Day 1
"Decide what you want to find."
From various webinars, discussions groups, as well as the Genealogy Do-Over, one should sit down and write out a Research Log for each individual they are researching and each fact to be checked. While I can, somewhat, understand and appreciate the organized methodology of this practice, I just can't get myself to do this for each individual and fact - at least not on paper or computer. I do it mentally as I have a individual or family records displayed on my computer screen.
I want to immediately start my research. And for now, I'm concentrating on using my World Subscription for Ancestry. This allows me to search the full extent of Ancestry's database - primarily Canada, United States and United Kingdom records.
I want all possible information on the individuals (direct and collateral) in my database.
I am currently concentrating on direct ancestors. However in doing research on that individual, information on other family member appear on the same record and are entered into the database (citing sourcing is a given).
In other words, I display the record of a family member. What do I want to find?
1) confirm birth date, place, parents (if birth suspected to be during timeframe covered by Ancestry).
2) confirm marriage (if marriage suspected to have taken place during timeframe covered by Ancesty).
3) check censuses during lifetime of individual
4) check cemetery databases (links in Genealogy Toolbox) for burial information and possibly photo of headstone
5) repeat #1-3 in FamilySearch for records not found in Ancestry
6) google individual (using and altering keywords searched)
7) search newspapers for death notices
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Beyond Week 13
The intent of participating in the popular "Genealogy Do-Over" is to retrain (or maybe train) one's research skills so that on-going research is done in a more efficient manner and properly cited. Is this working?
I started lurking the Facebook group of Genealogy Do-Over part way through Cycle 1 and was a participant of Cycle 2. I resumed lurking through Cycle 3 and now Cycle 4. Each week, I read through the assignment and make a mental evaluation of whether I have been continuing to follow the practices.
For the most part, yes, I am continuing to follow the practices layed out in the Do-Over. In the new database I created for the Do-Over, I have continued to concentrated on direct lines, one generation at a time. When dealing with censuses, siblings of ancestors are entered, but am trying to refrain from pursuing those lines - for now. Instead of colour coding these individuals green (purple for spouses and blue for direct ancestors) as I did in the old databases, I am using aqua instead of green and purple and navy for the blue. Once I feel I have dones sufficient primary research (vital stats, census and cemetery records available online), I change the colour to the appropriate colour. That way, as time goes on, I can check the People Index and search aqua coloured people, one at a time.
I continue to try to refrain from following BSOs (Bright Shiny Objects) and sticking to concentrating on one family of direct lineage at a time. However, I have been guilty of gettign distracted for several days as I enter information from Public Member Trees on Ancestry. I justify the distraction as I search in the trees when trying to fill in missing information and hope that a tree is sourced, or at least give me sufficient hints re name variations, dates, spouses, children so that I can do my own verification.
Sucesses with the Do-Over
By revisiting censuses previously researched, I have been able to resolve a question/mystery I have had for several years. The 1901 household of my maternal great-grandparents, John and Mary (nee Deadman) Schell listed 15 year old sister Maud Deadman as well as sister-in-law as well and just below her a Charles N, with a birthdate of 2 May 1900, age 11/12. No surname or relationship to Head of Household.
Due to the order of entries in the census, I had assumed that Mary's 15 year old sister Maud was living with the Schell family after having had an illegitimate child the previous year. Another possibility was that the infant was a brother of both Maud and Mary. I had been told by my mother a number of years ago that her father George had two uncles younger than him. His mother, Mary was the eldest child and her parents, George Deadman and Rebecca Gauley, were still having children after she had married and started her own family. My earlier research did find two sons for George and Rebecca born after Mary's son George. Charles N would have been a third son.
As part of my Do-Over practices, I compared the family in my old database. The only source I had for Charles N Deadman existing was that 1901 census. So I set out to prove/disprove the relationship of Charles N
I searched the Ontario Births database in the hopes that Charles N's birth record would reveal the name of the father. No record found for Charles N Deadman BUT the date matched the birth for a Charles Norman Rawn, son of Abijah Rawn and Charlotte Ann Smith. That couple have connetions to my Schell branches as well as Allen branches. In checking my entries for that family in my other databases, I discovered that there was a son Charles Norman listed with that couple in the 1911 census with a May 1900 birthdate.
Why was infant Charles Norman Rawn listed with the John Schell family in the 1901 census instead of his parents? Charles N was entered on the last line of the page. When I located the entry for the Abijah Rawn household, I discovered that they were also the last family on the page - with no empty lines at the bottom. In other words, no room for the enumerator to add the youngest member of the family and instead of starting a new sheet to record the infant, the enumerator must have flipped back a few pages and found a blank line to use. But neglected to enter a surname for Charles N.
If I had not taken the time to re-do and re-evaluate my research, I would have continued listing Charles N Deadman as either an illegitimate son of Maud or a third sibling of Mary younger than Mary's son George. Now I can proceed with Charles Norman Rawn being the son of Abijah Rawn and an explanation why the infant was not listed with his parents in the 1901 census.
Future
The 13 week Genealogy Do-Over cycles will be altered in 2016. The exercise will take the entire year with a new assignment each month. Participants found that it was difficult to keep up with the weekly assignments and needed more time for each assignment.
Will I participate? It will depend on how it is presented. If done in a format similar to the 13 week model with each new assignment being emailed and posted on Facebook, more than likely I will participate. And definitely lurk if I don't actually participate. But if it offered as a course, than probably not as I won't want to spend the money. I will continue doing what I've been since I started the Do-Over several months ago.
31 Days to Better Genealogy
With a similar purpose as Thomas McIntee's 13 week Genealogy Do-Over, another professional researcher, Amy Johnson Crow, has developed a programme that involves an email being sent to participants each day with a tip on how to improve one's genealogy research.
Just as the 13 week timeframe was not rigid, I'm sure the 31 day programme will have the flexibility. Assigments may be emailed as per the programme's schedule, but that does not mean that participants have to adhere to a deadline.
It will be interesting to see how many of the daily tips I am already doing. Or at least doing to some extent and can tweek to improve my research skills.
I started lurking the Facebook group of Genealogy Do-Over part way through Cycle 1 and was a participant of Cycle 2. I resumed lurking through Cycle 3 and now Cycle 4. Each week, I read through the assignment and make a mental evaluation of whether I have been continuing to follow the practices.
For the most part, yes, I am continuing to follow the practices layed out in the Do-Over. In the new database I created for the Do-Over, I have continued to concentrated on direct lines, one generation at a time. When dealing with censuses, siblings of ancestors are entered, but am trying to refrain from pursuing those lines - for now. Instead of colour coding these individuals green (purple for spouses and blue for direct ancestors) as I did in the old databases, I am using aqua instead of green and purple and navy for the blue. Once I feel I have dones sufficient primary research (vital stats, census and cemetery records available online), I change the colour to the appropriate colour. That way, as time goes on, I can check the People Index and search aqua coloured people, one at a time.
I continue to try to refrain from following BSOs (Bright Shiny Objects) and sticking to concentrating on one family of direct lineage at a time. However, I have been guilty of gettign distracted for several days as I enter information from Public Member Trees on Ancestry. I justify the distraction as I search in the trees when trying to fill in missing information and hope that a tree is sourced, or at least give me sufficient hints re name variations, dates, spouses, children so that I can do my own verification.
Sucesses with the Do-Over
By revisiting censuses previously researched, I have been able to resolve a question/mystery I have had for several years. The 1901 household of my maternal great-grandparents, John and Mary (nee Deadman) Schell listed 15 year old sister Maud Deadman as well as sister-in-law as well and just below her a Charles N, with a birthdate of 2 May 1900, age 11/12. No surname or relationship to Head of Household.
Due to the order of entries in the census, I had assumed that Mary's 15 year old sister Maud was living with the Schell family after having had an illegitimate child the previous year. Another possibility was that the infant was a brother of both Maud and Mary. I had been told by my mother a number of years ago that her father George had two uncles younger than him. His mother, Mary was the eldest child and her parents, George Deadman and Rebecca Gauley, were still having children after she had married and started her own family. My earlier research did find two sons for George and Rebecca born after Mary's son George. Charles N would have been a third son.
As part of my Do-Over practices, I compared the family in my old database. The only source I had for Charles N Deadman existing was that 1901 census. So I set out to prove/disprove the relationship of Charles N
I searched the Ontario Births database in the hopes that Charles N's birth record would reveal the name of the father. No record found for Charles N Deadman BUT the date matched the birth for a Charles Norman Rawn, son of Abijah Rawn and Charlotte Ann Smith. That couple have connetions to my Schell branches as well as Allen branches. In checking my entries for that family in my other databases, I discovered that there was a son Charles Norman listed with that couple in the 1911 census with a May 1900 birthdate.
Why was infant Charles Norman Rawn listed with the John Schell family in the 1901 census instead of his parents? Charles N was entered on the last line of the page. When I located the entry for the Abijah Rawn household, I discovered that they were also the last family on the page - with no empty lines at the bottom. In other words, no room for the enumerator to add the youngest member of the family and instead of starting a new sheet to record the infant, the enumerator must have flipped back a few pages and found a blank line to use. But neglected to enter a surname for Charles N.
If I had not taken the time to re-do and re-evaluate my research, I would have continued listing Charles N Deadman as either an illegitimate son of Maud or a third sibling of Mary younger than Mary's son George. Now I can proceed with Charles Norman Rawn being the son of Abijah Rawn and an explanation why the infant was not listed with his parents in the 1901 census.
Future
The 13 week Genealogy Do-Over cycles will be altered in 2016. The exercise will take the entire year with a new assignment each month. Participants found that it was difficult to keep up with the weekly assignments and needed more time for each assignment.
Will I participate? It will depend on how it is presented. If done in a format similar to the 13 week model with each new assignment being emailed and posted on Facebook, more than likely I will participate. And definitely lurk if I don't actually participate. But if it offered as a course, than probably not as I won't want to spend the money. I will continue doing what I've been since I started the Do-Over several months ago.
31 Days to Better Genealogy
With a similar purpose as Thomas McIntee's 13 week Genealogy Do-Over, another professional researcher, Amy Johnson Crow, has developed a programme that involves an email being sent to participants each day with a tip on how to improve one's genealogy research.
Just as the 13 week timeframe was not rigid, I'm sure the 31 day programme will have the flexibility. Assigments may be emailed as per the programme's schedule, but that does not mean that participants have to adhere to a deadline.
It will be interesting to see how many of the daily tips I am already doing. Or at least doing to some extent and can tweek to improve my research skills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)