We’re Related–Update

January 31, 2017

Haven’t posted a status recently on my We’re Related APP Project. I am actively taking the “new’ APP Cousin’s and entering them into my We’re Related EXCEL Spreadsheet, into my genealogy database and syncing it to an Ancestry Member Tree.

Here is the Current Status:

Were_Related-327

I have 125 APP Cousins. 73 of which are Facebook Friends, 52 are the Famous folk, including 9 Presidents and 1 First Lady.

12 have been proven to be Half Cousins, where we had one common ancestor, but a different spouse. 4 Have NO Direct Relationship. They appear to have been two people with the same name and birth years, but after evaluating the data, proved to not have a direct relationship. I found 5 where the relationship was with the Spouse of the APP Cousin.

There have been 2 deaths in the Tree since the project started and a Birth.

If interest to me, is that I already had 32 of the 125 Common Ancestors in my database, with another 15 within 1 generation. Those 15 are the first to be put into my existing database after I return from RootsTech2017.

All four of my grandparents are about even;

  • Worthington = 36
  • Strode = 38
  • Johnston = 27
  • Cheyney = 22

Early Maryland, Early New England ancestors, for the first two, Johnston is one where I have a not well researched ancestor, and the Cheyney’s are early Pennsylvania, but I apparently haven’t done as much research on them at I should have. But I now have more information to work with.

The next step is to take that 1 Generation short list and but my APP data into my master file and work with the hints that I have already seen from the Ancestry Shaky Leaf Hints.


We’re Related APP–Another View

January 16, 2017

I have seen a Chart going around, called Ancestor Tracking. I did a blog post a while ago about this from on Master Genealogy Database:

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun – What’s Your Ancestral Name Number?

Here is what the Chart looked like in 2012

Were_Related-290

About 25% of the first 10 generations.

I decided to see what my We’re Related Database looks like, all from the APP.

Were_Related-289

I am now almost at 30%. This along means that I may be able to added these additional people to the database.

But, in reality, I actually have pushed back to more generations in my research.

Were_Related-288

Of course, the percentage doesn’t look very good, but it would be adding about 100 direct line Ancestors.

There is a note at the bottom of the chart that says “Unknown Names not counted”. I have those profiles in my database, may know a little about them, just don’t know their name. Mostly spouses of a person whose name I do know.

I am working a cleaning up my APP database before I take the APP data in enter it into my Master database. I was going to merge the APP Data into my Master database, but I think I am just going to hand enter the data, the same way I did in the APP Database. That forces me to really look at the data.

I have developed some tools within my database that I want to implement into my Master database based on this exercise.


We’re Related APP –16 Jan 2017 Update

January 16, 2017

Sorry, have been quiet recently, but still working on the We’re Related project. I think I may have had a break through on someone of interest in my database, but could not figure out where he fit in. But that’s for another Blog Post. My notes and earlier findings, along with the APP has given me some information to research.

I have 107 APP Cousins in my database and I have done some analysis that I want to share so far. Looking at the Common Ancestors from the APP, I have 30 of them in my existing database. Because I was tracking which of my Grandparents the Common Ancestor was part of “that line”, it didn’t surprise me which Line I have done the most research on, what were involved with the APP cousins.

Of the 30 Common Ancestors that are in my existing database 9 of them have issues. As it turns out, all 9 were through my most researched line. Here is what the issues are:

2

No Direct Relationship

2

Half Cousins

1

Spouse of the APP Cousin

4

Other issues

This comes after the data is in my database and the evaluation of the relations is review with the program I use. The 5 issue that I have identified are problems with a relationship around the Common Ancestor. For example: A second spouse, where I come down from one spouse and the APP Cousin was from the 2nd spouse.

I have been able to identify that the APP cousin was really the spouse of the APP Cousin.

The 4 with “other issues” are ones where I need to revisit the data entry and and APP data.

In addition to the 30, I have 15 more, where I am one generation short of the Common Ancestor in my existing database. 2 more Half Cousins appear and the Spouse of another Half Cousin. 2 need a little more research.

People in Database

2,046

Record Hints

8,699

Photo Hints

1,958

Story Hints

225

Based on my experience with the Hints, it would appear that the data isn’t too bad. From what I have experienced with hints, the Relationships, Dates, and Places increase the number of hints. The ones that I have followed or just looked at, they appear to be good hints to follow.

