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.


We’re Related–Conflicting information OR

December 12, 2016

OK, how am I going to explain this one ?

I didn’t blog about another Disproven Line, but the same Common Ancestor showed up again. One of my APP cousins I did proved (my current thinking) already. But Anne Almy (1627 – 1709) has shown again.

This is the “disproven” line, there appears to be Anne Almy’s.

Were_Related-168

The second APP Cousin with Anne Almy has the same Phillipa Green as a Child.

Were_Related-169

The problem here is it would appear that Phillippe Greene (or Green) was married to a Carr and a Dickinson.

There is another problem with the second image and that is the Death of Phillippa in 1690 and the Birth of Samuel in 1702.

Were_Related-167

Oh the fun of this APP. Some might say that this APP is a mess, but ….

As a couple of times before, there are hints around, just gotta look. My normal place to take a peek is the Find A Grave Index at Ancestry.com. You know how reliable Indexes are ….

Look what I found following a Hint in my Database for that index. Good hint, that led me to the Find A Grave website.

Were_Related-171

How’s that for a hint. Looks like two marriages, with the Birth Surname of Greene.

There, a little further down that page is the Parents of Ann(e) and both Spouses. (all HINTS for future research)

Were_Related-170

But, what about Samuel Dickinson, from my spreadsheet.

Looking at her Children, Samuel isn’t there, on the Find A Grave website. But what IS there, is that she has a sibling Samuel.

Since, not everything is Online, and not every body links families together on Find A Grave, I had to look elsewhere.

Were_Related-173

Maintained by: Kevin Avery
Originally Created by: Glenn Geirland
Record added: Oct 08, 2008
Find A Grave Memorial# 30417387

There was another hint, to a collection on Ancestry.com, that I don’t look at very often. But when I am looking for clues, I follow that Shaky Leaf Hint “just to look around” [ exhausting search ]

Were_Related-174

Oh, and I didn’t forget the Conflicting Information. That is the “mother” dying before the “child” was born.

From the same Find A Grave Memorial

Were_Related-175

The APP has her death date wrong, (current thinking) but the Find A Grave website helps resolve that conflicting information.

All are clues, not “proven” relationships, but there is also no conflicting information. So, the two APP Cousins appear to be cousins, but my current thinking is that I am not. Not a conclusion, only Current Thinking, and still looking.


We’re Related–Another Disproven Relationship, BUT

December 11, 2016

I think I have another one of these Female, Common Ancestor mysteries resolve.

Were_Related-149

One of the thoughts I had with this project, was to focus on what I know, that is my line, and prove or disprove to the Common Ancestor. I am so concerned about the “other” line. I am relative comfortable with my own research, though it does have issues, but I am focused to the Common Ancestor.

I the above you see a number of yellow cells. In fact, I’ll add the other APP Cousin with the SAME common Ancestor.

Were_Related-150

Look familiar with the fist one? Charles and Elizabeth Greenberry.

So proving or disproving would mean TWO APP cousin’s.

There are a number of Dorsey / Howard marriages in the timeframe and location. Greenberry, Goldsborough and Worthington (and other) are many. So, it took a bit of looking, again at my own data, and to see if I could find out where the problem was.

After a little research, looking at my source material and what other information I could find, the APP is 1 generation short of the Common Ancestor to the tree of us. The Common Ancestor is Edward Dorsey and his wife Anne. I am not sure what her maiden name is at this point. (on my To Do List).

The story is told here:

Were_Related-148

This is in agreement with documentation in my own database. I still have some clean up of my own database to do, but this is enough, for now, that my Current Thinking is that the APP is very close, Ann and Sarah were sisters.


We’re Related–Evidentia to the Rescue

December 11, 2016

As announced earlier today, Evidentia Software, Version 3 is available. There is a link on the right for more information about the program.

I have observed something from the APP that I have been looking into. That is a Female, common ancestor, with the next generation children with two different Surnames. Since the APP uses Birth Surnames, in most cases, I started to mark them to follow up on. I have blogged about a couple of them here.

Were_Related-147

Phebe Birdsall appears to have been married twice. Once to a Bartlett and once to a Havens. In my APP database, I already had Nathan Bartlett so I know that one was good.

Instead of the pen and paper approach to resolving this, as I had on the earlier one, I thought about firing up the new version of Evidentia.

The first thing I did was to enter, into Evidentia the data from the above spreadsheet.

Evidentia-01

Nice, colorful screen, nice ICON, very clear. I think, right out of the box for me, it was easier to enter the data.

Then I went to my Ancestry Member Tree and entered the data from there.

Evidentia-02

Low and behold, right in my Ancestry Member Tree, was the answer. Yes, she had married twice. Looking at the Citation information for Phebe, I was able to look at the Source of the data provided.

I actually found two errors in my data on the AMT and in my genealogy database program. The first is the birth date for Phebe is more accurate in the APP than in my database. The source in my database is where I got the bad data from.

My genealogy database has a new ToDo list to follow up on the relationship between the Bartlett and Haven gentlemen.

Lesson Learned: by attention to the APP, it may help you identify problems in my own database.

Thanks go Evidentia and the APP I have specific issues to resolve that I didn’t even know that I needed to resolve them.


We’re Related APP–an example of Collaboration

December 4, 2016

In a Facebook posting that a Chart that you will see below:

Facebook Posting by Molly McKinley

In that post she pointed out that there were “two different mothers” for this one person.

Now, Molly and I have worked together with DearMYRTLE in the past. She is a far better researcher than I. But, there is a problem. the Parents of Henry Patton Foote Blythe are Different.

15230559_1378770815466536_934476725049345369_n

Within an hour, of a “Facebook” conversation we knew what the answer to the Question: Did he marry twice? was. Molly was so great to color code the problem, making identifying the problem very easy.

If the had not looked at the APP, either of us, probably, would have questioned our own research. The APP “made us look”.

A quick search, in the Ancestry Find A Grave Index, pointed us to the Find A Grave website that clearly showed that he, Did in fact marry twice.

This will lead us both for more research to PROVE these relationships, but at least we know that there was a second marriage.

I consider this example as a good Collaboration story and a good use for this Genealogy Tool.

Molly gave me permission to use her graphic. Thank you Molly.


We’re Related–Update 30 Nov 2016

November 30, 2016

This is still a work in progress and will continue to work this as a project. Lots of leads to follow up on in my Master genealogy file.

One of the readers of this blog, wanted to know what all of the information was about in the status reports I have given so far.

See if this will help:

Were_Related-120

Most of the information comes directly from the program, as I have developed the information I wanted to track.

Were_Related-119

The 1,007 Tasks (To / Do) lists have categories where I can get some other information so that I can report it.

Here is where the file is now.

Were_Related-122

All Facts have been documented, as there is an Undocumented Report that I have available. All people have a Research Log, another report, almost 60 pages of research logs.

I am now in the process of Documenting the APP data against other records.

Were_Related-123

I have blogged about this recently, but of the 55 We’re Related Cousins, I have DISPROVEN 2. That means that I have NOT Proven the other 53. Still working on that. But I have disproven 2.

The observation on those two were where the Common Ancestor was Female and the two “children” of that Common Ancestor had different surnames, as if that common ancestor had married twice. In both cases, I have found indication / evidence that they were two different people.

This is NOT a linage study, it is only study of the APP.

Lesson Learned to date:

  • Good Review of your current database
  • Many hints for future research

%d bloggers like this: