Hi, Just use one word is the key. Sometimes that does not even work. I get frustrated. I keep trying. Just use the surname you are searching. Or variant spelling. Susan susan c miller <s.miller2@juno.com>

> May I ask how one used the Keywords on Ancestry.com, how are they > used? I am new to all of this. Thank you, Valerie Valerie: Use the keyword to expand or narrow down the search to a particular county, city, unit of service, etc. level. It is a tool to examine data on a micro level if you use a narrowly focused key word (i.e., city), a little bit larger level (keyword of county) or a lot larger (no keyword at all). What I enter in the keyword depends on how common is the surname, how specifically do I want to search, and what are the possibilities for narrowing down the search based on how ancestry has set up the data fields. It is a handy tool for letting you look at all entries for a given surname in a narrow focus. For census records, I might start the search with full first and last name with the county as a keyword, if I get too many hits to check, (or don't find my ancestor at all) I might narrow down the search to only the surname with the county as the keyword, or the surname with the city as the keyword. It can be used as another way to look for those pesky first name misspellings and/or initials instead of names. You can also use only a surname with a county or city keyword to see who else with the same surname is living in the same city and/or county The same thing works for birth, death, military records, etc. Use keywords to expand and narrow your search based on whether you have too few or too many hits. For instance, you might try marriage reclrds with the county as the keyword, or the bride's surname as the keyword. You might look at the data in your original search, and then ask yourself how you would like to change to results you found............often there is a keyword in the data fields that you can put in the keyword field to help out. I hope this makes some sense; it would be much easier for me to show than to tell. Glee <gleemc@earthlink.net>

jonesn8@attbi.com writes: > What types of records should I search to find an eighteen year old > single male? I'm afraid I don't understand your problem. Why do you need to know where he was living when he was 18 years old?

Trying to trace grandfather through the census. Known facts: b. 1862, Clinton Henry Co MO 1870 Census - Dallas Co TX with parents/siblings 1880 Census - not found, parents/siblings found in Hill Co TX. Older sister not listed with parents/siblings at this time either 1883 - marries, place unknown 1900 Census - Johnson Co TX 1910 Census - Hill Co TX 1920 Census - Johnson Co TX d. 1926, Ft Worth Tarrant Co TX What types of records should I search to find an eighteen year old single male? I have done a page/page search of the 1880 census records for Dallas Co, Hill Co, and Johnson Co TX. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Dianne "Dianne Jones" <jonesn8@attbi.com>

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > > Singhals fed this fish to the penguins: > > > theory, the ?ieber would work. As you say, though, it wouldn't > > find > > <blink><blink> Guess I hadn't considered the wild cards > would work on single characters at the beginning of a name (I've > been using xxx* style wild cards). Uhhh ... I thought that was what you were saying? (g) Anyway -- the ?xxx doesn't always work, sometimes the clever programmer insists on a real letter there, but if it DOES work, it's invaluable. I know it doesn't work with the 1901 British, but then Q*Q ... Cheryl singhals@erols.com

> <snip> > > Hmmm...Cheryl is correct here in that the Ancestry search engine > doesn't support leading wildcards. The Ancestry Daily News had an > article about using wildcards when searching database at Ancestry on > or about Oct. 17, 2001 and I quote from that article: "Due to the > nature and size of the data being searched and the need to deliver > speedy search results, the use of wildcards is restricted to > keywords and names that have at least the first three letters > specified." > > The wildcard symbol ? will find exactly ONE unknown or missing > character and the wildcard symbol * will find zero to five unknown > or missing characters. you can extend the number of missing > characters with ?? finding exactly TWO missing characters and ??? > finding three) and ** finding more than 5 missing characters (not > sure what the upward limit is on this one and using *** doesn't seem > to extend the results beyond what ** is finding). > > Joan <JYoung6180@aol.com> May I ask how one used the Keywords on Ancestry.com, how are they used? I am new to all of this. Thank you, Valerie

Where would I find descriptions or photo's of different styles of burial vaults? I am particularly interested in a burial vault that looks like a little house made of what appears to be brick.... with a slate ( I think) pitched roof.... There are two, side by side, in Belmont Cemetery, Sumter Co., AL. I am curious to know if it is a particularly "Irish" design. One is easily identifiable because it still has a "nameplate" in stone on the front. The second, in better shape, has no stone on the front. I believe it to be a member of the family... there are only the two... side by side. The one that can be identified is for the burial of Elizabeth Jane Rencher... died 1843. There are only two members of the family that are not "accounted for". One is an Uncle, from Ireland. I have no death date for him, but wonder if perhaps he was the source of this unique design.... and perhaps his is the unidentified vault. I am not familiar with styles... perhaps this is just a common style....but would like to know. Any ideas where I could find information? thanks bev Bev <brencher@earthlink.net>

wlfraed@ix.netcom.com writes: > Singhals fed this fish to the penguins: > > > theory, the ?ieber would work. As you say, though, it wouldn't > > find > > <blink><blink> Guess I hadn't considered the wild cards > would work on single characters at the beginning of a name (I've > been using xxx* style wild cards). Hmmm...Cheryl is correct here in that the Ancestry search engine doesn't support leading wildcards. The Ancestry Daily News had an article about using wildcards when searching database at Ancestry on or about Oct. 17, 2001 and I quote from that article: "Due to the nature and size of the data being searched and the need to deliver speedy search results, the use of wildcards is restricted to keywords and names that have at least the first three letters specified." The wildcard symbol ? will find exactly ONE unknown or missing character and the wildcard symbol * will find zero to five unknown or missing characters. you can extend the number of missing characters with ?? finding exactly TWO missing characters and ??? finding three) and ** finding more than 5 missing characters (not sure what the upward limit is on this one and using *** doesn't seem to extend the results beyond what ** is finding). Joan JYoung6180@aol.com

Singhals fed this fish to the penguins: > theory, the ?ieber would work. As you say, though, it wouldn't > find <blink><blink> Guess I hadn't considered the wild cards would work on single characters at the beginning of a name (I've been using xxx* style wild cards). -- > ============================================================== < > wlfraed@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG < > wulfraed@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff < > ============================================================== < > Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ < > Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > > Cptoehedd@aol.com fed this fish to the penguins: > > > all, but it is wonderful. After choosing the census database, > > select a state. Then put the first 2-3 letters in the "jump to > > surname" spot. This will allow you to scroll through the index > > alphabetically so that you have a better chance to catch > > misspellings. I am researching various Polish names right now, and > > Assuming the misspelling wasn't in the first letters... > "Bie..." wouldn't have found "Die..." nor "Bea.." (as I found in the > 1880 CD-ROMs). Someone somewhere seems to have manufactured the statistic that "most" census misreadings occur with the initial letter. On that theory, the ?ieber would work. As you say, though, it wouldn't find ?eaver or ?eiver and it surely wouldn't find ?uver, which is one of the more common transcription errors (ie or ei turns into u or ee). And (g), it would NOT have found GELBMEYER which is is what appears to be written because the clerk crossed the T without lifting his pen. :( Not that I'm bitter about those 20 years, mind now! (g) Cheryl singhals@erols.com

> > This is part of correspondence from Jack Crenshaw Grantham, Jr., a > > noted Dallas, Texas genealogist and professor, who researched the > > Creek, Cherokee and Sioux tribes for connections with the Bull > > family. > > > > "Data" <bulldata.nospam@hotmail.com> > > I hate to ask. > > Relatives of the well-known Sitting, right? > > <vbg> > > "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> No. Relatives to the Indian Trader/Agent Captain Sullivan who married a Creek Indian. Roger

Cptoehedd@aol.com fed this fish to the penguins: > all, but it is wonderful. After choosing the census database, > select a state. Then put the first 2-3 letters in the "jump to > surname" spot. This will allow you to scroll through the index > alphabetically so that you have a better chance to catch > misspellings. I am researching various Polish names right now, and Assuming the misspelling wasn't in the first letters... "Bie..." wouldn't have found "Die..." nor "Bea.." (as I found in the 1880 CD-ROMs). -- > ============================================================== < > wlfraed@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG < > wulfraed@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff < > ============================================================== < > Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ < > Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <

Try Scioto township, in Ross county Ohio. Actually I tried Ask Jeeves.com and punched in Ross county Ohio township. I hope this helps. Sue suetheob@aol.comspamnot (Sue theo b)

> > > Are these census errors and bad indexing in recent discussions > > > coming from errors in the original enumerations? Or, are some or > > > all being found only in incorrect transcriptions by ancestry.com? > > > Important distinction. > > > > > > John H Ballard <jballard@dslextreme.com> > > > > <snip> > > > > We also have to remember that all the indexers have to work with is > > microfilm - and a lot of that is not clearly legible. I sometimes > > look at a bunch of dim chicken scratches and marvel that the > > indexers got ANY of the letters right - and they had them all > > correct! > > > > "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> > > As someone who has indexed a state census for just one county I want > to say that at some point the indexer has to make a decision if it > is a "P" or "B" or it would never be done. The hand writing on just > the one county census ran the course from --shall we say > ornate--to--unreadable scratches. I just had to say that. > > mglory@hutchtel.net I have also found that the mistakes with the letters of i--a-e-. For example, ancestry.com for 1930 has our name listed as GOOD but it should be GOAD. Also the letters i & e can be mistaken. You almost have to be a detective. Shirley Goad in Louisiana "Shirley Goad" <meme1@wnonline.net>

"Singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > Amen. Even the 1930 isn't a model of legibility. :( > > And, messing around with some 1850 census today, I offer up the > following METHODS-y tips: > > Wise may be indexed as Urise, because in at least ONE instance > that's what it looks like. Now, anyone doing this for himself would > *assume* that a Urise in the midst of 8 WISE would more likely be > WISE than Urise, but paid indexers are paid to think, they're paid > to type. > > Likewise a LONG family's 3rd child was surnamed VONY or possibly > VONG. > > a BULLITT family is probably indexed as BULLELL because the bar on > the T is in the next box. > > A GEORGE family has a child whose surname is LEORGE ... > > I have no idea what the name UUmrl should be, but I'll bet it's NOT > Uumrl In England 1881 I found a BRADLEY transcribed as BROADLEY I went to the film and the enumerator had written BROADLEY so the error was made by the enumerator in 1881 the children, first names, dates, occupations all tied in with my correction It might have been a quastion of local dialect and an illiterate family Hugh W "Hugh Watkins" <hugh_watkins@net.dialog.dk>

> I was wondering is there a easy and cheap way of finding if two > people are related without asking them? > > Zeke This raises something of an ethical dilemma, Zeke. Living persons have a reasonable right to be informed of any enquiry into any aspect of their lives. Gil Gil Hardwick <gruagach@highway1.com.au>

> Where can I find a blank "Family Tree" form that I can print out > and fill in by hand? > > "Lenny Abbey" LAbbey@mindspring.com Simply go to PEOPLE "add unrelated individual" a blank form appears then print it. I have some printed off now to give to family to fill in their information. Deana Smith

"Lenny Abbey" <LAbbey@mindspring.com> wrote: > > Where can I find a blank "Family Tree" form that I can print out > and fill in by hand? The are quite a few places on the net where you can get family tree forms. A simple Google search for "family tree forms" or "ancestor charts" will fiind several. And there is free software such as Legacy or PAF and these will allow you to print blank forms. Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

> John H Ballard <jballard@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > > Are these census errors and bad indexing in recent discussions coming > > from errors in the original enumerations? Or, are some or all being > > found only in incorrect transcriptions by ancestry.com? Important > > distinction. > > <snip of lots of good information ... > > > We also have to remember that all the indexers have to work with is > microfilm - and a lot of that is not clearly legible. I sometimes look > at a bunch of dim chicken scratches and marvel that the indexers got ANY > of the letters right - and they had them all correct! > > "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> Richard, thanks so much for your participation on this list. I personally appreciate you taking the time to enlighten us all. I am so thankful for the indexing....even with the errors. Micki Van Dyke A "newbie" "Micki Van Dyke" <mvandyke@attbi.com>

I have also spent some time in admiration of all those people who transcribe and index all those handwritten records. I can't imagine how it would be to pursue my genealogy in earlier times. I have to admit I probably would not be doing it. Anyway, for those that are new(er) to genealogy, I thought I would share a couple things about census searching that have helped me. I recently discovered, thanks to some generous people on another list, how to search with genealogy.com. They don't seem to emphasize it all, but it is wonderful. After choosing the census database, select a state. Then put the first 2-3 letters in the "jump to surname" spot. This will allow you to scroll through the index alphabetically so that you have a better chance to catch misspellings. I am researching various Polish names right now, and this allows me also to see many names that are obviously Polish but spelled phonetically. I found 4 siblings of my greatgrandfather this way, and I had thought he had come alone! Another trick I learned recently is with Ancestry.com. I think this is what is called a wild card search, I am not sure. After you get to the census year that you want to search, put a question mark for the first letter of the last name, then the rest of the name and use the soundex search. If you have the head of household first name, enter that also. The same if you know the state, town, etc. to filter it as much as possible. Also remember that the 1930 is an everyname index, so if a wife or child has a more unusual name, search with that one. But also be careful when using specific states, etc; one family I was searching for was living in Florida instead of Illinois as I had assumed. If you can find it, there is a very helpful book titled "A Practical Guide to the 'Misteaks' Made in Census Indexes" that will give you more ideas. Carolyn Cptoehedd@aol.com