Of the 45 profiles mentioned above, 30 of them are Facebook Friends. 5 of my non-Facebook Friends are among the group where the Common Ancestor is already in my database and I haven’t found any issues with yet.

Clearly having Colonial New England and Maryland ancestors have helped these numbers.

5th Cousin 1x Removed to 9th Cousin 1x Removed are in the list of 45 people.


We’re Related APP–So where are we ?

January 3, 2017

I am caught up, at least until yesterday, with my data entry and analysis. For what ever that is worth.

APP Cousins

 

Famous folk

42

Facebook Friends

48

In Existing Database

 

Famous folk Common Ancestor

8

Facebook Friends Common Ancestor

17

Not in Database

 

Famous folk Common Ancestor

34

Facebook Friends Common Ancestor

31

One Generation Short

 

Famous folk Common Ancestor

8

Facebook Friends Common Ancestor

5

The One Generation Short means that I have the descendant of the Common Ancestor in my existing database. My next step is to fill that gap for my existing database.

I guess I was pleasantly surprised at the number of Common Ancestors that I already had in my database, or was only a generation short. It sort of is confirmation, to me, that my database is close. BUT, the Source of “my line” in the APP, is my own data. I can tell that by the number of times certain of my direct line ancestors appear in the APP.

When I go back to researching my own ancestors, I will focus on the results of the APP.

The Bad News is that I have one APP Cousin, where the APP has a several hundred year gap. I have 1 APP Cousin where I am a 1/2 Cousin, due to a 2nd marriage. I have 2 APP Cousin’s where I am related to the Spouse, and 3 APP Cousins that I have disproven.

I have been tracking, based on my Grandparents, where the APP Cousins fit in. ALL 4 Grandparents are represented, not necessarily equally, but are represented.

Two of my grandparents were from Colonial Pennsylvania and that was about 40 of the Common Ancestors. Colonial New England Ancestors are 24, and the other 26 were Colonial Maryland.

My APP Database has 1,738 people in it, and I just checked the Hints in the Ancestry Member Tree and there are 8,117 Record Hints, 1,950 Photos, and 206 Stories. So there is plenty or records to prove or disprove this database. I do not plan on use that database, but to return to my existing database, using the experience of this project to firm up my own research.

Looking at the Hints, there are many, many records that I have not seen before, with some records allowing me to get “across the pond” more frequently, because I am seeing those U.K. records in the hints.

I continue to think that the We’re Related APP is a Tool to help me expand my research. Actually, perhaps that is to Focus my research.

Bottom line here, I think this 2 month project has been worthwhile, for me at least, but attempting to evaluate this APP as a research tool. Can’t wait to get back to my own research.


We’re Relater–Update

December 30, 2016

Lots of work going on. But thought that I would stop for a moment and give an update. The numbers below are from a hand count, so they may be off a little.

Direct Line Ancestors

365

In Existing Database

160

Not in Existing Database

205

Common Ancestors

87

In Existing Database

25

Not in Existing Database

62

Common Ancestors Famous People in Existing

8

Common Ancestors Facebook Friends

17

I thought it that it was interesting as to how many of the Common Ancestors were in my existing database. Now, this has to be taken with a grain of salt, as to My Line, in the APP is probably my own data. But at the same time, there are possibly 205 new direct line ancestors to  research for.

Of the 91 APP Cousins, 45 of them are Facebook Friends. All four of my Grandparents have been represented. Colonial New England, Colonial Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey in my existing database is what is capturing these APP cousins.

None of this is proven, not sure that it will be proven in this file, but is certainly opening up some resources that have not been available in the past. It trying to validate the APP Data, I am seeing lots of new and great databases that I have not seen before. Also, some Family History Books are bringing hints to the database.

Of the 1,662 people in the database, there are 7,628 Record hints, 1,866 Photo Hints, and 197 Story Hints on Ancestry.com.

Lesson Learned: So Many Hints, So Little Time.


We’re Related–Clean Tree Report

December 26, 2016

While working on this We’re Related project, a member of my Facebook Group want’s to see an Online Tree without the use of Alternate Facts (ALT Facts). I have been using the term “Clean Tree” or a “Conclusion Based Tree.”

