the Sunday Soapbox | DNA and 'Discoveries' ~ Who Is Bob's Mother?

Well, I'm no DNA expert. Far from it. But I do understand the basics. I've started the sometimes boring process of educating myself with seminars, webinars and reading material. I have a love/hate relationship with DNA. I love what it can add to my genealogical research, but I also hate the sometimes difficult reality that some matches may not ever be solved, in my lifetime anyway.

Then there's this other problem.

Maybe you've noticed it too.

The Ancestor Discoveries on Ancestry.

I don't pay much attention to them, but there they are every time I log in to my AncestryDNA page.

Maybe I'm ignorant. I'm not too proud to admit there's a lot I don't have working knowledge about.

But I ponder on this:

There is one particular "ancestor" that keeps showing up as a possible relation. She has been added to myriad family trees without much more documentation than someone else's tree. She has been added to a group of trees with whom I know I share a common, proved, ancestor. She has been declared the mother of this particular ancestor.

Problem is, there is no proof.

None.

Zip.

It's pure speculation.

So, like unsourced Public Trees, we (or I anyway) now have this issue of 'DNA' 'related' ancestors. And I'm thinking, I could put Bozo the Clown in my tree as this guy's (we'll call him Bob) mother. If everyone else who was a proved relation to Bob does the same thing well, I'd bet that Bozo would show up as an Ancestry Discovery!

I have red hair and I do have an odd fondness for clowns, but I'm certain Bozo and I are not related.

I'm okay with not knowing who Bob's mother is. The records most likely exist somewhere - we're talking 1800 Maryland - I will continue to pursue the truth and ignore the unproved.

But not everyone will.

How big of a problem will this become?

Am I way off base here, or is this a genuine concern?

I'd love to hear your thoughts!


©2017 Anne Faulkner - AncestorArchaeology.net, All Rights Reserved

the Sunday Soapbox | Responsibility In Genealogy or Please, Stop!

Stop! Stop right now! If you are unsure of something, or if it just 'seems' like it might be correct - please, don't do it! Make sure all the facts are, in fact, correct before proceeding. Especially if you are going to meddle in a public crowd-sourced project. You are not being "helpful". You are potentially messing up years of other people's research. Of course I'm talking about genealogy here, and the big, group-effort world trees. There is enough bad genealogy out there already, why add to it? Some days I want to just say "STOP" this is a job for the professionals! But love of genealogy is not something I really want to discourage. However ......

 Earlier this week I was greeted with an inbox message from FamilySearch detailing the weekly changes on my watch list. "Recent Changes In Family Tree" it was titled. Now, usually I glance at these but nothing raises the alarm flag.

Usually.

This week was different. This week listed Samuel Faulkner, James Faulkner, Harrison Faulkner and Martha McBride among others. At first I was excited - another Faulkner researcher!! I've dreamed of this! It's been a long, lonely road thus far and Finding Faulkner has not come easily. But then I saw this:

 DELETED!!!!! What the #%**?!? Oh, no. No, no, no. Then I saw this:

Argh!!! adamjerrypeters1 what are you doing?!? Yes, I hoped that adamjerrypeters1 found Samuel's actual birthdate, christening record and wife's surname, among all the changes he preformed. 

I hoped.

I was wrong. Of course I was wrong.

adamjerrypeters1 was being helpful. Merging some names that were similar enough. Deleting other's that no longer fit the new family. The reason given for the changes? "updated info". That's all. No other explanation, AND none of it was sourced! The 'new' Samuel Faulkner was born and christened in England in 1741, death date UNK. Wife? Martha, daughter? Ann. Married? Yes, in England. Sources? NO. The 'old' Samuel Faulkner was born in New York in about 1740, died in New York about 1811, son Col. James Faulkner. Source? 1.

As for deleting Col. James Faulkner? I just don't know. adamjerrypeters1 replaced him with a James Faulkner also born in 1779, wife UNK, two children (maybe) one born in Nova Scotia, one born in Massachusetts. Then he tried to link Harrison Faulkner, born in New York as another child.

Rat's nest.

I don't know. I have no words. I eventually restored it, left detailed notes and added a few more sources to be on the safe side. I wondered what other messes adamjerrypeters1 left around FamilySearch. And, if no one is watching, will these 'improvements' become 'truths'?

Normally I leave a wide berth around all of the community trees. Geni is the worst of them. I have dabbled in WikiTree, I had not yet really explored FamilySearch, but I did expect more from them. 

Lesson learned.

I have strong, but mixed feelings about all of this. My frustration with all the bad research made public, the abandoned trees, the just plain nonsensical reasoning led me to choose to keep my research mostly off-line. I do keep a private online tree at Ancestry and at FindMyPast. I plan to go 'public' with my Faulkner tree now that the research is solid. This mess of public trees was the driving force behind my decision to start my blog. A place where I could document my research publicly, but where I remained in control. 

Just coming off a week of intense education in the form of  BCG's Free Day of Quality Education webinars, I was reminded that we must be mindful in our work and to practice responsible genealogy.

Genealogy, once  the hobby of grandmothers and the academic crowd. Researching pedigrees and descendants of nobility. Serious stuff. Not a lot of fun.

But genealogy IS fun. And the World Trees make it more inclusive than ever before. It's fun to put your family history up on Ancestry, FamilySearch, WikiTree, etc and find cousins and kin you didn't know existed. And we've all made some rookie moves, okay lots of rookie moves, when we first started out. We had to crawl before we could run.

So, how do we encourage these enthusiastic 'helpers' without chasing them away? How do we keep the public research as accurate as possible? I don't really know. Maybe it's something that just needs to work itself out. 

But please, I beg you. As tempting as it might seem to 'help' out and 'fix' a few things, it does so much more harm than good. And someone, somewhere is left to straighten out your mess. When they had better, more productive things to do.

Preaching to the choir, I know.

Thanks for listening.

©2106 Anne Faulkner - AncestorArchaeology.net, All Rights Reserved

Coming Out Of The Cave

Hi there!!

I'm back. Did you miss me?

2015 was not a good year, and I fell behind on many things I had intended to do. My "simple" cataract surgery that commenced in March of 2015 dragged on until January of this year, my eyesight still not up to snuff.

But I soldier on. Prompted by the stalwart, courageous, and just plain nuts ancestors that reside in the Cave with me. Which is where I have been almost exclusively since the end of December.

I finally worked up the courage to dig deep and face the mess that was my family tree. I have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. I was a hopeless "clickophile" when I first discovered Ancestry dot com. I had clicked my way back to the middle ages and could have kept right on going. Not only did I manage to get back to around 1000 AD - I added ALL the collateral relations ..... ALL OF THEM! You can understand why the thought of cleaning this up frightened me so.

But the time had come.

I locked myself in the Cave and went on a ruthless killing spree.

Now, don't worry, I did save a complete copy of the tree before I started - just in case I got out of control and killed off someone I shouldn't have. Which I did. Several times. (quick tip: don't drink wine while culling your tree)

I'll spare you the gruesome details of the wrestling, hair pulling, weeping and gnashing of teeth that ensued. But I did it!

Six weeks later I am here to report that I am out of the Cave with a fresh, clean, gloriously slim new tree that is all sourced and ready to be worked on. Properly.

I am now ready to rejoin the Genealogy Do Over and pick up on my 52 Ancestors stories (I got as far as ancestor #23).

2016 is promising to be a good year. I emerged from my Cave and did not see my shadow!

Let's do this.

Old Stories, New Eyes; Verifying Family Lore: Tales From The Cave, part two

Sunday morning.

Labor Day weekend.

Anxious to get back in the Cave to solve the problem I uncovered yesterday.

I knew the answer was there - or at least an explanation. I needed to dig deeper.

{Palm slap to forehead} The obviousness hit me. I needed to look at every city directory between the years 1911 and 1920.

Feeling a bit stupid, I settled in for a session of flipping through electronic records, year by year, verifying my great grandfather's address.

An hour or so later, my grandmother's story was proved correct, partly. The family did move in 1911 and again in 1920. BUT that still didn't prove that the house was built in 1919 and not 1916.

Argh.

Back to the city directories. This time instead of the name, I  employed the handy street index located towards the back of each directory. Looking up the house number and street, I flipped through the virtual pages, electronically unindexed, of course. Knowing both addresses all I needed to do was look for the year the address of the second house first appeared.

Tedious. Time consuming. Oddly rewarding, I must confess.

I felt a little like a time traveller, maybe that is part of the draw of genealogy for me. Anyway, another two hours passed and guess what?! Yup. The second address did not appear until 1920! The Genealogy Queen was correct!

But what about the Zillow listing? What about that?

Again I had to resist the urge to hop in the car and drive the 300 miles to Polk County to show them what I had discovered, and maybe could their be a chance that their records were wrong?

I gave myself a good talking to and decided to just let it go. For the sake of my story I had the proof that I needed. I did put it on my spreadsheet (thanks Thomas MacEntee!) for future research.

OK. On with the story. This should wrap up nicely now, I thought.

I worked my way through the 1920's. The marriage of my grandmother, the career of my great grandfather. Everything was lining up with the "family story" left by my grandmother.

Until 1929.

Oh, oh. Another discrepancy. Or perhaps merely an omission of more detailed information? Rats!

The tale was told that my great grandfather was so successful in his business that he was able to buy a house for his in-laws to retire in. That's not exactly what the records were telling me. I did find my 2nd great grandparents in the 1930 census - but they were living with my great grandparents - AND they were all living in a apartment!?!

Back to the city directories and the year 1929. Shoot. The (extended) family was living in the apartment. The 'big house" had a different family residing in it. 1929! We all know what happened that year. Could my great grandfather have lost everything? Was he forced to sell the big house and move to an apartment?

Noooooo!!

Apart from driving to Polk Co and looking at the real estate histories for the house and the apartment, I had to just let it go, for the moment. (Put it on the ol' spreadsheet for a later looksee)

OK. The Queen has been correct up to this point, why would I doubt her now? I continued to dig into those city directories.

My great grandfather remained in business, his ad ran in the city directory every year. Good.

I took a look at my 2nd great grandparents. 2nd great grandma passed away in December 1932, and 2nd great grandpa in April 1933 Hmm. The foursome was listed as living in the apartment every year from 1929 to 1933. Hmm.

Then I looked at 1934.

Well, well, well. Guess what!? My great grandparents were back in the "big house"!

This just opened up all sorts of questions.

Why did they move to the apartment?
Why did they move back to the big house?
Why, if they were caring for the elderly relatives, did they not just care for them in the house?

Argh!!!!

Resigned to the fact that I would not know the answers, at least not today from the comfort of the Cave; I accepted, grudgingly, that I had reached the end of my quest.

I still don't feel the story is "wrapped up", but the ending is a happy one. And further research revealed that the house remained in the family until at least 1960 - the last year I was able to find a city directory online.

I really need to get to Polk Co one of these days .....

Old Stories, New Eyes; Verifying Family Lore: Tales From The Cave, part one

I had finally committed to catching up with my 52 Ancestors 52 Weeks challenge.

I miraculously had the entire house to myself for a full three days over the Labor Day weekend. No distractions, no obligations. I could hunker down in the Cave, clad in the athletic apparel of the genealogist (pj's and slippers), and power through some major research!

On Saturday I got up at a reasonable time, shuffled into the Cave and laid out a plan. Eight ancestors in three days. Should be doable. I had a good outline on all of them. This time I decided to be a little more methodical. I would concentrate on my maternal side. I would start with my four maternal great grandparents and continue with my four 2nd great grandparents on my maternal grandfather's side. (I had done the four on my maternal grandmother's side previously). Easy peasy.

My grandmother, the Genealogy Queen, had written a family story in the early 1980's. I started my research there using her facts and anecdotes. First up: my grandmother's father. Again, easy peasy. She had already written his story. All I needed to do was double check the facts and lay it down "on paper".

This should be a breeze!

Enter modern technology. What my grandmother did from memory, many hours at the microfiche, and personal correspondence with other relatives to produce her "finished" story was only the tip of that genealogical iceberg! (We knew this, didn't we?)

Nine hours later, bleary eyed and needing a shower, (and well past wine o'clock!), I walked away from the computer to sort out all the new information I had found, and to contemplate the discrepancies I had discovered. So much for eight ancestors in 3 days! I hadn't even finished one!

To clear my head I binge watched Who Do You Think You Are (naturally), poured myself a glass of wine, and found something to heat up. Once I was "all genealogied up", I shuffled back into the Cave for another look. I had to be missing something.

The bones of the story worked with all the proof I could find except for one detail. In my grandmother's recollection, the years of 1916 to 1920 were not lining up with what I was finding. Sure, she would have been 12 to 16 years old - her memory of the sequence of events could be off.

But she's the Genealogy Queen!

She would not have written something without exhaustive proof. Even from her own memory.

To match up her time line I looked at all the records available to me online. I  searched newspapers, scrutinized the census', checked the city directories. What was throwing me off was the dates listed for the construction of the houses her father was said to have built, and the timeline of where the family resided.

The story went that my great grandfather built a new home for his family shortly after 1910. He then built another larger new home right next door after WW1, around 1919, on the site of the family's Victory Garden. Great story!

I wanted to verify this, of course, before I wrote about it as truth. I took another look. Ran it all again. Maybe I was seeing it wrong?

The census did not help, as I could only verify the 1920 address with this story. I looked at the city directories for 1910 and 1911, and the family did in fact move during that time. The 1911 address was different than the 1910 address (which matched the 1910 census) and the 1920 address would, 9 years later, be right next door! Cool. That works.

Next up Google Earth. Where the problem started.  I put in the address and "flew" right to the house. I looked at the 1911 house, still standing, and the 1919/20 house right next door. Zillow helped me along from there. Both houses had some photos included so I got to look inside and poke around a bit. Then I noticed something disturbing. Zillow lists the second house as being built in 1916. What??? No, how could this be? This does not line up.

I checked the description on the 1911 house and it was correct: Year built 1911.

If the second house was built in 1916 and not 1919/20 then what else is off in my grandmother's timeline? And the charming anecdote she told of the Victory Garden that stood where the new house was later constructed. What about that?

I resisted the urge to get in my car and drive to the Polk County Recorder's office right then and there to solve this. Besides, it was a holiday, ... and Saturday night, .....Oh, and well over 300 miles away.

Tired and frustrated, I decided to call it a night.

...to be continued ....

Ancestry Dot Com Made Me A Lazy Genealogist

It's true. I am a bit ashamed to admit it. Lazy. Not that I didn't know how to research outside of Ancestry, they just make it so darned easy to search "one and done". I'm a bit embarrassed that I fell into that trap, but now I'm coming clean.

When I was a newbie Ancestry was a BSO that, in my uneducated world was the "Great and Powerful Oz". EVERYTHING I needed was there, and oh-so-easy to access. Who needs records and proof when you have all these amazing family trees! Copy, click, done. Solved all my grandmother's Brick Walls in a matter of hours. Holla and High Five!

(I know many of you are laughing right about now. Slapping your thigh and saying "yeah, me too, been there, done that, got the mess to prove it")

I really cut my genealogical teeth when I tackled my paternal line. A great uncle had done a bit of

research, but for the most part I was sailing into uncharted territory. Ancestry was no help. Oh sure, there were census records, an occasional military record - but thankfully (really, the Genealogy Gods were working overtime on this one) not one single family tree! Not one! Alrighty then.

I dug in and got to work. I read over all the notes my dad had gathered over the years about his ancestors and plugged what I knew into a new tree. On Ancestry. I still like their ease-of-use style, for me it works. I utilized Family Search, I joined Yahoo Groups (this was pre-Facebook, btw), I used all the free and helpful little websites that I could find. I emailed genealogical societies, I wrote letters to cemeteries, I stalked living people with the surnames I was researching in the locations I was researching. I went "old school". And it worked! All my research was by my own hand. All the information I had obtained I could source. I was feeling mighty good.

High on my success with my paternal line, I ambitiously decided to revisit my maternal side.

Oh dear Lord. My mind was boggled. I saw the mess I had created with my clickophile ways and I wept. Overwhelmed, I walked away.

For several more years I dug deeper on my paternal line and just put the mess of my maternal line on the back burner for "someday".

Enter Thomas MacEntee and his Great Genealogy Do Over of 2015. "Someday" had arrived.

Never one to back away once the gauntlet has been thrown, I buckled in for the toughest genealogy ride of my life. And because one can not have too many challenges in their life at once, I also committed to the 52 Ancestors 52 Weeks writing challenge.

Now, getting back to the point of this post.

January 1, 2015. I began a mass execution of all the "ancestors" I had added to my grandmother's solid research, leaving just her work and the work I or my cousin had done that was provable. (Don't gasp - I did save a complete copy of the whole mess prior to the reaping "just in case".) I targeted my 52 ancestors writings on some of my grandmother's brick walls. And I let my Ancestry subscription expire. (I know, rogue move, now I am at the mercy of my own wits!)

At first I was frightened. And angry at Ancestry for being so expensive and having "all the records", until I gave myself a good talking to. Again thanks to Thomas MacEntee and the Do Over, I had a really nice tool kit of resources. I had many Facebook groups that I could post queries to, and I had the knowledge I had acquired from my research on my paternal side. I can DO this! The few resources/hints that popped up on my Ancestry tree (that are now hidden behind a pay wall) I am able to access merely by going to my public library. And I can even send the records home via email to be downloaded in their full glory! But that's not the lesson here.

IF I had still had a subscription to Ancestry this week while I was researching my 2nd great grandmother I may have stopped there. My grandmother had written a small bio on her that may well have been enough for me to write my blog post. Her parents were brick walls for my grandmother and there were really no record hints on Ancestry that were even correct. I had long ago turned off hints from other trees, but even looking at those showed a confusing mix of possibilities.

I went to Google and I posted on Facebook the two things I wanted clarification on prior to publishing my post and hit the motherload! I got just enough possible leads and confirmation that I was on the right track, to prompt me to dig deep into my Tool Kit and search, search, search. Not only did I get my answers, I got eight more generations of my family and busted one of my grandmother's brick walls! Church Lady dance ensued in the ol' Genealogy Cave!

And a humbled genealogist was reminded that there are no shortcuts. That good genealogy is "old school" genealogy. That this former member of the Look It Up Club almost failed to live by the motto "we never guess we look it up", or in this case quit looking if it's not on Ancestry.

"We Found You New Ancestors - Just By Looking At Your DNA!"

That is the bold cry from my AncestryDNA page.

New ancestors!

With my DNA!

Wow!

"Now your DNA can tell you something that was never before possible" Ancestry proudly declares in a recent email. "Go back as far as the 1700's in an instant through your AncestryDNA test".

Amazing!

How do they do it, you ask?

"New Ancestor Discoveries are made through a unique combination of AncestryDNA results and the millions of family trees shared by Ancestry members".

Uh - oh.

You mean those PUBLIC and frequently unsourced Family Trees? Hmm. Something is just not right here. This is a HUGE can of worms just waiting to be opened.

Michael John Neill tells us in his brilliant blog post All You Need Is Spit that you can now "find ancestors from the past using just a DNA test, no genealogy research is required" Yup. NO research required. None. Zip.

You though it was easy to go back to Adam and Eve in an afternoon before? Well now.

I am afraid.

And disappointed.

This just does not seem responsible to me. If you are going to supply the tools you have some sort of obligation to supply instructions for use. And warnings.

And NO! No, No, No - it is not that easy. (this reminds me of the saying "just because you can, doesn't mean you should")

My particular experience with this newfound wonder of science is completely incorrect. But I would never know this if I hadn't done the research. The hard research. The digging in books, writing letters, waiting for replies, hitting brick walls research. This particular "match" I spent over two years trying to prove before getting the proof I needed to disprove it.

But here it is. Presented to me proudly by AncestryDNA as a "new ancestor".

Sophia Snyder and Micajah Merryman have been declared on dozens of Public Trees on Ancestry as the parents of Anna Merriman, my third great grandmother. I wrote about her here.  

I am NOT related to Sophia Snyder. Or Micajah Merryman. And I have done the research to prove it. The 6 of 9 members I match more than likely have Anna Merriman as our common ancestor. And, they are Public trees. Certainly unsourced. Obviously unresearched.

No I am not in any circles. Circles would require me to have a Public tree on Ancestry. While I appreciate and understand the importance of a good sourced Public tree, mine has more than a few wild theoretical branches. I would not be practicing responsible genealogy if I allowed that to see the light of day. The few public trees I do have on Ancestry are sourced and proved. Available for all to see. But I do not have my DNA linked to them (you can only have DNA linked to one tree at a time).

 DNA is just another research tool. Another source to glean information. The results are only as good as the information it is being compared to. GIGO, as Michael John Neill reminds us: Garbage in, Garbage out.  

Please, practice genealogy wisely.

And be careful out there!