Brick or "Stucko"?

Brick walls. If you haven't encountered one yet in your genealogy journey, you undoubtedly will at some point. It's a given! Sooner or later, the records simply aren't available, or the pieces just won't fall into place. Whether records never existed, have been lost to time, or simply aren't available in a format we can access yet, sooner or later you'll hit the proverbial "brick wall". The term is well known, but is it always accurate?

I have a several brick walls in my research right now. Indeed they seem absolutely impenetrable! The other day, I was diligently trying to chip away at the bricks once again, hoping to find a loose piece to help me demolish the blockage. I started thinking....(Yes, yes, I know....thinking can be dangerous!) Brick... After the Great Fire of London in 1666, buildings had to be rebuilt of brick or stone (to prevent such a devastating fire in the future). The walls of the buildings were being rebuilt to last. Brick is a durable building material. No wonder we call our challenges this, and have such a hard time breaking through them in genealogy! While I'm sure there are exceptions (people do nefarious things from time to time to avoid detection), most of our genealogical brick walls probably weren't created by design. They were simply created by time. And more time may be needed to find the best method to break them down. Some may stand the test of time, impervious to ever being removed.

But are all of our brick walls really brick? I have several..."loose ends". They're not really brick walls. There are a plethora of records, but the problem is names - in general. The further back I go in England (I'm only in the late 1700's and early 1800's) I find walls not made of brick, but of stucco. Or as I like to call it "stucko". Names become repetitive and locations unfamiliar. Even couples may be name twins, making it doubly difficult to figure out. It becomes harder to tell whether locations are accurate. We like to think, as we go back in time, communities were smaller, and people didn't move around as much. And in some cases this is true. But the population in England swelled from the 5 millions to 9 million between 1700-1800. It was s no small village! So even though records exist, and the names I'm looking for can be found, just how do I tell if the record is for the right person in the right place at the right time? These are my "stucko" walls. 

While durable, "stucko"...er...stucco, is more prone to cracking. Once a crack appears, we can likely work our way to removing the hindrance. They are walls with loose ends, threads waiting to be pulled. Tugging on one may unravel the rest. These walls may topple with a bit of work (and a lot of open browser windows). These challenges aren't necessarily built of brick. They may simply need extra patience and a bit of luck to fell them.

Somehow, reframing how I think about walls (in general) helps me find patience. Patience to search the records again. Patience to make the tenuous connections. Patience to do one more full-text search. Sometimes patience pays off and the "stucko" crumbles. Other times, no matter how hard I try, I realize under the stucco covering lies a wall made of brick after all.

Image by Takeshi Hirano from Pixabay

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays to all! 

Image by Alberto Antonio Peguero De Leon from Pixabay

My Dominant Left Foot

Ancestry recently informed me I had a new trait. I tend to find these revelations slightly interesting, so I headed right over to check it out. I was a little perplexed to see it was about my dominant foot. Why it would be a useful trait to know is a bit of a headscratcher for me... but ok. 

In the traits screen it predicts I'm left foot dominant. Hmmm....I clicked to get more information. Apparently, dominant foot and hand tend to be on the same side because of how the brain controls fine motor skills. Given I'm right handed, it doesn't seem to be the case for me. 

I'll be honest, I usually look at the trait and move on. Clicking to read about it isn't my normal modus operandi. So when I read further and saw this information it actually troubled me a little.

"Dominant foot is at least 1% genetic
At most 99% environmental
We compared your DNA to the DNA of more than 860,000 people who answered the question “Which is your dominant foot?” We can attribute 1% of this trait to genetics"

Of course, I'm well aware genetics is only part of the equation. But 1% genetic?! 1% is barely worth the time it takes to mention the word trait. And really, I read this as "You're in our database and so are 860,000 other people who took the time to self-report their dominant foot. Based on this self-identified data, we think you might be left foot dominant." I'm sorry, but this seems no better than flipping a coin and picking left or right. 

If you want the broadest group for DNA matching, Ancestry is an absolutely fantastic choice! Push to shove, if I only had one DNA test to recommend, it would be Ancestry for the family historians. But in my opinion, Ancestry DNA traits are generally more for amusement than anything else. If you want more useful health information, 23andMe is probably a better choice (at least right now). Yes, they still offer up traits (and they're probably based on similar self-reporting), but they also provide so much more in terms of easy to understand potential health related results. And they release new reports fairly regularly.

MyHeritage is also offering more in depth whole genome sequencing (WGS) results in 2026. You'll be able to download considerably more detail on your DNA, but interpreting all the raw data is another story. Making use of the information may involve uploading to another 3rd party site, and potentially paying additional subscription fees to gain insights. Not to mention it's only going to be 3 passes (3x). For reference 1-2x are considered low-pass sequencing. So 3x is "better" relatively speaking, but if you want clinical grade, you'd need 30x. 3x is used in research, while 30x is clinical or medical standard. The accuracy difference between research and clinical grade is minimal, but for serious health concerns, or the potential to pass on a genetic mutation to an offspring, every percent can mean a lot. If research level results are right for you, MyHeritage is a very cost effective option for this type of WGS test.

I could fill a dozen posts on the nuances of the various providers and DNA tests, but I'm going to jump off the train now. Personally, since I've done both Ancestry and 23andMe, I'm going to pass on MyHeritage for now. Their kits are often on sale, and I'd like to wait and see the types of new data reports their WGS is going to provide to users. If all they do is provide a big file for download, I'm not inclined to spend a lot of time trying to decipher my DNA, or interested in paying another provider to deliver more insights to me. And if I ever have a health condition, where DNA results become vitally important, I'd likely fork out the money for a clinical grade test. If however, MyHeritage offers something more useful than 23andMe currently does, I'd definitely reconsider my choice. For now, the WGS is a wait and see for me.

Bottom line, Ancestry traits can be fun. You may get a little enjoyment out of whether they predict correctly, or they seem to miss the target entirely. But Ancestry isn't a go to for health related DNA information, and it sure isn't whole genome sequencing. DNA research is constantly evolving. A 30x pass may be clinical grade today, but may not be the gold standard of the future. Your goals with DNA testing are yours alone. You have more options than ever before when it comes to reasonably priced DNA tests - it's all about selecting the one (or two, or three!) you feel are right for you.

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

Genealogy Tasks for When You’re Not at 100%

The past week has been challenging. I've had a nasty winter cold, and my brain has felt as fuzzy as an unsheared sheep. It's been hard to focus on even the most basic of hints. Taking a trip into the genealogical void, where time ceases to exist and hours pass in the blink of an eye hasn't been a viable option. Nonetheless, I still tried to be at least a little bit productive. I've seen a few forum posts recently where people ask how to stay motivated, looking for ideas on what others do to get past the dry spell when research seems to be too much.

Here are some of the things I did manage to do this week, even though I was operating at less than 100%:

• Read more blog posts than I usually do. 
• Interacted on forums, answering questions for users and offering suggestions as appropriate.
• Updated my Feedly. I was at the 100 follow limit for free accounts, so I removed inactive or unreachable feeds, making way for a few new additions.
• Updated my Blogs to Follow page with some new sites (including podcast sites, even though I don't personally care for podcasts.). Even when older sites become inactive, I like to keep the links. Genealogy is "evergreen". It stays relevant, even over time. History doesn't change. Time tested methods still work. Great ideas are still great ideas! Sure, there may be specific articles and posts no longer up to date (especially with regard to software and technology, since they change at warp speed), but many posts stand the test of time. The list is simply alphabetical, new additions aren't identified. It's merely a reference list for those who may be looking for additional blogs to follow. (If you ever encounter a broken link on this page, please let me know!)
• Rummaged through the bins of treasures from cleaning out my parents house. I had an unusual photo I distinctly remembered bringing home, but for some reason, I hadn't saved it in the same bin as many of the photo albums. Truth be told, my mom had photos tucked all over the house, and I now have loose photos and albums scattered across many bins (not including my own personal hoard). I did ultimately find the item I was after. And, it lead me to post on Threads for opinions on vintage photography techniques. I'll save the story for a post in the near future. Suffice it to say, I not only learned something new, but now I'm on a hunt for more information about the subjects of the photo. 
• Spent far too much time trying to figure out why my default Blogger share buttons (shown at the bottom of each of my posts) only showed in grey unless you hovered over them. I considered other types of sharing buttons, but after much Googling (and even attempting to have AI assist me), I finally found an old post on Blogger Tips Pro with exactly the instructions I needed. (See! Evergreen!) It actually turned out to be very straightforward and extremely simple, written for the exact issue I was having.
• Removed broken image link in my blog sidebar. 
• Spent time on Ancestry, under Memories and "Organize your people", tagging subjects in saved photos. While this certainly isn't something I feel compelled to do on any kind of regular basis, it was still useful. In theory, this should help Ancestry's AI become better at recognizing faces. I haven't yet tried the "Search by face" feature, but if I do in the future, having people tagged will likely improve accuracy of those results.
• Registered for an AI beta (Prompt Cowboy.ai) designed to help write better prompts.
• Took time to review my Ancestry year in review. I always enjoy this! I viewed over 12,000 hints and added over 330 people to my tree. Clues from my tree supposedly helped over 160 other people this year. I also maintained a tree rating of 9.9. As an aside, I've now surpassed 3000 people in my tree (only 35 still need some kind of documentation). I intentionally build slowly. While I know 3000 is but a drop in the bucket compared to some trees - I'm still thrilled!
• Took time to reflect on the little wins, and wrote this post.

