Multiple changes to FamilySearch websites

FamilySearch websites continue their evolution from multiple individual "Beta" sites into a unified structure under the umbrella of FamilySearch.org. The individual sites still maintain, to some extent, their own identities, but the interface continues to incorporate more links and changes to make them all word together as a single website. With the exception of New.FamilySearch.org, most of the sites are now pretty well incorporated into FamilySearch.org.

In case you have missed the very recent changes, here is the line up so far:

The former Record Search Pilot is now completely incorporated into a newly named heading called simply "Records." See this screen shot:

You can click on the image to enlarge it. You will see that the names of the links have been shortened. Records, instead of Historical Records and Trees instead of Family Trees and Catalog instead of Family History Library Catalog and so forth. These are more than merely cosmetic changes since the idea is to integrate those formerly disparate sites into the main website, cutting down the names reduces the association with the former sites. I don't really know if that is what they were trying to do, but that is the result anyway.

FamilySearch added a link called "Books" that goes directly to the Brigham Young University Family History Archive, which, by the way, when you get to the startup page is no longer identified as being from BYU except in the URL. 

There is still some streamlining that needs to be done. There is an extra page for going the FamilySearch Research Wiki, which shows a very out-of-date total for the number of articles. I might also mention that the counter on the Books page hasn't worked for over a year. We have no idea how many books are online or scanned.

There was an issue of the startup page for FamilySearch.org changing when you logged in. Some of the menu items changed. But that has been corrected and Indexing has now replaced Give Back which has moved to the bottom of the page. Several of the links at the bottom of the page have also changed.

Some of the websites are still obscured by the structure. For example Forums.FamilySearch.org is invisible and FamilyTech.FamilySearch.org is still hidden on the Learn page.

FamilyTech.FamilySearch.org has been undergoing a complete facelift. I will have to go into that in another post. All of the changes seem to work to integrate the separate programs, but I am sure that there will be more changes as we go along. Most of the changes are occurring unannounced, by the way.

Awareness of Kinship Systems -- When is an Aunt not an Aunt?

A kinship system is the structure of the social relationships that constitute kinship in a particular culture. Kinship includes the terminology that is used to define those social relationships and the reciprocal cultural obligations that are associated with the terminological categories. The kinship roles are culturally determined and therefore imposed on the individuals by reason of their cultural and linguistic background and unless an individual consciously changes his or her culture and language it is highly unlikely that the individual will escape the restrictions of the dominant kinship system.

Genealogists and genealogy as a study come primarily from a historical and not an anthropological or sociological background so there is little or no mention of kinship systems in the context of family histories. This is likely due, at least in major part, to the fact that most people are unaware of their own cultures kinship system as a system. In a sense they are too close to the forest to see anything but trees. Likewise, kinship studies of very large complex societies are, for the most part, conspicuously absent from the literature.

Familial relationships are for the most part so integrated into the genealogical studies that it is only when there has be an historical shift in the meaning of a relationship terms, that the issue is even discussed. The issue is the tendency that we will all have to impose our own understanding of the familial relationships on cultures that are entirely foreign to our own. We take it for granted, that the terms we use apply universally. That a Grandparent is always the parent our own parent, when in some cultures the relationship may be much more complex than that. Since genealogy is essentially the names of individuals and their kin relations to one another, ignorance of these relationships and the terminology used in any particular cultural context may contribute to completely misleading conclusions about relationships.

Every person belongs to both a biological family of orientation (i.e. mother, father, and if present, brothers and sisters) as well as a procreative family (i.e. spouse, wife, husband, children) In all of these cultural contexts we have a culturally defined terminology for referring to various iterations of the family unit, such as step-father, step-mother, half brother or sister, etc.

From the genealogical standpoint, it is important to be aware of these systems so that we can accurately assess relationships. Some of the factors that go into a kinship system is in the terminology. For example, a female spouse is called a wife, a male spouse is called a husband. English also has words for male and female siblings, i.e. brother and sister. Some subcultures within the U.S. use these terms for other purposes. For example, a Catholic Priest may be called Father, or a member of the same religion might be referred to as brother or sister. The use of these terms is external to the kinship system.

The dominant kinship systems in the U.S. can be defined as open, multilineal, conjugal systems. In English we have the word family that refers to the conjugal unit, no matter how constituted, and the term "relative" that refers to anyone who is considered a kinsman. Our relations are constituted almost exclusively of interlocking conjugal families. As such English speaking Americans are always members of two interlocking families and unless the brothers of one family marry the sisters of another each individual is the unique member of the intersection of both familial groups.

Kinship is an extensive study. Lack of awareness of basic kinship relationships can cause genealogists to make invalid conclusions. If you would like to have a greater understanding of how kinship system terminology may affect your genealogical conclusions, I might suggest starting with Parsons, Talcott, The Kinship System of the Contemporary United States. The complete article is available from the American Anthropologist for a free download.

Genealogy on Toasted Oats?

