Posts
While most of us still utilize the historical socieites, courthouses and libraries that our previous generations of genealogists did, we have also come to rely heavily upon the digital age to make our research, and our businesses, much easier to do.
On the 7th of July, DIck Eastman, who authors, "Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter" [EOGN] wrote a wonderful article that I am going to share here, with his permission, regarding the use of the Internet for research. While there are many pro's [and much discussion and dissension among the ranks about research via the Internet, I think Dick pretty much covers my own opinion[s] on the matter. Thanks Dick! - cbh
EOGN
"July 07, 2008
The Rising Cost of Travel Versus Online Research
A newsletter reader asked an interesting question this week. Here is an extract from a longer message:
As the economy continues to worsen and gas prices rise exponentially, I am curious to know how this will affect services such as Footnote.com, Ancestry.com, Worldvitalrecords.com, and others. Will these companies raise their prices in relation to other increases? Or will they maintain or possibly lower prices to keep subscribers? In tough times, leisure activities are among the first to suffer.
I am not sure that my crystal ball is any clearer than anyone else's. However, a few things do seem obvious to me.
I suspect the rising price of gas will be good for the online sites that offer images of original records, such as Footnote.com, HeritageQuestOnline.com, WorldVitalRecords.com, Ancestry.com, and others. As prices continue to rise for trips to libraries and other repositories, many people will turn to cheaper, online access whenever possible.
Let's compare online research expenses versus "in-person" research:
Prices will vary widely, depending upon where you live in relation to the repositories you wish to visit. I'll start off with my own example.
I live 35 miles outside a major city and am fortunate to have several major genealogy libraries, repositories, and archives within convenient driving distance of my home. Assuming gas mileage of 20 to 25 miles per gallon and gas prices of $4.00 to $4.50 for each gallon, it now costs me a minimum of $12.00 or more to visit the nearest such repositories that are about 35 miles away (that is obviously a 70-mile round trip, requiring three or more gallons of gasoline). Of course, that is for gasoline alone.
Next, add in tolls and parking. A round trip into the city from my home by the most convenient route now costs $7.50 in round-trip tolls. In most East Coast cities, parking fees start at $20 and go up. In fact, they go up quickly. It is not unusual to pay $30 or more per day for parking at the repositories I visit. Some of these repositories also charge admission fees as well as photocopying fees.
A cheaper method is public transportation to the city. However, this can be a false economy. A trip by commuter train costs me a couple of dollars in gas to drive to the train station, $4 for parking at the train station (a bargain in this area), and $12 for a round-trip ticket. I have to be at the train station by 7:00 AM or so in order to find a parking spot as the parking lot is usually full by 7:15 AM. The drawback is that the trip takes three times as long as an automobile trip, cutting into the research time available.
Even worse, one of the major repositories that I go to is more than a one-and-a-half mile walk from the nearest public transportation. That's a long walk in bad weather! The closest regional library of the National Archives and Records Administration is even further from public transportation. I always drive there.
I now figure that a single trip to any of the nearby “free” genealogy repositories costs me a minimum of $40 to $60, counting gas, parking fees, and tolls.
My statistics ignore automobile depreciation, repairs, tires, insurance, and similar expenses. These expenses are difficult to calculate on a per-mile basis but nonetheless are real expenses. Please consider my calculations to be the minimum expenses; most of us will pay more than this for each trip.
Of course, I am lucky to live within 35 miles of several major research facilities. If they have information about my ancestors, I am fortunate enough to pay "only" $40 to $60 for a single trip.
Many people live in rural areas or do not have nearby resources with information about ancestors who lived in another part of the country. Many genealogists have to pay much, much more than my $40 to $60 expenses. I suspect they envy those of us who are blessed with nearby, first-class research facilities.
If I need to travel to a distant state archives or local historical society or other repositories near the homes of my ancestors, prices mushroom quickly. Regardless of the mode of transportation, an overnight or longer trip to a distant repository can cost hundreds of dollars.
In comparison, the online services charge rather small fees for access. Footnote.com charges $7.95 a month for unlimited access. WorldVitalRecords.com charges $9.95/month (for the U.S. Collection) or $14.95/month (for the World Collection) for unlimited access. Even Ancestry.com's comparatively high prices of $12.95/month to $19.95/month (for the U.S. Deluxe Membership) or $24.95/month to $29.95/month (for the World Deluxe Membership) seem much cheaper than an in-person visit. If the online service has the record you seek, the savings can be enormous.
