29 December 2014

New Year's Resolutions

A couple of suggested New Year's resolutions for Ancestry's programmers:
1) Communicate with Ancestry.com users.
2) Finish what you start.
Sometimes new features are just sprung on users with no explanation. No opt out and all Ancestry employees can say is, "That feature is being tested and until it is widely available, all I can do is acknowledge it is intentional - not an error." Helpful, really helpful.
Other times things are taken away with no notice whatsoever. If you're like me you probably hadn't noticed that links for locations are gone. We can no longer click on the location of an event and be taken to a map. It doesn't take much effort to use Google Maps instead but that's not the point. Lack of communication is the point. Apparently communication within the company is not a priority either. In this thread it took Ancestry employees over two weeks to figure out the feature had been discontinued.
Photo tagging disappeared when "global commenting" was added. Apparently it's never coming back. Has Ancestry said anything about this other than a random comment on their message boards?
Meanwhile, the programmers continue to add new features without ever fixing issues with existing ones.

MEDIA


Photo labels - Portrait / Family Photo, Site / Building / Place, Headstone, Document / Certificate, Other - have been around since at least 2009 but they have yet to serve a purpose. You cannot sort or search within a tree's photo gallery by label. You cannot include/exclude a photo label in a global photo search. I'm so glad I went through my entire gallery and assigned the appropriate label to each item. It's been so helpful. </sarcasm>
Photo captions and comments cannot be formatted. If you're typing and hit return it looks as if you've started a new paragraph, until you save the caption/comment and view it. The return is not recognized. Same goes for the transcription section for "Document / Certificate" images.
Formatting doesn't always work on stories either. Write a story in a word processing program, copy and paste to Ancestry and it looks fine. Save and suddenly all bold, italics, font changes, and paragraph indications are gone. Luckily you don't have to re-type everything but you do need to re-do all the formatting despite the fact that it looks fine on the editing page.

AFTER THE JUMP: Search, Hints & FTM, Records, Messages & Invites, Gift Memberships, and more.

22 December 2014

Cousin Mary

This story was making the rounds earlier this year. Since this woman thinks she is a cousin to the Virgin Mary I thought this week would be a good time to re-post it.
 "A Westmoreland County woman claims she is the 64th great-granddaughter of Saint Joseph Ben Matthat Arimathaea, who was the paternal uncle to the Virgin Mary. Mary Beth Webb, of Murrysville, said she began searching her ancestry in 2010 after years of "communicating" with her deceased mother, father and brother."
The reporter doesn't waste any time getting to the full on nuttiness. What was she thinking? Remember when journalists did research rather than just taking dictation? Some basic research, and a little common sense, would have alerted the reporter to the fact that this woman is delusional.
 "Webb emailed [ancestry.com] to share her discovery, and said a spokesperson replied with skepticism. They said, 'Well, that's nice, but you probably made a mistake along the way because that's easy to do,'" Webb said."
No follow-up with Ancestry.com? No quote from a professional genealogist?
No, I'm not going near the whole "I talk to dead people" thing.
Maybe more disturbing than the story itself were some of the responses to it on various Facebook pages/groups. Here are just a few examples:
 Ann: "Whether this is true or not, It's interesting to think about."
 Mary: "Any reason why it should not be true?"
 Jane: "Mary, do you really think this is happening?"
 Mary: "Honestly ? Who knows ? Anything is possible in this day and age - and I DO know people who can make contact with others who have left this world, so I believe it is possible, tho probably not probable."
 "Being a genealogist for 35 years, I say nothing is impossible but can be difficult to prove."
 "There is some sort of quasi-official British genealogical records (Royal?) that do indeed go back to not just some people around the Holy Family but also to personages in Genesis. A fellow researcher showed them too me one day in an LDS family library in OKC. They had some name like Warden or maybe Peerage records?"
 "the records are on Ancestry ..if people cant even be botherd to even look they miss out big time"


PREVIOUS POST: I Just Can't Wait to Be King
NEXT POST: New Year's Resolutions

15 December 2014

I Just Can't Wait to Be King

“Trust me, Wilbur. People are very gullible. They'll believe anything they see in print.”
― E.B. White, Charlotte's Web
From surname books that have little to nothing to do with genealogy to flat out lies like "family coats of arms" there will always be people trying to make a quick buck from genealogy. There always have been. The easiest prey are those who want fame, a royal connection.
Royal wannabes can buy fake coats of arms (most sites are not as upfront about the fake part as that one), their own royal portrait or their own royal title. I can't believe how many people have fallen for the latter one. They are easy to find because once someone is titled they need a website and/or a Facebook fan page to tout their importance and communicate with the little people.
The entire front page of the Royal Titles site focuses on impressing those who are, obviously, beneath you, and giving you a sense of self-importance.
"Sense of Grandeur and Historical Belonging, Social Status and Prestige, Instantly Perceived Glamour, Power and sense of difference and Privilege, Preferential treatment Everywhere, An incredible Source of Joy, Happiness and Amusement." 
The capitalization of random words really emphasizes the professionalism and trustworthiness of the site. (My kingdom for a sarcasm font!)
"We can offer a number of Royal Titles to choose." 
Because everyone knows if the King/Queen wants to knight you you can say, "Um, I'd rather be a Baron." Check out their disclaimer page. The site "does not sell noble titles." Yet a "Single Royal and Noble Title and Royal Medal is EUR €199." If you want to see what that gets you click here.
There are free sites that feed the royal wannabes need for these things. Most of the information on these sites has been copied to numerous Ancestry Member Trees (AMTs). At least Ancestry does its part to keep information on living people private. These other sites usually have no privacy boundaries but like a majority of AMTs, they have no credible sources. This one has profiles copied from a handful of books. From the "sources" section of the FAQ page:
"About half way through this exercise, I acquired a copy of S&N’s Royalty database, and merged this with my own database. Given I already had around 20,000 quite detailed records at this point, and the S&N was around 106,6000 separate records (with little detail given and absolutely no sources), this merging process took me a considerable period of time." 
No sources? No SOURCES! And you want to merge with it, why?
Then there's this one. Go to one of the indices and click through to a random entry. Chances are the only "source" you'll see is WorldRoots.com, a website that no longer exists. The only way to view it is with the WayBack Machine.
You might be thinking, "Well, no one would take those unsourced profiles as fact." I hate to burst your bubble but I didn't search for these sites. They were posted to Facebook threads by people encouraging others to use them.
What will it take to get these people to search for a record?


ADDITIONAL READING:
Genealogy as a Fraud from Genealogy's Star
Genealogy Scams: What You Need to Know About Generic Surname Histories and Coats of Arms from Price & Associates Genealogical Services
Myths, Hoaxes & Scams from Cyndi's List


PREVIOUS POST: To Complicate Matters
NEXT POST: Cousin Mary

08 December 2014

To Complicate Matters

Rule #11: Women are always entered with their maiden name.

Otherwise you end up with a profile name like this:

  Mary Hester Ann "Annie" Maples Luxton Hunter Baylor Ratliff Routh

No joke, there is a tree, well probably lots of them, with all women listed this way. On this particular tree the records attached, from what I can tell, are actually correct. All but one census has Ann or Annie, the one that doesn't has Mary A.. There is no information on the profile about where the name Hester came from. Her gravestone only has one given name, Ann. Of course that's not the issue. The issue is the surnames. The surnames of her spouses are Luxton, Hunter, Baylor, Ratliff, and Routh. Hers is Maples. Just Maples. Only Maples.
Do a search from her profile and it will need to be edited every time since it will automatically include the spouses surnames in the search. Do a search from Mary's profile and you're searching for: Mary Hester Ann "Annie" Maples Luxton Hunter Baylor Ratliff Routh Luxton Hunter Baylor Ratliff Routh.
Mr. Luxton did not marry Mary Hester Ann Maples Luxton Hunter Baylor Ratliff Routh. He married Mary Hester Ann Maples. Mr. Hunter did not marry Mary Hester Ann Maples Luxton Hunter Baylor Ratliff Routh. He married Mary Hester Ann Maples. Mr. Baylor did not marry Mary Hester Ann Maples Luxton Hunter Baylor...You get the idea.
There are a few instances when you will have to edit a search anyway. For some modern day marriages you might need to remove the husband's surname from the search. You'll also want to make a note on the profile if a woman didn't take her husband's surname.
If you've crossed a border or an ocean you'll want to look into naming practices in that country. For example, in Mexico women do not take the surname of their spouse and their full name includes their father's surname followed by their mother's surname. And then there are patronymic surnames.
We have enough to deal with. Don't complicate things further.


PREVIOUS POST: Facebook Hijackers
NEXT POST: Coming Soon


05 December 2014

Facebook Hijackers

Some people use Facebook groups and pages as their own personal photo albums, with no regard to the participation of every other user. In most cases these people will inundate a wall without stating a purpose. Do they want these pictures identified? Are they photos of their own family or were they found at an antique store? No one will ever know because not only do they usually post and run, they post only the photos and nothing else. If you criticize someone for posting two dozen photos in the span of an hour the Pollyannas (every group has them) will whine that you're the Grinch or Satan because you're against "sharing." Hijacking a group or page has nothing to do with sharing. It's narcissistic and self-centered. That or they have something to gain from a rise in the number of carpal tunnel cases.
Apparently some people do not realize that they can create a public photo album on their own page and share the link.

1. Go to the Photos tab on your own Facebook page and click "+ Create Album."


2. There are options to caption photos, write something about the album and set the privacy when you create the album. If you forget to do that or you want to change any of those things on an existing album click the "Edit" button for the album.


3. The Facebook prompt to "Say something about this album..." is actually a space to type something about the album. Use it!


4. (Still the image above.) Set the privacy to "Public." Be sure to click "Done" when you have finished editing (after Step 5) to save all the changes you made.


5. There are spaces under each photo to write your own caption. Use them!

Whether you want to share a single photo or an album, write something. Why are you posting? No one, except maybe your friends and family, will click through the album if you just title it "My Family" or don't write anything at all. Do you know where and/or when the photos were taken? Do you know any of the people in the photos? If you want to find out those things then ask. If you are just looking for compliments and likes try not ticking off dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of people in the process. Especially if you ever plan to ask for research help in said group. If you annoy people they will remember your name and scroll past anytime you post in the future.


PREVIOUS POST: No Photo Yet
NEXT POST: To Complicate Matters
RELATED POST: Pet Peeves

01 December 2014

No Photo Yet

Rule #10: Every profile in your tree does NOT need a photo.

Each of the 9,000+ profiles on this tree has a gravestone photo. Of course most of the images are this:



On every profile the gravestone, whether the actual gravestone or the image above, is the profile photo. Even if there's a portrait of that person available! Apparently Ancestry's silhouettes aren't an obvious enough sign that a profile doesn't have a photo.


Please email me at buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com if you have a photo or profile to suggest. ;-)


PREVIOUS POST: A Genealogy Far, Far Away
NEXT POST: Facebook Hijackers

24 November 2014

A Genealogy Far, Far Away

"Our registered users have created more than 60 million family trees containing more than 6 billion profiles. They have uploaded and attached to their trees over 200 million photographs, scanned documents and written stories." [source]
Ancestry.com frequently touts their numbers. Of the trees I've seen I would estimate at least half of the "photographs" are actually clip art and other genealogically useless images. When you factor in trees back to Adam & Eve or Greek mythology, how many profiles are also genealogically useless? And then there's the trees. How many of them are just plain junk?
Do a search for your favorite fictional book, movie or television character and you are bound to find them somewhere in Ancestry's Member Trees. A search for Darth Vader brings up two trees for Star Wars characters and another tree created by a dog breeder who has 7000 dog profiles on 5 different trees. Then there are these gems. Each one is a tree in its entirety, minus any profiles for living people.

✿ ✿ ✿
✿ ✿ ✿
✿ ✿ ✿
Last but not least, a tree created by someone with the sense of humor of a three year old:



Thanks to Louise for the idea for this post! ;-)


PREVIOUS POST: Ye Gods!
NEXT POST: No Photo Yet

21 November 2014

Ye Gods!

Rule #9: The gods do not belong on your family tree.

There are literally thousands of trees on Ancestry.com with profiles for Gaia. Some of you may think, "None of those could possibly connect to living people." That would be the logical assumption anyway, that these are strictly mythological trees. Unfortunately that is not the case. I chose one of the crazier ones to feature here but I, and my wrist (in pain from all the clicking), can attest to the fact that some of these tree owners think they are descended from the gods of Greek mythology.
If you were going to create a tree to help you learn about the gods wouldn't you want it to be correct? If you thought, wrongly of course, you were related to them wouldn't you want your tree to be perfect? I know the relationships between the gods can get a little twisted but this is ridiculous.

Gaia of Greek Mythology Primodial goddess of the Earth

 SPOUSES, no children

 Aether Titan Primordial god of Light
 Aether Titan Primordial god of Light
 Father Sky Uranus
 Greek God Creation PHANES*
 Private
 Tartaros
 Tartarus Primordial god of the Abyss**

 CHILDREN with Unknown Spouse(s)

  ✿ Cleta Cleocharia the Naiad
  ✿ Uranus aka Sky Ouranos 1st Ruler GOD the Universe ***
  ✿ Creusa Naiad

 SPOUSES and children

 Cecrops I Athens
  ✿ Cranaus of Athens
 Draco of the Gods
  ✿ Echion of the Gods
 Oceanus God The Oceans Of Titans
  ✿ Asopus RIVER GOD
  ✿ Clymene Klymene of the Oceanides
  ✿ Creusa Naiad
  ✿ Iepatus God Titan of the West and Mortality
  ✿ Pleione Dione The Oceanide Nymph
 None as Pontus was Sea God First one born
  ✿ Phorcus Phorcys The Old Man of the Sea Titan God of The depths
  ✿ Pontus Primordial god of the Sea ***
 Pontus Primordial god of the Sea
  ✿ Eurybia The "Strong Goddess"
  ✿ Nereus Greek Mythology The Old man of the Sea
  ✿ Thaumas (the awe-striking "wonder" of the Sea, embodiment of the sea's dangerous aspects)
  ✿ Phorcus Phorcys The Old Man of the Sea Titan God of The depths
  ✿ Ceto/Keto Oceanic Deity Theoi Halioi Goddess of Sea Monsters
 Soil Primordial God
  ✿ Cecrops Athens
  ✿ Cranaus Athens
 Tethys Titan
  ✿ Iepatus God Titan of the West and Mortality
  ✿ Pleione Oceanide
 Zeus aka Zeus Jupiter OLYMPUS OLYMPIAN
  ✿ Cleocharia NAIAD
  ✿ Tethys Goddess The Ocean Of Titans
 Uranus aka Sky Ouranos 1st Ruler GOD the Universe
  ✿ Asopus RIVER GOD
  ✿ Briares Hundred Handed One, Hekatonkheiree
  ✿ Cecrops Athens
  ✿ Cecrops I Athens ***
  ✿ Ceto/Keto Oceanic Deity Theoi Halioi Goddess of Sea Monsters
  ✿ Cleocharia II the Naiad
  ✿ Clymene Klymene of the Oceanides
  ✿ Cottus Hundred Handed One, Hekatokheire
  ✿ Cranaus Athens
  ✿ Crius Krious The Ram the Titans
  ✿ Dione
  ✿ Doris The
  ✿ Eurybia
  ✿ Eurynome
  ✿ Goddess the Underworld Styx
  ✿ Gyges Hundred Handed One, Hekatonkheire
  ✿ Hiperión περίων Hyperíôn Dios de la Observación TITAN Titan of the East and Light
  ✿ Hyperion Elder God of the Titan of the East and Ligh
  ✿ Iepatus God Titan of the West and Mortality
  ✿ Koios Coeus Titan of the North and Intellec
  ✿ Kronos Cronos King of the Titans, Titan of Time and Agriculture
  ✿ Mnemosyne Titaness of Memory and Remembrance
  ✿ Oceanus God The Oceans Of Titans
  ✿ Okeanides Nymphs Springs Fountains
  ✿ Phoebe Phoibe "radiant, bright, prophetic" Titaness of Darkness and Mysteries
  ✿ Phorcus The Titan
  ✿ Pleione Dione The Oceanide Nymph
  ✿ Poyomoi River Gods
  ✿ Rhea (Rheia) the Titan Titaness of Family and Nature
  ✿ Scamander Xantus TEUCRI
  ✿ Simöeis Troy
  ✿ Theia Euryphaëssa (Theia, Aethra) Θεία Ευρυφάεσσα "Wide Shining" Titan Goddess of Sight
  ✿ Themis Titaness of Justice and Law
  ✿ Tethys Goddess The Ocean Of Titans
  ✿ Uranus stRuler God Universe
* Also Gaia's step-mother
** Also Gaia's sibling
*** Also Gaia's spouse




PREVIOUS POST: Clickophile Too
NEXT POST: A Genealogy Far, Far Away

17 November 2014

Clickophile Too

Rule #8: Editing out blatantly erroneous data from a clickophile's tree does not make the information accurate.

Here we have part of a tree that was obviously created by a clickophile:

 Peter DeWyckhurst
 Birth 1198 in Coulsdon, Surrey, England
 Death 1220 in Surrey, England

 PARENTS & SIBLINGS
 Peter DeWyckhurst (1180-1203)
 Lady Peter De Wyckhurst (1180-1203)
 ✿ Peter DeWyckhurst (1180-1203) [female]
 ✿ Peter DeWyckhurst (1195-1220)
 ✿ WILLIAM ATTE WODE (1220-1278)
 ✿ Peter Atte Wode (1245-1313)
 HALF-SIBLINGS
 (through father Peter DeWyckhurst & step-mother Peter DeWyckhurst)
 ✿ Lady Alice DeWyckhurst (1180- )
 ✿ Peter DeWyckhurst (1180-1203) [female]
 ✿ Peter DeWyckhurst (1195-1220)

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Lady Alice DeWyckhurst (1199-1220)
 ✿ Lady DeWyckhurst (1184- )
 ✿ Peter DeWyckhurst (1184-1203) [female]
 ✿ Peter DeWyckhurst (1195-1220)
 ✿ William Atte Wode (1220-1245)
 ✿ William Atwood (1224-1245)
 ✿ William Atte Wode (1224-1278)
 ✿ Peter Atte Wode (1245-1313)

The only "sources" are 16 other trees, no records. No surprise there. This person has accepted all the data from the other trees without question. The profile above is one of two trees used for the profile below. The other "source" tree only has Peter, his wife, his father, and one son, William Atte Wode.

 Peter DeWyckhurst
 Birth 1198 in Coulsdon, Surrey, England
 Death 1220 in Surrey, England

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Lady Alice DeWyckhurst (1199-1220)
 Married 1219 in Coulsdon, Surrey, England
 ✿ Lady (1184- )
 ✿ Peter DeWyckhurst (1195-1220)
 ✿ William Atte Wode (1220-1245)

Again, no actual records. If you think making "corrections" while copying other trees makes your tree better than theirs stop kidding yourself. Unless you have documentation to back up those corrections you are a clickophile too.


If you have a tree or profile to suggest please send the link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com. Thanks! 

PREVIOUS POST: AncestryDNA News
NEXT POST: Ye Gods!

10 November 2014

AncestryDNA News

If you missed last week's AncestryDNA news you can read about it here.
A few things from Anna's blog post stuck out to me.
"These advancements will make AncestryDNA matching far more accurate, and each new match will be more likely to lead to a new discovery."
What good are "far more accurate" matches when we have no way of seeing how they match or each other? How about some decent tools? A matches in common tool? A surname search that actually works? Anything?
"Best of all, we’re going to roll this out to all AncestryDNA members for free, and you don’t have to take a new test to get the benefits."
Is it just me or does anyone else think Anna is trying to make Ancestry.com sound magnanimous? In reality that's exactly what Ancestry promised from the start. No charge for new matches, updates to our results, or new features. If they started charging for new features sales would drop dramatically. Why would anyone buy a test if there was a possibility of, a year or two down the road, Ancestry actually coming up with decent tools that we could only use if we shell out more money?
"Pairing this data with well-documented family trees and the expertise of Ancestry has allowed the AncestryDNA science team to develop groundbreaking new algorithms for finding and predicting relationships through DNA. These new algorithms will lead to better matches for anyone who tests with AncestryDNA."
Am I reading this correctly? AncestryDNA matches will factor in trees? What the...? Yeah, because that has worked so well for Ancestry's shaky leaf hints.
Is Ancestry hiring hundreds of genealogists to vet those "well-documented" family trees? Or will the "well-documented" label be based solely on the number of records attached? We all know how helpful that will be. Our clickophile cousins can just mash our trees together with theirs with no regard for accuracy and Ancestry will assure them that the relationship is solid. UGH!
"Be confident that your matches are in good hands with our team of experts."
Confident? Ha! Experts? If their DNA experts are as qualified as their social media experts the AncestryDNA test will become worthless. We'll have to wait and see what updates they have in store for us.


PREVIOUS POST: Social Disgrace: Double Down
NEXT POST: Clickophile Too

07 November 2014

Social Disgrace: Double Down

Note 1: I am going to refer to the admin as "he" in this thread but the admin may very well be a she. It is just easier to write and read a single pronoun rather than constantly using he/she.
Note 2: This is an updated post. After publishing (and sleeping) I, hopefully, figured out how to make this easier to read. There are also corrections to the comment timeline. The original post still exists and is after the jump if you're curious.

Ancestry.com's social media team is so inept I could write these posts on the daily basis. Sometimes their answers are just painful. This admin doesn't understand that the link he's posting contradicts the point he's making. Shirley and Jane keep trying to get him to see his error but he refuses. My comments are after the screen caps.


(1) Shirley points out that a post on Ancestry.com's blog clearly contradicts the admin.
(2) Shirley also links to Ancestry's help section that clearly states what is and isn't included with the purchase of an AncestryDNA test.
(3) The admin states that updates have been made and then posts a link that goes to the exact same page Shirley posted. Uh, okay.
(4) Shirley quotes the linked page.
(5) Jane quotes the linked page.
At this point, shouldn't the admin be questioning himself? "Maybe I'm reading this wrong. I'll should go back and read it again."
(6) Instead he blames the site developers because he couldn't possibly be wrong. Here's the link he suggests to Shirley, "Providing feedback about Ancestry."
How's this for feedback? Dear Ancestry, please hire competent reps.
(7) Now he just doubles down and posts the link again!
Dear Admin: Posting the same link again will not change the fact that it contradicts what you're saying. Here are some steps to follow: 1) Read 2) Comprehend 3) Answer customers' questions. If you can't do steps 1 and 2 don't even try step 3.
(8) The final comment looks to have been made by someone from a different department. Notice the "signature." Maybe they can give the previous admin a tutorial on reading comprehension."The information in the article is correct...Once again, we are sorry about the miscommunication," by other Ancestry employees who are clueless, "and invite you to send us a private message with your email address if you have any further questions about this issue. We can then provide you with information specifically pertaining to you and your account." It will also allow us to answer questions without other customers pointing out errors by Ancestry employees.

The thread above was from Oct. 31st and can be found here.


PREVIOUS POST: What the WHAT?
NEXT POST: AncestryDNA News



03 November 2014

What the WHAT?

If you haven't read a "WHAT?" post before, these comments were found on various Facebook pages, message boards, and anywhere people discuss genealogy online. They were all cut and pasted, no editing. I have removed all names to protect the clueless. My comments are in red and should be taken with a heavy dose of sarcasm.

 ✿ I love the TLC show Who Do You Think You Are? last night's episode on Brooke Shields was fascinating!!! I've gotten back to 17th century on mom's side; finally found Scottish connection on dad's side....then my free 2 wks Ancestry.com ran out. LOL. i have the names; now want some stories. :-)
Two weeks to get back to the 17th century? Yeah, that's a well sourced tree.

 ✿ My paternal great grandmothers lineage goes back to the 1st high king of Ireland, Brian Boru. Now I have set to document it!
If you haven't documented it how do you know that's who your line goes back to?

 ✿ Let me on [Who Do You Think You Are?]. I heard my dad say he is a direct decent of Sir Lancelot. I want to see if its true
You need to be on a television show to find out your father is not a descendant of a fictional character? Actually, I might watch that show. It wouldn't be WDYTYA? but a show confronting people delusional about their genealogy would be highly entertaining.

 ✿ ben [surname, not capitalized] ancestry search results
Knowing the difference between posting on Facebook and using a search engine should be a requirement before doing either.

 ✿ I had a one month subscription and i cant get a refund even though I only used it for a day. I don't care what your policies are. ITS MY MONEY AND I WANT IT NOW.
"I don't care what your policies are" or that I agreed to them.
[same person about two hours later]
NVM! They actually refunded it! Yayyy
Good to know. Complain on social media and you don't have to abide by the terms of service. Ancestry.com will just refund your money.

 ✿ FIND SOMETHING ON THE RALPH [surname] FAMILY.
Apparently this person doesn't know the word 'please' and thinks a Facebook page will respond to a demand.

 ✿ I just created a new tree and evidently the hints system is down again. I just renewed my subscription less than a week ago and once again....I'm not getting what I paid for. And please don't tell me to clear my cache & cookies or give the the same link that I always get. None of those things work.
The search is working but I can't be bothered to do that. I only add records that are handed to me on a silver platter. The 90% of collections that don't show up as hints aren't of any concern to me.
This was a comment by a self-proclaimed "professional" genealogist by the way.


 ✿ Is there an easy way to find missing generations?
Research?

 ✿ I have been an Ancestry member since 2006. In all my years of looking for ancestors I have never gone an looked at other features they have. I discovered today with the help of the search button that they have free downloadable pedigree charts and family group sheets. Needless to say my printer has been running. Got on Amazon and ordered my legal binders for my family trees.
Eight years. Eight YEARS and you haven't poked around the site? SMH.

 ✿ got it pierman ,rogers. pierson ,burroughs
[a few posts later the same person continues]
Thompson , morrision,rogers,pierman,pierson, bird,murry, Johnson,moores,
And your point is?

 ✿ love hearing the stories of the different families, makes me want to search more and more into my family. thanks to ansctery i've been able to get past some road blocks and gotten back to greek myths. thanks for the education and stories
Not enough education apparently.

 ✿ Any word on how long until the search function for those born before 1000 A.D. is going to be fixed? I've got a LOT of family from way before then, and I can't get anything but some stray German school book information .... I've talked to customer service, who sent a report to the tech folks. Slowing me down !!
How am I supposed to find all those fantasy trees to copy if your search isn't working?!!? Oh and all of us have "a LOT of family from way before then" but none of us can document them.

 ✿ I love ancestry.com found my family back to 202 a.d.
Ancestry's records usually don't go back further than 1600. There are a few exceptions. None of those exceptions include records prior to the year 1200. 


AFTER THE JUMP: Adam & Eve comments, some head/desk moments and a few comments that would require an Idiot Whisperer to decipher.

29 October 2014

Social Disgrace: Rat of God

It's been a couple of months since I've done a Social Disgrace post. That doesn't mean things have improved. If you aren't on Facebook you've missed a lot of AncestryFAIL posts on Barking's Facebook page. Ancestry's social media team really outdid themselves yesterday. The post was so bad it had to be deleted but luckily a friend was able to grab a screen capture for me.

Ancestry.com DYK our Sears, Roebuck and Co. Historic Catalogs span 1896-1993 and have some, shall we say interesting and spooky items for sale including this headstone with what we think is a rat or opossum on top? Take your best guess!
[Ad copy] THIS BEAUTIFUL TOMBSTONE with a sleeping lamb on the top is furnished at the heretofore unheard of prices of $11.65 in Acme Blue, Dark Vein Vermont Marble, and at $12.88 in White Acme Rutland Italian Marble. 

A rat or opossum? Seriously? "Sleeping lamb" is right in the ad copy. And I doubt anyone who has bought a headstone for a child would appreciate the stone being called "spooky" like some cheap Halloween decoration. We won't even go into the disastrous grammar.
An Ancestry.com employee commented with a non-apology apology. Of course once the thread was deleted so was her comment.

Juliana Szucs It is definitely a lamb as it says in the ad, and we meant no disrespect, but in all honestly [sic], when I look at the advertisement I see an opossum. We just thought we'd share it for fun. Apologies to those of you it offended. For those of you who want to browse, the Sears catalogs are here: http://bit.ly/hsD5nm

Got that? If you were offended she apologizes but no apology for offending you. No apology for creating the post. No apology for making light of grieving parents. No apology for their lack of reading comprehension. No apology for their lack of basic cemetery knowledge. Unbelievable.

Thanks to Madelyn for the screen caps!
The title of this post was taken from one of the comments in the deleted thread. Thanks, Jane!



PREVIOUS POST: Etched in Stone
NEXT POST: What the WHAT?

27 October 2014

Etched in Stone

I love most episodes of Finding Your Roots. Some I've watched over and over and over again. Unfortunately last week's episode, "The Melting Pot" [video is available until 21 Nov 2014], made me want to throw things at the television.
Below are a few transcribed portions and my notes.
[Dr. Gates narrating] "When Ming's grandfather left China, there was one object he took with him. A book tracing the family's genealogy back to the year 891 A.D.. It's a treasure in the Tsai family. But unfortunately for Ming the book is simply oral history set down by his ancestors. There's been no way to know if it's true, until now.
We sent researchers to China to try and confirm the Tsai genealogy. It was a long shot. The communists had ordered that all genealogical records be destroyed in an effort to break down family structures. This was, in fact, a fundamental part of the Cultural Revolution. But in some cases stone carved tablets, known as steles, have survived. Before communism the Chinese landscape was dotted with hundreds of thousands of these steles. In Ming's hometown only one remains standing."
"Ming's hometown"? Ming Tsai was born in Newport Beach, California and was raised in Dayton, Ohio.
[Dr. Gates talking to Ming] "Our researcher kept asking around and someone told her that of all of the family shrines that had existed before the Cultural Revolution there was only one that remained standing. Can you imagine that? I mean, of all these thousands, just one."
 Screen cap from "The Melting Pot" episode of Finding Your Roots.

Of course it's for the Tsai family, Ming's 36th great-grandfather, and there is a great television moment...and then genealogy brain kicks in. That stele looks like it was created in the last 25 years so who created it? Where did the information come from? How well is it documented?
Someone on Facebook commented that this stele was actually created in 2007 to memorialize the thousands of steles that once were. I don't read Chinese so maybe someone else can confirm that. Is it "the only one" still standing because it has only been standing for 7 years?
[Dr. Gates narrating] The stele confirmed Ming's family history to the letter. It documented his ancestry back to 891 A.D. and beyond.
Not even a question about whether the book was copied from the stone or vice versa? Do we know who provided the information for the stone? How does this "confirm" anything? I just have more questions.
[Dr. Gates narrating] But for Ming the biggest surprise was yet to come. His family stele lead our researcher to records in the Shanghai Library. Records that allowed us to construct a Tsai family tree that stretched back more than 90 generations. It was the largest family tree that we've ever constructed and it connected Ming to a legendary figure in Chinese history, Huang Di, one of China's first five emperors, often cited in folklore as the father of the Chinese language."
 Screen cap from The Melting Pot episode of "Finding Your Roots."

Oh, they're looking at microfilm. It must be true.
[Dr. Gates narrating] The records skip several generations so precise genealogy is impossible here but Huang Di is roughly Ming's 116th great-grandfather and just one of the hundreds of new ancestors that we were able to name for him.
The records skip several generations. The records SKIP several generations. The records skip SEVERAL generations. There is no way to say that, continue speaking as if it's no big deal, and not have genealogists everywhere question any research you have ever done.
I was hoping that there would be an explanation on the Finding Your Roots website. Research info, a history lesson, something to help us understand. No such luck. Their genealogy blog only has posts about DNA and Dr. Gates' blog hasn't had a new post since May of 2012.



PREVIOUS POST: Pet Peeve: Ancestry Search Sliders
NEXT POST: Social Disgrace: Rat of God

20 October 2014

Pet Peeve: Ancestry Search Sliders

I posted this issue on Ancestry.com's Facebook page the day the sliders were introduced and it was acknowledged by one of Ancestry's genealogists. Of course, like all reported issues, she said that it would be passed on to the appropriate department. Unfortunately my psychic ability was failing me and I didn't think of getting a screen cap. Since I have been banned from the page all my comments and posts there are unavailable. Disappointing. Here's the problem...


[Above] On the left is the view from a search results page. If you were to hover over the surname slider on Ancestry.com you would find it's set to "exact, sounds like and similar." Open up the full "Edit Search" box and you'll see the view on the right. It shows the surname search set to "default settings" which should be the broadest search possible.

[Below] Move the slider to "Broad" and click the "Update" button. How does that appear in the search box? "Restrict to exact, Soundex, phonetic, similar." Ummm...


Okay. Let's try editing the surname search in the edit box rather than with the sliders.


[Above] Well that's an improvement. (Is the sarcasm coming through?) I couldn't find one setting that appeared the same way in both boxes. Ugh!

The programmers added the sliders when the "old" search was retired over 7 months ago and they have known about the problem since then. Apparently they have no intention of fixing it. Instead they are working on adding features we don't need. Like this one:


The filmstrip icon is shown above on a census record but is available on other collections as well. Click it and this appears:


If you hover over an image on the filmstrip a thumbnail about twice the size of the filmstrip image pops up. Even in the larger pop-up most, maybe even all, records are completely illegible. So how is this helpful? We can already skip to whatever page we want by changing the page number and using the 'enter' key. So Ancestry's programmers are replacing the out-of-date, slowing-down-the-page, old search code with newer, we-don't-need-this, slowing-down-the-page, useless feature code. Meanwhile features we've been asking for, e.g. ability to organize photos and DNA comparison tools, are nowhere to be found. Well done, Ancestry.


PREVIOUS POST: Doppelgänger?
NEXT POST: Etched in Stone

13 October 2014

Doppelgänger?

Rule #7: When researching the women on your tree pay attention to which records you need with her maiden name and which you need with her married name.

Below are the details of two records attached to one profile. The profile is for a Mary Gotshall, married to a Ross. Apparently in someone's mind these women are identical. Anyone else think Mary might not have moved, gotten a job, lost her husband and children, and reverted back to her maiden name all in the span of a day?

1900 U.S. Federal Census
Name: Mary Ross
Birth: May 1878 in Pennsylvania
Marital Status: Married (4 years)
Children: 2 (2 living, ages 3 and 1)
Relation to HoH: Wife
Occupation: (blank)
Residence: Lewisburg, Union, Pennsylvania
Enumeration Date: 11 Jun 1900

1900 U.S. Federal Census
Name: Mary Gotshall
Birth: Apr 1879 in Pennsylvania
Marital Status: Single
Children: None
Relation to HoH: Help
Occupation: Dishwasher at hotel
Residence: Canton, Stark, Ohio
Enumeration Date: 12 Jun 1900


PREVIOUS POST: Yowza!
NEXT POST: Pet Peeve: Ancestry Search Sliders

06 October 2014

Yowza!

Rule #5: You do not get to choose your ancestors.
Genealogy is not a buffet. You cannot pick and choose which of your 4th great-grandfather's wives is in your direct line because one is more interesting or easier to research.

Rule #6: Your female ancestor did not give birth when she was 74 years old.
Men can become fathers at any point during their adult lives. The same cannot be said for women. There are a few rare cases of women getting pregnant naturally over the age of 50. There's a list here. A source for one of the births on that list is an Ancestry Member Tree so I wouldn't consider it reliable. It is Wikipedia after all. If you can document a post-50 birth in your tree, without question, then you should go buy a lottery ticket.

You'll notice that this profile breaks Rule #1 and Rule #2 too. It's just all kinds of wrong. Sigh. See what other errors you can find.


 Uploaded numerous times to this tree.
Attached to Lewis O Garner 2nd and Lewis Oliver Garner 3rd.
 Title: tree-direct ancestor

 Lewis O Garner 2nd
 Birth 1793 in Howard Mill Area, Moore, North Carolina, United States
 Death 1879 in Ryans Glade, Garrett, Maryland, United States

 SPOUSE & CHILD
 Elizabeth Rickmeyer (1762-1860)
 ✿ Lewis Oliver Garner 3rd, b. 1840

Uploaded numerous times to this tree.
 Attached to Mary Elizabeth Yow.
 Title: Female Direct Ancestor

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Mary Elizabeth Yow (1799-1860)
 ✿ William Garner, b. 1791
 ✿ John Garner, b. 1794
 ✿ Phoebe Garner, b. 1798
 ✿ Hulda Garner, b. 1800
 ✿ Lewis Garner, b. 1802
 ✿ Malinda Garner, b. 1803
 ✿ Frances GARNER, b. 1820
 ✿ John H Garner, b. 1821
 ✿ Sallie Sarah Garner, b. 1823
 ✿ William Garner, b. 1826
 ✿ Elizabeth Garner, b. 1828
 ✿ Frances Frannie Garner, b. 1830
 ✿ Lydia Garner, b. 1832
 ✿ Margaret Garner, b. 1833
 ✿ William Garner, b. 1837
 ✿ John Garner, b. 1839
 ✿ Mary A Garner, b. 1858
 ✿ Richard McCorey Yow, b. 1870
 ✿ Florence J Yow, b. 1876

 SPOUSE & CHILD
 Elizabeth Yow (1799-1860)
 ✿ Sallie Sarah Garner, b. 1823

 SPOUSE
 Rebecca Spinks Yow (1835-1911)

 ONE of the RECORDS ATTACHED
 ✿ 1790 United States Federal Census
    Lewis Garner


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


PREVIOUS POST: The Biblical Rule
NEXT POST: Doppelgänger?

29 September 2014

The Biblical Rule

Rule #4: The Bible is not a source for your family tree.
"I don't think we're going to decide whether or not the Bible is an accurate genealogical source on this (or any other) Facebook group. Let's move on, shall we?" - a genealogist employed by Ancestry.com
This decision does not need to be made in a Facebook group or anywhere else because there is nothing to decide. The Bible is not, and never will be, a genealogical source for your family tree. Period.
Note that I said "The Bible" and not "the family bible." A family bible can have useful information usually provided by someone who could be considered a primary or secondary source. The Bible, on the other hand, can only be considered a source for family trees limited to names mentioned in The Bible. Even then it is a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a...
This is not a Christian vs. non-Christian thing. This is a fantasy vs. proof thing. Some of you who are looking to be offended are probably already typing your misspelled, misdirected comments before you've even finished reading this post. I have not said The Bible is fantasy. No one's religious beliefs are at issue. The fantasy is thinking that you can connect someone named in The Bible to someone not mentioned in The Bible with any certainty.
If you have ever tried to tell someone that The Bible is not a genealogical source they probably argued that The Bible is true. They have no convincing rebuttal for using The Bible as genealogical documentation which is why they will try to derail the argument onto the subject of religion. Allow them to do that and you will have lost the debate.
If you think you have connected a branch of your tree to Biblical times you should submit a paper about your documentation to a genealogical society for review and publication. I'm sure they could use a laugh.


ADDITIONAL READING from FamilySearch: 
Can I trace genealogy back to Adam and Eve?
I have my family tree back to Adam and Eve

PREVIOUS POST: The Rules
NEXT POST: Yowza!

22 September 2014

The Rules

Rule #3: Your family tree cannot connect living people to persons who lived during Biblical times.
"But The Bible..." No.
"But once you hit royalty..." No.
"But [whatever other reason lacking common sense you can come up with]..." No!


 Don Consobrina Verch Mathonwy
 Birth 100 BC in Arimathaea, Ramathaim Zophim, now, Israel
 Death 80 BC in Ely, Cambridgeshire, England

 PARENTS
 Joseph Saint James Armimathea
 Anna Verch Eleazor


If you have a profile to suggest please email the link to buwt(at)gmail(dot)com. Thanks!

PREVIOUS POST: The Rules
NEXT POST: The Biblical Rule

15 September 2014

The Rules

Rule #2: Children cannot be born years after their parents have died.
There is no genetic trait that will allow for an exception. Your 5th great-grandfather wasn't born after his parents died and his children were not born after he died.
This is a rule that will have exceptions in modern times but when it comes to your ancestors...

William Moore
Birth 1767
Death 1781

PARENTS
John Moore (1675-1753)
Tabitha Pace (1714-1753)

SPOUSE & CHILDREN
Ann Nancy Lanier (1749-1833)
 Edward Moore (1769- )
 William Moore II (1775-1829)
 Aaron Moore (1781-1857)
 Moses Moore (1785- )
 Thomas Moore (1805- )

...families like this one never existed.


Thanks to Kristin for the link to this profile ;-)
If you have a profile to suggest you can email me a link at buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.


PREVIOUS POST: The Rules
NEXT POST: The Rules


08 September 2014

The Rules

I don't think any profile will ever top the Bottomless Pit so I'm going to simplify things for a while.

Rule #1: Children cannot be born before their parents. Ever.
There is no "may not" or "should not" or any other choice of words that could leave any room for doubt. A child being born before their parents is a physical impossibility. There are NO exceptions to this rule...until someone builds a working TARDIS, then all bets are off.


 James Ferguson
 Birth 1724 in Robeson, North Carolina, USA
 Death 1838 in Robeson, North Carolina, USA

 FATHER
 Alexander Ferguson
 Birth 1822 in Scotland
 Death 1896 in Scotland

 MOTHER
 Elizabeth Stewart
 Birth 1831 in Scotland
 Death 1881 in Scotland


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


PREVIOUS POST: Polyandry
NEXT POST: The Rules

02 September 2014

Polyandry

Am I the only person who didn't know polygamy only applies to one husband and multiple wives? Polyandry involves one wife having multiple husbands. For some reason I don't think that is what this is. This...

 Maude Ellen Bushnell
 Birth 23 Apr 1874
 Marriage Sep 1889 to Edward Albert Stratton
 Marriage Sep 1889 to John Bedford Whitsett
 Marriage 18 Oct 1889 to Edward Albert Stratton
 Marriage 18 Oct 1889 to Jesse S Osborn
 Marriage 2 Jan 1893 to Edward Albert Stratton
 Marriage 10 Sep 1904 to John Bedford Whitsett
 Marriage 10 Aug 1924 to Charles Fredrick Bottger
 Death 24 May 1951

...is just someone shutting off their brain while working on their tree.


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


PREVIOUS POST: Pet Peeves: WDYTYA? Edition
NEXT POST: The Rules

27 August 2014

Pet Peeves: WDYTYA? Edition

These Who Do You Think You Are? pet peeves are not about the show itself but rather the "Me! Me! Me!" fans. I know, you're shocked.


I love you. Now change.

The show is amazing but they should change it and feature regular people. They should listen to ME since my idea is so original.

I'd volunteer.

After the show is completely revamped they will need people to feature so why not ME? The producers will have to beg people to participate just to fill a single season so they will appreciate ME offering to be the recipient of free research, free travel, and national exposure. Look at ME being completely selfless.

Everyone would want to watch ME.

Once this show happens there is no question that they would pick ME. An episode about ME would be just as interesting as Gwenyth Paltrow's or Tim McGraw's and would definitely draw the same number of viewers.

Behind my brick wall is an amazing story.

No one knows what is behind that brick wall but it would definitely make for the most amazing television show you have ever seen. The research blocks couldn't possibly be because the family has been peasant farmers for 10 generations. Doesn't matter, a show about ME would be completely fascinating.


This is what goes through my head when I read comments from WDYTYA? fans. I really should stop reading them.


Related Material: Interview with Lisa Kudrow (Aug 2014)
                             Interview with Dan Bucatinsky


PREVIOUS POST: Social Disgrace III
NEXT POST: Polyandry


13 August 2014

Social Disgrace III

The more I see social media's so-called "experts" at work the more I am convinced they are the snake oil salesmen of our generation. They convince unwitting suits that they have the cure for all their company's ills while knowing nothing about the company's products or services. Managing social media is needed for many companies so there must be people competent at it. Unfortunately they don't work for Ancestry.com.
Ancestry.com has a number of knowledgeable genealogists on staff. Unfortunately knowing anything at all about genealogy, the Ancestry.com website or Ancestry's other products is not a requirement for employment in Ancestry's other departments. Sometimes it seems as if Ancestry prefers to hire people who know nothing at all about genealogy. It would be nice, however, if they at least knew something about their field of expertise.


Can you spot the errors? If you found more than I did add them in the comments. My list and much more after the jump.

14 July 2014

Kan u hep me fine my famly?

Usually in genealogy we say that spelling doesn't count. That applies to searches and records created before the advent of Social Security, not to Facebook and message board posts. If you want to be taken seriously, in life not just in the genealogy world, learn to proofread. Spelling, grammar, capitalization (especially of surnames)...it all matters.
This is especially important if you're posting on a page/group/message board where the language used is not one you are fluent in. If you don't use an online translator before you post another user will use one after. They may be able to help you break down a brick wall but if you can't write a coherent post you won't be able to communicate with them.
If you are posting, or reading posts, on Facebook I would recommend not using the Bing translator that automatically appears on some Facebook posts. If there are minor misspellings Google Translate will suggest possibilities. I pasted the title of this post into Google Translate and while it detected the sentence as Norwegian it also asked if I meant, "Can u help me find my family?" Bing, on the other hand, detected English and the translation was the exact same thing I pasted in to be translated. I have also seen the "see translation" option under Facebook comments that were entirely in well written English.
One last tip, no online translator is perfect. If you are going to publish something in another language try to find an actual person to proofread your work. Otherwise you could end up with something like this.


PREVIOUS POST: Bottomless Pit
NEXT POST: Social Disgrace III

13 June 2014

Bottomless Pit

Thanks to Claire for the link to this profile! I wanted to thank her right at the top because you may never get to the bottom of this post. Seriously. I think this tree owner has added every event from their entire tree to this one profile.
Some of the more amusing notes are on events that have no date. If you want to skip to those you may want to start at the end of the post and scroll up.
If you see events not in chronological order they are not typos on my part. I think Ancestry's computer just threw up its metaphorical hands in despair. With almost 2000 marriage events who can blame it?
These are the records/sources attached to the profile:
1870 U.S. Federal Census
James Sanford, born abt 1836 in Michigan; living in Lansing, Mower, Minnesota
Civil War Service Records
James Sanford, 11th Wisconsin Infantry, Company B
U.S. and Canada, Passenger and Immigration Lists Index
William Anderson, arrived in Maryland in 1659
U.S. Civil War Soldiers
James Sanford, 11th Wisconsin Infantry, Company B
U.S. Civil War Pension Index: General Index to Pension Files
James M. Sanford, 11th Wisconsin Infantry, Company B; widow Annie C. Sanford
U.S. Civil War Soldier Records and Profiles
James M. Sanford, enlistment date 12 Sep 1861, 11th Wisconsin Infantry, Company B
Ancestry Family Trees
Profiles included in this "source" are for Luna Elizabeth Sanford, Benjamin Albee, Luanna Rutledge, Charles Thurston Capwell, Henry Talladay, Charles Byron Andrews, John Milroy, James Austin Criswell, James Burns, Betty Ann POTTS, and George David Shannon

The entire profile is after the jump.

23 May 2014

Clickophile

I'm sorry I haven't been posting much lately. My computer is dying and it takes forever to get anything done. I'm hoping to get a new one at the end of summer and have an iPad mini in the meantime. Unfortunately writing blog posts on the mini is a royal PITA. Yeah, I know, First World problems ;-) I'll post when I can.
For now here's a profile from a typical clickophile tree. How many offenses can you find?

 Dagobert I Austrasia
 Birth abt 602 in Soissons, Aisne, Picardie, France
 Death 19 Jan in St Denis, Paris, Ile-de-France, France

 SPOUSE
 Berthilde
 Birth in Metz, Marion, West Virginia, United States
 Death in Y, Somme, Picardie, France

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Ragentrude Berthilde
 ✿ Chlodovech Clovis II of Neustria
 ✿ Règinotrude De Neustria (0637-0697)
 ✿ Ragnetrud The Franks (1893- )

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Nantilde DeNeustria (610-642)
 ✿ Adela Austrasia
 ✿ Chlodovech Clovis Neustria DeNeustria
 ✿ Clovis DeNeustria DeBurgundy
 ✿ Ragnetrud The Franks
 ✿ Sigebert Austrasia

 RECORDS
 Ancestry Member Trees


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

PREVIOUS POST: No Leeway, The Photos
NEXT POST: Bottomless Pit

09 May 2014

No Leeway, The Photos

Here, finally, are the photos from the tree that contains this profile.
The tree has 705 photos. The photos below are 561 of them.
The "maybe" images should be yellow on a white background. I have no idea why the colors have changed. Also, most of the image files are much smaller here. On Ancestry.com they are wasting much more space.

Title: Yes
Uploaded 1 time.

 ✿ ✿ ✿

Title: Maybe
Uploaded 6 times.
 ✿ ✿ ✿
Title: no
Uploaded 17 times.

 ✿ ✿ ✿

Title: maybe
Uploaded 35 times.
 ✿ ✿ ✿
Title: yes
Uploaded 58 times.
✿ ✿ ✿
Title: Maybe
Uploaded 105 times.
✿ ✿ ✿
Title: no
Uploaded 113 times.
✿ ✿ ✿
Title: No
Uploaded 226 times.



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


PREVIOUS POST: Dead End Street
NEXT POST: Clickophile

30 April 2014

Dead End Street

WARNING! 
This post will involve a lot of scrolling. 
If you have carpal tunnel issues proceed at your own risk.
Post is continued after the jump. 
You can't say I didn't warn you.

25 April 2014

Not in Line for the Throne

This screen cap below was posted, by the tree owner, to a genealogy Facebook page last month. I have cropped the image to remove the tree owner's Ancestry.com username. She posted to ask about how to enter names from eras before surnames were common because, "I have many of the European Royalty in my line."
I just want to point out one thing but I'll let you take a look first in case you'd like to guess what the 'one thing' is.


Think you've got it? Here is that comment that I restrained myself from making on Facebook:
"The great-grandfather of the husband of your 14th great-grand aunt is not in YOUR line!"
It's easy to get sidetracked by a tangential family when there's a story or a mystery. If you don't keep track of where your family stops and the other family begins or you'll wind up researching the neighbor of the nephew of the great-grandfather of your 4th cousin's brother-in-law. If that's what you want to do, great but that wouldn't even be a collateral line, much less your line.
I will never understand the desperate need to be connected to royalty. And why does that desperation go hand in hand with fake coats of arms?


PREVIOUS POST: Bang Your Head
NEXT POST: Dead End Street

14 April 2014

Bang Your Head

Back to the trees today :-)

 Jane Bangar
 Birth 1712 in Virginia, United States
 Death 25 Jun 1762 in Weston

 PARENTS
 John Bangar (1690-1725)
 Mary (1700-1724)

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Benjamin Garner (1663-1713) married 1683, Weston, Wyoming, United States
 ✿ [female] Garner (1664-1724)
 ✿ William Garner (1680-1749)
 ✿ Charles Garner (1684- )
 ✿ Joseph Garner (1684-1776)
 ✿ William Garner (1686-1771)
 ✿ Thomas Garner (1687-1726)
 ✿ John Garner (1688- )
 ✿ Mary Garner (1689- )
 ✿ Jane Joyce Garner (1690-1781)
 ✿ Susanna Garner (1690- )
 ✿ Jeremiah Garner (1694- )
 ✿ Charles Garner (1733-1797)
 ✿ William Garner (1735- )
 ✿ John Garner (1739-1813)
 ✿ Mary Garner (1741- )
 ✿ Susannah Garner (1743-1841)

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 John Garner (1708-1762) married 1730 in Stafford, Stafford, Virginia, United States
 ✿ [female] Garner (1664-1724)
 ✿ William Garner (1680-1749)
 ✿ Charles Garner (1684- )
 ✿ William Garner (1686-1771)
 ✿ Thomas Garner (1687- )
 ✿ John Garner (1688- )
 ✿ Mary Garner (1689- )
 ✿ Susanna Garner (1690- )
 ✿ Joseph Garner (1692- )
 ✿ Jeremiah Garner (1694- )
 ✿ Charles Garner (1733-1797)
 ✿ William Garner (1735-1771)
 ✿ John Garner (1739-1813)
 ✿ Mary Garner (1741- )
 ✿ Susannah Garner (1743-1841)
 ✿ Lewis Garner (1750-1815)
 ✿ Bradley Garner (1754-1838)
 ✿ Mary Garner (1756-1849)

 SPOUSE
 Thomas Reno (1703-1777) married 1762 in Prince William, Virginia, United States

 RECORDS ATTACHED
 ✿ Family Data Collection - Individual Records
    Name: John Garner
    Spouse: Jane Joyce
    Parents: John Garner, Susanna Keene
    Birth Place: of, Northumberland, VA
    Birth Date: 20 Jun 1663
    Marriage Place: Weston
    Marriage Date: 1679
    Death Place: Weston
    Death Date: 25 Mar 1713
    Events attached to: Birth, Marriage to John Garner, Marriage to Thomas Reno, Death
 ✿ U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900
    Name: John Garner
    Gender: Male
    Birth Place: VA
    Birth Year: 1663
    Spouse Name: Jane Joyce
    Marriage Year: 1678
    Events attached to: Birth, Marriage to John Garner, Marriage to Thomas Reno
 ✿ U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900
    Name: John Garner
    Gender: Male
    Birth Place: VA
    Birth Year: 1660
    Spouse Name: Jane Joyce
    Marriage Year: 1678
    Events attached to: Marriage to Benjamin Garner
 ✿ U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900
    Name: John Garner
    Gender: Male
    Birth Place: EN
    Birth Year: 1633
    Spouse Name: Susanna Keene
    Marriage Year: 1659
    Events attached to: Marriage to Benjamin Garner
 ✿ U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900
    Name: John Garner
    Gender: Male
    Birth Place: VA
    Birth Year: 1633
    Spouse Name: Susannah Keene
    Spouse Birth Year: 1634
    Marriage Year: 1660
    Marriage State: VA 
    Events attached to: Marriage to Benjamin Garner

There's a span of almost 40 years with no births but plenty of children were born before and after that dry spell. About half of the children were born before their maternal grandparents. Every "record" attached to the profile is for John Garner, and it's not even the John Garner Jane was supposedly married to. There's a marriage event in Wyoming a couple of centuries before it became a state. The tree owner couldn't find the name of one female child, or her spouse, but figuring out the death date was no problem. And of course it's always amusing to have a woman giving birth to children that have two fathers and showing that one of those fathers sired children after his death.
Did I miss anything?


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

PREVIOUS POST: You Only Live Twice
NEXT POST: Not in Line for the Throne