What to my wondering eyes should appear but a plug for genealogy on the back of a cereal box! The American Library Association (ALA) is working with Safeway Inc., on a roll-out of five Safeway-brand cereal boxes with back-panel content about libraries and librarians. The boxes launched last  October and will be available at Safeway’s 1,500 stores across the nation. Quoting from Cooperation Today,

We are proud to partner with the American Library Association and collaborate in the creation of educational panels for our line of Safeway Brand cereal. This is a way we can support the efforts of the ALA and bring education and enjoyment to our consumers,” said Mike Minasi, Safeway president, marketing.
“We want to thank Safeway for presenting us with a unique opportunity,” said ALA Executive Director Keith Michael Fiels. “The cereal boxes will bring information about some of the exciting ways to enjoy libraries – and about the value of libraries — straight into people’s homes.

 All feature the @ your library® brand of ALA’s Campaign for America’s Libraries and links to resources available at www.ilovelibraries.org, ALA’s advocacy and public awareness Web site for the public. The first panels focus on genealogy and international libraries.

And you thought Who Do You Think You Are was big!

Improved Search Filters in FamilySearch.org

New filters implemented in FamilySearch.org give you the ability to filter your search results by:

• Birth (and birth-like event) date and place
• Marriage (and marriage-like event) date and place
• Residence date and place
• Death (and death-like event) date and place
• Other event date and place (such as immigration, military service, etc.)
• Gender
• Category (record type)

When you do a search, the filter options appear on the left side of the results. Here is a screen shot showing the new filters:

So, I decided to try out the filters with my perennial ancestor, Henry Tanner. My initial search for Henry, without anything but a name produced 17,992 results. Now, before going much further, I have to tell you that I happen to know Henry is in the database multiple times. However, a search on the name only produced no hits on the first pages so I gave up. Now I could solve the problem easily by the simple expediency of adding his birth place or death place, but I wanted to see how the filters were going to work.

So I started down with the filters. I understand that you can apply multiple filters and narrow the results. So let's see what happens. I add each filter and record the results:

Birth Place -- The selections limit me to the US, Canada and Mexico. The number drops to 7,437. Still nothing like my Great-grandfather. So let's add another filter:

Birth Year: 1800. The number drops to 5,453 but still no luck.

Death Place: Canada, USA and Mexico and the returns drop to 241. However still no luck finding him in the list. I determine that I am not going to go through all 241, so I apply another filter.

Death Year: 1900. Guess what only 147 left. I am tempted to go through the entire list, but after a few pages, I opt to impose yet another filter. This time I choose:

Gender: Male which has almost no impact on the results, which drop to 132. Back to the filters, but I am running out of options. I choose:

Residence Place: Canada, USA and Mexico and the number drops to 68. I go through all 68 entries and guess what? He isn't there.

So now I go back to doing the whole thing over again. I turn off all the filters by clicking on the little "x" next to each one.

So now I go back to the main search fields and add one teeny tiny bit of information, his middle name. Voila! Without any filters at all, he shows up as Numbers 2 and 5 out of 28,708 results.

Hmm. So what does this mean? The filters obviously work and do what they are supposed to do, but unless you have enough information from the start, you may still not find what you are looking for. Improvement? Probably, but not immediately evident.

Complexity as a Factor in Genealogical Research

Genealogy is a subject that is rife with different levels and types of complexity. Overcoming complexity requires tailoring the approach to both the type and level of complexity. We can all recognize complexity but do not all understand how to handle the consequences of complex systems.

Let me start with a definition of a system. A system is a set of parts or elements that are related in a way that differentiates those same elements from similar relationships outside of the relational regime. Put into the language of genealogy, a family is a group of people who are related in way that those outside the family are not. Systems can differ in the identity of their individual elements or in the relationship of similar elements. For example, a nuclear family can have a father, a mother and children. Two different families can have the same relationship of the elements, but involve different individuals. You can also have entirely different kinship systems that are dissimilar in the relationship of those similar elements (i.e. the members of the family) Unfortunately, I know very, very few genealogists who are even marginally aware of kinship systems even though the overall kinship system plays a major role in the structure of the ancestral line. 

A system can be simple such as a nuclear family, or more complex such as the major patterns of kinship systems. For example, take the English word "uncle." What does this word mean in the context of familial relationships in 1800s? Do you know? The word uncle derives from the Latin avunculus, or mother's brother, which is the diminutive of the Latin avus or grandfather. So uncle originally meant "little grandfather." Originally, in Old English, the word for a maternal uncle was usually "eam." A paternal uncle was a "faedera."  You will note that we generally use the term to mean a male relative who is not a direct-line ancestor. So, my grandfather's brother is still my uncle (sometimes differentiated by the use of "great-uncle). But not in common speech, still call him an uncle, obscuring the generational differences.

