The Ancestry Insider

Darned Missing Census Pages

2012-01-27T00:05:00.000-07:00

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about our pasts.

Yet sometimes records have anomalies.
Some are amusing or humorous.
Some are interesting or weird.
Some are peculiar or suspicious.
Some are infuriating, even downright laughable.

Yes, “Records are the Darnedest Things.”

Records Are the Darnedest Things: Darned Missing Census Pages

Ancestry.com is missing pages from the 1820 U.S. Census of Virginia and I bet I know why.

You can see (if you have a subscription) where one is missing by navigating to Virginia > Randolph > Beverly. Note that image 1 is page 265 and image 2 is page 267. Page 266 exists and contains names from B to G. But it is missing from Ancestry.com. The first few names are

Coffman, George
Cross, Joseph
Carpenter, Solomon

You can see another one in Virginia > Monongalia > Western Division. Jump to image 10, which is page 122. Go on to image 11 and you will see that it is page 124. Page 123 (aka page 51a) exists, but is missing from Ancestry.com. It contains names from G to H. Some of the missing names are

Glascock, Charles
Garlow, John
Gilbert, Stephen

There is a good reason—well, maybe a reason—the pages are missing. NARA missed the pages when it microfilmed the records! Maybe Ancestry.com will go back and photograph the missing pages. Until then: darned missing census pages!

For more information, see “Missing 1820 Census Pages,” West Virginia Archives & History News [a publication of the West Virginia Division of Culture and History], December 2003, 1; online archive (http://www.wvculture.org/history/ahnews/1203news.pdf : accessed 10 January 2012).

FamilySearch Posts Big Numbers

2012-01-25T00:05:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month FamilySearch issued a Records Update with some pretty impressive numbers.

FamilySearch has recently surpassed 1,000 record collections and 2.5 billion searchable names. As for number of images, it looks like they will surpass a half billion images by the time they make their next update.

A quick review of available collections shows that the all important manuscript record types, census, church, and civil vital records, form the bulk of FamilySearch collections.

FamilySearch’s Shipley Munson

2012-01-23T00:05:00.002-07:00

Note: This article will be of interest mainly to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please skip today’s article if you are not interested.

How apropos it was that we listened to a recording of the Tabernacle Choir as we assembled to hear Shipley Munson, FamilySearch marketing director, at a recent seminar in Riverton, Utah. Munson has extensive marketing experience, two degrees from Harvard, an MBA from the University of Chicago, and speaks seven language.

And he is a member of the world-renowned Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

“My family likes to play “Where’s Waldo?” he said. Then he showed us a picture of the entire choir with his tiny figure circled. There was an arrow pointing to it. The arrow was labeled “Me!”

Munson asked family history consultants in the audience what problems—in their Church responsibilities as consultants—“kept them up at nights.” Some wished Church priesthood leaders would better support family history activities.

“Priesthood leaders will engage in Family History,” said Munson, “when they gain a testimony of its power to solve their problems in furthering the work of salvation, not our problems in furthering the work of family history.”

Munson then asked a Church leader in attendance what kept him up at night. He mentioned several concerns, such as helping members of his congregation to understand the operations of the Holy Spirit.

Munson showed a 20 minute video composed of interviews recorded in congregations in Springfield, Illinois. Church congregations were helping members experiencing various life challenges such as marital problems and deaths of loved ones. The video demonstrated how family history activities and temple worship helped Church members having a variety of personal and family problems. “If you forget yourself in the service of others,’ said one, “you will find yourself. And family history is a vehicle to accomplish that.”

“It has turned our hearts to Heavenly Father.”

Family History Consultants can view the video for themselves at https://www.familysearch.org/consultant/.

South Carolina Records Availability

2012-01-20T00:01:00.000-07:00

It is time for another article on record accessibility. Information is taken from the Records Preservation and Access Committee (RPAC) white paper titled “Open Access to Public Records: a Genealogical Perspective.”

For South Carolina, as of 7 January 2012 the white paper lists record availability as follows

Record Type	Year begins	Access (Closed, Open, Restricted)	Years Restricted	Copy for Genealogical Purposes	Statute	Notes
Birth	1915	Restricted	100		44-63-80
Marriage	1950	Restricted			44-63-86	Pre-1950 in County Office of the Probate
Divorce	1962	Restricted			44-63-86
Death	1915	Restricted	50		44-63-84	Online Death Index 1915-1957.
Adoption		Closed			44-63-140

If you are a resident of the state, election year is a great time to let your state legislators know what you think about the state’s restrictions. Keep in mind the state’s legitimate need to prevent identity fraud. Then fight fear with facts.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled presidential election, already in progress…

1940 Census Consortium

2012-01-18T00:05:00.000-07:00

Last month FamilySearch, Archives.com, and findmypast.com announced a community project for indexing and publishing the 1940 US Federal Census. The census will be released by the government on 2 April 2012. The three will engage volunteers to index the census, and then it will be published for free on all three websites.

Additionally, Archives.com and findmypast.com will make “substantial financial contributions to make the 1940 US Census online name index possible and work with nonprofit FamilySearch to bring additional new records collections online.”

Ancestry.com had previously announced that it will also publish the 1940 census for free, though only through the end of 2013.

This should make for a good horse race… and a good comparison of the quality of FamilySearch indexes and Ancestry.com indexes.

The full text of the FamilySearch announcement can be read online.

Ancestry.com Reviews 2011 Accomplishments

2012-01-16T00:05:00.000-07:00

Along with their look forward to 2012, Ancestry.com recently reviewed their 2011 accomplishments.

Database Title	Published/ Updated	Number of Records	Number of Images
U.S. World War II Navy Muster Rolls, 1938-1949	May-July?	33 million	2 million
New Zealand, Electoral Rolls, 1853-1981	February	21 million	300,000
1930 Mexico National Census	September	13 million	300,000
1911 UK Census Wales England Scotland	May-Oct May-Dec May-Oct	2 million 20 million 2 million	1 million 15 million 1 million
U.S. Vitals Collections	?	51 million new	?
Ireland, Civil Registration, 1845-1958 Births Marriages Deaths	September	9 million 5 million 6 million	None
California, Voter Registers, 1866-1898	July	4 million	70,000
U.S., Civil War Draft Registrations Records, 1863-1865	April-Nov	3 million	300,000
Civil War National Cemetery Collections	April	? More info	None
Sons of the American Revolution Applications, 1889-1970	June	1 million	200,000
Yearbooks	?	35,000 books	7 million
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Collections	Aug-Nov	30,000?	None
U.S. Passport Applications, 1795-1925	Updated May	2 million	4 million
1910 U.S. Federal Census Improvements	Updated Jan	90 million	2 million

That’s about 270 million records and 33 million images.

Ancestry also pointed out improvements to the Ancestry.com iPad App, search improvements, and Family Tree Maker 2012.

New Hampshire Record Restrictions

2012-01-10T00:05:00.000-07:00

Christmas intruding on Thanksgiving? Retailers aren’t even in the same category as the U.S. presidential race. I’m ready for a break and thinking about record availability is just the break I need.

Fred Moss, a member of RPAC provided much needed clarification following my last article about the Records Preservation and Access Committee (RPAC). RPAC invites us to provide them updates if their table needs to be updated. Send updates to access@fgs.org. Moss also clarified the recommended restrictions (birth records for 100 years, deaths for 25 years, and providing open access to marriage and divorce records). In the words of the executive white paper titled “Open Access to Public Records: a Genealogical Perspective,”

We have made some recommendations representing the minimum public access to vital records that we view as essential. By doing so, our intent is to exhort those jurisdictions whose access provisions are more restrictive to move, at least, to that level. We support open records and it is definitely not our intent to suggest that the more “open” jurisdictions need to adopt more restrictive measures.

Thank you, Fred. Much appreciated.

Now, its on to New Hampshire. As of 7 January 2012 the white paper lists New Hampshire’s record availability as follows

Record Type	Year begins	Access (Closed, Open, Restricted)	Years Restricted	Copy for Genealogical Purposes	Statute	Notes
Birth	1901	Restricted		…People with a tangible interest. 5-C:102 & 105	5-C:9
Marriage	1901?	Restricted	Pre-1948		5-C:102
Divorce	1808? [sic]	Restricted	Pre-1948
Death	1901?	Restricted	Pre-1948
Adoption			Open		5-C:33	Open to adult adoptee.

I’m unclear on restrictions “pre-1948.” Are pre-1948 records restricted? That seems odd.

In any case, if you are a New Hampshire resident, contact your election year state legislators and let them know what you think about the state’s restrictions. Keep in mind the state’s legitimate need to prevent identity fraud. Then fight fear with facts.

We now return to your regularly scheduled presidential election, already in progress…

RootsTech Discount Ends Friday

2012-01-09T00:05:00.001-07:00

If you haven’t registered for RootsTech yet, now’s the time. The $149 discounted price ends this Friday, the 13th. Then you’re looking at the regular $189.

Speaking of RootsTech, you can find yours truly on the schedule. I present “Genealogy Internet Gems” on Friday, 3 February, at 9:45. On Saturday at 1:45 I’m doing “Lassie! Go for Free Genealogy Help!”

I don’t believe it has been announced yet, but I also may be moderating an unconference session. Opposite of a conference session where presenters talk to the audience, an unconference session is one in which the audience does the talking.

The downside of presenting is not being able to attend sessions at the same time. I’ll have to miss sessions by Dan Lynch, Stephen Morse, Josh Taylor, Laura Prescott, Lisa Louise Cooke, and others. Rats!

Remember the discount ends Friday, the 13th. It would be most unlucky for you to miss this deadline.

The Darned Lazy Census Enumerators

2012-01-06T00:05:00.000-07:00

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about our pasts.

Yet sometimes records have anomalies.
Some are amusing or humorous.
Some are interesting or weird.
Some are peculiar or suspicious.
Some are infuriating, even downright laughable.

Yes, “Records are the Darnedest Things.”

Records Are the Darnedest Things: Lazy Census Enumerators

Reader TomVote wrote to point out a darned record. He “thought [we] might get a kick out of it.” In the 1870 US Census, search for Busti, Chautauqua, New York. Here’s what you’ll get:

And there’s a lot more where that came from.

By the way, don’t bother trying to find this example on FamilySearch.org. If you get the same results I do, FamilySearch will block you at every avenue.

Don’t bother searching for Busti or Chautauqua. As nearly as I can tell, FamilySearch doesn’t know about these places in their 1870 census index. Strange, because they are present in the browse hierarchy.

Don’t bother searching for “Swedes Cant Talk.” Or “Swedes, Cant Talk.” Or “Cant Talk, Swedes.” Or any other combination of wildcards or permutations. Did they remove these entries? I hope not. I consider it arrogant whenever a genealogical publisher thinks they know more than all the genealogists in the world. (Remember Ancestry.com removing census images without names?)

Thank you, TomVote, for pointing out this example of records saying the darnedest things.

Iowa, RPAC, and Voting

2012-01-04T00:05:00.000-07:00

No, I am not about to rehash what today’s news is telling us about Iowa and political PACs. Instead, I thought this was a good opportunity to talk about RPAC and the availability of Iowa’s vital records.

