Genealogy Do-Over Week 2: Final Assessement of Our Tasks for Week Two:

Task One: I have transcribed my Self-Interview in a word-processor document stored in my computer with my Genealogy Do-Over “homework.” (I have also given a copy of this to my husband and asked him to provide a similar set of information for his life.)

Task Two: I have begun to do similar narratives for my mother’s families and my father’s families. This will take longer to complete than the Self-Interview did; I now have enough of this entered into the computer to work with the upcoming homework during the remaining weeks of Genealogy Do-Over. I will continue to work on this document until I have recorded these memories.

(I also have two related tasks not directly related to our “homework assignments” but to skills I feel sure are necessary to me in order to become efficient in working in genealogy — more of a “real genealogist”: I need to become more skillful in my use of Evernote and I need to become more skillful in my use of Evidentia. From the discussions within the Facebook group many of my fellow Do-Over comrades relate to these needs.)

So this is where I am as we approach the beginning of Week Three, with the exception of the final task for Week Two

Task Three: Research Goals:

I’m not sure I can stay in step with Thomas here. (But one of the GREAT things about Genealogy Do-Over is that we’re encouraged to shape our plans to fit our personal traits!)

My revised and evolving narrative Research Logs appear to be tied into a research plan and research goals which are to developed, followed, and evaluated for each individual I enter into my tree. I think these need to be tied to a still-to-be-developed To-Do list (perhaps in a database?) If I keep the To-Do list, the tree in my software, and the research logs together while I work, my specific goals should become more systematic and my research should stay organized. As I pursue my research, I will continue to mine sources I have found in my last seven years of research, evaluating them, evaluating the areas that lack data, and preparing proof statements. Proof statements are a level of research that I hanen’t yet reached.

I DO have a general plan as to how I will “climb”my tree: Starting with myself in the initial position, I will research, verify and “prove" the sources and data for me, my first husband, and my current husband. For each person in this generation (my generation) I will include available information on the siblings, spouses, and children of each basic individual. I will be very thorough about the three main people — the starting persons of three separate lines. For the siblings, children, and spouses I will be less exhaustive in my searches but I plan to gather enough information to fill in a reasonable family history for each line in my tree.

When this generation is “finished" to my satisfaction, I will proceed to the next older generation. I’ll treat this next generation the same way: exhaustive research on the direct-line parents and spouses, less thorough but still reasonably complete research on the siblings, spouses, and children. A genealogy chart (tree) gets larger with each generation. In order to keep track of my generations, and to be sure I am adhering to the direct line, I will follow the Dollarhide numbers which I have already assigned to the people in my tree.

In my system, I am Dollarhide 5.0, so my father is 10.0 and my mother is 11.0. My current husband is Dollahide 4.0, his father is 8.0 and his mother is 9.0 and my first husband is Dollarhide 6.0, his father is 12.0 and is mother is 13.0. (Yes, in the direct line, Dollarhide and Ahnentafel numbers are the same.) The exhaustive research is done for the people with the Dollarhide/Ahnentafel numbers. In each generation there are related numbers to indicate the generation and the relationship of an individual to the individuals of the direct line; individuals with these related numbers will be given the thorough, but less exhaustive research I have described for my generation.

In following this pattern, I plan to "ignore" any descendants of the people in that generation, except for a simple listing of their names and birth and death dates as available. This leaves pointers to the “shiny objets” but keeps me focused on the direct line.

The siblings, children, spouses, and in-laws of each generation are some of the “friends, associates, and neighbors”of that generation. They can help widen the search when your studies are blocked.

If you are working with co-operative trees online, these people help you determine if the connection between your tree and another tree is a viable connection. If the R. P. Jones suggested for your tree has children very different from the names in your tree, he probably isn’t "your" R. P. Jones.

And, finally, those names will answer every new-comer’s question, “What will I do when I finish my genealogy?“ OK! —you experienced genalogists, when you have finished laughing! — THESE names are the bright, shiny objects that keep luring us away from our objectives. By listing them this way, we will never lose sight of them but we can push them aside while we follow our main trail.

Genealogy Do Over Week 2

Thomas MacEntee gave us three assignments for week two; since today is Wednesday and I haven’t finished any of them, I decided to post samples of what I have achieved.

Before we began this week’s work, I got into a discussion about how we preserve our family stories. As I did the Self-Interview, I was reminded of many of these stories. I entered keyword reminders following the various paragraphs of my self=interview; I can return to the keywords and produce the stories. I’ll be less likely to forget this way. So thanks to all the folk at the Facebook page for triggering this interim solution. The keywords won’t mean anything to the blog readers, but many of them are meaningful to my children and my husband, so this is a good first step.

I began a narrative- style first interview. This is the most-nearly completed assignment. A pencil draft has been completed, but the edited, computer entry hasn’t been done for the final part (about two-thirds of one side of a looseleaf notebook page).

Self-Interview; first paragraph:

I was born September 9, 1927 at St. Mary’s Hospital, Clayton, St. Louis county, Missouri to Robert Ellsworth Strickler and Adelle Dorrance. He was 30 and she was 36 (the birth certificate says 34, she was never honest about her age, because she was ashamed of being 6 years older than he). The apartment which was my first home was on the third floor of the apartment building on the northeast corner of Henrietta and Theresa. Later, we lived on the second floor of the building in the middle of the complex, facing on Theresa, and finally we lived on the first floor of the building on the southeast corner of Theresa and Lafayette, facing Lafayette and Compton Heights Park. I don’t have the exact addresses for any of these apartments; the 1930 census gives one of the addresses, but as of how I don’t know which one we were living in.

{name story; tornado story, Una story/picture on St. Mary’s roof}

I highlighted the keywords for the purpose of the blog, the inserted line is enough for the actual document. 

There are some factors to be considered about the Family Interview. I’ll let you read the first three paragraphs and then discuss my concerns.

Family Interview. first three paragraphs:

When I took my first course in genealogy in 1998 at 78, I was already the oldest living person I knew of in my family. When I restarted my efforts at family history in 2007 with new and better software and better internet access to records tere were no older relatives to question. What I did have were various family memories that my relatives told me, and various discussions I had overheard. What I can do in this section of Week 2 studies is to record these memories as best I can.

Interviews with (from oldest to youngest) with: Rose Dorrance, Olive Dorrance Pursell, and Adelle Dorrance Strickler (my mother and her older sisters). Mother almost never talked of her family; Rose and Olive did so more frequently.

THE DORRANCE FAMILY: Aunt Rose told me that her grandfather William T. Dorrance was a soldier who had been on the Fremont expedition that had climbed Pike’s Peak, that he was a supply sergeant stationed in New Orleans during the Mexican War, that he had married in New Orleans at the Catholic Cathedral there, and had moved to Jefferson County, Missouri before the Civil War. The Fremont connection was pretty well disproved while I was in high school, because I looked up the expedition. which wasn’t Pike’s Peak; There was no Dorrance listed among the expedition members. (I never tried to alter the family memories.)

This narrative is much less smooth than the Self-Interview. But it is going to have much more detail than I had gathered when I began to work in either the abortive attempt of 1998 or the more successful beginning in 2007. So thank you, Thomas for suggesting this technique for the Self-Interview. It works well for the missing Family Interviews also.

The instructions to beginning genealogists always include “Interview your older family members.” I am very sure than there are many beginning genealogists who began to work in their retirement years and who found themselves in my position. There WERE no older family members. When we teach beginners, we should address this possibility, and provide more help. Thomas’ narrative style is working well for me, perhaps that suggestion should be included to help the older beginner?

Somewhere recently I read a statement that a genealogy shouldn’t have citations of online-trees, because of all the errors they contain. I call these sources “Springboard" sources. I see them as the equivalent of the Family Interview. I research them in the same manner that I research any source. They go into my research logs. They contain valuable pointers as to where to look.

Of course, they contain errors; so did Aunt Rose’s story of her grandfather’s service. In 2007 and 2008, I researched any connection between William T. Dorrance and General Fremont and came up with a negative; as I have always suspected, Aunt Rose was wrong. I then learned to look into military records in general (it is much harder for the regular army than for the volunteers). I found his land grant; it was for service in the Florida wars. There is lots more work to be done before I find out WHICH William T. Dorrance from Connecticut is my great grandfather, but the “Springboard" source lead me in the right direction.

As to a citation to such a source, I would feel like a thief if I didn’t acknowledge the work of someone who lead me is such a useful direction. (And don’t forget here, that a negative answer is a help, don’t insist on Fremont, or your impression that your immigrant ancestors landed in New York. If you can’t find the answer where you thought, then you’ve learned to look in other areas.) The proof argument doesn’t depend upon the “Springboard" source, but the cousin or family connection who pointed you in the proper directions does deserve mention.

Here is my new attempt at a narrative style research log. At this time it appears to be combined with a research plan. This works for me, but may not work for other folk.

A log will have more than one entry (unless you have done only one search which found only one document). In a spread-sheet style, each line is an entry. In a narrative log, these should be arranged by the order in which you found them. Today, I have used bullets to separate the logs;  I think a numbering system would be better, but I can't figure out what system should be used. — What would you do?

I've been struggling with logs since the day I started to use Reunion in 2007; log information is all over my computer. This style seems to come closest to meeting my requirements. But I also need to be clear to other workers.

Lynn Dosch sent me some good questions and suggestions after reading my first attempts, which I tried to incorporate into this version. Please, Lynn, and anyone else do the same for this one. I hope you readers will tear this apart and add more suggestions.

Goal: Who are the parents and siblings of Sue Strickler? (Born: 1927 – Living)

Immediate documents to search for would be 

Birth certificates

Baptisms (I was not baptized as an infant; there are no church records)

  Census records: 1930, 1940

As other sources become available, they will be added; as:

Email Attachment from {name withheld} {place withheld}

Research Log: 

• Document Description: Original Birth Certificate (Long form) description to come. As of January 4, 2015,I could not find this document online at the Missouri State Archives, Ancestry, or FamilySearch. The originally issued copy is hidden (filed in the notorious “nice safe place” somewhere inside my house and cannot be accessed at this time. The physical search for my copy is continuing. Source 1tk.

• Document Description: Missouri State Issued Birth Certificate, amended to show the spelling change I initiated at age 12. Source 2

Background/Evaluation: ALL my official documents except the original birth certificate are spelled “Carolyn;” this amended birth certificate is the only official record of that change in spelling. The certificate gives as Authorization “CHAPTER 193 RSMO.” I haven’t research the laws behind this statement.

The original source citation: Birth Certification for Carolyn Sue Strickler

Missouri. The Department of Health of Missouri.

State Registrar of Vital Statistics. Privately held by SWM

accessed 10 Sep 1996

At the present time, I plan on keeping this citation format.

Storage: In Dropbox: Reunion Files>Files for Both Versions>!Reunion Pictures>Documents>Birth>StricklerSue 1927 Birth.pdf

• Document Description: Descendants of Joseph Kimmell, a 36 page unsourced descendancy chart (list) sent to me via email by my fourth cousin Mike. Source Z

Background/Evaluation: This is a “springboard" source. Much of the other information I received from Mike was carefully sourced, but this chart is unsourced. There are 2182 individuals in this chart.

I will use this chart along with all other appropriate documents as I prepare proof statements using the Evidentia program.

History: I first met Mike when he responded to a query about his tree at RootsWeb. Through much of 2008, he corresponded with me via email, patiently answering my questions, sending me some of his materials, and teaching me my first immediately applied lessons in genealogy. I consider this correspondance as a twenty-first century equivalence to the older style voice interview.

In 2008, I entered the 2182 names into my Reunion software. This was a useful activity at the time; it taught me how to understand the structure of this form of genealogical information. It also gave me lots of practice with using my very new-to-me software. It was this list that showed me my first example of genealogical collapse (families who intermarry in more than one generation).

Today, I know that my tree is full of non-information: 2182 persons whose histories have never been researched and perhaps will never be researched. Because this document provides names and relationships that alert me to possible connections, I will use it in my research as a source which is valuable to me. I do not consider that the information here a strong part of my evidence.

Storage: As of 4 January, 2015, this document is stored in my Dropbox files: Dropbox>Reunion Files >Files for Both Versions>eDocArchives>Mike {private}>{surname private}; Strickler, Carolin Sue; 2008-02-29; Email Attachment; {places private}

Other Documents attached to this goal: As of  4 January, 2015, other than the two documents listed above this entry, there are no other documents at this time.

Future Action: As of 4 January, 2014, there is no plan for future action.

Genealogy Do Over | Week 1, About those logs!

Below this explanation are two examples of the narrative-type log I’ve been working with. It appears to combine the research goal and the research log. It works well for me. My problem is with the way I have been storing these; my current method is awkward when I wish to retrieve the log. (Currently each log is tagged to one or more Source numbers from my Reunion Software and stored in folders without much rhyme are reason.)

As I understand it, the point of a log is so you know where you have looked and what you have found or not found. Also you should be able to determine your next step. I’m sure with a bit of tweaking, this would meet these purposes.

But logs have another purpose — they should help people who follow your work understand what your goals were and the paths you followed. SO MY QUESTION to the folk who read this blog, especially those of you who are in the Genealogy Do Over group is:  Does this type of blog work for other people, or is it only useful for my personal outlook?

LOG 1 (A log for working with a census)

Name objective location

Aton, Nelson Hamilton verify residence Reunion Files

Date/ref # goal repository

1 Aug 2012) part of census project NARA

(and 28 May 2013) @ Ancestry.com

RESULTS

Aton, Nelson Hamilton

Cissell, Elizabeth Ann

Aton, Thomas J

Aton, William Franklin

For the “F. A. N.” transcriptions: I have transcribed 5 pages for Kentucky, Union County, District No. 1. New copies of all five pages were captured and stored in the Reunion Pictures Folder on 28 May, 2013. Pages were transcribed on that day and stored in Dropbox/Reunion/FamilyFile Records/Tools/CensusTranscriptions/1850 SpreadSheets/1850Kentucky147+.numbers.

This log was created 5 Jun 2013. SWM

LOG 2 (A log for a birth certificate)

Name objective location

Robert Francis McCormick find proof of birth Reunion Files

Date/ref # goal repository

10 Sep 1996 find GPS proof of Robert’s Safe Deposit Box

birth Boone County Bank

RESULTS

This is a scanned copy of the Birth Certificate requested while planning for the 1997 British Experience trip.  This is Bob’s first State Certificate Application.

Revised citation and this log entry were prepared 26 Apr 2013. SWM

Genealogy Do Over — Week 1 Goals

Genealogy Do Over: Breaking with the previous research materials and with previous practices •  Preparing to Research

Relocation of physical objects: This activity is on hold until the house has been restored to some semblance of order. I know where these items are and don’t wish to lose them, so they will stay where they are. I won’t dig into them during these 13 weeks, thereby repeating my errors.

Electronic information: I have five genealogy folders on my computer.

Within my Drop box folder, where the files have the advantage of cloud storage and backup as well as backup to my backup hard drive through the Apple Time-Machine app, I;m retaining four folders. “!Genealogy (NOT Reunion) contains largely unsorted old information. I will use this only if I need to search for an image collected in my early work which is necessary for my current work. Basically, this is stored “off-limits” material. A similar folder is on my hard-drive but not in Dropbox.

Within Dropbox, in a folder accessed by my software program, I have organized three new folders.

“Do Over Files.” This folder is brand new; it contains only four items at this point. My new Heredis tree, created so that I can share tree information online during the course of these studies. It replicates as best I can my new data in my software program. A pdf of the manual for the Heredis software (the manual is awkward to use in the furnished version). There is a fourth temporary item: a FileMakerPro database that is a duplicate and extension of my first attempt at log keeping. It doesn’t work, but it will serve until the upcoming lessons and discussions in the Do Over group help me format a method of keeping logs that fit my style and include all the pertinent data. I think the Do Over group is going to keep telling me KISS (Keep It Simple Sue) while I work out my style of log.

Another folder holds the original database and files used in support of this data. This folder and the third folder are required by my database in order for it to reach the information it points to in the files. The original (packed away folder) is called “Reunion Files on Hold;” the remaining folder is called “Files for Both Versions” 

I believe that this work has me ready to address the third aim for Week One: Aim 3- Establishing Base Practices and Guidelines.

This is tough for me. I keep starting off in all directions (maybe that’s why I haven’t done productive research? Maybe this is why I NEED this 13-week discussion/course?) I’m going back the the Do Over Facebook page and pore over the postings there. I’m going to study the blogs that have been produced in the warm-up period. I hope that by the end of week one, I shall have formulated simple Practices and Guideline that will work for me. 

New Organization (The Organized Genealogist)

Early in the life of the Facebook group "The Organized Genealogist," I posted a picture of the hall bookshelves which held my genealogy papers and books. This storage worked well except for the fact that it was separated from my computer desk by the entire length of the house. About June 17 I rearranged this storage to move my genealogy materials to my computer area.

I have trouble handling photos in Facebook. After struggle to post this there in the way I wish to show it, I have decided to make a blog about these changes.

Here is the original shelving arrangement in the back hallway.

Here is the new arrangement in the industrial shelving that acts as a room divider between my computer desk plus stitchery studio and the living room area in our house.

This is the desk side of the shelving. It shows all my Family Notebooks, my genealogy reference books, and my loose paper files. The second shelf also holds my Flip-Pal scanner. The third shelf holds loose papers to be analyzed, scanned and filed, or filed, or discarded. It also contains the tote bags I use when going on a research trip.