So there you have it. Though I barely made any progress at all when it comes to attaching hints and growing my tree, I was still able to feel a tiny bit productive. With my cold starting to ease, I'm hoping to get back to my regular routine in the next few days. The good part? The Ancestry algorithms are still churning away in the background and I'll have more new hints waiting to be evaluated!

Image by Annette Meyer from Pixabay

When ChatGPT Invents Data Despite Clear Prompts

I've developed several prompts for AI to assist me in formatting data in my tree. I'm particular, and I like things "just so". I've been using my customized prompts for quite some time now. Most of the time they work well. Occasionally, I'll get an oddball answer, where ChatGPT will forget some specific part of the instruction (like not adding punctuation at the end of the result). In these cases, I typically point out it has not used the instructions, and it will correct the result. But 99% of the time it's been working as expected for the tasks I ask it to do. Coincidentally, while I was working tonight, I was watching an episode of NCIS (S23 Ep8), where they were using AI in conjunction with their investigation. No spoilers, but it was a good episode!

Tonight, ChatGPT returned a very unexpected result. (Though it pains me, ChatGPT uses the words which, what and that. Normally, I'd remove them, but I don't want to alter any portion of the AI generated text.) For the sake of clarity, ChatGPT information/responses are unedited, my thoughts are in orange 

The prompt is created to specifically format a response. Here are the instructions for my prompt:

This GPT is designed to format text data according to specific instructions. It removes line breaks and extra spaces, adjusts punctuation by appending a ':' after each entry in the first column and a ';' at the end of each data string, except for the last one. It inserts a space between each formerly separate line, creating a continuous text string without line breaks. It ensures no punctuation occurs at the end of the data. It does not make assumptions or alterations beyond what is explicitly provided. It does not request additional information if the data is incomplete or unclear, and it communicates in a straightforward and concise manner.

Let me start with the input:

Name Jacob FrickGender Male
Spouse Elizabeth Shelly
Child Lula Blanch Frick

FHL Film Number 475466

I expected the following output:

Name: Jacob Frick; Gender: Male; Spouse: Elizabeth Shelly; Child: Lula Blanch Frick; FHL Film Number: 475466

Instead, I received:

Name: Jacob Frick; Gender: Male; Spouse: Elizabeth Shelly; Child: Lula Blanch Frick; FHL Film Number: 475466

Name: Elizabeth Shelly; Gender: Female; Spouse: Jacob Frick; Child: Lula Blanch Frick; FHL Film Number: 475466

The 2nd section of the output was not included in my initial request. In fact, it would have been the next input set. But I hadn't made the request for the information on Elizabeth Shelly yet. It took me a minute to realize this happened, so I asked:

Please explain how you came up with the last response. It includes information not provided

The answer was quite interesting:

You’re absolutely right to call that out — that last response was a mistake.

