I need to search the marriage records for Sumter County, or Greene County, or Hale County." But you only knew that if you knew which records were not in the index to begin with. How much better it is if we can create a complete index that says "I've just searched all of the marriage records for Alabama." Now I know that if it's not there that there may be some other techniques and there may be some reasons, but at least I know with some certainty that I've pretty much covered the planet. Instead of taking more of a "swiss-cheese approach" we're taking a much more complete record approach. We're starting with the top tier records, until those are done, those basically are covering the bases. Until you get all of those covered, we're not going to move on into the more esoteric sources.
RS: Will more of the databases be put on the commercial sites like Footnote and Ancestry, and you have the indexes?
DR: We've worked very diligently with the other players in the community. We welcome all of the other players. We see what they are doing as a vital part of having a community of players. When you look at the deals that we do, where we may provide an index and point to images, we have to weigh that against "OK, if we were to just do that ourselves, how long would it be until we can get to that record?" As a user, would you rather have the indexes now, and point to an image that you may have to pay a small fee for. Or would you rather not have that data for ten years online? Those are kinds of the tradeoffs that most people don't see from the industry view point that we do, because we're looking at a lot of data.
RS: No kidding! Have you figured out how many images you have from all of those microfilms?
DR: Actually, we have. I believe the figure is around three billion.
RS: And there may be 50 to 100 names to be indexed on each image.
DR: You know, one of the films is going to be first, and one of them is going to be last. If we can come up with an interim solution that makes the data available to you more quickly, as a user wouldn't you rather have that than hold out for ten years just because we might put it up for free ten years from now. That doesn't really help your research much.
RS: If it's just the images, that's like scrolling through the microfilm down at the Family History Center, but dong it at home in your pajamas, that's the tradeoff. It's a lot easier to do it at home and capture the images.
There's one more segment that I will try to transcribe tomorrow.
What other questions should I have asked David about FamilySearch Indexing and putting imaged records online? Or what wasn't explained well? Please send comments - perhaps David will read them and respond to them either in Comments or via email to you or me.
Several of you have asked in email and comments about my own thoughts and reactions to what David Rencher has said in this interview. I will try to capture my own thoughts in a summary post after the last segment.
This is the third post in a series that transcribes parts of my telephone conversation on 21 April with David E. Rencher, Chief Genealogical Officer for www.FamilySearch.org. Part 1 is here, and Part 2 is here.
Part 3 continues with information about FamilySearch Indexing and online record access:
Randy Seaver (RS): Let's switch gears here. Family Search Indexing - you have many thousands of people working on that --
David Rencher (DR): Three hundred thousand --
RS: Wow, and you have 2.4 million microfilms and another million microfiches, how many of those microfilms can you do with copyright issues and that sort of thing?
DR: I'm glad you went straight to the heart of the issue. Most people do not understand. When we started microfilming in 1938, no one envisioned the digital era. Most of those contracts were never negotiated in that way. Where we've picked up one film here, a dozen films there, 150 films here, we have to go back and we have to look at those contracts, and, oftentimes, look at it from the standpoint of whether or not we have the digital rights to post those images. Things change over the years. We just have to be very careful - we don't want to do anything that would damage our reputation in the archival community, we don't want to do anything that would jeopardize any of those relationships. We are very earnest in trying to do all that we can to maintain good working relationships with the archives. When we post images, we want to make sure that we have the right permission to do that.
RS: So are you going to be able to do most of them? It seems to me that a lot of what you have, the ones really important to me - the ones with high genealogical value - the probate records, the land records, the vital records - they're before 1920 and of government origins, and I guess that the repositories that hold the originals would be ecstatic to have digital access.
DR: Right. There's a certain percent that fall in that category. There's a certain percent that we won't image - and it's because they are either duplicate copies of the same records, for instance, we have two copies of the 1870 U.S. census, and so there's no reason to digitize both copies, because we know that one was photographically far superior to the other one, which was why we re-imaged it in the first place.
Think about a set of probate records in the courthouse, for example. Think about the fact that there are probate records themselves, and the indexes for the probate records. If we're indexing the probate records from the originals, do we need to image the indexes? We may choose not to image the rolls of indexes, and therefore create our own index from the original records, which overcomes the problem of an entry being left out of the index. When we say that we will image a certain portion of the 2.4 million rolls, but there's a good chance that we won't image all of them - all of them may not be image-worthy.
RS: How do you choose which films to image and index at this point in time?