When you look at this Online Tree, all you see are Facts or Events, with all of the documentation attached to that fact. The reader of this online tree can look at the supporting documentation to see how I arrived at these conclusions.

For example: My Great Grandfather

Were_Related-219

One birth Fact, One death Fact, a couple of family event, but pretty clean presentation.

Here is what his profile looks like in my Working online tree.

Were_Related-221

So, I get what my Facebook cousin was talking about. This one is messy. Each Fact reflects the information that I received from the source document.

The Clean Tree, you can still see what information came from what source.

Were_Related-220

This Clean Tree is only my Direct Line to see what a “Clean Tree” might look like. This tree is really of no value, except to explore what a Clean Tree, not a messy one, might look like.

I don’t want to spend any more time on a Clean Tree, but will share my observations of this file and tree.

This database was started with 76 We’re Related APP Cousins.

What I found was my ability to prove or disprove the We’re Related lineages.

I first worked off of the Data Error Report, which my program has to tell me that there is a problem with the data. of the 20 Errors, I was not able to Prove or Disprove 9 of the errors, due to the lack of hints to records to help resolve the data problem. 6 of the Errors were DATA ENTRY issues. To me, that was a key to some of the problems in this file. 2 of the 20, I was able to identify a man who married twice, and a female where I found 2 people with the same name, same place, similar dates.

With all of the Data Errors identified and/or resolved, I wanted to see IF there were hints for me to find Records to prove or disprove the accuracy of the APP data.

Of the 76

50 People, I can not prove. Not hints to follow up on, to find a record that indicate that the app was right.

25 People, where I have hints to work off of, to prove of disprove the data from the APP.

1 person, I was able to prove that the APP was correct.

Please understand, that the Clean Tree was not after the correctness of the data, but only the view of the Online Tree.

I want to put this piece of the project aside and get back to real research. But, thought if might be of interest to provide a summary of my findings while working on a Clean Tree. (no ALT Facts, but ALL Facts documented).

This tree is Private, not searchable, but if you are interested AND are an We’re Related APP Cousin, please let me know.

The Screen Captures above, give an indication as to what a Clean and a Messy Tree might look like. Oh, and I do understand why my cousin wants to see a Clean Tree. I get that.

Lesson Leaned: Check your own DATA ENTRY, as you go, and often


We’re Related APP–Status 17 Dec 2016

December 17, 2016

This project continues to be exciting and beneficial. I am starting to have a couple of collaborators checking out the Ancestry Member Tree to help confirm their “side” of the “tree” that the APP is providing.

This is a different view of the work so far. It’s a screen capture from my Genealogy Software program.

Were_Related-190

As I continue to add new APP cousins, I am working on confirming the data that the APP is providing. It continues to be pretty accurate on my side of the “tree” but now I am really trying to focus on Confirming that the APP is correct.

With the 1,345 people in the tree, with 5,189 Facts, all cited, I have 4,644 Ancestry Hints to work with. What I am doing, for the person to be confirmed, is to find a record that confirms the data from the APP to be correct. This is NOT to PROVE anything, but to see how accurate the data from the APP is.

This chart is just showing that I have changed how I am “counting” the data. the first column is dated 12/04/16, the 2nd is 12/08/16, and the last column is 12/17/16.

What I had counted in the past were people who were NOT in the APP, but had picked them up along the way.

Were_Related-191

What this is saying is that I have 332 Direct Ancestors in this database and I have confirmed that the Name, Birth and Death information is correct for the 65 that I have confirmed. Many are in process, but those were confirmed.

I then looked at my existing database, to see how many of the 65 were there, and 49 of them I already have. That means that 16 of the 65 confirmed APP people are NOT in my existing database.

I know who these 16 people are and will look to adding them to my existing database in the future. AND I already know that there are records “out there” for me to evaluate to bring them into my database.

I also did two Blog posts that might be of interest.

Who are my Colonial Ancestors ?

and

Why I double enter Historic Place Names

I hadn’t thought much about who my immigrant ancestors were, but because of those 16 people, I realized that I might want to look at that Question and see IF I can determine who my Colonial Ancestors are and how many of them are there.

The 2nd blog post shows HOW I was able to determine that, but I figured out how best to capture that data in my existing database. The “simple” answer is to double enter Historical Place Names. I wanted for reports to not read USA, but didn’t want to loose the Mapping Feature.


%d bloggers like this: