[A Methods reader] wrote to me and I assume wrote to the GENMTD list. However since this list is moderated, the moderator may be on holiday and the list message is delayed: [ The moderator is here. Bob, I've waited a bit but have never seen the reader's post. So I've gone ahead, masked their identity, and published your post. - Mod ] > Hi Bob, > > I just did your search on Google with these exact search terms: > > Horein +"Nova Scotia" > > Google tried to tell me that it got 1,010 hits (it's almost always a > lie... um... estimate), but only showed me 35 "of about 977." Every > one of those 35 had "Nova Scotia" in it. Supposedly, the rest of the > 977 are too similar for them to bother showing me on the first pass, > but I can ask for them. When I Selected English only in preferences I got 42 results. If you have all languages selected in preferences you get 1010 results bit when going to the last page 10 It now says there are 971 results. But at the bottom of the last page there is an important note: "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 36 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included <http://www.google.com/search?q=horein+%2B%22nova+scotia%22&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&filter=0>." I took another look at the list of ships on the right hand pane and many of the ships contained did arrive in Halifax. A Windows search for Nova Scotia does not show any of the pages in the list of links but the Google search does. > The '+' requires "Nova Scotia" to be in every result returned. If > the '+' is not present, Google takes it as a suggestion rather than a > requirement. (Did you actually use the '+' in your search?) If the search terms do not have +'s in front of a term Google assumes OR. So Horein "Nova Scotia" is searched as Horein OR "Nova Scotia" and Horein Nova Scotia is searched as Horein OR Nova OR Scotia. > In your multiple-terms searched, you need to put the '+' in front of > each required term. The farther down the list the term is, the lower > priority it carries and may eventually be dropped as a requirement as > Google tries to return as many pages as possible to you. That was my second question, How far does Google go before dropping terms? bob gillis bob gillis <[email protected]>

> 1. I just did a Google Search on Horein (a surname) +"Nova Scotia" > I got 38 hits and while most of them contained both terms one of the > hits was a "Pennsylvania German Passenger Lists, Dragon 1742". > While it did contain Horein is did not contain Nova Scotia. > > 2. I have done a number of searches with multiple terms, say 5, and > the results may contain one or two of the terms but the context of > the result does not seem to support all the terms. > > Does Google have an upper limit on the number of terms it searches > for? > > bob gillis <[email protected]> It has been my experience that when using multiple search terms google will list the hits with all terms first and then hits with all terms minus 0ne, then minus 2, etc. until it lists all of them with any one of the terms. I usually use three terms max. -- The Verminator "Verminator" <[email protected]>

> > I think Susan said in her first post that she had already done an > > unsuccessful linesearch among the associates and relatives of her > > ancestor, and was asking what the chances were of the 1860 census > > itself (not the ancestry.com index) being incomplete. > > > > [email protected] > > Susan did specifically ask about the index. The three questions she > ended her original posting were: > > "So a few questions: what percentage of people might have been > missed by the 1860 census takers? On the chance he was no longer > in the area, what percentage of people are omitted in ancestry.com's > index? Any clues on how to proceed?" workd > > Since not being able to find someone in a census is as much an index > issue as a census or transcription issue, it only makes sense to > address it, too. > > LGO <[email protected]> I appreciate all the responses. My questions were addressed completely. There is not a single answer, which is what the genealogy research is all about. I learned some very valuable information about the flaws in the methods of both the census taking and the indexing, and for that I thank you all. Susan Moeur <[email protected]>

1. I just did a Google Search on Horein (a surname) +"Nova Scotia" I got 38 hits and while most of them contained both terms one of the hits was a "Pennsylvania German Passenger Lists, Dragon 1742". While it did contain Horein is did not contain Nova Scotia. 2. I have done a number of searches with multiple terms, say 5, and the results may contain one or two of the terms but the context of the result does not seem to support all the terms. Does Google have an upper limit on the number of terms it searches for? bob gillis bob gillis <[email protected]>

> I think Susan said in her first post that she had already done an > unsuccessful linesearch among the associates and relatives of her > ancestor, and was asking what the chances were of the 1860 census > itself (not the ancestry.com index) being incomplete. > > [email protected] Susan did specifically ask about the index. The three questions she ended her original posting were: "So a few questions: what percentage of people might have been missed by the 1860 census takers? On the chance he was no longer in the area, what percentage of people are omitted in ancestry.com's index? Any clues on how to proceed?" Since not being able to find someone in a census is as much an index issue as a census or transcription issue, it only makes sense to address it, too. LGO LGO <[email protected]>

I think Susan said in her first post that she had already done an unsuccessful linesearch among the associates and relatives of her ancestor, and was asking what the chances were of the 1860 census itself (not the ancestry.com index) being incomplete. Because the 1850, 1860 and 1870 censuses had to be copied at least three times, the chances for errors and dropouts is high - calculated to be more than 10%. It was also a more complicated form than previously, giving even more chance for errors and omissions. Here's a link with more: http://genealogyblog.com/census-by-dollarhide/compare-a-county-copy-and-a-federal-copy-of-the-1860-census-online-4492 Jan Hall [email protected]

> I am trying to track a relative who is listed in the 1850 census in > Boone Co., MO. Among his neighbors are siblings, parents, cousins. > By 1860 the extended family is dispersed to 3-4 neighboring > counties, and I can find everybody except my guy. I am confident he > remained in the area past 1860. He does not appear anywhere in the > ancestry.com index and I have browsed the census pages in the > communities of his relatives to no avail. So a few questions: what > percentage of people might have been missed by the 1860 census > takers? On the chance he was no longer in the area, what percentage > of people are omitted in ancestry.com's index? Any clues on how to > proceed? > > Susan Moeur <[email protected]> (oops, I think i hit the wrong reply button earlier) Thank you all for the responses. I had suspected I was relying too much on the accuracy of the indices. Your replies have pretty much confirmed that.

> I suspect that the business of the February Term 1820 went into > March, etc. > > [email protected] I appreciate your taking time to reply. Thank you. Fran

> It would appear so, since "double jeopardy" would apply to a second > trial for a crime that had already been tried and convicted. > > [email protected] Thank you very much. That is exactly what I need to know----whether Willis was tried the second time or whether he was charged on another count of Petit Larceny. I appreciate the help. Fran "Fran" <[email protected]>

> It would be most helpful if you would quote exactly the original > document instead of your interpretation of it. > > [email protected] Thanks for the reply and insightful comments. Fran

> I am trying to track a relative who is listed in the 1850 census in > Boone Co., MO. Among his neighbors are siblings, parents, cousins. > By 1860 the extended family is dispersed to 3-4 neighboring > counties, and I can find everybody except my guy. I am confident he > remained in the area past 1860. He does not appear anywhere in the > ancestry.com index and I have browsed the census pages in the > communities of his relatives to no avail. So a few questions: what > percentage of people might have been missed by the 1860 census > takers? On the chance he was no longer in the area, what percentage > of people are omitted in ancestry.com's index? Any clues on how to > proceed? > > [email protected] Susan, you might just have to do it the old fashioned way - page by page. Whenever I can't find someone in the index (which is actually pretty frequently) and I have tried spelling variations, etc., then I just start going page by page. Yes, it can be pretty tedious, but I have found several people that way. However, sometimes, for whatever reason, they just aren't there to be found! Good luck! Ellen in AK [email protected]

Thank you all for the replies. I had suspected I was relying too much on the accuracy of the indices; your responses confirm that. [If/when ancestry.com gets around to re-indexing the censuses, my wish is that they'd also allow a more versatile wildcard search. Having to supply the first three letters in a name is quite limiting.] I shall commence a page-by-page search for my guy - I know he is there somewhere. Thank you again. Susan Moeur <[email protected]>

> I have copies of a NC court case that began 1818 and was still going > on 1820. Hopefully someone can explain a part of that court case. My > question: Willis was found guilty and sentenced to 39 lashes February > Term 1820. Why then was he required to appear in March "to answer a > charge of Petit Larceny". Was this March Court an additional case of > Petit Larceny? > > Willis WEST was charged with petit larceny in 1818. February Term, > 1820, he was found guilty and sentenced to 39 lashes. > > February Sessions of 1820 found five persons were to appear day to day > to give evidence against Willis WEST. (Recognizances found for trial to > Feby Sessions 1820 are exact words) > > Recognizances taken at Feb Term 1820 at Sampson County Court. Two > persons were bonded at 500 each and required to assure the appearance of > Willis WEST at the Courthouse in Sampson County before the Judge of the > Superior Court of Law & Equity on the 4th Monday after the 4th Monday in > March 1820 to answer a charge of Petit Larceny. (Willis also had to post > 500 bond) > > "Fran" <[email protected]> Fran: I am a lawyer. It would be most helpful if you would quote exactly the original document instead of your interpretation of it. For instance you apparently interpreted "recognizances found for trial" as giving evidence against WEST. The word recognizance means "a security entered into before a court with a condition to perform some act required by law; on failure to perform that act a sum is forfeited" Willis was apparently charged with the crime in 1818. He may not have been apprehended until 1820, although you have not provided enough information to determine this. He was released from custody during the Feb 1920 session of court because $1,500 bond was given to assure that he would appear before the judge for trial on a specific day [4th Monday etc.] i.e., sometime in April. Apparently he was convicted and given the 39 lashes as a sentence. The individual who commented that the February Session simply means the Session of court that begins in February is correct. It can continue on for months. Juries would be called to serve for the entire session. This term is still used by the US Supreme Court and often for grand juries. Joan Best "Joan Best" <[email protected]>

> I am trying to track a relative who is listed in the 1850 census in > Boone Co., MO. Among his neighbors are siblings, parents, cousins. > By 1860 the extended family is dispersed to 3-4 neighboring > counties, and I can find everybody except my guy. I am confident he > remained in the area past 1860. He does not appear anywhere in the > ancestry.com index and I have browsed the census pages in the > communities of his relatives to no avail. Any clues on how to > proceed? > > Susan Moeur <[email protected]> Susan, Have you tried searching in that county on any one -- using these only (no last name, etc) as there are transcribing errors: first name place of birth date of birth (+ or - 1 year) spouse's first name Sometimes this will turn up the person being searched for. If you don't have success in that county, then try doing the same search in the state. You'll get longer lists of hits but you may be successful. Good luck in your research. Patricia Champaign, IL "Pat" <[email protected]>

> I have copies of a NC court case that began 1818 and was still > going on 1820. Hopefully someone can explain a part of that > court case. My question: Willis was found guilty and sentenced > to 39 lashes February Term 1820. Why then was he required to > appear in March "to answer a charge of Petit Larceny". Was > this March Court an additional case of Petit Larceny? > > <snip> > > "Fran" <[email protected]> It would appear so, since "double jeopardy" would apply to a second trial for a crime that had already been tried and convicted. -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Christopher Jahn <[email protected]>

> I am trying to track a relative who is listed in the 1850 census in > Boone Co., MO. Among his neighbors are siblings, parents, cousins. > By 1860 the extended family is dispersed to 3-4 neighboring > counties, and I can find everybody except my guy. I am confident he > remained in the area past 1860. He does not appear anywhere in the > ancestry.com index and I have browsed the census pages in the > communities of his relatives to no avail. So a few questions: what > percentage of people might have been missed by the 1860 census > takers? On the chance he was no longer in the area, what percentage > of people are omitted in ancestry.com's index? Any clues on how to > proceed? > > Susan Moeur <[email protected]> As far as proceeding, if you have not already done so, I would page through all the area townships page by page. The index can have some mistakes that would prevent you from finding it. I am assuming you have tried the search every which way, such as just first name in that township, etc. Holly "Mert & Holly Kilpatrick" <[email protected]>