The key phase is "If the online service has the record you seek..." While these online services now have millions of records available, that is still a tiny percentage of all records available on paper or on microfilm. To be sure, the most popular records are now available online: U.S. census records, U.K. census records, some Canadian census records, U.S. Revolutionary War pension applications, Social Security Death Index, and more. However, if you seek a land record from Ohio or a marriage record from Vermont, you probably will not find it online.
I frequently make presentations to genealogy societies and to conventions. In one of my talks, I once stated that I estimated that fewer than 2% of all records of genealogy interest were available online. A nationally-known genealogy expert in the audience later disagreed with my assessment. Her estimate was that fewer than 0.02% of all records of genealogy interest are available online. Admittedly, neither of us has any documented statistics to back up our estimates.
Regardless of the precise number, it is obvious that the online sites only scratch the surface of available information. Nonetheless, if the record you seek is available online, a search of a commercial site can save hundreds of dollars in travel expenses. Even better, online searches often produce "hits" for records you didn't even consider or perhaps didn't even know about. Who knew that your great-great-grandfather filed a claim for losses suffered in the Civil War? A search of his name on the various online sites might produce results that you never dreamed of.
My correspondent asked, "Will these companies raise their prices in relation to other increases? Or will they maintain or possibly lower prices to keep subscribers?"
My belief is that the prices of the inexpensive services will remain about the same while the more expensive service(s) will be forced to drop prices, due to competitive pressures. The history of the online world has been one of constantly lowered pricing, and I do not see that trend changing. In fact, disk storage space is now much cheaper than it was only a few years ago. Web servers, high-speed Internet connectivity, and other expenses have remained about the same or have slowly come down. The one big expense is labor, and even that has been trimmed substantially in the past few years. Today's online services are leaner with lower corporate headcounts than those of a few years ago.
The long-term outlook for genealogists is great: more and more information is becoming available online every day. As this mass of available information increases, the need for expensive travel to view records in person is reduced.
I am confident that the online services will provide much cheaper access than any other available method. That is already true today, and the differences will increase with each passing year.
Posted by Dick Eastman on July 07, 2008 "
Let us know what you think!
Friday, July 11, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
What da name???
I’ve been working on a rather interesting case today.
I’ve been looking for a family through Census and tax records, and having very little luck. That is until I began looking at some of the trees posted online regarding this family.
Hmm….something just didn’t click for me. Dates were just a little bit skewed from one tree to the next. Yet, all of the family members were staying the same. So, I was curious about the variances. Only a few of the trees sported even a single source. Although some did indicate they had 2 to 3 sources.
Okay! Well, as I began to take a look at the sources, the truth began to dawn on me! Someone had at one time or another merged 2 entirely different people, with the same name, born in the same state, within just 2 years of each other, into the same tree. Hmmm.
This is one of my many pet peeves in genealogy. Merging trees to me is a HUGE no-no!!!
Merging your files or gedcom with someone else’s without first proving their files are accurate is tantamount to genealogical suicide! Your information may become skewed and so irreparable that you will have to start over from scratch on your entire file!
Everyone knows my thoughts on this subject. “If you can’t prove it, then don’t put it in!”
Well, once I figured out that I was looking at 2 separate individuals, I decided to take one of the known children and begin to trace backwards into the mess. And don’t you know it? I went back two decades earlier than any of the other individuals had!
What did I find?
I found that the family had, over time, changed the spelling of its name. Changing the first letter into another, and totally changing the name. I was able to prove this with the names of parent’s and children, who were known, and their birth dates. Eventually the entire family has over the years changed their name to this “new” spelling, and the old has totally been forgotten.
But the lesson I’d like for all of you to learn is that you must never, never take someone else’s information at face value!
Even when I am looking at an index, or a record that someone else has transcribed, and even if they are the most reputable of genealogists, I do not take the information for granted! I still take the time, be it ever so long or short to do, and prove that it is indeed correct. This way, I know that the records I have are completely accurate.
It was a lesson hard learned when I had traced my own great-great-grandfather back six more generations. I was so proud of myself! And at the time, I was such a novice still. I had taken the information my own grandfather had left us regarding his own grandfather. Horror of horrors when I found a death record of my great-grandfather and it listed another man’s first name for his father! Surely it was a mistake! But as I began to collect that generation’s death records, they all had the same name for their father!
And so I began to start over. And when I did, I found that those six generations were totally not linked to my family! I had merged information and trees, and the result was that I ended up having to totally pull an entire branch from my tree and start over. I was devastated.
A lesson worth learning however!!! I learned to never trust any information until I have proven it!
I wish you the best in finding the branches of your family tree, wherever it leads you; however it is spelled!
God Bless!
CBH
I’ve been looking for a family through Census and tax records, and having very little luck. That is until I began looking at some of the trees posted online regarding this family.
Hmm….something just didn’t click for me. Dates were just a little bit skewed from one tree to the next. Yet, all of the family members were staying the same. So, I was curious about the variances. Only a few of the trees sported even a single source. Although some did indicate they had 2 to 3 sources.
Okay! Well, as I began to take a look at the sources, the truth began to dawn on me! Someone had at one time or another merged 2 entirely different people, with the same name, born in the same state, within just 2 years of each other, into the same tree. Hmmm.
This is one of my many pet peeves in genealogy. Merging trees to me is a HUGE no-no!!!
Merging your files or gedcom with someone else’s without first proving their files are accurate is tantamount to genealogical suicide! Your information may become skewed and so irreparable that you will have to start over from scratch on your entire file!
Everyone knows my thoughts on this subject. “If you can’t prove it, then don’t put it in!”
Well, once I figured out that I was looking at 2 separate individuals, I decided to take one of the known children and begin to trace backwards into the mess. And don’t you know it? I went back two decades earlier than any of the other individuals had!
What did I find?
I found that the family had, over time, changed the spelling of its name. Changing the first letter into another, and totally changing the name. I was able to prove this with the names of parent’s and children, who were known, and their birth dates. Eventually the entire family has over the years changed their name to this “new” spelling, and the old has totally been forgotten.
But the lesson I’d like for all of you to learn is that you must never, never take someone else’s information at face value!
Even when I am looking at an index, or a record that someone else has transcribed, and even if they are the most reputable of genealogists, I do not take the information for granted! I still take the time, be it ever so long or short to do, and prove that it is indeed correct. This way, I know that the records I have are completely accurate.
It was a lesson hard learned when I had traced my own great-great-grandfather back six more generations. I was so proud of myself! And at the time, I was such a novice still. I had taken the information my own grandfather had left us regarding his own grandfather. Horror of horrors when I found a death record of my great-grandfather and it listed another man’s first name for his father! Surely it was a mistake! But as I began to collect that generation’s death records, they all had the same name for their father!
And so I began to start over. And when I did, I found that those six generations were totally not linked to my family! I had merged information and trees, and the result was that I ended up having to totally pull an entire branch from my tree and start over. I was devastated.
A lesson worth learning however!!! I learned to never trust any information until I have proven it!
I wish you the best in finding the branches of your family tree, wherever it leads you; however it is spelled!
God Bless!
CBH
Do The Math!
One of my favorite genealogists and speakers is Arlene Eakle. Arlene puts out a blogfeed that is usually out of this world! And today's was no exception!
Today Arlene told about the May 9th speech of Senator Barak Obama that is now infamous; this is the speech in which he announced to Beaverton, OR that he had now been in "...57 states. I think one left to go."
Oh my! Senator Obama your gaffe is showing!
Arlene then brings up my favorite pet peeve [believe me, my hubby knows when I am poring over some other genealogists research and he hears me "snort" that I have located another "gaffe"]. I'm talking about the bad math.
Come on people! How hard is it to drag out the ol' calculator? Or as Arlene points out, "Calculators are easy to come by and every cell phone, ipod, etc. has a built in calculator."
Just this week I have been researching a particular family from Illinois that has some rather extensive research performed. This tree has been published by multiple individuals. MULTIPLE!!! And every single one of these researched trees has one particular man listed who was born a year after he died!!! Yeah, you can bet I'm still snorting over that one!
Arlene gives us four math ideas that can really be a death trap for the genealogist, and are well worth repeating here for your own improvement:
Fuzzy math: Arlene states that this is when you estimate a birth date from the age found in a census record. We've all done that at some point, right? And we've all found out at a later point that the particular date of birth found in one census record can vary from census record to census record. I recently did a report on a gentleman who married a woman twenty years his junior. His marriage record jives with his death record. However, each of the census records in between the marriage and death [and there were 4] varied his age from only a year older than her to the last showing him as forty years older! [He had "aged" 60 years between their first married census record to their last, in only 40 years!] Fuzzy math can give you an idea of a persons age; but I wouldn't rely too heavily on it for proof!
Bogus math: Arlene says that this is the math that occurs when you have an exact birth date for the first child, and you adjust the estimated birthday of the mother to match it. Oh, my! Such a big no, no! I have seen reports on families where the mother would have been 10 years old when she died! Or 150 years old! Let's use a little "common" sense folks! If it doesn't fit, don't try to make it fit!!!
Destructive math: This occurs when a death date is taken from a tombstone or a will for the wrong man in the wrong generation. Hey, this one is quite easy to goof with! In my own family tree, I have 4 generations of William M.'s. On top of that, many of the other sons named their own son after a William M. All of whom lived in a single county. I believe at one point, there were seven of these William M.'s all living in the county at the same time. Multiple generations with this particular moniker! We have to be so careful to make sure we have the correct person to fit in our research. If you take down the information, and it doesn't jive with the known facts, then it probably is not the correct person you are looking for. Look, if you're looking for John Smith's death date, and you've already got his correct birth date, from a proven source, [his birth was registered in Richmond, Virginia in 1832 - for instance], but you visit the cemetery that you think he is buried at, you discover his tombstone, and it says he died "1956", my friend, you have NOT discovered your John Smith's grave! Come on!! 124 years old! No, again we must go back to the "common sense" issue!
Lastly Arlene talks about Speculative math: this is when you match the age of the wife at first marriage to the actual date stated in the marriage records - especially where the wife carries a common first name - such as Mary, Elizabeth, Sarah, etc. Arlene states, [and I have found this to be true] that a surprising number of men choose a second wife with same given name as the first! Also, a surprising number of men chose a second wife that was an older or younger sister of the first! Sometimes even a third wife has the same given name or same surname! You must not do this gaffe: List the wife's date of birth as the same date they were married on! At least not in this country, newborn babies are not, were not, wed to their spouse! And certainly didn't begin bearing their children when they were only a year old! Again, if it doesn't match up with PROVEN sources, it probably isn't so!
If you insist on recording a "gaffe" then you must also insist upon your own professionalism to show where that error is wrong. I am sure that I have let some of these errors get through and past my research, but when they are noted, and I cannot find proof I will refuse to list them as notable in my research. Let me give you an example:
I might have a client who tells me that their grandpa was born in 1834 and died in 1833. Hmm! I tell myself this is absolutely impossible. But what do I do if I cannot provide proof of the correct date for either event? And I know the client has truly believed that their dates are correct. [Oh, it was in Mama's Bible or some such thing.] Well, I don't put the information in my proven data. [If you use a genealogy program, I don't put it into my birth or death date data areas]. Instead, I make a note under my notations that the client supplied me with the birth date of 1834 and the death date of 1833. This being a physical impossibility, I could not include it as proven data. However, I located marriage records indicating that a possible birth year was 1777. And there were no further Census records beyond 1830. Therefore we can assume he was born about 1777 as his marriage records indicated, and died after the 1830 Census, yet before the 1840, making the death year of 1833 given by the client as plausible but not proven.
Arlene states something quite similar: "State the date you have. Identify the record or source which supplied the date. Do not adjust or shrink to fit or push the 'make it fit button' on your computer. Let the records stand with their evidence. Then in a separate paragraph describe your own interpretation of the evidence based on all of the records you have researched. Include the math."
Arlene speaks so eloquently: "Obama cannot visit 57 states, with one more to go - there are only 50 to begin with." Do the math!
Your Mountain Genealogists
Today Arlene told about the May 9th speech of Senator Barak Obama that is now infamous; this is the speech in which he announced to Beaverton, OR that he had now been in "...57 states. I think one left to go."
Oh my! Senator Obama your gaffe is showing!
Arlene then brings up my favorite pet peeve [believe me, my hubby knows when I am poring over some other genealogists research and he hears me "snort" that I have located another "gaffe"]. I'm talking about the bad math.
Come on people! How hard is it to drag out the ol' calculator? Or as Arlene points out, "Calculators are easy to come by and every cell phone, ipod, etc. has a built in calculator."
Just this week I have been researching a particular family from Illinois that has some rather extensive research performed. This tree has been published by multiple individuals. MULTIPLE!!! And every single one of these researched trees has one particular man listed who was born a year after he died!!! Yeah, you can bet I'm still snorting over that one!
Arlene gives us four math ideas that can really be a death trap for the genealogist, and are well worth repeating here for your own improvement:
Fuzzy math: Arlene states that this is when you estimate a birth date from the age found in a census record. We've all done that at some point, right? And we've all found out at a later point that the particular date of birth found in one census record can vary from census record to census record. I recently did a report on a gentleman who married a woman twenty years his junior. His marriage record jives with his death record. However, each of the census records in between the marriage and death [and there were 4] varied his age from only a year older than her to the last showing him as forty years older! [He had "aged" 60 years between their first married census record to their last, in only 40 years!] Fuzzy math can give you an idea of a persons age; but I wouldn't rely too heavily on it for proof!
