Category: Research

 

Today is a very special day, and I didn’t even know it. Today is the two year blogiversary for Misadventures of a Genealogist! That’s pretty special for me. I can’t help but think of all the cousins and relations I’ve met through this website. The biggest thing this blog has given me though is the foundation to learning more about my passion of genealogy. Since I’ve started this blog, I’ve learned so much from my fellow GeneaBloggers.

Continue reading “Oops, it’s been 2 years!” →

Even though I’m coming up on the end of my family file cleanup, (which I started sometime in 2010), sometimes I just love to dig into my Original file and clean that up a little too. I just can’t seem to let it go. Am I going to always have two working files? Or will I eventually scrap the original? I just can’t decide. I don’t think I’ll ever fully delete the original file.

With all the new databases that come out on a regular basis, sometimes I want to just dig into that old file, and just test the waters out a bit. Sometimes it’s really just to see if the database is going to be a very prolific resource for my family tree. I’m never really sure if the more rural areas of my family recorded the vital records or not. I know it wasn’t mandated until the 1900s in those states, so I know it’s a toss up.

Two of the databases I’ve really been digging into is the Ohio, County Births and Ohio, County Marriages databases over at FamilySearch. I’m digging up my Ohio roots right now on my file cleanup, so I’m really able to progress. I’ve already had some of these records recorded, but only from an index at FamilySearch, so I didn’t have all the information from the original record.

Yesterday though, I wanted a little break from the cleanup. So instead of just sitting in front of the TV watching the Housewives on Bravo, I opened up my Original file and I printed out the above report. The great thing is that I used the instructions discussed by Russ Worthington on his blog about preparing for the 1940 U.S. Census. Only I didn’t prepare for the 1940 U.S. Census.

I prepared for the Ohio, County Births database. I filtered in individuals with a Birthplace containing Ohio. Then I filtered out anyone born before 1856 and after 1909. Voila. I had an Ohio Birth Report to work from. It turned out to be 18 pages long, but my printer prints on both sides of the paper, so I went ahead and printed it out for ease of use.

After all that preparation was done, the dryer buzzed and my full day took over. Hey, I have the list though, which means now when I have some extra time, I can just bring up the Original file, take out the list and work from that. The great thing is even if I input information into my old database, I always have that up when I’m working from my new database. So I can easily find my sources and information in my old program once I get to that person in the new database.

Sure it might not make much sense to work in such a haphazard way, but then again if it wasn’t that way, it wouldn’t be me researching. It’s how I roll. That’s right, I roll back and forth over and over again.

On January 10th, I ordered a marriage extract from the Scotland’s People website. It came in yesterday. So it took less time and money for a record from Scotland then it did for a record from New Jersey. Okay, a record from New Jersey two years ago. I haven’t ordered one recently to see if my luck holds up. I have one ready to go though, so this will be a good test.

On the left, we have the scanned copy that I ordered from Scotland’s People on January 10th. It shows on the bottom that they printed out this page on the 21st of January. The postmark on the envelope reads the 23rd of January. I received it on the 1 February. So that means it takes about 11 days to process the request, 2 days for them to then send it out, and finally about 9 days for it to go across the pond and end up in Southern Maryland.

The differences in the images are minor. As you can see, the one on the left (mailed version) has the brightness and contrast up higher. It gives it the more xerox-y look. Sometimes it makes the fading ink easier to read, but not all the time. What is harder to tell in the pictures above is that the mailed version is blown up a little bit. I know it seems silly to say, since computer files can be manipulated, however the text is bigger without the pixelation that happens to the one on the right when I try to re-size it. The digital file is one resolution and that’s it. If you make any changes, you’re just compressing and stretching that resolution. I’m unsure if the Records Office in Scotland makes a copy of the original or prints out a digital copy from the computer. This could be the difference I’m seeing. By viewing the header on the digital copy, I do know that the images you view on Scotland’s People are the microfilms done by the Genealogical Society of Utah.

The big difference between these two is that the mailed version comes on watermarked paper with a raised seal. In the big scheme of things, it’s not that big of a deal, however, I like to have “official” records for my direct line. That’s just a personal preference for me. I think the total cost of the record on the left was $19.15. The estimated cost of the record on the right (converting from pounds to dollar and then dividing the cost of the credits) is $1.95. So that’s quite a big difference, but just know that you have to buy at least 30 credits on Scotland’s People. That comes out to about $11.08 in American dollars, then I estimate about a $0.50 foreign transaction fee. Also be aware that it takes 5 credits to view an image on Scotland’s People and 1 credit to view a page of search results.

My strategy is to utilize the Family Search Scotland indexes, then I can be very smart about my search terms. Have you tried out Scotland’s People yet for your across the pond needs?

Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Family Search or Scotland’s People (I wish, a genea-job would be so much fun.). I was not compensated for this article, I don’t expect compensation for this article. I like finding work arounds to my home bound problem. I just got off the treadmill, and went Scotland record searching. The internet is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

I recently updated my “About Kathleen” page here on the blog. Reading my previous page got me thinking a lot about my views on genealogy. While writing the new page, I was trying to think of what I’m usually asked the first time I tell someone I research my family history. Which I never refer to as genealogy, because then that leads to the blank stare most times.

If you’ve ever had a genealogy discussion with the non-initiated, or even the initiated, the first question always seems to be: “Oh, what’s the most interesting thing you’ve found?”

That question makes me chuckle a little bit. It’s kind of like my sister coming home from a day at the bank and me asking her, “Who was your most interesting customer? No, I don’t want to hear about your day or the mechanics of it. Just your most interesting part.”

Am I dissing someone who asks that question? Of course not! I would never do that. Any reason to talk genealogy is a good enough reason to me. I’m definitely not saying that I want to go on a 45 minute discussion on how I dissect which records are important and which ones aren’t.

I guess my point is, that question is impossible for me to answer.  I was born, raised, and still live in Southern Maryland. In this tri-county area, I’ve had zero extended family most of my life. Most of my relatives are a half day drive away. So when I started to research my genealogy, everything I found was just so fascinating. I couldn’t believe that this five person family I grew up with could branch out so far. I knew I had cousins on each side of my family, and I knew that I had two sets of grandparents. I think I saw my maternal grandma once every five years until we were old enough to travel better. Not to mention the cost of traveling for a young family who didn’t have a lot to spare.

Continue reading “My Most Interesting Finds” →

I bought myself a copy of Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills shortly after Christmas. I had wanted a copy for a long time, but finally made the leap and purchased it with my genealogy funds. I haven’t been able to dig in as much as I’d like, but I’ve been able to use it to source a blog post and to help with my genealogy file cleanup. I’ve been using my own method for recording census citations in my FTM2012 file since I began the new file, now I’m going back and adding structure to those citations.

Continue reading “Evidence Explained!” →