Indexing

I guess I had just never looked carefull at the sites before but this weekend I discovered that you can volunteer and do indexing of records for both Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.com.  Maybe it's just the geek (and librarian?) in me that finds this so exciting!  And there's a small part of me, the one that's been looking at indexed documents to build my source files on my family tree and thinking "How on earth could someone have transcribed that information so poorly?", that is sure I can do better.  At any rate, I'm at least willing to give it a try.

I looked at all the projects FamilySearch had going, paying particular attention to what might be available for Iowa.  I was thrilled to note that the available projects included the 1940 US Federal Census for the state.  I downloaded the necessary software, all set to spend some of my Sunday indexing. Unfortunately, when I tried to install the downloaded  indexing software from FamilySearch, I couldn't get the installer to work.  Every time I tried to run it, it would go so far and then give me a white square with a red x in it and my only option was to click OK.  I fired off an email to them for assistance and then went over to Ancestry.com to see if they also used volunteers for indexing.

Sure enough, when I looked more closely under the Collaborate tab, I found out that they do.  I downloaded the necessary software (not a hitch with the downloading or installation of this one), read some help files, and then went to select a project to download a batch of files from.  Ancestry.com doesn't have as many open projects going as Family Search seems to (and none of the available were related to Iowa), so I picked United States, Spanish American War Volunteers, 1899-1927 and downloaded my first batch of records to transcribe.  This project is actually extremely easy, consisting of transcribing (or "keying" as they call it), the rank (and any other prefixes), first and surname, company, and regiment (might have those terms a little off since I don't have it available here on this computer), the state, and any aliases (mostly just variations in given or surname) for the individual.  Each record only contains one individual and a batch contains 10 records, so it moves very quickly.

I admit that I felt a thrill when I submitted my first batch of keyed records.  Who knows, maybe someday I'll find out that one of my relatives served in this war by searching the dataset once it's completely indexed.  I love the idea that I'm helping make valuable resources, the things that let us investigate and build the stories of the lives of our ancestors.  Again, I'm not sure if that's just my inner geek peeking through or the my inner (and outer) librarian rejoicing in the advancement of research resources!

After I'd done a few sets from the Spanish American war project, I decided I'd be daring and selected the "Select a project for me" link and let Ancestry determine what project I'd get a batch of records from.  The next thing I knew, I had a batch of records from the Kansas City and County Census, 1919 - 1978 before me.  Looking at these images, I immediately took back every negative thing I'd ever thought about someone transcribing census data and getting it wrong.  Because these records were *much* more difficult to read than the Spanish American war records had been.  Mostly due to the quality of the scanned images.  Luckily, the software allows you to do some manipulation of brightness and contrast, which helped in that regard.  Handwriting is another issue altogether!

I had already been known to comment that they should have made anyone who was going to do census enumeration take (and pass!) a handwriting exam.  Working with this batch of records did not change my opinion on that one whit!  Still, I reviewed the available information on reading handwriting and ventured forth.  As opposed to my Spanish American war records, each record in this set contained up to 20 lines with names and information to key in.  I hung in there and before I knew it, I'd completed all ten of my records for the township of Langdon, county of Reno, state of Kansas, from the 1 of March, 1948 (which I totally couldn't make out the ending year on the date and only discovered after I'd submitted my records that I'd dated them all wrong by using 1945 as the date).  Which is one reason why every record set is keyed by two different people and then goes through the arbitration process.

This morning, I was thrilled to discover that I had an email addressing the issue I had with the FamilySearch installation.  I followed the included instructions (essentially, I just needed to run the installer as administrator) and the installation went off without a hitch.  I then watched the introductory video that was available and read the indexing guidelines.  I have downloaded my first set of records (for the 1940 US Federal Census for Iowa) but had to leave for work before I'd had a chance to do more than transcribe the first line of the record.

So now I will be balancing my own researching with providing volunteer indexing at the above two sites.  I admit, I'm looking forward to having my records go through arbitration so I can see how accurate I am and where I need to improve! 

Reorganization

The other day I decided that my tree was getting very unwieldy as it continued to grow. So I made a decision to create a series of trees, each focusing on a different "branch" of the family, beginning each with a grandparent. Since I had no idea what I was doing when I started (and really, pretty much still don't'), I'm pretty much trying to start over and document everything. No more assuming that what I find on other people's trees at Ancestry.com has been researched and is accurate.

Doing this has led to a greater knowledge and appreciation of some of my great and great-great aunts and uncles. Yesterday I learned that my second great grand uncle (that is the relationship to me that Ancestry gives him. I would call him my great great uncle) was bludgeoned to death with a crowbar in 1949. Before I started this research, I had no idea that this man even existed, let alone that he'd been brutally murdered in his home when he was 75. As far as I've been able to find, the case was never solved. It was attributed to a robbery and although they once had two men in custody for it (including a "relative of the victim"), they were released when lie dectector tests cleared them.

Maybe I watch too many crime shows on tv because what really intrigued me when I was looking for newspaper stories was that fact that a "close friend" and neighbor of his was fished out of a river the day after great-great uncle Oscar was murdered. Part of me can't help wondering if the two are somehow related. Was the drowning also a result of foul play? Did the neighbor somehow see or witness something he shouldn't have? Was he somehow complicit in the attack on Oscar and couldn't live with himself afterwards? And the part that lives in 2012 and is well aware of the violence that can be perpetrated on people with alternative lifestyles even today wonders if Oscar, who never married, was perhaps gay.

Was the "close friend" perhaps a lover? He was missing from the time Oscar was beaten until his body was pulled from the river the day after Oscar died (three days after the attack). By all accounts, Oscar was fairly reclusive, retired to bed early and padlocked his door. The sheriff did not believe he would have opened the door for someone he didn't know. More disturbing, in my mind, is the fact that he was found wearing only a shirt and socks. What happened to the rest of his clothes? If this were TV, somehow I could have the case reopened by the cold case squad and they would have it solved by the end of the hour. I guess I just wonder about the absolute brutality that seems to be involved if it was nothing more than a simple robbery. But then, I guess you never know what might go awry in even the simplest of plans by thieves.

In any case, Uncle Oscar, I hope you had some enjoyment in your life before it was so brutally ended. If you were gay, I'm sorry you lived in a time where such things were kept hidden and deemed an embarassment. Everyone deserves love in their life, no matter where it comes from. So if you weren't gay, I hope you experienced love at some point.

What's In a Name?

In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet proclaims ""What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." While that might be true, names can complicate research when you're trying to track down family members in various official sources. I've come to find out that the names we know people by are not necessarily the names we're going to find them under.

Take my great-grandparents on my mother's side, for instance. John Jay and Jennie Maude are, evidently, the names they were given at birth. However, in records they are inevitably found as Jay and Maude. (In an aside, I spent years trying to figure out why someone named Jennie would go by Maude if given a choice. I'm now willing to bet it's because her mother was named Jennie and it was to avoid confusion.) My own grandfather, John Raymond, never went by anything other than Raymond. This name confusion can make people difficult to track down.

The issue becomes even more confusing if you find the same person listed in different years under different names. Trying to track down the above mentioned John Jay's brother, I have no idea if his name was actually Lewis Frederick or Frederick Lewis. I've found him as Lewis F, Fred L, and Frederick L. Once the person gets married or moves out of the family home, I've yet to determine how you're supposed to be certain you've found the right one.

So while a rose might smell as sweet no matter what you call it, if you're looking for Romeo in your family tree, it helps to know that he's a Montague. And that his parents sometimes called him Fred.

Women

Right now, I am continually frustrated by the women in my family. It just feels like I keep hitting dead end after dead end where they are concerned. I think I need to do more research on how to do this type of research. At least I know enough to know what I don't know. And I'm sure there must be tricks to tracking down women.

In other news, April 2 grows ever closer. Whoever would have thought that I'd be so excited about the release of a new set of census data? Whoever would have thought that I'd even be aware of such? This is the first set of census data that I know I should find my parents in. I can't quite figure out why I find this so exciting. I mean, it's not like I don't know my parents or where they were. Maybe it's just the official documentation. I don't know. All I know is that I can't wait to get my hands on this new set of data!

Why do I Find This Exciting?

My great-grandmother continues to elude me in 1925. As do her children. I'm finding it very vexing because I can't figure out why I can't find her. My best guess is that the census transcription for the page that they're on in the 1925 Iowa census is typically mangled almost beyond recognition. What does it say about me that I refuse to give up? I mean, I *know* they're there. There is nowhere else that they would be.

So my current approach is to go through the census pages, starting with the counties and townships I know that they lived in either before or after, on the page that lists the person's father's name and where he was born, and looking for my great-grandfather. I find that I am actually quite enjoying this and it's enabled me to trace some of my great-grandmother's siblings.

So, yes, my family tree includes all kinds of documentation for offshoots and people who are not related to me whatsoever except by marriage. But sometimes I find out interesting information that way. And I like it. Maybe it's just that it appeals to the innate researcher in me. I don't know. But I love discovering little tidbits and finding one more piece of evidence that this person was *real*. And the fact that my great-grandmother's family is on the same census page as my great-grandfather's family, as are my great-grandparents themselves (who were newly married), in 1905? That, my friends? Is priceless.

The Things You Don't Know Can Trip You Up

I have spent the past week scrolling through census pages, trying - unsuccessfully - to find my great-grandmother. Because once my great-grandfather died, in 1923, I couldn't find anything until she died. It was driving me nuts. I *knew* she had to be there. I mean, where would she have gone?

Today, I found the answer. It turns out that she got married again. Mind you, she went back to Palmer, evidently, after her second husband died because that is the name on the Social Security Death Index and the name on her tombstone. So you can forgive me for being confused and thinking that I had not found the right Lena.

To further complicate matters, her daughter, my Auntie Helen, married her second husband's oldest son. So I was confused when I saw my great-aunt, under her married name, but listed as stepdaughter to the head of the house. Again, I thought it was just a coincidence. But when you combine the "coincidence" of the wife of the head being Lena P and there also being stepchildren with the names of my great-aunt and two great-uncles (my grandfather had gotten married two years earlier), the lightbulb finally went on over my head and I realized that I had, in fact, found those missing Palmers. And that the reason I couldn't find them previously was because they were on the 1930 census as Williamsons.

I have likewise been unable to find them in the 1925 Iowa census. So now I will go back and look for them under Williamson and see if, perhaps, they are there after all.

Is it a Root or a Branch?

Have you ever noticed that when you look at a picture of a family tree, the main person (you) tends to be the center, or trunk, of the tree and then various family members branch off from them.  So while we (that's the generic we, not the Royal We) tend to talk about our family's roots, family is not usually depicted that way visually.  So does it really matter if we talk about branches or roots?

Technically, I guess, our roots would be our ancestors - those who contributed a little bit of this and a little bit of that into our gene pool, ultimately making us the tree person we are today - while our branches would be those who "sprout" from us, such as our children, who will become their own trees people, in turn.  In reality, though, it's much easier to talk about this branch of the family tree or that branch, rather than this root or that root.  So there you have it.  I'm searching for branches.