Bogus math: Arlene says that this is the math that occurs when you have an exact birth date for the first child, and you adjust the estimated birthday of the mother to match it. Oh, my! Such a big no, no! I have seen reports on families where the mother would have been 10 years old when she died! Or 150 years old! Let's use a little "common" sense folks! If it doesn't fit, don't try to make it fit!!!
Destructive math: This occurs when a death date is taken from a tombstone or a will for the wrong man in the wrong generation. Hey, this one is quite easy to goof with! In my own family tree, I have 4 generations of William M.'s. On top of that, many of the other sons named their own son after a William M. All of whom lived in a single county. I believe at one point, there were seven of these William M.'s all living in the county at the same time. Multiple generations with this particular moniker! We have to be so careful to make sure we have the correct person to fit in our research. If you take down the information, and it doesn't jive with the known facts, then it probably is not the correct person you are looking for. Look, if you're looking for John Smith's death date, and you've already got his correct birth date, from a proven source, [his birth was registered in Richmond, Virginia in 1832 - for instance], but you visit the cemetery that you think he is buried at, you discover his tombstone, and it says he died "1956", my friend, you have NOT discovered your John Smith's grave! Come on!! 124 years old! No, again we must go back to the "common sense" issue!
Lastly Arlene talks about Speculative math: this is when you match the age of the wife at first marriage to the actual date stated in the marriage records - especially where the wife carries a common first name - such as Mary, Elizabeth, Sarah, etc. Arlene states, [and I have found this to be true] that a surprising number of men choose a second wife with same given name as the first! Also, a surprising number of men chose a second wife that was an older or younger sister of the first! Sometimes even a third wife has the same given name or same surname! You must not do this gaffe: List the wife's date of birth as the same date they were married on! At least not in this country, newborn babies are not, were not, wed to their spouse! And certainly didn't begin bearing their children when they were only a year old! Again, if it doesn't match up with PROVEN sources, it probably isn't so!
If you insist on recording a "gaffe" then you must also insist upon your own professionalism to show where that error is wrong. I am sure that I have let some of these errors get through and past my research, but when they are noted, and I cannot find proof I will refuse to list them as notable in my research. Let me give you an example:
I might have a client who tells me that their grandpa was born in 1834 and died in 1833. Hmm! I tell myself this is absolutely impossible. But what do I do if I cannot provide proof of the correct date for either event? And I know the client has truly believed that their dates are correct. [Oh, it was in Mama's Bible or some such thing.] Well, I don't put the information in my proven data. [If you use a genealogy program, I don't put it into my birth or death date data areas]. Instead, I make a note under my notations that the client supplied me with the birth date of 1834 and the death date of 1833. This being a physical impossibility, I could not include it as proven data. However, I located marriage records indicating that a possible birth year was 1777. And there were no further Census records beyond 1830. Therefore we can assume he was born about 1777 as his marriage records indicated, and died after the 1830 Census, yet before the 1840, making the death year of 1833 given by the client as plausible but not proven.
Arlene states something quite similar: "State the date you have. Identify the record or source which supplied the date. Do not adjust or shrink to fit or push the 'make it fit button' on your computer. Let the records stand with their evidence. Then in a separate paragraph describe your own interpretation of the evidence based on all of the records you have researched. Include the math."
Arlene speaks so eloquently: "Obama cannot visit 57 states, with one more to go - there are only 50 to begin with." Do the math!
Your Mountain Genealogists
Monday, July 7, 2008
No Oklahoma Record????
Imagine our surprise when in one daily newsletter we received today, a well-known genealogist [whose name we will not mention] reported that there are no 1900 Census records for Oklahoma.
This prominent, professional genealogist, who has been practicing for decades, reported that she had never seen a 1900 Oklahoma Census.
Was she serious? or was she just being facetious?
Well, friends, there IS Census records for 1900 for the area now known as Oklahoma. You will find it listed as either "Oklahoma Territory" or"Indian Territory".
I tend to believe the newsletter I read this morning was playing at sarcasm rather than being serious.
However, I did receive about a dozen followup emails asking me if the writer had been serious or not.
Come on folks! A little common sense please!!!
Keep it together until next time!
CBH
This prominent, professional genealogist, who has been practicing for decades, reported that she had never seen a 1900 Oklahoma Census.
Was she serious? or was she just being facetious?
Well, friends, there IS Census records for 1900 for the area now known as Oklahoma. You will find it listed as either "Oklahoma Territory" or"Indian Territory".
I tend to believe the newsletter I read this morning was playing at sarcasm rather than being serious.