The basket in front of the shelves holds my entire embroidery floss collection. It also serves as a shelf to hold the papers with which I'm working. Shown here are printouts of email correspondence my sister-in-law shared with us. The basket  holds any of the note books or research books equally well.

This is the living room side of the same shelving area. Above the genealogy storage you see additional stitchery supplies.

Although this isn't rigidly neat, it looks well from both sides and my genealogy supplies are handy to my work desk when I am working on the computer.

Finally, here is the hall shelving, now holding the stationery items that used to be by the computer.

\

For me this is a great improvement; when I want to find a reference not in my computer, or to compare printouts of earlier work with the computer screen I am currently working with, everything is within arm's reach. I now go the length of the house to get this stationary (a once-a-week to once-a-month trip), but I have my genealogy where I work.

Homework for Mastering Genealogical Proof Chapter One

I’m glad that I am not a panelist for the DearMYRTLE’s Hangouts on Air that are examining Dr. Jones’ Mastering Genealogical Proof. The panelists are to post their completed homework for Chapter One by midnight tonight (Tuesday 18 Jun 2013).

I have not yet finished MY homework for this chapter — and it may not be finished by the time we finish studying the entire book. The problem lies not with the book, but with my pattern of learning.

I read Chapter One with interest but also with a sense of familiarity. After all, I have read Christine Rose’s Genealogical Proof Standard: Building a Solid Case  on more than one occasion.; I have also studied the first two chapters of Elizabeth Shown Mills’ Evidence Explained more than once; and I participated in the Second Life study of Dr. Jones’ Family Search.org study on “Inferential  Genealogy.” So I felt at home with the concepts of Chapter One. On 30 May, I finished the chapter and confidently wrote out my answers to the Chapter One questions. I then checked out those answers with the answer key and gave myself a grade of D+.

{My 30 May answers and my analysis of each of my answers appear at the end of this blog.}

Am I glad I chose to answer these questions in a notebook and not in Dr. Jones’ workbook. I can continued using the workbook as I work to improve my grasp of the chapter.

Yes, the concepts were familiar to me; I recognized them as I read them, but I had not made them into my concepts; I had not internalized them. I need to work on each one until I can consistently remember and state in my own words the finer points of Dr Jones’ statements (in the Chapter and in the Answer Key). Or (should I find myself disagreeing with him) I need to state his points and then state my differences. Only then will I have made Chapter One my own.

Surface learning (which is my natural style) will not help me become a high-quality genealogist. I must use the harder-for-me process of rethinking and restating until I “own” these concepts. As I stated earlier, this may take me months. But now that I realize that this learning pattern is what I need, I will dig in and do it — for Chapter One and for every other chapter in Mastering Genealogical Proof.  After all, it isn’t necessary for me to learn it all the first time through; there is no time limit on getting it right. But if I am to be the thorough genealogist I wish to be, I must stick to this until I HAVE mastered this and it has become a part of my all genealogical studies, a part of my style.

Here are my initial answers with my remarks as to why I believe I need more understanding of each answer.

1. {definition of genealogy}
Researching family connections. Primarily a genealogist moves backward in time, but modern connections are also a part of genealogy. “Real” genealogy is based on scholarly standards.  [I rated this C; correct but incomplete.]

2. {GPS elements}
Reasonably exhaustive research [√]
Full, comprehensive citations [√]
Analysis [incomplete]
Proof arguments [wrong]
Exposition [incomplete] [I rated this D for the above reasons.]

3. {defense of fully documented GPS in a family history}
That isn’t genealogy, that is fantasy or myth (these are borrowed words). [I rated this D because it is incomplete.]

4. {partial proof}
Until the conclusion is fully proven (remembering that new information can change this) the five elements of GPS have not bee fully covered. [I rated this C; it is correct but it is a weak statement.]

5. {first research step}
Reasonably exhaustive research; finding supportive evidence in more than one place.
[I rated this D because it is too vague a statement.]

Three Ds and two Cs; that adds up to D+ to me.

So here you see why I have told myself I need to continue working. I haven’t failed, but also, I haven’t made these familiar concepts into MY concepts.

I’m not so much “Frustrated Sue” about this as you might suppose. After all, learning isn’t a race. I will do the best I can on the first pass, and then return to the weak points and strengthen them, until I have indeed mastered genealogical proof.

Note:  In view of copyright discussions, I have removed the quoted questions, replacing them with  a general description of the topic in curly brackets. The answers have always been in my own words. The edit was done 19 Jun 2013.