> <snip> > > I had referenced a City of Philadelphia page as one of my sources -- > it was stable for several years, but six months ago they changed > their site and the page has moved. > > Having the date enables the Webmaster to note that the page > references an older version of the website, and not the current > version. The webmaster can then consult the changelog to provide a > current URL for the information. > > Christopher Jahn How is a webmaster for a web site going to see my genealogy report? bob gillis bob gillis <[email protected]>

> There was a thread on APG about citing Ancestry Census Images. > > I asked on that list and received one answer that dd not address my > first question. > > Why do the citation examples for on-line sources in Evidence by E S > Mills have the date accessed included? In the case of Census, SSDI > and many other data bases, the information is added to or if changed > is usually noted in the image or page. Unless there is difficulty > in determining from the image what the information actually is why > is the date accessed relevant? > > In family files I can see the date accessed being included as the > information in the files can be changed. > > bob gillis <[email protected]> Hi Bob! Knowing the date that a particular piece of data was displayed on a Web page can help researchers to do something *really* useful. The Internet Archive at: http://www.archive.org/ has snapshots of many Web pages. If you know a URL and a specific date, you have a reasonably good chance of being able to see the page exactly as the original researcher did, even if the page has changed or if the site has completely disappeared. Better still, if the site has gone away, often you can figure out where the content moved by looking at the last version captured by the Internet Archive. We use that trick all that time at Linkpendium when our link validator finds dead links ... Cheers, B. -- Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L Co-founder, http://www.rootsweb.com/ and http://www.linkpendium.com/ P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 [email protected]

> > In family files I can see the date accessed being included as > > the information in the files can be changed. > > As I see it, the inclusion of "date accessed" is more > important when you are dealing with URLs that could be (are) > more volatile he for years to come. OTOH, personal pages > created by the likes of you and me, are, by nature are less > permanent than pages generated by the US Gov't. > > AEP <[email protected]> I had referenced a City of Philadelphia page as one of my sources -- it was stable for several years, but six months ago they changed their site and the page has moved. Having the date enables the Webmaster to note that the page references an older version of the website, and not the current version. The webmaster can then consult the changelog to provide a current URL for the information. -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five. Christopher Jahn <[email protected]>

> > It's been three months since I've posted about Linkpendium, and > > during that time we've been locating and adding an average of > > more than 100,000 sources of genealogical information every month. > > > > <snip> > > > > [email protected] / http://www.linkpendium.com/ > > The creation of Linkpendium was listed in the current issue of > Ancestry magazine as one of the important events in the evolution of > family history information on the Internet! So you must be doing > something right! Congratulations! > > Joan <[email protected]> He is doing something more than right - his site is great. I use it frequently. Marge

> There was a thread on APG about citing Ancestry Census Images. > = > I asked on that list and received one answer that dd not address my > first question. > = > Why do the citation examples for on-line sources in Evidence by E S > Mills have the date accessed included? In the case of Census, SSDI > and many other data bases, the information is added to or if changed > is usually noted in the image or page. Unless there is difficulty > in determining from the image what the information actually is why > is the date accessed relevant? > = > In family files I can see the date accessed being included as the > information in the files can be changed. > = > bob gillis <[email protected]> As I see it, the inclusion of "date accessed" is more important when you are dealing with URLs that could be (are) more volatile. The examples you give are likely to be stable for years to come. OTOH, personal pages created by the likes of you and me, are, by nature are less permanent than pages generated by the US Gov't. Thus, a date accessed [as recorded in a citation] provides the reader some idea of how valid the URL might be. If I see a URL accessed more than five years ago, my confidence level drops considerably. Besides, twenty years from now, MOST of the URLs given today will not function at all! Regards, Arnold <><><><><><><><><><><> Arrowhead Images <[email protected]> <><><><><><><><><><><> Being a happy camper is a state of mind!

> There was a thread on APG about citing Ancestry Census Images. > > I asked on that list and received one answer that dd not address my > first question. > > Why do the citation examples for on-line sources in Evidence by E S > Mills have the date accessed included? In the case of Census, SSDI > and many other data bases, the information is added to or if changed > is usually noted in the image or page. Unless there is difficulty > in determining from the image what the information actually is why > is the date accessed relevant? > > bob gillis <[email protected]> I always thought that was the reason -- because the information might change at a later date. Anything that's on the web might be different, or not there at all, tomorrow? Blue

> Hi all! > > It's been three months since I've posted about Linkpendium, and > during that time we've been locating and adding an average of > more than 100,000 sources of genealogical information every month. > > <snip> > > [email protected] The creation of Linkpendium was listed in the current issue of Ancestry magazine as one of the important events in the evolution of family history information on the Internet! So you must be doing something right! Congratulations! Joan [email protected]