RPAC is the Records Preservation and Access Committee, a joint committee of the Federation of Genealogical Societies, the National Genealogical Society, the International Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies and other participants. One aspect of RPAC’s mission is to advise the genealogical community about legislation and laws affecting access to public records with genealogical value.

My understanding is, RPAC’s non-profit status precludes it from actively lobbying governments. They inform. Action is up to us.

That said, RPAC advises against acting out of panic. We don’t want to “exacerbate otherwise negotiable issues.”

One of the publications of RPAC is an executive white paper titled “Open Access to Public Records: a Genealogical Perspective.” It includes a table listing state-by-state availability of vital records. Here’s the entry for Iowa (current as of 18 December 2009):

State	Record Type	Year Begins	Access (Closed, Open, Restricted)	Years Restricted	Copy for Genealogical Purposes	Statute	Notes
Iowa	Birth	1880	Restricted	75	Special access permits given to genealogists	144.43	Out-of-wedlock, fetal death and adoptive birth records closed
	Marriage	1880	Restricted	75		144.43
	Divorce		Restricted	75		144.43
	Death	1880	Restricted	75		144.43
	Adoption		Closed

If I understand the publication correctly, RPAC recommends restricting birth records for 100 years, deaths for 25 years, and providing open access to marriage and divorce records.

According to the white paper, Iowa restricts access of all vital records to 75 years. Is that still the case? Any truth to the rumor that the department of health is imposing a more stringent policy? If you have experience researching in Iowa, I’d like to confirm or put this rumor to bed.

If you live in Iowa and want more access to vital records, contact your state legislators and let your vote be heard.

For more information, visit the RPAC website at http://www.fgs.org/rpac .

Ancestry.com Story Upload Problems

2012-01-03T00:05:00.000-07:00

One of the areas that Ancestry.com excels in is media/story upload. I have a lot of stuff uploaded to Ancestry.com because it gives me a backup copy and because I love to share. I find a lot of my uploads are copied extensively and I find it very gratifying.

As I write the first draft of this article, my current genealogy project is uploading deed transcriptions done by my father before his passing. He spent quite a bit of time producing these and I’m sure he is glad to see me put them somewhere where more people can benefit from them.

Going back over the uploaded stories, I was shocked to find that Ancestry.com had truncated one of them! I first attributed it to my own error. I went back through them all to see if I messed up any other. When I came across a second one, I investigated and found the file was perfect on my computer.

One bad file is a fluke. Two bad files is an Ancestry bug. Worse for them, it is intermittent. That is, it doesn’t happen every time. That kind of bug is terribly difficult to find and fix. I’m expecting it will be many weeks before Ancestry finds and fixes this one.

While scrutinizing this bug, I discovered several of the files that I thought I had uploaded were missing. I found on one occasion that only 1 of 2 files was uploaded. In another instance only 3 of 4 uploaded.

I also found that if a filename has a period in the middle, the title of the resulting story is truncated at the first period. Ancestry ought to remove the extension, but no more.

As long as I’m in a complaining mood, may I complain about Ancestry’s handling of text stories. To view the story, one must download the file. I think they should display it like they do stories entered online.

Another thing I dislike is that they flip the order of uploaded files. When I upload a batch of files, they rearrange them so that the first file is last and the last is first. Biblical, yes. Convenient, no.

I’ve reported the problems to Ancestry.com. They are seriously looking into them. As I say, it is very difficult to fix intermittent bugs. You may never see the bugs I see. It may be my 64-bit Windows. It may be my browser. It may be that one of Ancestry’s 1,000s of servers is acting up. It may be the cookies on my computer. Or it may be the combination of all these.

When uploading stories, heed this warning: Carefully check all the story files you upload! I uploaded over 90 files and I was glad I did. And I confess that one or two problems were my own.

Carefully check. Enough said.

Ancestry.com 2012 Plans

2012-01-02T00:05:00.000-07:00

Over the holidays Ancestry.com CEO, Tim Sullivan, announced “12 things you can count on from Ancestry.com in 2012.” There aren’t really 12. They’ve often stuffed multiple items into one so that the resulting count is 12. Some of them are:

New Content

1940 U.S. Federal Census.
Fully indexed 1911 UK Census.
More U.S. state censuses.
Vital records from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts,
Parish records from Lancashire and the city of Manchester and UK non-conformist records. Ancestry.com claims the largest collection of digitized parish records. Really? Have they outstripped FamilySearch’s venerable International Genealogical Index? Users the world over know to go there as their first pass for English parish coverage.
U.S. Quaker records. Ancestry alluded to the Quaker records several years ago in one of their Bloggers’ Day presentations. I’m not certain they thought the wait would be so long. It’s nice the project is seeing the light of day.

Shaky Leaves Hinting System

Ancestry is making improvements to their Shaky Leaves hinting system. They are adding a dedicated page so users can see a list of pending hints.
They say they are improving photograph related hints. I hope that means they are improving their searching algorithm for photos and user-submitted stories. I always get lists of barely related results.
They’re developing a method of identifying entire collections that likely relate to your family. I hope this is a better treatment of family genealogy books. Their hinting system has long ignored books about my ancestral lines. I’m related to the extensive Hendricks family of New Amsterdam, but the Hendricks book—with thousands of my relatives—is never returned in search results. Granted, it is extremely difficult to accurately return matches from OCRed books, but when an entire book is about a surname of interest, it would be nice to be alerted to its presence. The same is true for local histories about the communities and periods for where and when my ancestors resided.

Other New Website Features

They are releasing a new image viewer. Is it my imagination, or didn’t they already do that? Just as FamilySearch was moving away from their user-disliked Flash viewer towards an HTML-based viewer like Ancestry’s Basic Viewer, Ancestry announced they were moving towards a Flash Viewer.
Ancestry also alluded to a new treatment for U.S. censuses, although they didn’t say much more than it will work with individual lines from the censuses.
Ancestry says they will return to the days of a What’s New page. Ancestry had such a page in the pre-going public days. They got really paranoid at the time and stopped sharing lots of information with the public and with bloggers. I never understood how they felt comfortable releasing information to small groups of financial analysts in semi-private phone meetings, but wouldn’t release non-material news about incidental improvements to dozens of members of the media/blogger community. (Private message to Heather: can you work on that? Embargo us if you must, but…)

Non-website Features

Ancestry’s cool-looking iPad app is coming to Android. Reviewing their smart phone app is high on my to-do list. First of all, though, I’ve got to get a smarter smart phone. (When did my top-of-the-line smart phone becomes so dumb?)
It sounds like they are loosening a little bit the ability to share records via social networking. That makes sense. Letting thousands and tens of thousands of records slip to freedom outside their pay wall hardly damages the value of a subscription giving access to a collection I estimate to be around 7 billion records.
I’ve reported the hiring of DNA experts and wondered what new features that would bring. Ancestry says to expect the enhancements this year, although they say little more than the ability to identify the ethnicity of your ancestors.

Expertise

“Demonstrations from our own team of experts. We’ll be hosting Q&A sessions…to tackle the toughest research challenges.”

Ancestry leads FamilySearch in so many ways, it is glaringly the holes in which they don’t:

FamilySearch’s extensive microfilm collection
Its world wide network of family history centers with
an army of family history consultants ready and willing to give hands-on help
The unrivaled Salt Lake Family History Library, and
the treasure-trove of expertise of its reference librarians.

You can’t go to a major genealogical conference without seeing a large number of FamilySearch experts presenting on various research topics. Ancestry? A smattering of sessions advertising and assisting users in the use of their products.

True, my glowing adjectives reflect my current employment. However, I have no qualms pointing out that for years FamilySearch has been running a distant second to Ancestry in so many ways.

What will we see in 2012? Will Ancestry lengthen its lead, additionally closing gaps in its service offerings? Will FamilySearch successfully empty its vast vault holdings onto the net, surpassing Ancestry’s online content?

Stay tuned…

Holiday Vacation

2011-11-23T00:05:00.000-07:00

Dear readers,

The holidays are already upon us and I am taking a holiday from writing.

That’s not to say I won’t accidentally post some especially hot topic. (That reminds me. Don’t forget the RootsTech early registration deadline. I’ve forgotten; is it the end of the month? Register at www.rootstech.org. But I digress…)

Website usage shows a dramatic ever decreasing amount of online genealogy done from Thanksgiving through the end of the year. That’s something to be proud of.

May each of you find joy with your living loved ones is my holiday wish to you.

See you on the other side!

Newspaper Column Notes Ancestry.com Anniversary

2011-11-22T00:05:00.000-07:00

Deseret News writer Jasen Lee
listens to Heather Erickson,
director of corporate communications
at Ancestry.com.
(Credit: Scott G Winterton, Deseret News)

Last week Jasen Lee, Deseret News columnist, wrote about Ancestry.com’s 15th anniversary.

I’m not that big into genealogy, but it would be cool to learn if you had some famous—or for that matter infamous—person in your family lineage.

Ancestry.com invited Lee to submit information for them to look at prior to sitting down with him and doing an interview on the company’s 15th anniversary. Lee subsequently met with Ancestry.com’s Heather Erickson.

To read the complete story, see “Tracing My Family’s Roots.”

Book Review: Evidence Explained, 2nd Edition

2011-11-21T00:05:00.000-07:00

Has it been years since Genealogical Publishing provided me a review copy of Evidence Explained? I use it more than any other book they’ve sent, and I’ve neglected to write the review? Time to fix that.

Let me start by saying I don’t understand how anyone would hold onto another citation style instead of adopting Mills. Chapters 12-14 are equivalent to alternative styles. Chapters 3-11 cover new source types not handled by the other guys. Even chapters 12-14 cover new ground: derivative publications.

You could stick with your old citation style, the equivalent of chapters 12-14. But then you would have to spend hundreds of hours and talk to the dozens of experts Mills acknowledges in the book’s forward, experts familiar with the source types of chapters 3-11. They could tell you the minimum amount of citation information necessary for each new source type. Goldilocks wants these citations. You don’t want bloated citations. And you don’t want anemic ones either. But I digress…

You could do all that. But, why? Mills has already done it. Why would you not buy Evidence Explained?

Sure it’s big. Duh; it’s an encyclopedia. You’re not supposed to read it cover to cover. For citation basics, read chapter 2. Then refer to the remainder of the book on an as-need basis.

Chapter 1 is different. Read it beginning to end. Then reread it. Its information on evidence analysis is top notch.

Second Edition

As in any book of this size and complexity, there will have been many small errors. I’m not asking the publisher and they’re not telling the scope of those corrections. (Who knows. Maybe yours truly supplied one of the corrections. Perhaps one of my ancestor’s names is now immortalized in this valuable tome. But I digress…)

With advances in technology, even in the few years between the editions, Mills has had to tweak things. In section 2.33 (p. 57) Mills has added Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn. In section 3.42 (pp. 154-5), instant messaging. Section 3.44 (pp. 156-8), Second Life. Section 10.6 (pp. 500-1), FamilySearch.org historical record collections. Section 14.25 (pp. 811-3), Twitter.

Care has been taken to minimize shifting of the page numbers of chapters and sections. The only one I noticed was Section 3.39; the title slipped from p. 152 back to 151.

To add the mention of FamilySearch’s publication of digitized microfilm on p. 53, a less important sentence was dropped. (Private note to the publisher: There is a small space between the 5 and the 3 that you should remove.)

For other changes, dropping text was avoided. Words were packed tighter on nearby pages and unused space at the end of the chapter was utilized.

The Past

This new edition preserves good things from the first. The gray-colored QuickCheck pages visually separate the various chapters when viewing the book edge-on.

As in the previous edition, Mills professionalism shows through in her reliance on experts to supply source materials. I love the instant messaging example from Pat Richley to Gordon Erickson on page. 155. Classy and fun.

There are some things I imagine this edition will not fix.

I worry some view the QuickCheck Models with an undeserved air of completeness. The models are a starting place, not an end-all. I find the QuickCheck Models are not always the ones I need the most. Of necessary, the models cover the breadth of representative citations.

I worry that most people think there is one and only one right citation. I think they don’t realize how much variability is allowed. Somehow the whole “Source List Arrangements” set of sections (2.47 to 2.52) goes over some people’s heads. And they don’t understand what Mills means when she gives alternatives like “If listed by family name” and “If listed by title of sampler.” (See 3.38 on p. 151.)

The Future

Further changes will be called for in future editions. For example, the imminent demise of the classic FamilySearch.org will precipitate several of the changes necessary in the next edition. The International Genealogical Index and Vital Records Indexes are going away. Their extracted records have been reorganized into separate geographic collections. For privacy protection, submitter information for Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File has been replaced with pseudonymic identifiers. (Future submitters will be able to specify how much or little of their contact information is visible.)

More and more, change has become unchanging, unavoidable aspects of life. Like death and taxes.

If you want to keep up, upgrade to the second edition.

Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace
Second Edition
6.0" x 9-ish", 885 pp., hardback. 2009.
ISBN 978-0-8063-1806-6
Genealogical Publishing Company
1-800-296-6687, www.genealogical.com
$59.95 (list)

Darned Double Enumerations

2011-11-18T00:05:00.000-07:00

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about our pasts.

Yet sometimes records have anomalies.
Some are amusing or humorous.
Some are interesting or weird.
Some are peculiar or suspicious.
Some are infuriating, even downright laughable.

Yes, “Records say the Darnedest Things.”

Records Are the Darnedest Things: Darned Double Enumerations

Could double enumerations be nature’s way of trying to maintain the yin and yang of the universe? Far too many of us have ancestors missing from the census. Double enumerations are when an ancestor occurs twice in a census.

Utah pioneers of 1850 are an especially fertile group for double enumeration as the 1850 U.S. Census for the state of Utah was taken in 1851. (If I’m not mistaken, it was actually the statehood application census from the Deseret Territory’s 1851 statehood application. Can anybody provide a source to that effect? But I digress…)

For example, the family of Alonzo Pearis Raymond was enumerated once in Pottawattamie County, Iowa in 1850:¹

and again in the “1850” census of Salt Lake City:²

Alonzo’s sister Louisa does him one better. She’s enumerated once in Pottawattamie with her mother and step-father:³

and again in the “1850” census of Salt Lake City:⁴

and again in Salt Lake with the Nelson Whipple family, family friends with a newborn baby and a two year old.⁵ (Need I say more?)

Yes, records say the darnedest things.

Sources

1. “1850 United States Federal Census,” database and digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 9 November 2011), entry for Alonzo Raymond (age 29), District 21, Pottawattamie, Iowa.

2. “1850 United States Federal Census,” Ancestry.com, entry for Alonzo P. Raymond (age 29), Great Salt Lake, Utah Territory.

3. “1850 United States Federal Census,” Ancestry.com, entry for Louisa William (age 16), District 21, Pottawattamie, Iowa.

4. “1850 United States Federal Census,” Ancestry.com, entry for Loisa Williams (age 16), Great Salt Lake, Utah Territory.

5. “1850 United States Federal Census,” Ancestry.com, entry for Loisa Raiment (age 16), Great Salt Lake, Utah Territory.

Thank you to J. H. Fonkert for his NGS Magazine article, “Seeing Double: Taking Advantage of Double Census Enumerations,” in the October-December 2010 issue for inspiring this article.

FamilySearch Announces New CEO

2011-11-15T16:48:00.001-07:00

Earlier this afternoon FamilySearch International announced the appointment of Dennis Brimhall as Chief Executive Officer. Brimhall replaces Jay Verkler who has held the position for the past 10 years.

FamilySearch attributed the change to the practice of its sponsor, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to regularly rotate senior management. The change is effective in January 2012, the tenth anniversary of Verkler’s presidency.

Verkler’s presidency has been characterized by his extensive technical expertise and the unprecedented shift in FamilySearch resources towards digital technologies.

Brimhall has 38 years of not-for-profit management and leadership, primarily in healthcare. He is a graduate of Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.¹

Brimhall announced a focus of his presidency in his first statement to the public: “We really need to understand our customers’ needs and satisfy them. Our focus will be to ensure that FamilySearch’s customer experiences are really first rate.”

Brimhall currently lives in Englewood, Colorado² where he works as Principle [sic] Consultant at Turning Point Health Advisors. Previous to that he was president and CEO of the University of Colorado Hospital for 17 years.

Ecclesiastically Brimhall serves as an Area Seventy ³in the 6th Quorum of the Seventy of the Church.⁴ In 2004 he served as a stake president in Denver, Colorado.⁵ In July 2005 he began service as a mission president in Louisville, Kentucky.⁶ In April 2009 he was called as an Area Seventy.

Brimhall was born in Provo, Utah to Delbert Creed and Elinor Brockbank Brimhall. His wife, Linda, is the daughter of Owen Mauss and Louise Nebeker Christensen.⁷

The entire text of the FamilySearch announcement is available online.

Sources

     1. “Dennis Brimhall,” Linked in (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dennis-brimhall/16/653/412 : accessed 15 November 2011).
     2. “New Leadership Changes,” Deseret News (http://www.deseretnews.com : 5 April 2009, accessed 15 November 2011), 4.
     3. John L. Hart, “Two More Quorums are Created; Now Eight,” Church News: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (http://www.ldschurchnews.com : 7 May 2005, accessed 15 November 2011).
     4. R. Scott Lloyd, “Quorums of the Seventy: Service to God,” Church News: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (http://www.ldschurchnews.com : 16 April 2011, accessed 15 November 2011).
     5. Eric Gorski, “LDS Church Growing in Inner Cities,” Deseret News (http://www.deseretnews.com : 1 May 2004, accessed 15 November 2011).
     6. “New Mission Presidents Begin Service,” Ensign, July 2005, 76; PDF images online, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [website] (http://www.lds.org : accessed 15 November 2011).
     7. “New Mission Presidents,” Church News: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (http://www.ldschurchnews.com : 16 April 2005, accessed 15 November 2011).

Ancestry.com’s Vital-ity

2011-11-15T00:05:00.000-07:00

Ancestry recently added a bunch of new vital records.

“We released over 50 databases,” said company spokesperson, Crista Cowan, “containing millions of vital records from all over the United States.”

I’d provide a list with links as I’ve often done in the past, but Ancestry.com has changed their list of new databases. They’ve made the list much prettier. Simultaneously, they removed the static links to the databases. You can no longer copy and paste a list with working links. That’s a dangerous thing for websites to do, as Google won’t index via dynamic links. Fortunately, Google found other paths to the databases, as shown in green below.

But I digress…

As I perused the databases, I found something interesting. Some of the new databases come from FamilySearch.org. After making the discovery, I spot checked every 5th new database released on October 17th to see where it came from.

Database Names (without links)	Records	Source
Oconee County, Georgia Probate Death Certificates, 1927-2010	7,008	Oconee County
Cook County, Illinois Marriage Indexes, 1914-1942	674,692	Private donor
Georgia, Deaths Index, 1914-1927	303,855	FamilySearch
Cook County, Illinois, Deaths Index, 1878-1922	1,423,430	FamilySearch
Michigan, Births and Christenings Index, 1867-1911	916,602	FamilySearch
New Jersey, Deaths and Burials Index, 1798-1971	1,122,330	FamilySearch
New Hampshire, Death and Burial Records Index, 1654-1949	825,529	FamilySearch
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Marriage Index, 1885-1951	1,830,431	FamilySearch
Russell County, Kansas, Vitals and Newspaper Records, 1800-1937	32,075	Historical Society
Pennsylvania, Marriages, 1852-1854	9,368	Pennsylvania

I found 90% of these records were from FamilySearch.

My sampling method was unscientific. Does the same percentage apply to the 50 million names released in new databases that day?

I asked Ancestry and FamilySearch for comment. Ancestry declined and FamilySearch had no response.

Overly Long Source Citations

Incidentally, in the “Utah, Birth Registers, 1892-1944” database, I found something interesting. Genealogy publishers face a problem of lengthy database source citations when they combine records from many different archives. Here’s how Ancestry handled the problem for this database:

Original data: Assorted Birth Registers of Utah Counties. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah State Archives and Records Service. View Full Source Citations

A click of the link and you see a page full of sources Ancestry combined to create this database.

I like it. Simple. Comprehensive. Elegant.

Unfortunately, when you view a record, the source citation—still split weirdly in two—doesn’t provide a finished citation:

One must cobble together information from these two parts plus the separate page. Unfortunately, the same lists weren’t provided for the databases originating from FamilySearch. (That’s not surprising,however, as FamilySearch doesn’t provide them for the collections on its own site.)

Still, 50 new vital record databases, some with complete lists of sources; Ancestry is vital still.

Ancestry.com and Tree Growers

2011-11-10T00:04:00.000-07:00

We’re in a happy place right now, I think. Mind you, we haven’t always been here. Why are we in our happy place at the moment?

Two articles from Ancestry.com’s November Newsletter

Last time I introduced the concept of tree decorators and tree growers. Two items in Ancestry.com’s November 2011 monthly newsletter point out the needs of tree growers. (I’d point you to an online copy of the newsletter, but it doesn’t appear that Ancestry supports that.)

The first article began, “Ever try to find a birth record? It’s usually a pretty straight-forward process, provided you already know most of the information that you’re going to find on that birth record. But for those of us who are still hoping to learn those details, getting that birth record can be a little bit trickier.”

The second article began, “Search for hard-to-find ancestors without using names. Instead, use birthdates, places and other details, then review results carefully. You could discover your ancestor — maybe the whole family — was recorded with a misspelled moniker.”

Good job, Ancestry!

Tree Decorators and Tree Growers

2011-11-09T00:05:00.000-07:00

It occurred to me the other day that there are two types of searchers on Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org.

I call the two types tree decorators and tree growers.

Their search needs and requirements are different, which explains why some people like Ancestry’s New Search and some hate it. It explains why some people like the classic.FamilySearch.org more than the current FamilySearch.org

Tree Decorators

Relevance ranking is a feature of Ancestry.com’s New Search and FamilySearch’s record searching. Search results don’t have to match everything you search for, but the more things that match, the higher the record appears in the search results. The more you specify, the more results you get. More importantly, the more things you specify, the more the good results float to the top.

I’m a 5th generation genealogist, the inheritor of a complete, seven generation, largely undocumented tree. (The bug may have skipped one generation; I don’t have any indication that Alma did any genealogy. But I digress…) I spend a lot of my time hanging documentation on my tree.

I’m a tree decorator.

When I search, I search with a complete set of information about my ancestor. I search using every single fact or guess I have about an ancestor. The Search software uses the information to find every single record about my ancestor. Relevancy ranking works spectacularly, even where records have been misindexed, parts of a record were not indexed, or the record creator got some information wrong.

Relevance ranking works great for tree decorators.

Tree Growers

Exact search is the way the classic.FamilySearch.org and Ancestry.com’s Old Search worked. Every result must exactly match everything you searched for. The more you specify, the fewer the results and the better they are.

I split my precious genealogy time working on a brick wall. (Five generations of researchers have failed to break through, I must point out. This is more like a nuclear-bunker wall than flimsy brick. But I digress…) I am trying to grow my tree.

I’m a tree grower.

I am searching for people who are not yet in my tree. When I search, I search with precious little information. With relevance ranking, the less information you know, the worse the software performs. You’ve probably seen the messages: “If you add a name or other information, we’ll give you better results.”

Relevance ranking doesn’t work for tree growers and it knows it.

Exact search does. Tree growers don’t know much about an ancestor, but we do know something and the results we get darn well better match.

Further, tree growers need rich collection-specific search forms. We might know a neighbor’s name instead of a parent’s, or a slave owner’s name instead of the ancestor’s, or a profession instead of a birth date.

Two users. Two search requirements.

Tree decorators and tree growers.

Official RootsTech Blogger

2011-11-06T23:05:00.000-07:00

I’m pleased to announce that I have been asked to serve as an official RootsTech Blogger! I’m a little late letting you know, but hey… I’ve been busy.

So, I’m hoping my lethargy has not caused anyone to miss an opportunity for a cheap, early bird special. As long as you register by the end of November, you should be fine. Advance registration is $129, a $60 savings from the regular price.

Insider Presenting Two Sessions

Many of you are unaware of my work translating dog journals. I will be presenting Lassie’s journal in a session at RootsTech titled “Lassie! Go for Free Genealogy Help!” Interesting stuff.

I am also presenting, “Genealogy Internet Gems.” Yes, I have a big ego. No, the session is not about me.

How big is my ego? Dare I say that the $129 registration fee, divided between two sessions, is well worth it?. Dare I say that? Naw.

Extra Special Extra Early Discounts

If you’re fortunate, you have been one of the special few to get an extra special discount. These have been short term discounts available to select groups. FGS Conference attendees were given a special price. Likewise, NGS members. Both discount offers have since expired.

The latest that I’m aware of is for family history consultants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day. If you’re signed up as a consultant, you received the pricing and the discount code in a Consultant Update e-mail on October 24th. As with last year, there will also be a limited number of free training classes for consultants. Information will be forthcoming.

Technology Workshop

The BYU Family History Technology Workshop is once again part of RootsTech this year. The workshop consists of the presentation of scholarly papers presented in academic fashion. The workshop committee, chaired this year by BYU CS professor, Bill Barrett, has issued a call for papers. A one page abstract is due by December 15th to barrett@cs.byu.edu. Submissions will be reviewed by at least two members of the program committee and acceptance notifications will be made January 10th. Awards will be given for the top student paper. New this year is a Developer Challenge.

There. I’ve filled my “Official Blogger” obligation to invite you to get the early bird discount. Truthfully, I hope you can attend RootsTech. Stop by and say hello! You may not recognize me, however. I’ll be wearing a normal-person mask to hide my yellow skin. I have a secret identity to protect, you know.

The Mystery of the Non-Duplicate Duplicates

2011-11-03T00:05:00.000-06:00

You may recall the question last week from “Robin in Short Pump” (obviously, a family name of Italian origins). Robin found two nearly identical records in the “Virginia Marriages, 1785-1940” collection that had several differences.

I posed some questions and enlisted your feedback. Thank you, to those of you who shared such great comments.

Here are the questions and my answers (which echo yours).

Can you think of what you might do to further understand the information provenance of these two records?

Because we have film numbers we can easily look up the descriptions of films 32,020 and 2,048,457 in the Family History Library Catalog. Film number 32,020 contains (among other things) marriage registers from the county clerk of Isle of Wight County in Virginia. Film number 2,048,457 contains marriage registers from the Virginia state Bureau of Vital Statistics.

Here’s my stab at the information provenance: The bride and groom provided the information about themselves and their families to the Isle of Wight county clerk’s office. The marriage officiator provided the information about the marriage. The county subsequently provided a copy to the state of Virginia. FamilySearch came along and microfilmed, indexed, and published both the county and state copies.

Each time a record is copied, something is lost.
Textual derivatives are particularly lossy.
If you can’t access the original,
an image copy of the original is almost as good.

Are these original or derivative sources?

Since the Virginia state record is a copy of the Isle of Wight county’s, I consider it a textual derivative of the county’s original. However, what we see online is a index (textual derivative) of an image copy (microfilm) of the county original and the state derivative.

Which provides stronger evidence, an image copy or a textual derivative?

I didn’t ask that very well. Assuming you make an image copy and a textual derivative of the same original, the image copy is preferable. Examining Microfilm 32,020 would be nearly as good as examining the county original.

This illustrates another idea. Not every textual derivative is created equal. If the official state copy of the county original is created under controlled conditions by the same clerk that created the original, it can be given nearly as much consideration as the microfilm copy. The FamilySearch indexing from the microfilm will likely be the biggest source of textual errors.

Why is it a very bad idea to cite these sources?

Because Microfilm 32,020 is readily available to anyone in a local family history center, the responsible genealogist will consult and cite it rather than the online textual derivatives.

Thank you, Robin of the Short Pump, for your question. And thank you to all who provided feedback.

Copyrights, Contracts, and Trademarks; Oh My!

2011-11-02T00:05:00.000-06:00

If you smelled a setup yesterday, you were right. “What are they up to now?” “They,” the Computer Assisted Genealogy Group of Northern Illinois (CAGGNI), were soliciting new members at the Federation of Genealogical Societies conference. You can learn more about CAGGNI at www.caggni.org.

If you are like me, (and I know I am,) you thought the brochure was from Ancestry.com. I’ve come to associate backlit leaves of that shape and color with Ancestry.com.

Copyright is one way to protect intellectual property, such as original artistic works. We recently had some discussions here about Find A Grave photograph copyrights. Some of you share with no expectations. Others want the law followed to the last pound of flesh. (See “Monday Mailbox: Ancestry Removing Find A Grave Photos?” and comments. Also see “Can I Get an Amen?!”)

I’ve also written about using contract law to protect intellectual property. (See “Can I Freely Copy Public Domain Documents?”)

Trademarks

This is a dangerous article for me to write because my understanding of trademarks is more limited than my understanding of copyrights and contracts. For example, I don’t know if Carol Burnett’s trademark ear tug is protectable intellectual property.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

A trademark is a distinctive indicator that identifies that a product or service originates from a particular source. A trademark can be registered with the government, or it can be established through usage.

Until researching this article, I didn’t realize that trademarks can be sounds or smells, or can include motion. Click on the number or musical note for each of these trademark sounds from the website of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In the unlikely event you can’t identify the trademark, click on the magnifying glass.

	75332744
	72349496
	75934534
	75326989
	If the sounds don’t work in an e-mail, try listening to them on the Ancestry Insider website.

Ancestry.com’s Backlit Leaves

I assume that Ancestry has not registered a trademark claim on that particular treatment of backlit leaves. I further assume that if large numbers of us experienced the same confusion as I did—assuming that the brochure was from Ancestry.com—then Ancestry.com can still claim it as a trademark.

They might also have a copyright claim against this brochure. (See “Generations Network files suit against Millenia.”)

But the point of this article is to inform you that trademarks are a form of intellectual property protection that are separate and distinct from copyrights.

Sources

Wikipedia contributors, "Trademark," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark&oldid=455518161 : accessed 15 October 2011).

What are They Up to Now?

2011-11-01T00:05:00.000-06:00

Here’s a brochure I picked up at this year’s Federation of Genealogical Societies conference.

Can you guess what they’re doing now? I’ll give fifty points to the first correct answer, but you must post as a comment. E-mail answers will not be accepted.

Darned Oliver, Kankakee, Illinois

2011-10-28T00:05:00.000-06:00

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about our pasts.

Yet sometimes records have anomalies.
Some are amusing or humorous.
Some are interesting or weird.
Some are peculiar or suspicious.
Some are infuriating, even downright laughable.

Yes, “Records say the Darnedest Things.”

Records Say the Darnedest Things: Oliver, Kankakee, Illinois

A reader, Jason Thompson, recently wrote and pointed out something unusual about the town of Oliver, Kankakee, Illinois in the FamilySearch collection, “Illinois State Census, 1865.” What’s unusual is, it doesn’t exist.

Search Engine Optimization

To check it out for myself, I thought I’d take a shortcut to the record collection by Googling the collection title. The Google search results show how much catching-up FamilySearch needs to do. Result #1 is an Ancestry.com collection, “Illinois State Census Collection, 1825-1865.” Result #8 is the first FamilySearch link, to a wiki article about the collection. (I’ve circled both in the screen shot, below.) The actual collection doesn’t show up at all.

FamilySearch implemented their collection list in a way that makes the list invisible to Google. Consequently, Google doesn’t know about their collections. Freshman error. They’ll get it fixed soon enough. First they have bigger fish to fry. And I have digressed away from one…

Browse Hierarchy

I checked the browse structures on Ancestry and FamilySearch. The two are the same except where FamilySearch has the town of Oliver, Kankakee County (below, left), Ancestry has Ganeer (right).

Images

Images are available on both websites, so I clicked through to look at the first image on each. I clicked on FamilySearch and saw the image below, left. I clicked on Ancestry.com and saw the image on the right.

Okay, that was a cheap shot. The image is free on FamilySearch and what you see above, right, is the Ancestry.com “pay wall.”

The quality of the image on Ancestry depends a bit on what browser you use. With Internet Explorer, it looks like the image below, left. With other browsers, it looks like the image on the right.

I can see how Ganeer might be misread as Olevier, but Oliver would be a stretch, particularly for someone who has read my articles about the importance of context when indexing. No one with a list of Kankakee County localities (towns, villages, and unincorporated places) is going to come up with Oliver.

Corrections

“I brought this [error] to the attention of FamilySearch,” said Jason Thompson, “and was referred to a web page stating that corrections simply can't be made to their records, no matter the circumstance.” Apparently, the support rep thought this was a run-of-the-mill indexing error.

Browse hierarchy errors are not created by indexers and are far more intrusive.

“This single error impacts 6 census images, 222 records, and 1,341 individuals,” said Thompson.

Thompson “reopened” his question to FamilySearch support. This escalates the issue up the support food chain. This time he was told

We report [these issues] for an engineering fix. When this collection comes up for review...all of the problems ever reported will be fixed and the collection republished. The fixes you are suggesting would require changes to the index, relinking to images and republishing the entire collection. It can't be done piecemeal.

There is a “Known Issues” section in each collection’s wiki article. I think it can be used to report these types of issues. See https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Illinois_1865_State_Census_(FamilySearch_Historical_Records)#Known_Issues_with_This_Collection where I’ve done just that for the Oliver/Ganeer issue.

Oliver, Kankakee, Illinois? Yes, records say the darnedest things.