DR: Right now, we're trying to do what we determine to be the highest priority ones, and we're starting a little bit different approach than we've had in the past. In the past, there's been a number of records, and we were indexing records at a different level. Today we're thinking in terms of complete record sets. Can we create a complete record set for a particular area. One of the difficulties we used to have with the International Genealogical Index, once you'd searched it, you weren't quite sure what you had searched. So your next step was to go back, then, and try to determine, if I just searched for this marriage in Alabama, which marriages records have I not now searched by virtue of searching the IGI? That would drive then: "Oh, I need to search the marriage records for Sumter County, or Greene County, or Hale County." But you only knew that if you knew which records were not in the index to begin with. How much better it is if we can create a complete index that says "I've just searched all of the marriage records for Alabama." Now I know that if it's not there that there may be some other techniques and there may be some reasons, but at least I know with some certainty that I've pretty much covered the planet. Instead of taking more of a "swiss-cheese approach" we're taking a much more complete record approach. We're starting with the top tier records, until those are done, those basically are covering the bases. Until you get all of those covered, we're not going to move on into the more esoteric sources.
RS: Will more of the databases be put on the commercial sites like Footnote and Ancestry, and you have the indexes?
DR: We've worked very diligently with the other players in the community. We welcome all of the other players. We see what they are doing as a vital part of having a community of players. When you look at the deals that we do, where we may provide an index and point to images, we have to weigh that against "OK, if we were to just do that ourselves, how long would it be until we can get to that record?" As a user, would you rather have the indexes now, and point to an image that you may have to pay a small fee for. Or would you rather not have that data for ten years online? Those are kinds of the tradeoffs that most people don't see from the industry view point that we do, because we're looking at a lot of data.
RS: No kidding! Have you figured out how many images you have from all of those microfilms?
DR: Actually, we have. I believe the figure is around three billion.
RS: And there may be 50 to 100 names to be indexed on each image.
DR: You know, one of the films is going to be first, and one of them is going to be last. If we can come up with an interim solution that makes the data available to you more quickly, as a user wouldn't you rather have that than hold out for ten years just because we might put it up for free ten years from now. That doesn't really help your research much.
RS: If it's just the images, that's like scrolling through the microfilm down at the Family History Center, but dong it at home in your pajamas, that's the tradeoff. It's a lot easier to do it at home and capture the images.
There's one more segment that I will try to transcribe tomorrow.
What other questions should I have asked David about FamilySearch Indexing and putting imaged records online? Or what wasn't explained well? Please send comments - perhaps David will read them and respond to them either in Comments or via email to you or me.
Several of you have asked in email and comments about my own thoughts and reactions to what David Rencher has said in this interview. I will try to capture my own thoughts in a summary post after the last segment.
Follow Friday - the Ancestry.com Blog
It's Follow Friday - time to highlight another genealogy blog or web site that I follow on a regular basis.
This week I chose the Ancestry.com blog at http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/:
This week I chose the Ancestry.com blog at http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/:
This blog has several authors - all employees of Ancestry.com. However, they blog about many of the Ancestry.com products - the searchable databases, Family Tree Maker, DNA, ExpertConnect, and more.
In the past year or so, this blog has become much more communicative as Ancestry.com has tried to increase their dialogue with readers and customers. It's not unusual for blog posts to have many comments from satisfied or disgruntled customers and readers, with a subsequent response from the Ancestry.com blogger. These comments often provide me with information or ideas that help me understand the Ancestry.com products.
If you are interested in new Ancestry.com content, in Ancestry.com search techniques, in Family Tree Maker capabilities, etc., then reading the Ancestry.com blog will help you stay on top of the Ancestry.com offerings.
Disclosure: I am not an Ancestry.com employee, contractor or affiliate, and have not been remunerated for this post. I am a fully paid subscriber with a US Deluxe subscription to Ancestry.com.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
New Ancestry.com Filters are Working!
...
Ancestry.com announced earlier this week that new Name and Place Filters would be installed and available for use on their databases in these posts on the Ancestry.com Blog:
* Preview of Changes to Ancestry.com Search by Tony Macklin
* Ancestry Search: Name and Place Filters coming to New Advanced Search this week! by Anne Mitchell
* Ancestry Search: Place Filters on New Advanced Search by Anne Mitchell
These posts provide all of the detail about "what it is" and "what your choices are."
I checked Ancestry.com this morning, and found that all of the described filters are in place and are working, seemingly well.
It's important to realize that these filters only work on New Search and on the Advanced Search screen in New Search. There are popup windows for details on the First Name Search and Last Name Search that explain the different terms - Default Search, Exact Search, and Exact Search with one or more of Soundex Variations, Phonetic Variations and Similar Variations.
I tested it on the 1880 US Census with my second great-grandfather, Isaac Seaver, and found:
* With Default Settings checked for both first and last names, I received 2,206 matches
* With Exact Search checked for both first and last names, I received 3 matches (including my guy)
* With Exact Search and Soundex Variations checked for both first and last names, I received 2,195 matches
* With Exact Search and Phonetic Variations checked for both first and last names, I received 1,610 matches
* with Exact Search and Similar Variations checked for both first and last names, I received 1,607 matches.
* with Exact Search for first name, and Default Settings for Last Name checked, I received 310 matches.
* with Exact Search for first name, and Exact Settings with Soundex Variations for Last Name checked, I received 306 matches.
* with Exact Search for first name, and Exact Settings with Phonetic Variations for Last Name checked, I received 16 matches.
* with Exact Search for first name, and Exact Settings with Similar Variations for Last Name checked, I received 14 matches.
Now I realize that Isaac Seaver isn't the hardest name to search, but I found it interesting to see what names the Default Settings returned (both first and last names), and the order in which they were listed:
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Seaver" (3 matches)
* First Name = any with "I" in the first or middle name and Last Name = "Seaver" (9 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Saver" (2 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Saphra" (1 match)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Savory" (1 match)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schaeffer" (10 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schafer" (2 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schaffer" (4 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schapare" (1 match)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schauber" (3 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Scheafer" (1 match)
.... and on in alphabetical order by Last Name - including Seeber, Seiber, Sever, Severe, Shaefer, Shaeffer, Shafer, Shaffer, Shapire, Shaver, etc. These are listed by birth year order for each name.
* First Name = "any name" and Last Name = "Seaver" (many matches)
The above ordering is interesting - you can use a similar search to see how the Ancestry.com Search algorithms work if you have the time and patience to wade through all of the results.
I want to test this out with some of my known Carringer "interesting" indexed spellings to see if it catches them.
This change does make the search process even more complex on Ancestry.com, and will probably increase the learning curve time for new users, but for experienced users it will probably improve the search results.
Based on this first testing, I think that these name filters will be very helpful and useful for all researchers. It may even make me change my former opinion that Old Search is superior to New Search. Of course, Old Search could disappear at any time Ancestry.com chooses, and we "dinosaur searchers" will have to learn to use and enjoy New Search effectively.
Ancestry.com announced earlier this week that new Name and Place Filters would be installed and available for use on their databases in these posts on the Ancestry.com Blog:
* Preview of Changes to Ancestry.com Search by Tony Macklin
* Ancestry Search: Name and Place Filters coming to New Advanced Search this week! by Anne Mitchell
* Ancestry Search: Place Filters on New Advanced Search by Anne Mitchell
These posts provide all of the detail about "what it is" and "what your choices are."
I checked Ancestry.com this morning, and found that all of the described filters are in place and are working, seemingly well.
It's important to realize that these filters only work on New Search and on the Advanced Search screen in New Search. There are popup windows for details on the First Name Search and Last Name Search that explain the different terms - Default Search, Exact Search, and Exact Search with one or more of Soundex Variations, Phonetic Variations and Similar Variations.
I tested it on the 1880 US Census with my second great-grandfather, Isaac Seaver, and found:
* With Default Settings checked for both first and last names, I received 2,206 matches
* With Exact Search checked for both first and last names, I received 3 matches (including my guy)
* With Exact Search and Soundex Variations checked for both first and last names, I received 2,195 matches
* With Exact Search and Phonetic Variations checked for both first and last names, I received 1,610 matches
* with Exact Search and Similar Variations checked for both first and last names, I received 1,607 matches.
* with Exact Search for first name, and Default Settings for Last Name checked, I received 310 matches.
* with Exact Search for first name, and Exact Settings with Soundex Variations for Last Name checked, I received 306 matches.
* with Exact Search for first name, and Exact Settings with Phonetic Variations for Last Name checked, I received 16 matches.
* with Exact Search for first name, and Exact Settings with Similar Variations for Last Name checked, I received 14 matches.
Now I realize that Isaac Seaver isn't the hardest name to search, but I found it interesting to see what names the Default Settings returned (both first and last names), and the order in which they were listed:
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Seaver" (3 matches)
* First Name = any with "I" in the first or middle name and Last Name = "Seaver" (9 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Saver" (2 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Saphra" (1 match)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Savory" (1 match)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schaeffer" (10 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schafer" (2 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schaffer" (4 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schapare" (1 match)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schauber" (3 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Scheafer" (1 match)
.... and on in alphabetical order by Last Name - including Seeber, Seiber, Sever, Severe, Shaefer, Shaeffer, Shafer, Shaffer, Shapire, Shaver, etc. These are listed by birth year order for each name.
* First Name = "any name" and Last Name = "Seaver" (many matches)
The above ordering is interesting - you can use a similar search to see how the Ancestry.com Search algorithms work if you have the time and patience to wade through all of the results.
I want to test this out with some of my known Carringer "interesting" indexed spellings to see if it catches them.
This change does make the search process even more complex on Ancestry.com, and will probably increase the learning curve time for new users, but for experienced users it will probably improve the search results.
Based on this first testing, I think that these name filters will be very helpful and useful for all researchers. It may even make me change my former opinion that Old Search is superior to New Search. Of course, Old Search could disappear at any time Ancestry.com chooses, and we "dinosaur searchers" will have to learn to use and enjoy New Search effectively.