> I am trying to track a relative who is listed in the 1850 census in > Boone Co., MO. Among his neighbors are siblings, parents, cousins. > By 1860 the extended family is dispersed to 3-4 neighboring > counties, and I can find everybody except my guy. I am confident he > remained in the area past 1860. He does not appear anywhere in the > ancestry.com index and I have browsed the census pages in the > communities of his relatives to no avail. So a few questions: what > percentage of people might have been missed by the 1860 census > takers? On the chance he was no longer in the area, what percentage > of people are omitted in ancestry.com's index? Any clues on how to > proceed? > > Susan Moeur <[email protected]> Susan, The census indices that Ancestry uses for up to the 1870 census have been around in hard copy form for decades. They are notoriously not good. In fact, in the preface of one set the company who compiled the data talks about "possible errors" yada, yada, yada, and the states there may be as much as a 25% error factor! I wish I could get paid for being wrong that often! <g> Be that as it may, those same indices do NOT show my immigrant ancestor for the 1850, 1860, nor 1870 census. Yet, I finally found him in each one of the census. I used microfilm (vs. on-line) and I had to scroll through sheet by sheet for NYC in 1850 and New Orleans in 1870, but I found him. He just wasn't in the indices. I vaguely recall Ancestry was going to redo those indices, or check them, or something, but I couldn't swear to anything. If you can't find your ancestor in the census index, he's probably in the census and not missed. The census taker missing people was not as often occurring as people believe. Good luck, LGO LGO <[email protected]>

>I have copies of a NC court case that began 1818 and was still going >on 1820. Hopefully someone can explain a part of that court case. >My question: Willis was found guilty and sentenced to 39 lashes >February Term 1820. Why then was he required to appear in March "to >answer a charge of Petit Larceny". Was this March Court an >additional case of Petit Larceny? > >Thanks for any help. >____________________________________________ > >Willis WEST was charged with petit larceny in 1818. February Term, >1820, he was found guilty and sentenced to 39 lashes. > >February Sessions of 1820 found five persons were to appear day to >day to give evidence against Willis WEST. (Recognizances found for >trial to Feby Sessions 1820 are exact words) > >Recognizances taken at Feb Term 1820 at Sampson County Court. Two >persons were bonded at 500 each and required to assure the >appearance of Willis WEST at the Courthouse in Sampson County before >the Judge of the Superior Court of Law & Equity on the 4th Monday >after the 4th Monday in March 1820 to answer a charge of Petit >Larceny. (Willis also had to post 500 bond) >____________________________________________ > >"Fran" <[email protected]> I suspect that the business of the February Term 1820 went into March. Courts had/have different terms. If a court was convened four times a year, it might have a February, May, August and November term. In Maryland our Appellate courts have one September term. They hear cases 12 months of the year, but for some reason the numbers that a case gets is assigned to a term, such as "Case No. 1234, September Term 2005", even though nothing necessarily happens with the case in September. Jerry Ukes <[email protected]>

I am trying to track a relative who is listed in the 1850 census in Boone Co., MO. Among his neighbors are siblings, parents, cousins. By 1860 the extended family is dispersed to 3-4 neighboring counties, and I can find everybody except my guy. I am confident he remained in the area past 1860. He does not appear anywhere in the ancestry.com index and I have browsed the census pages in the communities of his relatives to no avail. So a few questions: what percentage of people might have been missed by the 1860 census takers? On the chance he was no longer in the area, what percentage of people are omitted in ancestry.com's index? Any clues on how to proceed? Susan Moeur <[email protected]>

I have copies of a NC court case that began 1818 and was still going on 1820. Hopefully someone can explain a part of that court case. My question: Willis was found guilty and sentenced to 39 lashes February Term 1820. Why then was he required to appear in March "to answer a charge of Petit Larceny". Was this March Court an additional case of Petit Larceny? Thanks for any help. ____________________________________________ Willis WEST was charged with petit larceny in 1818. February Term, 1820, he was found guilty and sentenced to 39 lashes. February Sessions of 1820 found five persons were to appear day to day to give evidence against Willis WEST. (Recognizances found for trial to Feby Sessions 1820 are exact words) Recognizances taken at Feb Term 1820 at Sampson County Court. Two persons were bonded at 500 each and required to assure the appearance of Willis WEST at the Courthouse in Sampson County before the Judge of the Superior Court of Law & Equity on the 4th Monday after the 4th Monday in March 1820 to answer a charge of Petit Larceny. (Willis also had to post 500 bond) ____________________________________________ "Fran" <[email protected]>