However, I did receive about a dozen followup emails asking me if the writer had been serious or not.
Come on folks! A little common sense please!!!
Keep it together until next time!
CBH
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Using Posted Family Trees For Resources
I was recently asked the question if it was ethical for a genealogist to use a publicly posted tree for resource information when searching for a family's roots.
Well, of course it is not ethically correct to use what someone else has researched and claim as your own. I would never do such a thing. But....
What I have done on many occasions is use that information I have found in a publicly posted or printed family tree to bridge a gap in my own research. Okay, so here I am at a point that I can't find any further research on Great-great-great-grandpa Smith. I have no idea where to go to from here. So what do I do?
I search through the millions of posted and printed family trees at our resources. If I locate him, then I will record on paper his ancestry according to that tree. [You will be surprised that 99% of family trees posted have no resources listed, they are totally unsourced]. I DO NOT add them into the working tree. This is all done in my notepaper by hand at this point.
Next, I will begin to attempt to disprove that this next generation belongs to this family. Yes, you read that right. I first attempt to DISPROVE the connection. When I find that I can disprove them, I know they don't belong here and can scratch them from my notepaper and they don't even get a second glance.
However, if I have worked on them diligently and find that I cannot disprove them, then I will attempt to PROVE their connection. This can sometimes take days or weeks, as any genealogist will tell you. Providing the proof is the ONLY way you can add someone to a working tree.
Once I have proven them into the tree, then I will give credit where credit is due. I give the person who published the tree all the credit for finding the individual and putting them in their tree. If they have the tree posted online, give all of the known information about the publisher as possible for the source of the information. Let's say John Doe published the "Doe Family Tree" on Ancestry.com, then I will put the source as "The Doe Family Tree" and John Doe's user name "jdoe1967" as the publisher, and then list the website page where it is found. [Elizabeth Shown Mills has an excellent series of books out about documenting sources!]
Next, I will put all of the information that I have found on the individual, as well as all of the sources for that information [birth, death records, marriage records, tax rolls, will, land grants, military records, etc.]. However, I NEVER use just the information from someones posted tree.
If I can't provide proof that someone belongs in a tree, then I just won't add them to it.
I also never upload a gedcom into my working or saved tree. I just don't find it ethical. Merging all of the information from someone elses work just doesn't quite jive with me. [Also, there's the fact that so many people never source their information, or I find virtually too many mistakes to make it worthwhile.]
Yes, I'm a picky genealogist. I want my work to be totally ME. When a client purchases MY RESEARCH I want them to know that there is no other research out there exactly like mine. I give my research efforts my best and undivided attention.
I don't believe there has ever been a client yet who has not received 125% effort [or better!] on my part. I don't say that to brag, I say it because I want every client to find complete satisfaction in my work.
So, to get back to the original question: Is it ethical to use posted or printed family trees when performing research? My answer has to be both yes and no! Give credit where credit is due. And never take a posted or printed family tree to be without error. Disprove and prove before ever using the information from another tree. And if you do use the information, provide excellent documentation giving the poster or publisher all the credit for putting that individual where they belong on the tree. Lastly, add you own proof as further documentation that you have proven that individuals rightful place in the genealogy branch.
Keep the great questions coming! You can email me at:
texicanwife@hotmail.com or at our Mountain Genealogists email at:
mountaingenealogists@consultant.com
Hope you're having a great weekend!
Cyndi
Well, of course it is not ethically correct to use what someone else has researched and claim as your own. I would never do such a thing. But....
What I have done on many occasions is use that information I have found in a publicly posted or printed family tree to bridge a gap in my own research. Okay, so here I am at a point that I can't find any further research on Great-great-great-grandpa Smith. I have no idea where to go to from here. So what do I do?
I search through the millions of posted and printed family trees at our resources. If I locate him, then I will record on paper his ancestry according to that tree. [You will be surprised that 99% of family trees posted have no resources listed, they are totally unsourced]. I DO NOT add them into the working tree. This is all done in my notepaper by hand at this point.
Next, I will begin to attempt to disprove that this next generation belongs to this family. Yes, you read that right. I first attempt to DISPROVE the connection. When I find that I can disprove them, I know they don't belong here and can scratch them from my notepaper and they don't even get a second glance.
However, if I have worked on them diligently and find that I cannot disprove them, then I will attempt to PROVE their connection. This can sometimes take days or weeks, as any genealogist will tell you. Providing the proof is the ONLY way you can add someone to a working tree.