A Conversation with David E. Rencher - Part 2
...
This is the second post in a series that transcribes parts of my telephone conversation on 21 April with David E. Rencher, Chief Genealogical Officer for www.FamilySearch.org. Part 1 is here.
Part 2 continues with more information about New FamilySearch:
Randy Seaver (RS): We're all spoiled by Family Tree Maker, RootsMagic, Legacy and Reunion, they all react really fast to input data. I can add ten people in five minutes, not with notes of course. Will the family tree aspect of New FamilySearch be able to match that speed?
David Rencher (DR): I don't know if it matches it, we'll certainly have the convention to do it. The beauty of it is that you can still use those products, and upload your data, so you can still choose to manage your data the way that you like. That to me is a big win - we don't force you down one particular path. If you still like all of the convention and the feature set and the experience that you use with a Legacy or RootsMagic, then you can continue to use that product and I'm sure that they will continue to add to that feature set, and continue to make it a better product. The beauty of it is that you can do both.
If you like the convention of the way we've set up our data entry, and you're comparing a Version 4, 5, 6 of an existing product to Version one of this product, our product will get better over time. We'll get the feedback, we'll go through the iteration cycles, and things will improve. Whether it will be comparable or not, it's like time testing turning on your phones - when you do the head-to-head test some of them turn on faster than others.
RS: The software folks are trying to find ways to synchronize to New FamilySearch, aren't they? If I add ten people to my database, and I already have 20,000 on New FamilySearch, I can go to the software and press a button and my ten new people, my four notes and my five sources, will go onto New FamilySearch.
DR: We've shared the code with them [the software companies] to make sure that they're compatible with the product. That's something that we wanted to ensure and it's not an exclusive with anybody. That's something we want to make sure is available and out there and if that's the way people want to choose to participate, then that's great with us.
RS: When can we expect the non-LDS members to have access? Is there a crystal ball there?
DR: I don't know that I have a crystal ball. From all accounts, I don't have a date. Hopefully, either later this year or early next year. We're hoping that it's soon. There are some things that I want to make sure that the known challenges and issues are identified, or that we have an answer for, they may or may not be fixed yet, but at least we can share the genealogical community that "yes, it is on our radar, yes we understand that it doesn't work exactly the way you want it to, and yes we are going to fix it." Those are the kinds of messages that we will have to make sure the people will understand, and that the people will withhold judgment on the "new baby" until it matures a little bit.
RS: There's always the maturity issue, isn't there? We've seen it on Ancestry and Footnote and the others. And your site too.
DR: We all remember those images painting across our screen at a slow rate.
RS: Technology is amazing. I look back ten years, and I look at what I was doing and how I was doing it. In ten years from now, it will be really impressive.
DR: Exactly. And whose crystal ball can predict?
RS: Will I as a non-LDS member be able to read all of the information for a person on New FamilySearch?
DR: All of the information except for the LDS ordinance data, there's no real reason to have that data. All of the genealogical information will be open to the public.
RS: Will I be able to contribute to it - to add content to a person?
DR: Absolutely. In fact, we welcome your content and your contributions. One of the things we want to do in a very collaborative nature is to reduce the amount of effort and duplication that people do on a particular research problem. If you and I work on the same problem, and you and I end up spending ten dollars a pop on the same vital record certificate, to the tune of six, eight or ten certificates, that's a lot of money that we could spend on something else for the same problem. So we really hope that people will collaborate and be able to do that. That's going to require a mindset change because as genealogists we are not used to having our data out there where virtually anybody can view it, share it, and contribute.
What happens today is that you and I get together, and we develop a relationship and I reach a point at which I say "I think I can trust Randy with my data" and therefore I will expand my little network here to include Randy and he's now one of my trusted confidants, and I'm confident in his research ability and his attention to detail, and he thinks like I do as far as approach, and now you're there.
In a Wikipedia approach to genealogy, if you will, that's a completely different world. In a collaborative environment where anybody can play, we don't have that gradual disclosure, the ability of bringing each one of those people into our trusted circle of confidants, one by one. So what we do instead is we monitor what's going on - a "watch this page" mentality which says "somebody just changed this data" and I get an email alert and I go and look at it and now I may agree or disagree with the change the person's made. If I disagree with it, the beauty of the collaborative nature of it is that I can immediately contact them and say "I'm curious, why did you do this, in this way?" They may say "Oh, I may have messed that up, did I mess that up?" "Yeah, you messed that up." In which case they may back out.
RS: So, it will be like a wiki environment, like WeRelate, or some of the others?
DR: It will be a collaborative effort in which we are working together to solve genealogical problems and share data. The beauty of it is that down the road, as we are able to add artifacts and other things, then the evidence is right there. Now when I have my source data, I can actually attach the artifact, and you can actually see the document, not just the reference of the source citation for the document.
The other thing that is going to smoke out is that you and I, right now what isn't transparent to us, is when you are working on, let's pick a common name, say John Williams; you go out and claim a record for the John Williams you are working on, and I claim the same record for the John Williams I am working on, even though they are two completely different people. That is masked right now, to us, because we don't see it unless we happen to read each other's work, and happen to notice that we both cited the same record. In a collaborative environment, when we go to attach the same record to two different parts of the pedigree, with two completely different identifiers, it's going to alert us, and so it will say "This John Williams record is already attached to this John Williams over here in the pedigree, are you sure you want to attach it?" Then we can suddenly pull back the covers and say "oh wow, we're both claiming the same guy." Isn't that kind of neat?
RS: And long term, you're providing a lot of those records with the Family Search Indexing of all the microfilms and all of the databases. It's been my view for years now that when you get the probates and the lands and the taxes and the vitals all imaged and indexed, that a lot of the brick walls are going to tumble.
DR: I think that's going to happen. The other thing that's going to happen is that from these types of pedigrees, we're going to be able to determine where the ends of the lines are, so we're going to be able to determine where people are stuck. When we can determine that, then we can determine as a community where to apply our resources, to figure that out, and figure out what the solution should be.
RS: So everything you've told me about this, it sounds just like what I saw on the Life Browser some years ago, when you had that on the Family Search Labs. I loved that, I loved the vision of it.
DR: The same guys that tested the Life Browser are the ones that are continuing to develop these, and Family Search Labs is there to be able to test concepts, and we gather feedback from people. That's what happens in this environment and it's really kind of neat.
In the next segment, we will discuss Family Search Indexing and more!
I'm curious - what other questions should I have asked David about New FamilySearch? Or what wasn't explained well? Please send comments - perhaps David will read them and respond to them either in Comments or via email to you or me.
Isn't collaboration wonderful?
This is the second post in a series that transcribes parts of my telephone conversation on 21 April with David E. Rencher, Chief Genealogical Officer for www.FamilySearch.org. Part 1 is here.
Part 2 continues with more information about New FamilySearch:
Randy Seaver (RS): We're all spoiled by Family Tree Maker, RootsMagic, Legacy and Reunion, they all react really fast to input data. I can add ten people in five minutes, not with notes of course. Will the family tree aspect of New FamilySearch be able to match that speed?
David Rencher (DR): I don't know if it matches it, we'll certainly have the convention to do it. The beauty of it is that you can still use those products, and upload your data, so you can still choose to manage your data the way that you like. That to me is a big win - we don't force you down one particular path. If you still like all of the convention and the feature set and the experience that you use with a Legacy or RootsMagic, then you can continue to use that product and I'm sure that they will continue to add to that feature set, and continue to make it a better product. The beauty of it is that you can do both.
If you like the convention of the way we've set up our data entry, and you're comparing a Version 4, 5, 6 of an existing product to Version one of this product, our product will get better over time. We'll get the feedback, we'll go through the iteration cycles, and things will improve. Whether it will be comparable or not, it's like time testing turning on your phones - when you do the head-to-head test some of them turn on faster than others.
RS: The software folks are trying to find ways to synchronize to New FamilySearch, aren't they? If I add ten people to my database, and I already have 20,000 on New FamilySearch, I can go to the software and press a button and my ten new people, my four notes and my five sources, will go onto New FamilySearch.
DR: We've shared the code with them [the software companies] to make sure that they're compatible with the product. That's something that we wanted to ensure and it's not an exclusive with anybody. That's something we want to make sure is available and out there and if that's the way people want to choose to participate, then that's great with us.
RS: When can we expect the non-LDS members to have access? Is there a crystal ball there?
DR: I don't know that I have a crystal ball. From all accounts, I don't have a date. Hopefully, either later this year or early next year. We're hoping that it's soon. There are some things that I want to make sure that the known challenges and issues are identified, or that we have an answer for, they may or may not be fixed yet, but at least we can share the genealogical community that "yes, it is on our radar, yes we understand that it doesn't work exactly the way you want it to, and yes we are going to fix it." Those are the kinds of messages that we will have to make sure the people will understand, and that the people will withhold judgment on the "new baby" until it matures a little bit.
RS: There's always the maturity issue, isn't there? We've seen it on Ancestry and Footnote and the others. And your site too.
DR: We all remember those images painting across our screen at a slow rate.
RS: Technology is amazing. I look back ten years, and I look at what I was doing and how I was doing it. In ten years from now, it will be really impressive.
DR: Exactly. And whose crystal ball can predict?
RS: Will I as a non-LDS member be able to read all of the information for a person on New FamilySearch?
DR: All of the information except for the LDS ordinance data, there's no real reason to have that data. All of the genealogical information will be open to the public.
RS: Will I be able to contribute to it - to add content to a person?
DR: Absolutely. In fact, we welcome your content and your contributions. One of the things we want to do in a very collaborative nature is to reduce the amount of effort and duplication that people do on a particular research problem. If you and I work on the same problem, and you and I end up spending ten dollars a pop on the same vital record certificate, to the tune of six, eight or ten certificates, that's a lot of money that we could spend on something else for the same problem. So we really hope that people will collaborate and be able to do that. That's going to require a mindset change because as genealogists we are not used to having our data out there where virtually anybody can view it, share it, and contribute.
What happens today is that you and I get together, and we develop a relationship and I reach a point at which I say "I think I can trust Randy with my data" and therefore I will expand my little network here to include Randy and he's now one of my trusted confidants, and I'm confident in his research ability and his attention to detail, and he thinks like I do as far as approach, and now you're there.
In a Wikipedia approach to genealogy, if you will, that's a completely different world. In a collaborative environment where anybody can play, we don't have that gradual disclosure, the ability of bringing each one of those people into our trusted circle of confidants, one by one. So what we do instead is we monitor what's going on - a "watch this page" mentality which says "somebody just changed this data" and I get an email alert and I go and look at it and now I may agree or disagree with the change the person's made. If I disagree with it, the beauty of the collaborative nature of it is that I can immediately contact them and say "I'm curious, why did you do this, in this way?" They may say "Oh, I may have messed that up, did I mess that up?" "Yeah, you messed that up." In which case they may back out.
RS: So, it will be like a wiki environment, like WeRelate, or some of the others?
DR: It will be a collaborative effort in which we are working together to solve genealogical problems and share data. The beauty of it is that down the road, as we are able to add artifacts and other things, then the evidence is right there. Now when I have my source data, I can actually attach the artifact, and you can actually see the document, not just the reference of the source citation for the document.
The other thing that is going to smoke out is that you and I, right now what isn't transparent to us, is when you are working on, let's pick a common name, say John Williams; you go out and claim a record for the John Williams you are working on, and I claim the same record for the John Williams I am working on, even though they are two completely different people. That is masked right now, to us, because we don't see it unless we happen to read each other's work, and happen to notice that we both cited the same record. In a collaborative environment, when we go to attach the same record to two different parts of the pedigree, with two completely different identifiers, it's going to alert us, and so it will say "This John Williams record is already attached to this John Williams over here in the pedigree, are you sure you want to attach it?" Then we can suddenly pull back the covers and say "oh wow, we're both claiming the same guy." Isn't that kind of neat?
RS: And long term, you're providing a lot of those records with the Family Search Indexing of all the microfilms and all of the databases. It's been my view for years now that when you get the probates and the lands and the taxes and the vitals all imaged and indexed, that a lot of the brick walls are going to tumble.
DR: I think that's going to happen. The other thing that's going to happen is that from these types of pedigrees, we're going to be able to determine where the ends of the lines are, so we're going to be able to determine where people are stuck. When we can determine that, then we can determine as a community where to apply our resources, to figure that out, and figure out what the solution should be.
RS: So everything you've told me about this, it sounds just like what I saw on the Life Browser some years ago, when you had that on the Family Search Labs. I loved that, I loved the vision of it.
DR: The same guys that tested the Life Browser are the ones that are continuing to develop these, and Family Search Labs is there to be able to test concepts, and we gather feedback from people. That's what happens in this environment and it's really kind of neat.
In the next segment, we will discuss Family Search Indexing and more!
I'm curious - what other questions should I have asked David about New FamilySearch? Or what wasn't explained well? Please send comments - perhaps David will read them and respond to them either in Comments or via email to you or me.
Isn't collaboration wonderful?
Treasure Chest Thursday - Julia White's Death Record
It's Treasure Chest Thursday - time to find another jewel hiding in my genealogical treasure files on my computer.
One of the records I need to prove my ancestral line back to the 1620 Mayflower passengers (if I ever want to join the Mayflower Society) is the birth of Julia White in 1848 to Henry and Amy (Oatley) White. I have found no birth record for her, and the marriage record for "Juliette" White to Thomas Richmond in 1868 does not list her parents. I wrote to the Killingly, Connecticut Town Hall for a death record, and received this:
Julia (White) Richmond was buried in Grove Street Cemetery in Putnam, Windham County, Connecticut. She is buried with her husband, Thomas Richmond and first son, Frederic (1870-1875) - the gravestone is shown here. More information about this couple is provided in my post Thomas Richmond (1848-1917) and Julia White (1848-1913).
One of the records I need to prove my ancestral line back to the 1620 Mayflower passengers (if I ever want to join the Mayflower Society) is the birth of Julia White in 1848 to Henry and Amy (Oatley) White. I have found no birth record for her, and the marriage record for "Juliette" White to Thomas Richmond in 1868 does not list her parents. I wrote to the Killingly, Connecticut Town Hall for a death record, and received this:
Her death record, as "Julliet Richmond," does list her parents as Henry White and Amy Oatley. It lists her cause of death as cancer of the breast, and her residence, at the time of her death, as 6 Church Street in Putnam, Connecticut (I don't think I knew that before). It lists her birthplace as East Killingly, Connecticut. The informant - her husband, Thomas Richmond - didn't know the birthplace of her father and mother.
Julia (White) Richmond was buried in Grove Street Cemetery in Putnam, Windham County, Connecticut. She is buried with her husband, Thomas Richmond and first son, Frederic (1870-1875) - the gravestone is shown here. More information about this couple is provided in my post Thomas Richmond (1848-1917) and Julia White (1848-1913).
The birth date and parents names in this "original source" death record are definitely "secondary information" and "direct evidence" - but it is the "best" and "most authoritative" record I have for those facts. This record agrees with the other records I have about Julia White's birth, from censsu records and her obituary.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
A Conversation with David E. Rencher - Part 1
...
I had the distinct honor and pleasure of talking by telephone to David E. Rencher, the Chief Genealogical Officer for www.FamilySearch.org. You can read David's curriculum vitae and responsibilities in this blog post by The Ancestry Insider from about a year ago.
I audio-taped our 30 plus minute conversation, and will transcribe some of David's responses (with his permission) to my questions about FamilySearch.org in a series of blog posts in the next few days. I listened to David's interview with Dick Eastman that Dick posted on my Monday to his Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter - the post was titled Podcast: An Interview with David Rencher about the NGS Conference in Salt Lake City and dealt mostly with the upcoming NGS Conference.
I wanted to focus on what's happening with FamilySearch.org, and especially with New FamilySearch and Family Search Indexing. Unfortunately, my time ran out before I could ask about the Record Search databases and the Family Search Wiki.
Here is a segment from our discussion about New FamilySearch:
Randy Seaver (RS): Has New FamilySearch been rolled out to all of the LDS Stakes now?
David Rencher (DR): The rollout to the LDS audience has been completed. First and foremost, New FamilySearch is a way that LDS members can submit names for Temple Ordinances, so it's an evolving process. It really began in earnest back when we were able to mount the International Genealogical Index to compact disks. That was really the gateway to be able to distribute the names clearance function out to members. With the advent of that system, we were able to allow members to clear names at a local Family History Center or a church or ward building near them.
New FamilySearch takes that now the next step further. Now we can extend it beyond the borders of the Family History Center circulation and operation and we can move it all the way into the home. We're taking such a unique different approach to New FamilySearch. with a pedigree approach to clearing names, it gives us more identifiers, and we think the advantage to having more identifiers, meaning with more family names and things of that nature, that it will decrease the duplication of work and effort and we'll actually be able to collapse some of those pedigrees that have multiple names and representations of the same individual.
That said, the basis for doing that creates a pedigree system that, taken to the next level, given appropriate source citations and dealing with the data in a way that genealogically makes sense. That's a program that we believe the general public will want to use as well. Of course the jury is still out, because we haven't released it to the general public, but the point at which we do we believe the people will like a number of the product features. As with any product, it's just barely finished it's initial rollout, there are a number of features and applications that are going to have to improve and be enhanced, because it's a different approach to doing things than the way we've done them before.
I think the genealogical audience at large, when they first view it, are going to have a number of observations about it, they're going to have a number of things that they want it to do that it doesn't yet do, but I think they are also going to see the potential of it and what it could become. Hopefully we can stand the suspense of getting to the point where it really is a tool that people want to use and that it helps and facilitates people to do the kind of things that they want it to do.
RS: It's been a long birth of the baby, hasn't it?
DR: It has. One of the things that is sometimes difficult to estimate is the complexity of family history. At first blush, it just doesn't seem that complex. But when you stat having to deal with the massive amount of data, with the standards that need to be in place, with the data transfer, with the merging algorithms, with the combination groups, the quality algorithms, when you start to go down that path, and really start to develop a system that has to do so many complex tasks, it's easy to underestimate the scope of what you're trying to accomplish.
RS: What does New FamilySearch include at this time?
DR: The pedigree feature gives you the ability to see families in context. The great thing that it going to open up that we haven't had before is the collaborative aspect of it . People have made submissions to the International Genealogical Index and the Ancestral File, and other products over the years, one of the things people have always wanted to be able to say is "who submitted this information and how do I get in touch with them?" New FamilySearch is finally going to give us the ability to be able to collaborate with each other. It's also going to give us the ability to disagree with each other. You and I may be working on the same line, I may make a different conclusion than you do. You are able to get in touch with me and say "Dave, I really think it's this person for these reasons." And I'll be able to look at the evidence and say, "Randy, you're right, I blew that one, I like your evidence and I agree with you, let's make sure that it gets represented that way in the system."
RS: Is that discussion in email, or on the web site? How public is it?
DR: It is not public to everyone. It's a forum between the two of us. We'll collaborate and we'll be able to do that. Then you can open and extend that to others that you choose. So you can open it as wide as you want to. The other major difference is that it removes the need to have your own personal desktop data management software. You can manage all of your data now on New FamilySearch. Where I've used Personal Ancestral File for years on my laptop, I don't have to have my own Personal Ancestral File database any more. I can simply go to New FamilySearch and manage all of my content there. So that's a pretty radical departure from the way most genealogists have learned over the years to manage their data.
To be continued...
I had the distinct honor and pleasure of talking by telephone to David E. Rencher, the Chief Genealogical Officer for www.FamilySearch.org. You can read David's curriculum vitae and responsibilities in this blog post by The Ancestry Insider from about a year ago.
I audio-taped our 30 plus minute conversation, and will transcribe some of David's responses (with his permission) to my questions about FamilySearch.org in a series of blog posts in the next few days. I listened to David's interview with Dick Eastman that Dick posted on my Monday to his Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter - the post was titled Podcast: An Interview with David Rencher about the NGS Conference in Salt Lake City and dealt mostly with the upcoming NGS Conference.
I wanted to focus on what's happening with FamilySearch.org, and especially with New FamilySearch and Family Search Indexing. Unfortunately, my time ran out before I could ask about the Record Search databases and the Family Search Wiki.
Here is a segment from our discussion about New FamilySearch:
Randy Seaver (RS): Has New FamilySearch been rolled out to all of the LDS Stakes now?
David Rencher (DR): The rollout to the LDS audience has been completed. First and foremost, New FamilySearch is a way that LDS members can submit names for Temple Ordinances, so it's an evolving process. It really began in earnest back when we were able to mount the International Genealogical Index to compact disks. That was really the gateway to be able to distribute the names clearance function out to members. With the advent of that system, we were able to allow members to clear names at a local Family History Center or a church or ward building near them.
New FamilySearch takes that now the next step further. Now we can extend it beyond the borders of the Family History Center circulation and operation and we can move it all the way into the home. We're taking such a unique different approach to New FamilySearch. with a pedigree approach to clearing names, it gives us more identifiers, and we think the advantage to having more identifiers, meaning with more family names and things of that nature, that it will decrease the duplication of work and effort and we'll actually be able to collapse some of those pedigrees that have multiple names and representations of the same individual.
That said, the basis for doing that creates a pedigree system that, taken to the next level, given appropriate source citations and dealing with the data in a way that genealogically makes sense. That's a program that we believe the general public will want to use as well. Of course the jury is still out, because we haven't released it to the general public, but the point at which we do we believe the people will like a number of the product features. As with any product, it's just barely finished it's initial rollout, there are a number of features and applications that are going to have to improve and be enhanced, because it's a different approach to doing things than the way we've done them before.
I think the genealogical audience at large, when they first view it, are going to have a number of observations about it, they're going to have a number of things that they want it to do that it doesn't yet do, but I think they are also going to see the potential of it and what it could become. Hopefully we can stand the suspense of getting to the point where it really is a tool that people want to use and that it helps and facilitates people to do the kind of things that they want it to do.
RS: It's been a long birth of the baby, hasn't it?
DR: It has. One of the things that is sometimes difficult to estimate is the complexity of family history. At first blush, it just doesn't seem that complex. But when you stat having to deal with the massive amount of data, with the standards that need to be in place, with the data transfer, with the merging algorithms, with the combination groups, the quality algorithms, when you start to go down that path, and really start to develop a system that has to do so many complex tasks, it's easy to underestimate the scope of what you're trying to accomplish.
RS: What does New FamilySearch include at this time?
DR: The pedigree feature gives you the ability to see families in context. The great thing that it going to open up that we haven't had before is the collaborative aspect of it . People have made submissions to the International Genealogical Index and the Ancestral File, and other products over the years, one of the things people have always wanted to be able to say is "who submitted this information and how do I get in touch with them?" New FamilySearch is finally going to give us the ability to be able to collaborate with each other. It's also going to give us the ability to disagree with each other. You and I may be working on the same line, I may make a different conclusion than you do. You are able to get in touch with me and say "Dave, I really think it's this person for these reasons." And I'll be able to look at the evidence and say, "Randy, you're right, I blew that one, I like your evidence and I agree with you, let's make sure that it gets represented that way in the system."
RS: Is that discussion in email, or on the web site? How public is it?
DR: It is not public to everyone. It's a forum between the two of us. We'll collaborate and we'll be able to do that. Then you can open and extend that to others that you choose. So you can open it as wide as you want to. The other major difference is that it removes the need to have your own personal desktop data management software. You can manage all of your data now on New FamilySearch. Where I've used Personal Ancestral File for years on my laptop, I don't have to have my own Personal Ancestral File database any more. I can simply go to New FamilySearch and manage all of my content there. So that's a pretty radical departure from the way most genealogists have learned over the years to manage their data.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)