Evidentia V3.1 Cousin Research Tracker first try

March 15, 2017

I recently  posted Evidentia v3.1 Cousin Research Tracker where I introduced the two new features. The Tracker and the Research Log.

After a quick download and installation, I found where I have access to the new feature. This is the “home” screen, or where Evidentia opened for me. I am looking in the upper right corner ICONS.

Evidentia-02

A little closer look at the horizontal lines to the left of the Help Menu

Evidentia-03

This opens Manage List menu.

Evidentia-04

Selecting the Cousin Research Tracker we are presented with:

Evidentia-06

Selecting and existing Cousin Research Log, or create a New One. Will show the New Cousin

Evidentia-07

This looks to me like a great place for the We’re Related APP, where the Common Ancestor would be put into the Most Recent Common Ancestor field.

We then can enter “Your Side” and the “Cousin Side”. I’ll not go into detail here, as I suspect that Ed Thompson will provide us with his continued great documentation and How To Videos.

I do want to point out the “SAVE” ICON (see the arrow), as we need to save our work in this feature. I forgot the first time, and had to redo a couple of entries. My bad, but wanted to share that.

I am going to work on my DNA Entry and my We’re Related entry in the near future.


Evidentia v3.1 Cousin Research Tracker

March 14, 2017

Evidentia-01

OK, that got my attention. a Cousin Tracker.

Please visit the Evidentia Google+ Community for more information and conversation: http://bit.ly/CR_Evidentia_Community

and the Evidentia Blog post

https://evidentiasoftware.com/cousin-research-tracker/

I had to look. The other term for this feature, “Possibility Tree” according to Ed, the developer. A place for me to put “profiles” that are not ready for my database. A place to start to evaluate their documentation, when found, using the power of this genealogy tool to help me prove this profile.

Two projects that I have been working on that this should be able to help. The We’re Related APP and DNA Results.

Downloaded the update, to bring my version up to Version 3.1.

Not only is the Cousin Tracker included by also Cousin Research Logs.

Evidentia-01a

I will publish a couple of blog posts on how I use this update to Evidentia solve these problems.  I have a DNA relationship to prove and a We’re Related relationship to prove or disprove. As it happens, these to “problems” are in one of my direct ancestor lines.

Please visit the Evidentia website using the link in the Right Column of this blog.

evidentia128_thumb


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.


A Question for Evidentia (part 7)-Follow Up

July 29, 2016

A Question for Evidentia (part _)A Question for Evidentia (part 4) – List of SubjectsA Question for Evidentia (part 4) – List of SubjectsThis series has been an example of how I use the Evidentia Software in my research. I don’t use it all of the time for everything, but there are benefits to have such a tool in my Genealogy Toolbox.

To recap, I started with a problem, Who was the mother of:

Along the way, specifically identified the record that caused the problem for me:

2016-07-26_134726

The relationship on this Find A Grave website, between daughter and the mother is where this started. The father was not in question, just the mother.

Don’t be confused about that surname that appears for the “mother” and “spouse”. Her husband was the grandson of the Lucy’s father.

The “fix” is easy. Using the Find A Grave website messaging system I sent this to the Creator of the Memorial:

This memorial has me a little concerned. My research on Lucy H Ort Rinehart is very clear that she was not the mother of Florence Ort. I certainly understand how one might reach that conclusion. The 1880, 1900, and 1920 Census records for Lucy H Ort states that she was single. The 1900 Census asks a specific question of females how many children they had and were still alive. She was marked as Single and had no indication that she had children.

I do believe that Phineas K Rinehart was married earlier, and I have hints as to her name. Still trying to find that record.
I am suggesting, based on my research for the Ort Family that you unlink Florence and Lucy H Ort.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Russ

On problem solved.


A Question for Evidentia (part 6)–Conclusion

July 28, 2016

Wow, this really worked.

I just completed my 9th document. Right there is the document were two pieces of information that I saw the first time, but because I am doing Document based analysis the answer was there all along. Oh, and there will be a follow up post, because I also confirmed, for me, where the problem was that got me off track.

As I have been working with Evidentia, I had two documents right in front of me, and one not too far away. The Evidentia Companion, by Edward A Thompson [ ISBN 978-0-692-59116-1], First Printing, 2016, and the Evidentia Quickstart Guide, also by the developer, and author Edward A Thompson. Both are available at http://evidentiasoftware.com.