Once I have proven them into the tree, then I will give credit where credit is due. I give the person who published the tree all the credit for finding the individual and putting them in their tree. If they have the tree posted online, give all of the known information about the publisher as possible for the source of the information. Let's say John Doe published the "Doe Family Tree" on Ancestry.com, then I will put the source as "The Doe Family Tree" and John Doe's user name "jdoe1967" as the publisher, and then list the website page where it is found. [Elizabeth Shown Mills has an excellent series of books out about documenting sources!]
Next, I will put all of the information that I have found on the individual, as well as all of the sources for that information [birth, death records, marriage records, tax rolls, will, land grants, military records, etc.]. However, I NEVER use just the information from someones posted tree.
If I can't provide proof that someone belongs in a tree, then I just won't add them to it.
I also never upload a gedcom into my working or saved tree. I just don't find it ethical. Merging all of the information from someone elses work just doesn't quite jive with me. [Also, there's the fact that so many people never source their information, or I find virtually too many mistakes to make it worthwhile.]
Yes, I'm a picky genealogist. I want my work to be totally ME. When a client purchases MY RESEARCH I want them to know that there is no other research out there exactly like mine. I give my research efforts my best and undivided attention.
I don't believe there has ever been a client yet who has not received 125% effort [or better!] on my part. I don't say that to brag, I say it because I want every client to find complete satisfaction in my work.
So, to get back to the original question: Is it ethical to use posted or printed family trees when performing research? My answer has to be both yes and no! Give credit where credit is due. And never take a posted or printed family tree to be without error. Disprove and prove before ever using the information from another tree. And if you do use the information, provide excellent documentation giving the poster or publisher all the credit for putting that individual where they belong on the tree. Lastly, add you own proof as further documentation that you have proven that individuals rightful place in the genealogy branch.
Keep the great questions coming! You can email me at:
texicanwife@hotmail.com or at our Mountain Genealogists email at:
mountaingenealogists@consultant.com
Hope you're having a great weekend!
Cyndi
Friday, July 4, 2008
Happy 4th of July!
On Today's Family Tree Newsletter, Diane Haddad writes about finding the boyhood home of George Washington. She also mentions that archaeologists and historians have been unable to locate any signs of the fabled cherry tree that good ol' George was said to have chopped down as a boy. This all goes back to our blog post of a few days ago when we discussed family myths and legends versus fact.
Oh the stories can be fun, can't they? We can get ourselves all excited because great-grandpa told our grandpa that his great-grandpa served in the American Revolution with General Washington or rode with Paul Revere! Or whatever! All of our families have these stories of some long ago moment of fame.
When it comes to proving these moments however, many of us find out that there was no way any of this was possible, and it was all a family myth.
The point is, we should never allow this to discourage us! Who among us has not embellished our own "story" at some point in our lives, just to make us look the better person? If you can honestly answer that you haven't, then you didn't have the childhood most of us had! Yes, be truthful, we've all done it at some point in our lives. Do we want anyone to think any less of us for having done it? Of course not! It's the sum of who we are! And neither is the family myth or legend the sum of who your ancestor was! And remains today.
Wait a minute....did I just say who they remain today?
Yes, I did!
In each of us continues to live the hopes and dreams of our ancestors. Those who came before us. Don't believe me? Well, who among us does not wish for, and pray for, a better future for our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, etc.? We all do. And if we do, isn't possible our ancestors wished and prayed for us as well?
I have come to the realization that I know most of my ancestors better than I know most of my living relatives! I know that mine, at least, prayed over the welfare of this Nation and the generations that would follow them. And that means they prayed over me!
Me!
Kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, huh?
As we celebrate this Holiday of Independence, why not take just a moment of the day and say a little prayer for this Country. For our future generations.
It looks like rain here, so I'm not sure I'll be spending much time outside, but I am planning a picnic. Whether it's on the patio or in the kitchen! I'm leaving in just a moment to go pick up my hubby at the local truck stop. He's actually making it home for the holiday! Then we're going to cook on the grill this evening and share a big meal with my parents.
Our children are spread all over this country: Chris and his wife, Patsy, are in Meadow Bridge; David and his daughter are in Las Vegas; Debbie and her partner, Cheryl, are in Portsmouth; Mike and his son are in Beckley; and the youngest, Crissy, is in Hebron. So, while our children move in their own little circles, we continue to have our traditions here. A cookout is a MUST! [Darn, just wish I'd remembered to pick up the fireworks! Do you think there's anyone with them on sale at this late time? Hmmm........]
Kick off your shoes and enjoy this glorious day of freedom! Remember the men and women who keep us free!
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!