Hi all! It's been three months since I've posted about Linkpendium, and during that time we've been locating and adding an average of more than 100,000 sources of genealogical information every month. Linkpendium now has links to 5,032,855 sources of genealogical information. It is numerically by far the largest directory of genealogical resources on the Internet. In fact, Linkpendium is one of the largest human-edited directories of *any* kind on the Web. We're kinda jazzed about breaking 5,000,000 links, though obviously there are a lot more resources for us to find and categorize. The links are categorized either by: o Surnames WORLD-WIDE (4,492,238 links). o American localities, generally county-level (540,617 links). We do not yet provide world-wide locality coverage, though we plan to phase in world-wide locality coverage as resources allow. The URL is: http://www.linkpendium.com/ Webmasters are welcome to link to either our homepage or deeply into the pages that might be relevant to visitors to your sites. Web- masters of locality sites, like USGW and ALHN county coordinators, and Webmasters of one-name-study sites are welcome to "steal our links" for use on their own sites. All we ask is that you include a link to us somewhere on your site. See our "Acceptable Use Policy" for details. We are actively searching the Internet for genealogy sites which should be added to the directory. If you are a Webmaster, List Administrator, or Board Administrator for a genealogical resource, or if you are a researcher who knows a particularly useful Internet data source, *PLEASE* check the appropriate Linkpendium category and use the Add-A-Link tool if we haven't included your resource yet. We don't want to miss your resource! And everyone, if you like what we're doing, please tell other folks about us on the lists and message boards. Thanks all, and enjoy! -B -- Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 [email protected]

There was a thread on APG about citing Ancestry Census Images. I asked on that list and received one answer that dd not address my first question. Why do the citation examples for on-line sources in Evidence by E S Mills have the date accessed included? In the case of Census, SSDI and many other data bases, the information is added to or if changed is usually noted in the image or page. Unless there is difficulty in determining from the image what the information actually is why is the date accessed relevant? In family files I can see the date accessed being included as the information in the files can be changed. bob gillis bob gillis <[email protected]>

> > I have a couple in my family tree that married in Tazewell, > > Illinois, USA in 1824. In 1823 this would have been Sangamon > > County, in 1824 it became a non county area and in 1827 it became > > Tazewell County. What is the proper way to indicate a non county > > area? I'd like to be able to save other researchers the extra work > > if possible. > > > > Skippy <[email protected]> > > My recommendation is: "Tazewell (now in Tazewell County), Illinois, > USA." If you really want to cut down the workload for other > researchers, however, you will also include a complete source > citation. > > There are few missteps more common nor, to me, more depressing than > using a detailed locality description in place of a complete source > citation. Many a writer realizes that putting locations in the > modern-day political geography will make the place easier to find on > current maps, and will argue from their that it makes the location > easier to find in past records as well. That is not always so. The > original poster's example above clearly shows how county boundaries > can change while people are living and forming families in the > region. > > At the other extreme, some writers embrace the usage of historically > accurate locations but presume that the location of the *record* > logically and unfailingly follows the location of the *event*. > Again, that is not always so. I have several individuals in my > database who took out marriage licenses in one county and got > married in another. All the dates and places will be recorded in > the first county. Should I record all the places as being in the > same county? Not if I'm committed to historical accuracy. > > It is hardly helpful to readers for an author to put to much faith > in the continuity or all-inclusiveness of any series of governmental > records or political jurisdictions. Complete source citations > relieve us of that burden. > > "Austin W. Spencer" <[email protected]> You make several excellent points. I tend to make notes on everything. I end up with birth notes, marriage notes, death and burial notes, general notes, and research notes, then source citations. Those usually include either a scan of the documents or a verbatim transcription of the page, and then there's the actual page sitting in a file. However, when I am sharing information on a message board or with an interested cousin they rarely see all of the extra stuff. I like the idea of Tazewell, (now in Tazewell County), Illinois. At least that gives them an indication that it wasn't Tazewell County then. Without overwhelming someone with notes upon notes and citations. The last print out I made for an aunt on one small part of a family line was 97 pages. I can just imagine her rolling her eyes. Thanks for taking the time to reply Nora <[email protected]>

> I have a couple in my family tree that married in Tazewell, > Illinois, USA in 1824. In 1823 this would have been Sangamon > County, in 1824 it became a non county area and in 1827 it became > Tazewell County. What is the proper way to indicate a non county > area? I'd like to be able to save other researchers the extra work > if possible. > > Skippy <[email protected]> My recommendation is: "Tazewell (now in Tazewell County), Illinois, USA." If you really want to cut down the workload for other researchers, however, you will also include a complete source citation. There are few missteps more common nor, to me, more depressing than using a detailed locality description in place of a complete source citation. Many a writer realizes that putting locations in the modern-day political geography will make the place easier to find on current maps, and will argue from their that it makes the location easier to find in past records as well. That is not always so. The original poster's example above clearly shows how county boundaries can change while people are living and forming families in the region. At the other extreme, some writers embrace the usage of historically accurate locations but presume that the location of the *record* logically and unfailingly follows the location of the *event*. Again, that is not always so. I have several individuals in my database who took out marriage licenses in one county and got married in another. All the dates and places will be recorded in the first county. Should I record all the places as being in the same county? Not if I'm committed to historical accuracy. It is hardly helpful to readers for an author to put to much faith in the continuity or all-inclusiveness of any series of governmental records or political jurisdictions. Complete source citations relieve us of that burden. Austin W. Spencer "Austin W. Spencer" <[email protected]>

The generally accepted way to enter places is to enter them as they were at the date of the event. If a municipality was in County A in 1824, any records would most likely be found in county A even though the municipality is now in county B. Skippy wrote: > > > What is the proper way to indicate a non county > > > area? I'd like to be able to save other researchers the extra work > > > if possible. > have a couple in my family tree that married in Tazewell, > Illinois, USA in 1824. In 1823 this would have been Sangamon > County, in 1824 it became a non county area and in 1827 it became > Tazewell County. This does not make sense to me. Are you making these assumptions from what is contained in records you have seen or what a history of the political subdivisions of Illinois contains. I suggest that you pose your question on an Illinois list. bob gillis > > > Skippy <[email protected]> > > > > > I generally use the location that represents today---so that future > > searches make sense. I then explain the rest in the notes. > > > > Wayne Howell <[email protected]> > > Gensearch > > Thanks for the reply. That's pretty much what I've been doing. I'm > just trying to learn the "right" way as I go <g> > > Nora

> > What is the proper way to indicate a non county > > area? I'd like to be able to save other researchers the extra work > > if possible. > > > > Skippy <[email protected]> > > I generally use the location that represents today---so that future > searches make sense. I then explain the rest in the notes. > > Wayne Howell <[email protected]> > Gensearch Thanks for the reply. That's pretty much what I've been doing. I'm just trying to learn the "right" way as I go <g> Nora

> Rules of evidence are very clear on this, I don't understand why > you're all trying to wiggle around them. It makes for sloppy > genealogy. > > Christopher Jahn <[email protected]> I'll trust my ability to detect which is male and which is female when I am on the beach in FL in a few days even though it is not a nudist beach and I see indicators but absence of proof.. You will have to be satisfied that you have convinced yourself. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> I like to help people even if they do not thank me because it is not > about them, it is about me and who I am. I do not do things for > acceptance but for self-gratification and sometimes I learn which is > why we are here on earth. If we could get over our hurt feelings > and look beyond them maybe we can better understand one another and > work together for a better life. > > "Don" <[email protected]> My sentiments! I enjoy genealogy not just as a means to my answer my personal questions as to "from whence came I" but in the historical contexts as well. I get pleasure when I realize that I have helped someone (even if just a suggestion) in their quest. I appreciate General Methods - almost every message is relative to helping someone solve problems they encounter whether it be "which software is best", "I can't find ggg . . . . . Any suggestions?", etc. "Help" is not always providing specific genealogical data. I have learned much from GM discussions over the past several years! If I have failed to thank all of you properly, I do so now. Sharon "Sharon Simnacher" <[email protected]>

A review of the repositories holding naturalization records for Minnesotans is the subject of this month's research note. With the variety of courts which granted citizenship, both local and federal, knowing where to look can bring success. You can find it at http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/res_nat9.html The series is at http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/research.html Mary Mary Bakeman [email protected] Park Genealogical Books http://www.parkbooks.com

> I have a couple in my family tree that married in Tazewell, > Illinois, USA in 1824. In 1823 this would have been Sangamon > County, in 1824 it became a non county area and in 1827 it became > Tazewell County. What is the proper way to indicate a non county > area? I'd like to be able to save other researchers the extra work > if possible. > > Skippy <[email protected]> I generally use the location that represents today---so that future searches make sense. I then explain the rest in the notes. Wayne Howell Gensearch

> > > > Then no conclusions can be drawn. Lack of evidence only > > > > proves a lack of evidence. > > > > > > My probable ggg grandfather left no record of purchasing or > > > selling land. He did not mention land in his will. His > > > estate inventory did not mention land. > > > > > > I'd say that clues pointing in a specific direction, with > > > lack of evidence to the contrary, allow one to make logical > > > conclusions. In this case he almost certainly did not own > > > land. > > > > > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) > > > > You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove he did _not_ > > own land. All you can accurately state is that you have no > > evidence that he ever did own land. It's a subtle > > distinction, but a very real one. > > > > "Christopher Jahn" <[email protected]> > > Although if you can show that you know who the assorted > landowners were in the area at the time he was alive, and he's > not among them, you can be pretty certain. Stop looking at > him and look at the folk around him. > > "Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]> And that only proves that he didn't own land there, not that he didn't own land at all. All you can prove is that he didn't own THAT farm, or THIS plot of land. And in fact, it doesn't even prove that. All you're doing is proving that SOMEONE ELSE owned it at this time or that time. My great-uncle actually "owned" a lot of things without appearing on any titles anywhere - he'd buy a car from you, but wouldn't transfer the title until he sold it. He'd have the car for a year or two, but the only names would be yours and the guy he sold it to. Yes, he was a VERY shady character, and stiffed his sister - my great-aunt - out of a tidy chunk of change. He borrowed a substantial sum to buy a farm, lived on it for years, but when he died there were no records that he ever owned ANYTHING. He owned that farm, but no one can ever prove it. But the lack of proof ALSO doesn't prove it. All the lack of evidence proves is that there is a lack of evidence that makes it impossible to prove anything. Nothing was in his name, so he had no estate, and my great-aunt was screwed. And that's what you record: "family reports he owned a cabbage farm at (fitb), but there is no record of it on file." And you include all the family lore, too. It still doesn't prove that he did or did not own the farm, and that doesn't matter; you have accurately recorded the history as you've been able to discover it. Rules of evidence are very clear on this, I don't understand why you're all trying to wiggle around them. It makes for sloppy genealogy. -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html Bad things come to those who wait too. Christopher Jahn <[email protected]>

> > That is exactly what I am saying. Proof is proof. Everything else > > is guesswork. It may be really GOOD guesswork, but absent proof, it= > > must be treated as guesswork. > > = > > [email protected] > = > Well, actually it is all EVIDENCE--some pieces of evidence carry > more weight than others, but it is all evidence and needs to be > weighed in making a determination of the facts. > = > Joan <[email protected]> = Within limits, the lack of evidence is proof of "the lack of evidence." If one exhausts all available records about thus-and- such town, county, etc. one can safely say that "uncle Joe" did not "buy land in X" or he did not live in X, etc. Besides, one can extrapolate all sorts of information about people, events and other factoids from what we might label "non proof" sources. We just cannot definitvely prove that such information is true =C2=AD just that it probably is. In the end, it is a judgement call about such information and how we, as researchers, handle it. The wise researcher identifies his data as proved, probable, unsubstantiated or just outright false. My own solution for such data is to have the following "sources:" 1) INFERENTIAL DATA =C2=AD information derived from other, known, events, but may not be accurate. 2) UNDOCUMENTED DATA =C2=AD This data cannot be (or has not been) verified by other sources. It is assumed to be valid, but must be taken at face value for what it is =C2=AD hearsay evidence. In both cases, I usually offer a sentence or two about the evidence or the lack thereof whenever they are used. Regards, Arnold <><><><><<><><><><><><> Arrowhead Images <[email protected]> <><><><><<><><><><><><> Money can't buy everything. That's what credit cards are for!

> > > > Then no conclusions can be drawn. Lack of evidence only > > > > proves a lack of evidence. > > > > > > My probable ggg grandfather left no record of purchasing or > > > selling land. He did not mention land in his will. His > > > estate inventory did not mention land. > > > > > > I'd say that clues pointing in a specific direction, with lack > > > of evidence to the contrary, allow one to make logical > > > conclusions. In this case he almost certainly did not own > > > land. > > > > > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) > > > > You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove he did _not_ own > > land. All you can accurately state is that you have no evidence > > that he ever did own land. It's a subtle distinction, but a very > > real one. > > > > "Christopher Jahn" <[email protected]> > > Although if you can show that you know who the assorted landowners > were in the area at the time he was alive, and he's not among them, > you can be pretty certain. Stop looking at him and look at the folk > around him. > > Lesley Robertson <[email protected]> That occurred to me of course but there is not a lot of data in Warren Co. NC during the period. I can find his neighbors in the 1800 and 1810 censuses but I can't locate them. His father was a BIG land buyer and seller in Brunswick Co. VA but no evidence that he owned land in NC. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)