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.

Advertisements

Genealogy Proof Standard–2017 Study Group Chapter 1

January 3, 2017

Getting ready for the 2017 Study Group on the book Genealogical Proof Standard, Building a Solid Case by Christine Rose, I discovered that I may have talked about Chapter 1 in an earlier blog post.

We’re Related–Clean Tree Report

I say that, because I am not sure that a Clean Tree reflects that I am working toward the steps that are discussed in this chapter. Yes, it is clean to a viewer, who might not know about the GPS or understand what they are looking at. On a mobile device or in the Ancestry Member Tree APP, but it does not reflect GPS. I have come to call the Clean Tree a Conclusion Based Tree. I was introduced to that term a couple of years ago. Didn’t like it then, don’t like it now.

HOWEVER, in doing some study of the features in an Ancestry Member Tree, keeping the GPS in mind, specifically in Chapter 1, the “Messy Tree” with the available features on the online tree, does both.

I see the Conclusion Tree (No ALT Facts), but can turn the ALT Facts ONE to see “how I got to the conclusion”.

The trick now, is how do I convey some of my research to a Guest on that tree. In most cases, IF you look at the details or Alternate Facts, you see pieces of the Fact, like Abt Year as one Fact, State for the same fact but a different citation, and the Preferred (Clean View) with the complete date and location.

Using the features that I described in that blog post, I think the Messy Tree does reflect the GPS as described in this Chapter. I would not call my Ancestry Member Tree a Conclusion Tree, but my “Current Thinking Tree”. Afterall, there are new records coming online every day.

I did a Video about this topic, if you are interested:

Back2Basics – Clean vs Messy Online Tree


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.


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.


%d bloggers like this: