Some helpful tricks from fellow genealogists...
Being Prepared When Visiting a Library or Archives
When I first started into genealogy and visited the libraries and archives I would have only one surname to research. If I was unable to find anything on that particular name or person my research came to a complete halt. I would sit there and look at the ceiling and wondered what I was going to do next. The rest of my research day was a complete failure. So I soon learned to be more prepared when visiting a Library. The next time I made a list of Items I wanted to research. If I didn’t get to all them that was ok, there would be other days. But at least I didn’t waste a valuable research day. A few items I take with me now are a magnifying glass and a clipboard with plain paper for notes. Some people take a laptop which is great. Libraries will not let you take brief cases or book bags or pocket books inside. They usually have lockers located outside the library room for these items. I take a pair of small pair of scissors to trim back the microfilm. In some cases the film is so wrinkled at the end and becomes difficult to thread through the reader. Always take pencils with you , libraries frown on ink Pens. Take some small change for copies of documents. Most libraries now have these card machines that you buy and can use to pay for copies. I wear bifocals and this is very difficult for me when using the Micro film readers, so now I take along my regular glasses without the Bifocal lenses. If a library or archives opens at 10 am, I make it a point to be there when the doors open. I find if you come later it is difficult to get a reader and a parking place. This
is especially true at the Archives in Annapolis.
Harry Robertson
**********************************************************************************************************
I recently started looking up pall bearers in two obituaries in the hopes of finding the husband of an elusive female. It worked! I wrote about this experience in my blog: http://alexandermckee.blogspot.com/2011/08/digging-for-esthers-husband.html. I'm now looking at all of the obits I have to see if they include lists of pall bears, and if I can mine them for any additional leads.
I routinely look for birth announcements and wedding announcements. The details sometimes give you additional leads. For example, in a wedding announcement, I found the mother of the groom's second marriage surname, which jump started my collection of more children from her second marriage and her second husband too.
When I go to a new news site, I make a point of reading the advanced search instructions. They can differ from site to site. Taking the time to do so causes me to use the site more effectively and limits search spam.
I use Google maps to look for the nearest large city. Large city newspapers frequently provide specialized issues for surrounding areas. At the very least, they frequently include funeral-related info if not a full obituary.
In rural areas, I look for county publications because no other newspaper may cover the area. Lots of rural counties have weekly county based newspapers.
For smaller newspapers, particularly in rural areas (think the dead zone in extreme south east Missouri), I've had luck with emailing directly to the newspaper to see if they would look up an obit for me. Different newspapers have sent me scanned obits for free.
I also routinely use Google maps to look for nearby communities that have libraries. If you visit the library site, there's usually a info email address or a services email address where you can ask if the library offers an obituary lookup service. Lots of them do but they don't advertise it. You can read about one of these experinces in my blog at http://alexandermckee.blogspot.com/2011/03/librarian-terri-in-clovis-new-mexico.html.
I also routinely search for everybody's name. I actually was able to establish an approximate date of death for someone based on an article about his son who was a senior in highschool. Knowing an approximate date of death meant I could ask for a librarian's help. She thought the whole request was so facinating that she stopped to look up the obit for me. You can read about this experience athttp://alexandermckee.blogspot.com/2011/08/john-james-anderson-1873-1925-ashton.html.
I think the upshot is that you have to think of ways to use the info you have and can find creatively to get at the obituary you need.
When chasing obits, I've had tremendous luck with Random Acts of Genealogical Kindness (www.raogk.org). If I abide by the terms set forth by the volunteer, I almost always receive the obituary. Occasionally, my request is ignored. Occasionally, I've been asked to cover expenses (usually less than $2.00). However, on the whole, I've had great luck and corresponded with some awfully nice people.
I would reiterate that you simply may not find an obituary in a newspaper, particularly if the paper considered the same a classified advertisement (when obituaries began to appear in a specific location in the newspaper rather than randomly, they were typically in the classifieds), thus charged the family for the same. That would be especially true for papers specifically catering to the black community. Indeed, I have NEVER found an obituary for a black person in a black newspaper that did not also appear in the "white" paper.
However, in the past many newspapers had community news columns (and some, especially smaller community newspapers that are not published daily, still do) where you can find mention of who is sick and not expected to live, those from out of town who came to attend a funeral, etc. I would also check the "crime" log if the death was in any way violent.
You may be able to find such things using the search utility for the site, but be prepared to READ through the paper, and when doing so, note the frequency with which a "Local News" feature for a specific community appeared as they may not have appeared in every issue
When I first started into genealogy and visited the libraries and archives I would have only one surname to research. If I was unable to find anything on that particular name or person my research came to a complete halt. I would sit there and look at the ceiling and wondered what I was going to do next. The rest of my research day was a complete failure. So I soon learned to be more prepared when visiting a Library. The next time I made a list of Items I wanted to research. If I didn’t get to all them that was ok, there would be other days. But at least I didn’t waste a valuable research day. A few items I take with me now are a magnifying glass and a clipboard with plain paper for notes. Some people take a laptop which is great. Libraries will not let you take brief cases or book bags or pocket books inside. They usually have lockers located outside the library room for these items. I take a pair of small pair of scissors to trim back the microfilm. In some cases the film is so wrinkled at the end and becomes difficult to thread through the reader. Always take pencils with you , libraries frown on ink Pens. Take some small change for copies of documents. Most libraries now have these card machines that you buy and can use to pay for copies. I wear bifocals and this is very difficult for me when using the Micro film readers, so now I take along my regular glasses without the Bifocal lenses. If a library or archives opens at 10 am, I make it a point to be there when the doors open. I find if you come later it is difficult to get a reader and a parking place. This
is especially true at the Archives in Annapolis.
Harry Robertson
**********************************************************************************************************
I recently started looking up pall bearers in two obituaries in the hopes of finding the husband of an elusive female. It worked! I wrote about this experience in my blog: http://alexandermckee.blogspot.com/2011/08/digging-for-esthers-husband.html. I'm now looking at all of the obits I have to see if they include lists of pall bears, and if I can mine them for any additional leads.
I routinely look for birth announcements and wedding announcements. The details sometimes give you additional leads. For example, in a wedding announcement, I found the mother of the groom's second marriage surname, which jump started my collection of more children from her second marriage and her second husband too.
When I go to a new news site, I make a point of reading the advanced search instructions. They can differ from site to site. Taking the time to do so causes me to use the site more effectively and limits search spam.
I use Google maps to look for the nearest large city. Large city newspapers frequently provide specialized issues for surrounding areas. At the very least, they frequently include funeral-related info if not a full obituary.
In rural areas, I look for county publications because no other newspaper may cover the area. Lots of rural counties have weekly county based newspapers.
For smaller newspapers, particularly in rural areas (think the dead zone in extreme south east Missouri), I've had luck with emailing directly to the newspaper to see if they would look up an obit for me. Different newspapers have sent me scanned obits for free.
I also routinely use Google maps to look for nearby communities that have libraries. If you visit the library site, there's usually a info email address or a services email address where you can ask if the library offers an obituary lookup service. Lots of them do but they don't advertise it. You can read about one of these experinces in my blog at http://alexandermckee.blogspot.com/2011/03/librarian-terri-in-clovis-new-mexico.html.
I also routinely search for everybody's name. I actually was able to establish an approximate date of death for someone based on an article about his son who was a senior in highschool. Knowing an approximate date of death meant I could ask for a librarian's help. She thought the whole request was so facinating that she stopped to look up the obit for me. You can read about this experience athttp://alexandermckee.blogspot.com/2011/08/john-james-anderson-1873-1925-ashton.html.
I think the upshot is that you have to think of ways to use the info you have and can find creatively to get at the obituary you need.
When chasing obits, I've had tremendous luck with Random Acts of Genealogical Kindness (www.raogk.org). If I abide by the terms set forth by the volunteer, I almost always receive the obituary. Occasionally, my request is ignored. Occasionally, I've been asked to cover expenses (usually less than $2.00). However, on the whole, I've had great luck and corresponded with some awfully nice people.
I would reiterate that you simply may not find an obituary in a newspaper, particularly if the paper considered the same a classified advertisement (when obituaries began to appear in a specific location in the newspaper rather than randomly, they were typically in the classifieds), thus charged the family for the same. That would be especially true for papers specifically catering to the black community. Indeed, I have NEVER found an obituary for a black person in a black newspaper that did not also appear in the "white" paper.
However, in the past many newspapers had community news columns (and some, especially smaller community newspapers that are not published daily, still do) where you can find mention of who is sick and not expected to live, those from out of town who came to attend a funeral, etc. I would also check the "crime" log if the death was in any way violent.
You may be able to find such things using the search utility for the site, but be prepared to READ through the paper, and when doing so, note the frequency with which a "Local News" feature for a specific community appeared as they may not have appeared in every issue
And MORE...
The 5 Most Misused Words and Phrases in GenealogyPosted August 19, 2011 by Michael Hait, CG(sm) in Genealogical Proof Standard, Professional Genealogy, Research Skills, Research Standards. 31 Comments
Over the past quarter century, the field of genealogy has developed its own vocabulary to describe the evolving standards. Unfortunately, some of these terms are used in other fields with slightly different meanings. Here, in no particular order, are the top five most misused words and phrases in modern genealogy.
1. “Research”:
Especially to beginning genealogists, the term “research” is equivalent to “looking for records.” The more experience one gains, the more one becomes aware of how little of the research process is actually involved in physically looking for records. Far more research is conducted after a document has been located. Research also includes
2. “Primary” and “Secondary”:
You will often hear researchers in other fields refer to primary and secondary documents or records. In genealogy, we differentiate betweenoriginal records and derivative records. These terms generally correspond with what other fields call primary (original) and secondary (derivative). Since many of us learned these terms in these other fields (or even in genealogy years ago, before the current definitions evolved), it is common to hear genealogists refer to “primary” and “secondary” records.
In current usage, reliable eyewitness testimony is considered primary, while information provided by someone who was not a witness or participant is considered secondary. Experienced genealogists, who always strive to review the original record rather than a derivative source, understand that any single record can contain information of different natures. A death certificate might provide both birth and death information, for example. In most cases, while the information about the death may be primary, the birth information is secondary. This is why we discuss primary and secondary information, as opposed to primary and secondary documents.
3. “Evidence”:
The term “evidence” refers to how we apply information to our research problem. There are two kinds of evidence, as defined in modern genealogy: direct and indirect.
Direct evidence refers to information that directly answers our research question. For example, if our research question asks, “when was John born?,” then a record containing the information, explicitly stated, that John was born on 4 July 1826, would be considered as containing direct evidence.
Indirect evidence refers to information that is relevant to our question but does not directly answer it. For example, using the same question about John’s birth, we examine a series of annual tax lists. John does not appear on any tax list until 1847. We then review the tax laws of that time period, and discover that men were required to pay taxes beginning at the age of 21. The tax records do not explicitly state John’s date of birth, but we can infer that he was at least 21 years of age at this time. This appearance on the tax lists therefore constitutes indirect evidence of his date of birth.
The term “evidence” is not synonymous with either the terms “information” or “proof,” but this is how it is most often used by many genealogists. Information is held by records. Evidence is how we apply this information to our research problem. And proof is …
4. “Proof”:
We often hear from other genealogists that a certain record proves a certain fact. This is a common misunderstanding of the concept of “proof.” No record contains proof. Records contain information.
As genealogists, we identify, evaluate, and correlate the information in these records, through which process we discern each piece of information’s individual value as evidence. Eventually, we hope to reach a soundly reasoned conclusion. ”Proof” refers to the documented summary of the evidence that leads to our conclusion.
The Genealogical Proof Standard, itself an often-misunderstood concept, is the measure by which we judge our proof arguments. In its most common phrasing, the Standard contains five parts: conduct a reasonably exhaustive (or extensive) search for all relevant records, completely and accurately cite all sources used, correlate and evaluate all evidence, reconcile all contradictory evidence, and form a soundly reasoned, written conclusion. The extent to which each of these parts is demonstrated and documented in the written proof argument helps to determine the probable reliability of the conclusions.
Because it is most often phrased as five “parts,” many researchers begin to think of the Genealogical Proof Standard as a five-step process: first we do a search, then cite, then correlate, etc. On the contrary, in the course of our research, these “steps” are rarely completed in order. While searching for relevant records, we must cite and evaluate each individual record as we find it. Certainly, one begins by searching for relevant records and ends with the written conclusion, but the rest of the Standard is an ongoing process. How we define relevant itself evolves with each new record located.
As we begin to form conclusions, we should honestly assess our research against the Genealogical Proof Standard to determine whether or not our conclusion is warranted by our research.
5. “Report”:
This is a dangerously misused and misunderstood term for aspiring professional genealogists. Unfortunately, the misunderstanding stems most often from genealogical software programs, which are using the same term in a different context.
When one inputs one’s information and conclusions in a genealogy database program, it is common (and recommended) practice to periodically print out this information. In all database software, the output of data into a readable format based on specific parameters is called a report. Genealogy software most often includes the ability to print this data out into a rudimentary compiled genealogy in either NGSQ orRegister formats, or compiled pedigree in Sosa-Stradonitz format. These are called, by the database, “reports.”
The research report provided by a professional genealogist–and even those reports one writes for one’s personal research files–are generally notin the form of a compiled genealogy or pedigree. A compiled genealogy or pedigree may be part of the research report, but not necessarily. In my reports, genealogies or pedigrees are most often used as a system of organization or summary of conclusions rather than the body of the report itself.
A professional research report, in general terms, is a detailed, documented report of the research conducted. This would include discussions of all of the processes described above under “Research,” as well as the formation of proof arguments and full conclusions. It also includes all negative searches conducted, that is, those indexes, databases, and record groups searched where no relevant results were located. All of these would be contained in the body of a report.
Professional genealogist’s research reports also contain other sections: a reiteration of the stated goals (both long-term and short-term, if applicable), a summary of all information provided or known at the beginning of the research, a brief summary of the conclusions reached within the report usually located before the main body, and suggestions for further research.
In other words, a research report simply does not resemble the reports printed by database software. The two terms are not synonymous at all–and given the very different contexts of their usage, should not be misunderstood to be so.
These are the words and phrases I see and hear misused most often by other genealogists. What are some other terms that are commonly misused?
If you would like to cite this post: Michael Hait, “The 5 Most Misused Words and Phrases in Genealogy,” Planting the Seeds: Genealogy as a Profession blog, posted 19 Aug 2011 (http://michaelhait.wordpress.com : accessed [access date]). [Please also feel free to include a hyperlink to the specific article if you are citing this post in an online forum.]
Over the past quarter century, the field of genealogy has developed its own vocabulary to describe the evolving standards. Unfortunately, some of these terms are used in other fields with slightly different meanings. Here, in no particular order, are the top five most misused words and phrases in modern genealogy.
1. “Research”:
Especially to beginning genealogists, the term “research” is equivalent to “looking for records.” The more experience one gains, the more one becomes aware of how little of the research process is actually involved in physically looking for records. Far more research is conducted after a document has been located. Research also includes
- learning more about the record itself–its creation, background, and purpose;
- identifying the information the record holds;
- determining how this information applies to our research problem;
- assessing the reliability of the information;
- correlating the information with that held in other records previously located;
- and deducing what clues in the record point to potential sources for more information.
2. “Primary” and “Secondary”:
You will often hear researchers in other fields refer to primary and secondary documents or records. In genealogy, we differentiate betweenoriginal records and derivative records. These terms generally correspond with what other fields call primary (original) and secondary (derivative). Since many of us learned these terms in these other fields (or even in genealogy years ago, before the current definitions evolved), it is common to hear genealogists refer to “primary” and “secondary” records.
In current usage, reliable eyewitness testimony is considered primary, while information provided by someone who was not a witness or participant is considered secondary. Experienced genealogists, who always strive to review the original record rather than a derivative source, understand that any single record can contain information of different natures. A death certificate might provide both birth and death information, for example. In most cases, while the information about the death may be primary, the birth information is secondary. This is why we discuss primary and secondary information, as opposed to primary and secondary documents.
3. “Evidence”:
The term “evidence” refers to how we apply information to our research problem. There are two kinds of evidence, as defined in modern genealogy: direct and indirect.
Direct evidence refers to information that directly answers our research question. For example, if our research question asks, “when was John born?,” then a record containing the information, explicitly stated, that John was born on 4 July 1826, would be considered as containing direct evidence.