Oh the stories can be fun, can't they? We can get ourselves all excited because great-grandpa told our grandpa that his great-grandpa served in the American Revolution with General Washington or rode with Paul Revere! Or whatever! All of our families have these stories of some long ago moment of fame.
When it comes to proving these moments however, many of us find out that there was no way any of this was possible, and it was all a family myth.
The point is, we should never allow this to discourage us! Who among us has not embellished our own "story" at some point in our lives, just to make us look the better person? If you can honestly answer that you haven't, then you didn't have the childhood most of us had! Yes, be truthful, we've all done it at some point in our lives. Do we want anyone to think any less of us for having done it? Of course not! It's the sum of who we are! And neither is the family myth or legend the sum of who your ancestor was! And remains today.
Wait a minute....did I just say who they remain today?
Yes, I did!
In each of us continues to live the hopes and dreams of our ancestors. Those who came before us. Don't believe me? Well, who among us does not wish for, and pray for, a better future for our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, etc.? We all do. And if we do, isn't possible our ancestors wished and prayed for us as well?
I have come to the realization that I know most of my ancestors better than I know most of my living relatives! I know that mine, at least, prayed over the welfare of this Nation and the generations that would follow them. And that means they prayed over me!
Me!
Kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, huh?
As we celebrate this Holiday of Independence, why not take just a moment of the day and say a little prayer for this Country. For our future generations.
It looks like rain here, so I'm not sure I'll be spending much time outside, but I am planning a picnic. Whether it's on the patio or in the kitchen! I'm leaving in just a moment to go pick up my hubby at the local truck stop. He's actually making it home for the holiday! Then we're going to cook on the grill this evening and share a big meal with my parents.
Our children are spread all over this country: Chris and his wife, Patsy, are in Meadow Bridge; David and his daughter are in Las Vegas; Debbie and her partner, Cheryl, are in Portsmouth; Mike and his son are in Beckley; and the youngest, Crissy, is in Hebron. So, while our children move in their own little circles, we continue to have our traditions here. A cookout is a MUST! [Darn, just wish I'd remembered to pick up the fireworks! Do you think there's anyone with them on sale at this late time? Hmmm........]
Kick off your shoes and enjoy this glorious day of freedom! Remember the men and women who keep us free!
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Back Again- Ethnic Searches
I can't believe that I did not get to the blog yesterday. It was one of those days when I could not get enough done all day! Seemed I was running in quicksand and getting nowhere fast!
However, I do my best work late in the evening and into the wee hours of the morning. Most nights never hitting the bed before 1 A.M. And I love it.
Last night was no exception. I was up about midnight and researching a family in Santa Fe with obvious Hispanic ancestry. They thought they had always emigrated from Mexico about 1800. Well, they were partly right. They did come in New Mexico Territory about 1800 from Mexico. But the story did not begin there!
It seems they had only been in Mexico about 40 or 50 years. Before that, they had been in California. They were actually of Spanish descendency! Their family had helped to found a mission in middle California in the mid-1700's! The lovely part was that it was all well documented with church records! I can't wait to let them know what I have uncovered!
I get such a thrill when I uncover a large unknown part of someones ancestry. To me it is like a "high". I literally get a "rush" from it. When I think I am about to have to quit and go to bed because I am too exhausted to go further, I find a tidbit, and suddenly, I am wide awake and going full speed ahead!
I had always heard that when you performed your passion for your"job" it was no longer a "job", it was your passion! I had often wondered if it were true. And believe me, when it's something you love and are passionate about, it is no longer a JOB!
I want to share with our readers that I am in the process of applying to become a Daughter of the American Revolution [DAR]. This is an elite membership limited to those individuals who can trace their ancestry directly to a person who served in the American Revolution. In my case, my great-great-great-grandfather was a private in the Pennsylvania and North Carolina Militia's. Joseph Wiseman's daughter, Rachel, married William M. Bean. Their son, William M. Bean, Jr. was the father of my grandfather, John M. Bean. When I have finally been accepted, and there is no problem with that, as the proof is quite evident of my ancestry, then we will apply for my Dad to become a Son of the American Revolution [SAR]. It is quite the exciting process!
Don't forget to let us know what you think of our Blog.
And remember, those of you who are looking for genealogy assistance, our rates are reasonable and fair. Mention that you read our Blog and you will receive 50% off any purchase of service!
Remember that we are members of APG [Association of Professional Genealogists]. [See their logo above. ] You can visit them at: http://www.apgen.org
Remember....there is nothing so bad that a nice glass of red wine....or chocolate...can't fix!
Until next time!
CBH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
