23 July 2015

What's In A Name?

A quick post today. This...
Nicholas Lanier Laniere Lane Lanye Lanyer the YOUNGER, MASTER of MUSIC, on FACULTY at OXFORD UNIVERSITY, COURT MUSICIAN to CHARLES I & KING JAMES I, BEN JONSON
 ...is not a name. It's a biography. Why would someone do this?
I understand the many surname variations. If you search from the profile it may be easier to add all of those to the profile, temporarily anyway. Though I have found that formatting variations as, Lanier/Laniere/Lane/Lanye/Lanyer, yields better results, at least with Ancestry's search engine.
I do not, however, understand the suffix. A suffix should not be a curriculum vitae. And what/who is "BEN JONSON"?

Thanks to Kristin for the link to the profile for Nicholas! ;-) If you have a profile or tree to suggest please email the link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com. Thanks!


PREVIOUS POST: Leaving the New Ancestry
NEXT POST: Coming Soon

09 July 2015

Leaving the New Ancestry

New and returning Ancestry.com subscribers are being thrown directly into the "New" Ancestry. New subscribers have nothing to compare it to but returning subscribers will notice some basic functions missing.
Some people have the option to switch back to "Classic" Ancestry, others do not. If you have the option it will be ​in the drop down under your Ancestry user name.

Image taken from Ancestry's Help page for "The New Ancestry."

If you don't have that option you just need this link: http://home.ancestry.com/newancestry/leave. It looks as if Ancestry's crack social media team is under orders to keep this link a secret. Anyone asking for help with this problem on Facebook is asked to contact them privately with their account info. Wouldn't just posting the link be easier?
If you happen to call Ancestry for the answer you might get the same answer a friend of mine did. She was told "they can't do it and the developers have removed the link that will give you the option." The customer service rep also told her "the new site is fully functional." HA!
I called as well. My phone call started with, "I just subscribed again and was thrown into the new site. I don't have the option to go back to the old site. I either need that option or I need you to refund the money I just paid your company 10 minutes ago." The rep sent me the link to the New Ancestry help page and told me to keep scrolling. Keep scrolling. Eventually she just read me the "leave" link which she could have done in the first place to save us both some time. It's buried on that help page and in a teeny tiny font.
Whether you switch back to "Classic" using the link or the drop down you should have the option to give feedback. If you have writer's block feel free to use the following in whole or in part to get you started:
I am paying, giving you my money, to use a fully functioning, established website, not to be a guinea pig. Most of the ongoing issues were reported at the end of January, during the first week of BETA testing. I am willing to use and give feedback on the site you released to the public too soon in exchange for a 6-month subscription. If that's acceptable feel free to contact me.
If you have spent time using the new site be as specific as possible with your feedback. "I hate it!" and "Don't change it!" responses will just be tossed aside. Leave feedback when you switch back to Classic. Leave feedback on their message boards and on their community boards. Leave feedback on Ancestry's Facebook page and their other social media pages.
The changes being made may actually be improvements, once they're functioning, but we are not paying to use a site that is under construction. From the customer viewpoint I have to say that releasing the new site to the public months, maybe even years at the rate they're going, before it's ready is one of the worst business decisions Ancestry has ever made.

Here are some of Ancestry's posts about the new site. The comments make for entertaining reading. ;-)
Announcing the New Ancestry Website
New Ancestry: Feature Update 
The New Facts View: Make Sure You Are Climbing YOUR Family Tree and Not Someone Else's


PREVIOUS POST: Baby Love
NEXT POST: What's In A Name?

05 July 2015

Baby Love

 Alexander Love
 Birth  1690 in Northumberland, Virginia, USA
 Death 1773 in Onslow, North Carolina, USA

 PARENTS
 James Arnold Love (1681-1773)
 April Osterman (1681- )

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Elishe Love (1695-1729)
 ✿ Saponey Indian Squaw Aka Honor Love (b. 1690)
 ✿ Hannah Love (b. 1702)
 ✿ Elizabeth Love (b. 1705)
 ✿ Amos Love (b. 1705)
 ✿ John Love (b. 1720)
 ✿ James Love (b. 1723)
 ✿ Judith Love (b. 1727)
 ✿ Jane Love (b. 1727)
 ✿ Jane Love (b. 1727)

 RECORDS attached to this profile

 ✿ U.S. Revolutionary War Rolls 1775-1783
     Alexander Love, Military Date: 7 Feb 1778, Rhode Island
 ✿ U.S. Civil War Soldiers, 1861-1865
     Alexander Love, Confederate, North Carolina
So Alexander was born to 9 year old parents. He then either starts his own family at birth or adopts a child later who is the same age as him. He and his wife continue to have children as children themselves. Five years after his death he fights in the Revolutionary War. Then he hangs around for 90 more years to fight in the Civil War.
 Father  Sir John LeLou ( -1308)
 Mother Amice Mauduit

 Child    Nigeli Luiff (1420-1492)
And John's parents were 100 and 70 years old when he was born.
It's never just one mistake. Clickohphiles don't pay attention to what they're doing. Ever.


Thanks to Linda for the head up about this profile and to Madelyn for the earworm of a title ;-)
If you have a tree or profile to suggest please send the link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com. Thanks! 


PREVIOUS POST: The Genealogy of Jesus
NEXT POST: Leaving the New Ancestry

27 June 2015

The Genealogy of Jesus

Because it can't be repeated often enough...

Rule #4: The Bible is not a source for your family tree.

A few months ago someone made this comment on my Facebook page, "If you believe the Biblical accounts, once you got back to Joseph, the rest is done for you, back to Adam." As always I will not address religious beliefs so we'll skip over the "If you believe" part.
At the time that comment was posted I was listening to a book I read years ago. When I read it I had not yet been bitten by the genealogy bug. As I went through it this time I had a completely different perspective.
"Of all the many thousands of accidental mistakes made in our manuscripts, probably the most bizarre is one that occurs in a minuscule manuscript of the four Gospels officially numbered 109, which was produced in the fourteenth century. Its peculiar error occurs in Luke, chapter 3, in the account of Jesus's genealogy. The scribe was evidently copying a manuscript that gave the genealogy in two columns. For some reason, he did not copy one column at a time, but copied across the two columns. As a result, the names of the genealogy are thrown out of whack, with most people being called the sons of the wrong father. Worse still, the second column of the text the scribe was copying did not have as many lines as the first, so that now, in the copy he made, the father of the human race (i.e., the last one mentioned) is not God but an Israelite named Phares; and God himself is said to be the son of a man named Aram!"
The printing press wasn't invented until the 15th century. That's a few thousand years of transcriptions and translations. To use The Bible as a source you would be trusting a transcription of a transcription of a transcription of a translation of a transcription of a...you get the idea. Most were done by scribes, many of whom were copying things they could not actually read. Those who could read might add or leave out a word if they didn't agree with something.
Of course none of that matters because you cannot get "back to Joseph."
"But..." Nope.
"I saw a tree..." No!
It is just not possible to have a documented line from a living person to anyone in The Bible so please stop.


PREVIOUS POST: Switcheroo Follow-Up
NEXT POST: Baby Love

18 June 2015

Switcheroo Follow-Up

Monday's post was shared on a number of Facebook pages/groups. After reading the comments I can divide them into three categories. These apply to pretty much every article ever posted on Facebook.
1) Those who read the article and understood it.
2) Those who only read the headline.
3) Those who read the article but completely missed the point.
The first group doesn't need a follow-up to Monday's post. The second group won't read this post either. This post is for the third group. After the jump I'll try to put this is the simplest, clearest terms.