As we begin to acquire information about our family, the very method by which we collect that information will begin to regularize and obscure the kinship system under which the family lived. We are immediately confronted with both levels of complexity, not only do we have a lot of individual members of our system (family) but we also have a complex system of interrelationships. Keeping track of the complex number of individuals is easily done with a computer and a good genealogy program. Representing the underlying kinship system is more difficult and more complex.

I recognize the difference between disorganized and organized complexity. A crowd is a disorganized complex system. But even disorganized systems obey certain rules. Just as chaos is fundamentally ordered if not organized in way we can easily perceive. Genealogy deals mostly with organized complexity but both types of complexity are exacerbated by the increase in the number of elements. If you have a database of 100 individuals you have a completely different challenge than if I have a database with 100,000 individuals.

Here is the point of this discussion. As genealogists we are dealing with a highly complex system. Part of that complexity is a system of kinship relationships that are, to a large extent, either entirely ignored, or at least, obscured by the very methods we use to record our information. Nearly all the existing software programs reflect an idealized kinship system that only partially corresponds to any actual existing kinship structure. Do you know the level of complexity existent in your ancestry? Are you aware of any kinship systems that may have influenced your ancestors? This question opens the door to even more complexity when you add legal and property transmission issues.

This post will probably be continued from time to time.

Apple passes Microsoft as new tech leader

For the first time in 20 years, Apple's quarterly profits were higher than Microsoft's. Analysts attribute the decline in Microsoft to sales of the new tablet computers. Apple, which netted $5.99 billion in revenue last quarter to Microsoft's $5.23 billion, is the indisputable king. Sales of the iPad, which competitors and critics initially derided as a novelty item, have led Apple to hold onto 75 percent of tablet market share. See Huffpost Tech. According to an Associated Press article, "Close to oblivion in 1997, Apple is now the world's second-most valuable company, after Exxon Mobil Corp. On April 20, it reported net income of $5.99 billion for the January-to-March period, nearly double that of a year ago. It shipped a record 18.65 million iPhones during the quarter. Its iPad tablet computers are so popular, the company couldn't make enough."

Apple has been the most valuable tech company now for over a year, but the new figures point out the declining sales of Windows computers highlighted by Microsoft's reported decline in revenue from the Windows operating system for the second straight quarter.

I have always been an Apple fan since I bought my first Apple II back in 1982. I cannot begin to tell about all the condescending abuse I have suffered from Microsoft PC users over the years. I have been doing genealogy on computers since my Apple II and finally had to switch over to PC based systems because of computers at work. But in the past two years, I have switched back to entirely using Mac computers again. It is always comforting when the market place ratifies your personal decision.

Let's all think about maps and don't forget history

I spent an hour or so with a professional researcher a day or two ago helping find a German immigrant to Michigan. There were a couple of things about the conversation, where we were both on computers looking for records from a variety of source, that stood out. The researcher had spent hours on the project and had already found a number of records, but was trying to find either the names of the immigrant's parents or the place of her birth in Austria. She did have a copy of a 1930 U.S. Census record showing the immigrant married with one daughter.

After a few minutes of discussion, I asked her where the town on the Census record was located? It had not occurred to the researcher to look at a map. We immediately found the town and county and discovered that it was a suburb of Detroit. This opened up a whole list of possible records to examine, everything from school records to city directories. After more discussion, the researcher said she also had found the immigrant in the Social Security Death Index. I suggested obtaining her SS-5 form by means of the . Social Security Freedom of Information Act, Request for a Deceased Individual's Social Security Record. The researcher did not know these existed. I further suggested looking at the FamilySearch Research Wiki to give her more suggestions. She didn't know the Research Wiki existed either.

The researcher also had a copy of the immigrant's Naturalization Index Record. The immigrant had been naturalized in California. I suggested locating the naturalization file in the National Archives or determining if the records were still in the Federal Court system. I suggested she start with the Wiki page on United States Naturalization and Citizenship.  We didn't have time to go into this further.

Here are some hard and fast rules for starting research about anyone who lived a substantial portion of their life in the 1900s.

Rule One: Always identify all locations by map and always make sure you have county and city information. Anytime you find someone, unless you already know where they lived, look up all locations on a map. Find out the next larger jurisdictions, such as the counties or municipalities. Don't go searching for specific records until you are sure where those records should be located.

Rule Two: Put the person in their historical context. For example, did the person live a substantial portion of his or her life after 1932? If so, the person was likely on Social Security.  Think about wars and draft registration, think about where the person might have worked and if the person might have belonged to some affinity group or religious organization.

Rule Three: Use the resources that are the most useful for helping with research. In my opinion, that means starting with the Research Wiki. As of today, the Research Wiki has 56,837 articles and is still increasing by about 1000 articles a week.

Before you spend a lot of time searching in Ancestry.com or FamilySearch.org, you should take a few minutes to put the person into the geographical and historical context of his or her life and look at the bigger picture. Make a possible list, either on paper (preferable) or mentally, and begin your search by looking at the records that might have the information first.