FamilySearch is Looking Better

I haven't had a lot luck finding my relatives on Ancestry.com. My six month trial is about up and I'm debating on whether to go another six months. I particularly hate searching for "John C. Brown, born 1830 Illinois, married 1850 Illinois, died 1890 Illinois," and being presented with choices of people who lived and died in other states and other countries, World War I draft registrations, 1940 census results and so on.

Today I searched from my genealogy program (Legacy) to FamilySearch.org. I was not expecting much. However, they seem to have improved their search. The results were a lot more relevant than those I've gotten from Ancestry. I found some census images (specifically 1850) which were sharper than those I had saved from Ancestry. I don't know how widespread the better images are but I plan to check.

Fortunately FamilySearch is able to use logic in the searches. Volunteers transcribe documents and those transcriptions show up in the search. The volunteers are working with old images and rotten handwriting in some cases. Some of the transcriptions are quite accurate. Some of the transcriptions are hysterical, so obviously incorrect it is pathetic. It reminds me of some of the 1940 census arbitrators' "wisdom." But FamilySearch finds that and that's what counts.

Genealogist vs. Family Historian

There is an ongoing discussion about genealogy and family history.

Family Historian seems to be a title for those who collect all sorts of things that a family member once touched or might have touched or probably would have touched had it been placed in their hand. In other cases it is the process of collecting family stories.

Everyone, I hope, had one or two or three cherished items from ancestors. But 300?

People collect family stories to preserve them. It turns out that collecting family stories is also perceived as a way to draw young people into genealogy.

There are plenty of family stories. But, and here’s the rub, how many of your family stories are true? Three brothers came to America… My ancestress was an Indian Princess… You get the idea.

Genealogists deal in facts. Ok, not a lot of those whose family trees bloat Ancestry.com, but serious genealogists are into facts and proof. They want evidence. Heck, they want you to prove you were born and didn’t just appear full grown. (Superman is in big trouble.)

Isn’t being a “Family Historian” contradictory to being a “Genealogist”? What do you think?

Ancestry Family Trees

I have now been introduced to Ancestry family trees. They are extremely creative. I am pretty sure it is inappropriate to use "genealogy" and "Ancestry family trees" in the same sentence.

I am amused by all the "hints" which lead to other family trees. Those trees have misinformation, creative information and no sources. They obviously copy from one another because the same errors are repeated over and over again.

I am not so amused to find they have stolen and used as their own my personal family pictures. In a couple lines the number of descendants is extremely limited. I don't know the authors of those trees. They are clearly not descendants of the people in the photos. There is no way they would be the owners of the photos. Some still have my date stamp or other identifying marks on them. They have been stolen from places such as these blog posts, my web sites, ILGenWeb and FindAGrave.

I think the thing that upsets me most is having my family photos attached to the junk family trees.

Someone suggested I complain to Ancestry. Have you seen the process? Do you really think Ancestry cares?

Is this the price we pay for sharing information?

FindMyPast

When I first saw FindMyPast I was particularly struck by the maps which show you the person's location on that census. I could see many uses for that. And the census maps in FindMyPast would be useful -- IF they were dependably accurate. But they aren't. And there are too many I know aren't to trust those I don't know.

Robert Downing arrived in Illinois and settled along Salt Creek in the center of the state in 1821. I know what land he bought and where it is. It hasn't moved since.

In the 1830 Census for SANGAMON County, Illinois, I found Robert Downing. There he is on a page with the folks that were his neighbors at the time, many of whom, or their descendants, would continue as his neighbors the rest of his life. With the transcription is the map of his location. He is found somewhere north of the Decatur airport. Decatur is in Macon County, Illinois.

From the 1840 census for Mt. Pulaski Precinct, LOGAN County, Illinois, I find Robert Downing. He didn't move. In 1839 Logan was created from Sangamon. The transcript is correct. I know it is the right person, right neighbors, etc. Yet according to the map he is now northeast of Paris in EDGAR County, Illinois, just west of the Illinois-Indiana border. In 1850 he is in the same location in Edgar County. When I began to look for the 1860 census for him FindMyPast crashed.

In 1870 Robert is still farming but he is doing so from a house in the town of Mt. Pulaski according to the map. The census sheet show his neighbors, all those farmers. Amazing that they all moved to town together isn't it? In 1880 Robert, now a man of 86, retired farmer, living with his wife, son, daughter in law and grandchildren, is again located in the town of Mt. Pulaski according to the map. Unfortunately the actual census page shows his neighbors to be people living on farms. At this point it crashed again. It seems to do that a lot.

FindMyPast also has the Social Security Death Index. The searches I did returned what I expected. You can get the SSDI free at FamilySearch.org though.

Birth Certificates

Birth certificates have gone big time. Everyone wants to see your birth certificate. Like genealogists they see them as accurate proof of birth.

I am looking at a certificate of birth issued by the State of Illinois. Dwight H. Green was Governor. I know, just as trivia, he was the governor before Adlai Stevenson so that gives me a date range and sure enough, it was issued in 1947. 

It was created at the county level. I personally knew every person who is named at that level and am familiar with their signatures. I know therefore that it is a transcript of the actual certificate and the signatures are not real. While I would think that would be obvious just looking at it you just never know who has questions.

The birth, however, took place in the prior century. Nowhere on the document does it say "delayed" or other term that would indicate same.

The father's birthplace, city, is not listed and the state is wrong. The mother's birthplace, city, is not listed. The person giving the information states: "I HEREBY CERTIFY that I had actual knowledge of the facts as stated in this RECORD OF BIRTH at the time the birth occurred, and know them to be be true; and that I am related to this person as mother and that I am at least one year older."

The "I am at least one year older" always amuses me. One year olds have "actual knowledge of the facts...at the time the birth occurred..." Really?

So we have the person and her mother and then the Notary Public who attests to all this. The Notary is the signer's youngest son. 

The informant, who is the mother, doesn't know exactly where she was born and she is wrong about even the state of her husband's birth. All of the persons who signed off at the county level are members of the same family. No other person signed off on it at the county level. It went to the state and was duly issued. 

Why do we think birth certificates are reliable sources?

Death Certificates

It's good genealogical practice to collect as much documentation as you can and certainly of critical facts. Birth and death are some of those critical facts. So we dutifully go to the courthouse or write or call and we spend a lot of money on vital records. We get them home, scan them into our computers and then what? Buy a bigger file drawer to store paper? Why are we doing this? The courthouses do not need our business.

Let's look at death certificates. The more first hand experience dealing with death and the resulting death certificates I have the more inaccuracies I notice.

First, a death certificate is not a primary source. It is rarely if ever signed by a person who witnessed the death but rather the doctor of record for the person or the facility. S/he may not have seen the person in some time. Someone with some authority told them the person was dead and they signed off on it.  Hmm. I see a mystery plot here.

The person who provided the background information on the person may have no clue. They don't have to be related or present at the death or even have seen the person lately. If you haven't noticed this before look at some of those in your collection.

Ok, the death date. Has to right, right? Ever talk to a witness to the death of someone who died in hospice at night? It might be the next day before the official arrives to officially declare them dead. Same thing happens in facilities. What about a person who dies unattended and that fact is not known for awhile, maybe days?

The death certificate probably is accurate as to the name of the funeral director. Very rarely, old funeral home records are located and, even more rarely, are made available to the public. Somehow I don't think knowing that is the reason we are collecting the death certificates.

The Genealogy Police

There is a lot of jabber in the blogs now about fantasy genealogy. I agree there is a lot of it out there. As I have written before, my line back to Adam can be found online, free even. The fantasy genealogy needs to stop. I agree with that too.

But the alternative seems to be The Genealogy Police.

The Genealogy Police challenge every little factoid. "It says here your mother stubbed her toe in 1943? Do you have three pieces of documentation, in duplicate and properly cited, for that?"

Is the idea to drive everyone but the select few out of genealogy, make it an elite specialty field? It seems like that at times.

If that is not the motive - and I certainly hope it isn't - then the police need to rethink their methods. If they drive people out of genealogy there will be no market for the field and the specialty product niche they are trying to create. Ooops.