<snip> > > I just wanted to thank all of you for the discussion in this thread. > > I think this is just the sort of stuff that a newbie like myself > > needs to read. (I've been dabbling for about 2 months now.) On top > > of that, the link in the 2nd post in the thread > > > > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi > > > > is marvelous despite any of the shortcomings that have been > > mentioned. I typed in just my great-grandfathers surname and place > > of death and was rewarded with just one match which is > > unquestionably him, along with ancestors going back farther than I > > had ever imagined I would find. Perhaps not "unquestionably" to > > some standards (which subject I have also been looking into - should > > I really go looking for a physical copy of a book published in 1863 > > to verify that what was copied to the internet is correct???) but > > absolutely matching a great many points that my Mom had recorded > > before her death in 1999. > > > > CSquared > > no > maybe your mother copied from the 1863 book (mistakes and all too) > > what you have to do is look very critically at the 1863 book and try > and find the original source of the data in the nineteenth century > > a PRIMARY source is a document created at the same time by the > people involved in the event. > > a will > a probate > some church books > > but NOT many census records > which are mostly SECONDARY sources > because they are a fair copy from original census returns or an oral > statement on a door step pencilled into a note book > > many of the older church books were written up later from scraps of > paper with notes jotted down on them - which makes them ALSO > secondary sources > > > most census images are TERTIARY sources > because they are copies of copies > > on line census indexes > are on the FOURTH level or worse > > COPIES OF COPIES OF COPIES with spelling mistakes because of > difficult to read handwritng, and mistakes made at the time by > census collectors and today poorly paid typists far from the > localities with no local knowledge. > > which demotes the family trees I put on line to the fifth level of > quality > > EXCEPT for the bits I got from my mother's birthday book and old > letters I own, and my visits to archives where I handled and read > original documents which makes that part of my tree a SECONDARY > SOURCE > > what your mother wrote about the people she knew is a primary source > but we all have family stories which turn out to be legends with an > element of truth, so when she wrote down what she was told . . . . -- > check it out > > beware !!!! > some of the nineteenth century and older genealogies are full of > lies and assumptions - there were con men then too > > my worst mistake I made when I started was not finding CONTROL + S > add source when I began with Family Tree Maker > > Hugh W > > -- > Beta blogger > http://nanowrimo3.blogspot.com/ visiting my past > http://hughw36-2.blogspot.com/ re-entry > http://snaps4.blogspot.com/" photographs and walks > > old blogger > http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG > > Hugh Watkins <[email protected]> Hi Hugh, Thanks for all those comments - exactly the sort of issues I've been wrestling with. Comments like those are what make this group worthwhile, I do believe. As far as the 1863 book is concerned, I am pretty sure my Mom was not aware of it. It is one of the few things I have discovered myself in my inept internet prowling so far. In case anyone is interested, it is just one paragraph in William G. Cutler's "History of the State of Kansas". The paragraph I found by laboriously searching (unncessarily so it turned out later) took me to "DOUGLAS COUNTY, Part 38 William G. Cutler's History of the State of Kansas first published in 1883 by A. T. Andreas, Chicago, IL." It says that two kind souls "BARBARA RENTENBACH and ROSANA J. WHITENIGHT produced this selection." I gather that means that they typed the whole book into a web site. Wow! I do appreciate their effort if that is the case. When my browsing through each section of the book finally came to http://www.kancoll.org/books/cutler/douglas/douglas-co-p38.html and I searched for "Snyder" lo and behold there was my great grandfather. BTW he is listed there as E. M. His first name is Emmanuel and I have no record of a middle initial including Mom's work. There are several things in that paragraph I was not aware of, but the things I think I do know all match. Well, OK, I thought they came over in 1853 vs. 1851. Some day when I find the ship's passenger list (a Secondary source since the passengers did not write their own names in the register, and rather subject to errors also, right?) perhaps I'll have a better clue on that as well. The reference that WorldConnect turned up lists him as Emmanuel N. Snyder and I think the "N." is incorrect as well. Any advice on emailing the lady to share what I think I "know" about the family? So I am learning to be suspicious - I hope sufficiently so. I've enjoyed your blogs - especially the photo ones. I've only visited your beautiful country once - in 1976 I think - briefly in London and then about 3 weeks staying in Southport doing some business with the UK Post-Giro. I shall never forget a delightful Saturday in Chester during my stay. Thanks and Regards, Charlie -- To email me, eradicate obfuscate, remove dot invalid and replace dot and at with the obvious. obfuscatecsquared3 at comcast dot net dot invalid If this seems paranoid I'm sorry but you should see the spam I've gotten! "CSquared" <[email protected]>