Indirect evidence refers to information that is relevant to our question but does not directly answer it. For example, using the same question about John’s birth, we examine a series of annual tax lists. John does not appear on any tax list until 1847. We then review the tax laws of that time period, and discover that men were required to pay taxes beginning at the age of 21. The tax records do not explicitly state John’s date of birth, but we can infer that he was at least 21 years of age at this time. This appearance on the tax lists therefore constitutes indirect evidence of his date of birth.
The term “evidence” is not synonymous with either the terms “information” or “proof,” but this is how it is most often used by many genealogists. Information is held by records. Evidence is how we apply this information to our research problem. And proof is …
4. “Proof”:
We often hear from other genealogists that a certain record proves a certain fact. This is a common misunderstanding of the concept of “proof.” No record contains proof. Records contain information.
As genealogists, we identify, evaluate, and correlate the information in these records, through which process we discern each piece of information’s individual value as evidence. Eventually, we hope to reach a soundly reasoned conclusion. ”Proof” refers to the documented summary of the evidence that leads to our conclusion.
The Genealogical Proof Standard, itself an often-misunderstood concept, is the measure by which we judge our proof arguments. In its most common phrasing, the Standard contains five parts: conduct a reasonably exhaustive (or extensive) search for all relevant records, completely and accurately cite all sources used, correlate and evaluate all evidence, reconcile all contradictory evidence, and form a soundly reasoned, written conclusion. The extent to which each of these parts is demonstrated and documented in the written proof argument helps to determine the probable reliability of the conclusions.
Because it is most often phrased as five “parts,” many researchers begin to think of the Genealogical Proof Standard as a five-step process: first we do a search, then cite, then correlate, etc. On the contrary, in the course of our research, these “steps” are rarely completed in order. While searching for relevant records, we must cite and evaluate each individual record as we find it. Certainly, one begins by searching for relevant records and ends with the written conclusion, but the rest of the Standard is an ongoing process. How we define relevant itself evolves with each new record located.
As we begin to form conclusions, we should honestly assess our research against the Genealogical Proof Standard to determine whether or not our conclusion is warranted by our research.
5. “Report”:
This is a dangerously misused and misunderstood term for aspiring professional genealogists. Unfortunately, the misunderstanding stems most often from genealogical software programs, which are using the same term in a different context.
When one inputs one’s information and conclusions in a genealogy database program, it is common (and recommended) practice to periodically print out this information. In all database software, the output of data into a readable format based on specific parameters is called a report. Genealogy software most often includes the ability to print this data out into a rudimentary compiled genealogy in either NGSQ orRegister formats, or compiled pedigree in Sosa-Stradonitz format. These are called, by the database, “reports.”
The research report provided by a professional genealogist–and even those reports one writes for one’s personal research files–are generally notin the form of a compiled genealogy or pedigree. A compiled genealogy or pedigree may be part of the research report, but not necessarily. In my reports, genealogies or pedigrees are most often used as a system of organization or summary of conclusions rather than the body of the report itself.
A professional research report, in general terms, is a detailed, documented report of the research conducted. This would include discussions of all of the processes described above under “Research,” as well as the formation of proof arguments and full conclusions. It also includes all negative searches conducted, that is, those indexes, databases, and record groups searched where no relevant results were located. All of these would be contained in the body of a report.
Professional genealogist’s research reports also contain other sections: a reiteration of the stated goals (both long-term and short-term, if applicable), a summary of all information provided or known at the beginning of the research, a brief summary of the conclusions reached within the report usually located before the main body, and suggestions for further research.
In other words, a research report simply does not resemble the reports printed by database software. The two terms are not synonymous at all–and given the very different contexts of their usage, should not be misunderstood to be so.
These are the words and phrases I see and hear misused most often by other genealogists. What are some other terms that are commonly misused?
If you would like to cite this post: Michael Hait, “The 5 Most Misused Words and Phrases in Genealogy,” Planting the Seeds: Genealogy as a Profession blog, posted 19 Aug 2011 (http://michaelhait.wordpress.com : accessed [access date]). [Please also feel free to include a hyperlink to the specific article if you are citing this post in an online forum.]