At the end of my 8th document, I made sure that I had done Proof Reports on the data entered so far, made sure that I had marked the Source, Information, and Evidence categories as described in Evidence Explained, Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, by Elizabeth Shown Mills, Third Edition, 2015, Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland. The inside cover has The Evidence Analysis Process Map, which really helped me “remember” how I was supposed to do this analysis.

Then I opened the 9th document, which was a 1910 Census Record, for the “father” of the child where I wasn’t sure who the mother was. I entered the Claims for him, entered the Claims for his wife, remembering the 2 unique questions of a married woman and there was half of the answer. She had one born and that child was still living. The 2nd part of the answer was that they had been married for 16 years, and the Child, also on that Census Record was 12.

Here is a link to the Proof Report for Lucy H Ort, who is not the mother, of Florence E Rinehart Ort, as reported, where I disprove the mother, daughter relations.

And a link to the Proof Report for Florence E Rinehart Ort, the daughter, where I hope to prove the correct parents.

This process has provided me with the record that raised the issue in the first place. Will do a follow up Blog Post on how I have attempted to resolve it. I had already observed that others had used that same record that has caused others the same issue.


A Question for Evidentia (part 5)–1900 Census

July 27, 2016

I have entered 4 documents to date. In the past, I would have just entered the Source, creating the Citation, then enter Claims. This time around, I have been using the Analyze Evidence for each record. I am also just focusing on a small sample of people.

Up until now, I have only been entering a few people in a household, for each specific household. I had entered a 1900 Census, a 1880 Census, a Find A Grave memorial, and a 1920 Census record.

I had to stop for a moment, as the Find A Grave memorial was for one of the Sons in the family. The 1820 Census shows that his father had died, making his mother a widow. But, this specific memorial had some clues and the hint of the problem I am working through.

When I normally work with these various records, I have a list of Facts / Events that I capture from that record. I relooked at my notes for the 1900 Census (my notes are in Evernote), I realized that I really need to capture two small pieces of information in the 1900 census. That is the Number of Children born to the Females in the household and the number of Children living, in 1900.

Here is the 1900 Census transcription

Evidentia-3_Children-1

1900 U.S. census, population schedule, New Jersey, Morris County, Washington Township, Supervisor’s Disctrict No. 3, Enumeration District No. 82, Sheet No. 6A, lines 43 – 48, Dwelling 132, Family 136, William H Ort household; FHL microfilm: 1240988; NARA microfilm publication T623, roll 988; digital image, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 01 Jul 2016).

Since I was doing my Evaluation as I go, I stopped and made a Research Note / Follow Up on the Proof for the Child(ren) of the wife in this household. I didn’t want to loose that thought. As you can see, she had 8 Children, but I had not been cataloguing those claims.

Here is what that looks like in the Proof Report;

Evidentia-3_Children-3

The title is “Recommendations for Continuing”. Very appropriate.

I then returned to the 3 Census Records, End Notes 1, 3, and 4 and made the claims of the children listed in those sources. Then I re-ran the Proof Report for the Child(ren) of Elizabeth.

Evidentia-3_Children-2

You will see the number (14) at the name of the name. Again, my reference back to my genealogy database, that is her Person ID in that file, so I know who I am referring to, in Evidentia.


A Question for Evidentia (part 4) – List of Subjects

July 26, 2016

To recap where I am on this series

Now on to Evidentia.

There is a feature in Evidentia that I haven’t used before, under the List Manager, where it has the List of Subjects. This is where you will see who all has been had claim in the data entry part of the program. For this problem solving exercise I thought I would enter the Names of the persons from my genealogy database program up front. I hadn’t used it this way before but thought that going forward I would be able to compare my database against Evidentia easier.

Evidentia-1_Subject_List

But, I only had 3 names in the project so far and the list has 5 names.

In the EXCEL file I had a column called “Record For”. I didn’t expand that column in the previous blog post, but the first record that I will deal with is a Census Record. When I handle this type of record, I do it from the Head of Household, especially for relationships.

Since that first record is a Census Record, the Head of Household’s name and his wife’s name was added to the Subject List. Hopefully, the Census Record will help establish the relationship between the Head of Household, and the daughter Lucy H.

Any claims from the sources will be associated with the Names in my database. Also note, that the second entry does not have a birth surname, so my usual 5 underscores are present.

I would not normally do this, but allow the Subject List be generated by Evidentia as I enter the data.

What I will probably do differently, for this project, is not record all of the names that might be on a Census Record. I am trying to keep the focus on the problem that I am trying to resolve. That may change as I proceed with this project.


%d bloggers like this: