24 April 2015
23 April 2015
22 April 2015
21 April 2015
If you can't find relatives to tell you stories or provide you with some information on your relatives, have you considered other older individuals--former neighbors, etc. who may know something that could help you?
The dates in this example aren't really key to any research conclusions, but sometimes we assume facts that are not in evidence. And sometimes assuming those facts hinders further research efforts--in addition to being plain wrong.
20 April 2015
Whether or not the absence is significant is another matter entirely.
Do you compare entries from original records to other entries to try and determine if anything is unusual about the record which you are using?
If you don't compare you entry to others, you have no way of knowing what's unusual and what is not.
And that's a clue.
19 April 2015
Turns out the "occupation" portion of the entry contained genealogically relevant information about the relative's daughters and their residence at the time of the father's death.
All from a part of the entry that I thought would not provide me with any information.
We'll be back.
18 April 2015
17 April 2015
A quit claim deed is one where the grantor is giving up their claim to a specific piece of property. The grantor may not have clear title and that doesn't matter as a quit claim deed is technically only transferring the grantor's claim to the grantee.
The grantor signs the deed and the grantee is the person to whom the claim is assigned.
16 April 2015
Is it possible that an informant on a record simply gave a similar sounding name or mixed up two names from the same language or ethnic group?
15 April 2015
14 April 2015
13 April 2015
12 April 2015
But try and keep the historical events included relevant to your ancestor's life instead of giving into temptation and adding every event you can think of. My 1865-era German immigrant to the United States, never lived west of the Mississippi River and died in 1912. I don't need the San Francisco Earthquake in his chronology. It's not really relevant to his life.
Adding too much to a chronology that's not related to your ancestor makes it more difficult to use the chronology as an analytical tool.
11 April 2015
10 April 2015
09 April 2015
Yes...with no internet access.
Sometimes it can be tempting to immediately pursue an idea that we don't allow time to consider all options and possibilities. Consider spending a portion of your "genealogy time" offline--even if you use the computer for many genealogical tasks. You may find that it helps your focus.
08 April 2015
07 April 2015
- her husband just died?
- there was a change in the law?
- her financial status changed?
06 April 2015
We try and keep the tips relatively short because that's what people tend to expect here and I want to keep the blog in that style of writing and format. If you'd like to see the longer posts, you can visit the Rootdig blog. Sometimes I'll link to those posts from here, but many times I forget to do it.
What the genealogist should generally look for are spellings that "sound the same" as the intended last name.
- Peter Biegers
- Peter Berger
- Peter Beger
- Peter Biegert
05 April 2015
Only focusing on one level may cause you to overlook something.
04 April 2015
However, when using these trees, I:
- never copy the information into my tree-ever;
- search the tree for sources (besides other trees);
- use the dates/places/relationships given to suggest sources that might confirm that information;
- remember the conclusions could be invalid and only spend so much time trying to confirm them;
- try and contact the submitter;
- never copy the information into my tree-ever (that's worth including twice).
03 April 2015
02 April 2015
That phrase "please copy Warsaw Signal" could be a clue the person mentioned in the article would be known to readers of that paper.
And that could be a clue.
01 April 2015
Visit our list of presentations on our site.
Use coupon aprilfool (all one word) at checkout to get your discount.
31 March 2015
Whether a given piece of primary information is correct is another story.
30 March 2015
It turns out he was not in the picture, but just happened to have been given a copy of it by someone else. When the individuals in the picture were identified, he was not one of them.
Which explains why we couldn't figure out who he was in the picture.
What are you assuming?
- Different records that say the same thing may have had the same original "source" if Grandma Barbara was the one who always gave the information. Just because she repeated it over and over does not make it true.
- 1,000 online trees that agree does not mean they are correct. It just means that they probably have the same original "source," right or wrong.