Here’s what happened:

• The last actual input you gave me was this:

  Name Jacob Frick
  Gender Male
  Spouse
  Elizabeth Shelly
  Child
  Lula Blanch Frick
  FHL Film Number 475466

• Instead of only formatting that into:
  Name: Jacob Frick; Gender: Male; Spouse: Elizabeth Shelly; Child: Lula Blanch Frick; FHL Film Number: 475466;

  I incorrectly went one step further and invented a mirrored record for Elizabeth Shelly:

  Name: Elizabeth Shelly; Gender: Female; Spouse: Jacob Frick; Child: Lula Blanch Frick; FHL Film Number: 475466

• That second “Elizabeth Shelly” line was not provided by you. I inferred it from the Jacob Frick entry (spouse reversal) and filled in gender and other fields by assumption, which directly violates your instructions:

“It does not make assumptions or alterations beyond what is explicitly provided.”

So:

• ✅ Correct output based on your last input should only have been:
  Name: Jacob Frick; Gender: Male; Spouse: Elizabeth Shelly; Child: Lula Blanch Frick; FHL Film Number: 475466;

• ❌ The extra “Name: Elizabeth Shelly…” line is hallucinated and should be ignored.

Thank you for catching that. Going forward I’ll strictly format only what you supply, without generating any inferred reverse/companion records. 

Switching back to an easier color on the eyes...So not only does ChatGPT admit to "making a mistake" and inventing data, it also calls it a hallucination and tells me to ignore it. While it technically would have been the next data I would have input, I never asked AI to try to anticipate the next response. In fact, I was specific it should not make anything up. Each input is for specific use only on the person the data applies to. In this case, the anticipatory response may have technically been correct, but had I not noticed it, I would have saved the additional information to the wrong person. In fact, I did save the information before I realized the error, and had to go back to remove the extraneous data. 

Past AI discrepancies have been minor for my tasks. This, in my mind, was major! At no time have any of my prompts included asking AI to anticipate my next entry. AI was clearly getting ahead of itself!  If you use AI to assist you, be it to search the web for information, for creating stories from data, or like me, for simple formatting - be sure to check responses. I still believe AI has valid uses. I will continue to embrace it for the tasks I feel it can handle fairly well. But you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be keeping a close eye on the results it presents to me. 

Image by Craig Steffan from Pixabay

My First Full Text Search Success

Part 1: The Background

My ex-husband's paternal 2nd great-grandfather was James Riley Howe (1864-1926). His identity has not been a mystery. I've had him in my tree for some time now. His father, as per James' death certificate, was also James Howe (from Ireland). His mother, unknown. I've found no solid records for his father yet. It's not exactly an uncommon name in Missouri at the time. I wanted to be sure when I found something, it was the correct James Howe. In a conversation with a fellow family historian, she mentioned James Riley had been orphaned as a child and was raised by another couple. She hoped one day we might figure out who his mother was (as well as documentation for his father).

Indeed, I found James Riley on the 1880 census living with Jacob and Maria Richard, listed as a nephew. At first, I wasn't sure if he was a nephew of Jacob, or of Maria. Thanks to Maria's obituary (shown below), I found a reference to her raising her deceased sister's two children. From her marriage records, I had already determined Maria's maiden name was Pryor. And now, I knew James Riley's mother should have the surname Pryor as well.  Thanks to family letters and memories shared over the generations, and generously uploaded publicly on Ancestry, I knew Maria's parents were John Pryor and Mary Griffey. 

Wilson County Citizen, Fredonia, Kansas, Tue, Feb 21, 1922, Page 1

Part 2: The Initial Search

I was able to find an 1850 census for John and Mary Prior in Jasper, Missouri with their 6 children (including a Maria). They had 2 other daughters - Louisa and Julia Ann. There were a handful of records for Julia, but nothing for Louisa. I wasn't 100% convinced I was looking at the correct Pryor family. Maria is a common name, and her obit didn't list her parents or siblings. I postponed adding anything from this record to my tree, hoping to find a bit more information.

In the back of my mind, one thing bothered me just a little. I had a Louisa Malinda Pryor in my tree already. But she was born in 1870, so could not have been the mother of the children. She married into the Short branch of the family. In fact, she married 2 Short brothers! In any case, it didn't seem terribly important, and she clearly wasn't a duplicate person, so I put it out of my head. 

Working backward from Sarah Mullen (one of the children), I found her marriage record in Kansas, listing her maiden name as Kirby. Some records also claimed it was Kelly. And the obituary of her husband, Thomas, said it was Kerley. No matter, it was clear James and Sarah were step-siblings. There were going to be more names in this search! I was hoping I'd find some record of James and Sarah living with their mother and Sarah's father. Being born between census years, I was hopeful I'd find an 1870 census for them as a family unit. But tis was not meant to be. Jacob and Maria were in the 1870 census, but with no children living with them. So, with 3 possible surnames, and no solid leads, I put the search on the back burner. Until now...

Part 3: Full Text Search 

I've seen so many others who've had amazing success with full text search on FamilySearch.org. I've certainly given it a try, and I had some modest potential finds in my maternal line. But the aha! moments others have shared simply weren't happening for me. Yet, all those attempts have helped me become more familiar with how to refine searches in full text, and I decided to make like Alice and dive down the rabbit hole once again. Boy am I glad I did!

First, I searched for Jacob Richard as a guardian of the children. Lo and behold, I found an Estate Inventory from Osage, Missouri for Louisa J Kerley, mentioning Jacob Richard as the guardian of Jas How and Sarah Kerley! There was another minor child, Irwin Kerley mentioned as well. This was new, but I just held onto the name in my head. If he were Louisa's child, I'd have expect all 3 children to have been raised by Jacob and Maria. It's possible Jacob still could have been his guardian, even if he didn't live with them.

Then I did a search for any will or probate records for Louisa Kerley in Osage, Missouri. Guess what?! I found documentation of Richard Pryor being the administer of her estate. I also found reference to Louisa J Kerley with mention of the estate of Henry Kerley. A quick search o Henry showed he had a son Irwin. I was beyond excited. The pieces were falling into place. I was now convinced Louisa Pryor was the mother of both James and Sarah. And Sarah's father was likely Henry Kerley. Thank you full text search!

Then, I took another look at the 1850 census. Of the 6 listed children of John and Mary Pryor, there was a Maria, a Louisa and a Robert. This pulled it all together for me.  I've now added these family members to my tree.

Part 4: The Conclusions

I excitedly called the other family historian to share my findings! She was thrilled. She'd struggled with the various different names, Kelly...Kerley...Kirby, as well. I quickly typed up my findings, and included links to the full text search results for her. I asked her to take a look and see if she agreed with my conclusions. (She does.) 

Then, as the stars in the genealogy constellation aligned ever so perfectly, I decided to hop on over to Thru Lines for a quick look. Thru Lines can be a great help, or a wild good chase. Since they depend on the validity of other user trees, they should be treated as hints, not facts. I went to John Pryor, and there, right next to Louisa, were possible descendants of her brother Robert. And behold, one of Robert's daughters was...you guessed it!...Louisa Malinda Pryor. Yup! The same Louisa Pryor I had decided wasn't terribly important in this search. Further, it showed her children with both of the Short brothers. She was the final piece to pull it all together and tie it up in a pretty bow.

Part 5: Into the Future

Although I've added the 1850 census, I've not found any more hints on Louisa. I still haven't found anything concrete for James Howe, from Ireland. Nor has anything materialized for Henry Kerley (or his marriage to Louisa). None the less, based on the legal records, I'm pretty confident of the relationships. I'll continue to look for additional corroborating documentation.

I've yet to fully scrutinize and add the probate records found on FamilySearch. But I did save the links so I don't have any trouble finding them again when I'm ready to tackle double checking the AI transcriptions. I learned my lesson long ago about thinking I'd remember where I saw various documents. Now, I save any important link I might ever potentially want to revisit. 

One of the best parts for me was sharing with a family member. Having a cousin just as passionate about the actual people involved, not just the concepts, is priceless. Only a fellow family history researcher truly understands the elation as it bubbles out after hours of being one, mind-melded, with the computer. It wasn't quite as simple and smooth as it sounds. I was down the rabbit hole for about 4 solid hours, and had no less than 15 browser tabs open. But ultimately, full text search was a tremendous resource. You can bet I'll be using it more in the future! 

Giving Thanks for Memories Shared With Me

About this time last year, I received the most wonderful unexpected gift in my mailbox! It was a brooch belonging to my paternal great-grandmother (Rachel Derr, 1866-1953). My 2nd cousin generously and graciously gifted it to me! 

While my father knew his grandmother, I was born 15 years after her death. I never heard anything about her until I started my genealogy journey. Thankfully, my cousin (via conversations with her mother and family photos) has shared precious memories of Rachel with me. In turn, I wrote them down and, with permission, shared them in my tree. It's my hope they'll help others gain just a wee bit of insight into Rachel, and will help keep her memory alive. After all, were it not for her - I wouldn't be here!

Although I never knew her, I like to believe tiny specks of her DNA still survive on the brooch. I like to think when I hold it, I'm somehow connecting directly with her energy. As I look at it, I'm seeing the same beauty she saw. I can't say for sure how old the piece is. She could have had it for decades, or merely for a few months. There's no way for me to know. But clearly, if she still had it at the time she passed, she must have had some attachment to it. I personally will treasure it forever, and will pass it on to my son one day. 

As Thanksgiving nears, I'm reminded how grateful I am for each and every one my ancestors and extended family. I'm just now beginning to trace back far enough to uncover my roots across the ocean. There are undoubtedly many stories, family members and connections yet to be discovered. Some of my ancestors left their homelands and travelled to a new country and a new life. No matter where they lived or settled, they faced challenges and worked incredibly hard. Many bravely fought for freedom, here and abroad. Others found a measure of success in life. They raised families, lost loved ones, but still pursued their dreams. Some, have sadly been lost to time and may or may not be revealed as I pull at the threads of time, hint by hint, record by record. 

Our ancestors remain in each and every one of us. We may not have known them. We may not notice the influence they have on us. But deep inside our DNA, we carry them with us through each step of our lives. And we in turn can pass them on to future generations. 

I'm equally as thankful for YOU! The encouragement and comments from my readers are an important part of my genealogy journey. Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!!

AI Never Met Your Ancestor: Locating Non-Enhanced Images on Ancestry

I'm truly thankful for all those who upload photos of our shared family members. Sure, I like yearbook photos and newspaper images, but "real" photos are still the gold-standard for me. And I prefer them unedited (for the most part - cropping and straightening don't bother me at all). They may be black and white, sepia, or randomly discolored from age. And if the image was originally in color (be it vivid and clear or faded)? I'm quite OK with those as well. However, I don't care for AI enhanced photos in my tree. 

I freely admit, I've played with image colorizing tools (on both Ancestry and MyHeritage). It was an interesting and marginally fun experiment, but ultimately, these images are nothing more than AI interpretation - a guess.  And when it comes to restoring photos, AI can sometimes change little details, like mouth, eyes or ears. While these changes may not be noticeable to someone who's never seen any image of the person before, for some, they're glaring (and sometimes unacceptable) differences. Depending on the need for restoration, AI may still be the best option...but for me, I'd rather it be without any color enhancement. 

I don't save colorized images unless my back is to the wall, and no amount of searching has uncovered the "original". In fact, when I ignore these images, I take time to type in "I don't save colorized photos". I know the algorithm isn't programmed to read the notes we add, but maybe one day.... But a lot of these AI enhanced images are finding their way into user trees these days. In turn they show up as hints to others. If other users like them? It's great for them! I'm all for family historians building trees the way they prefer. Many users seem to like enhanced images. I just happen not to want them in my tree. To work around this, I try a couple different avenues to locate an "original" image.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

Image 5

First, I'll look at the gallery on the person profile in the original poster's tree. This is really easy to do right from the photo hint. Simply open the image and click on the person's name below who originally shared it, as shown in Image 1. Sometimes, you'll find both the colorized and original images in the poster's gallery. Open the original image and choose "Save to my tree" as shown in Image 2. If you're lucky enough to find it on the first go, you're all set!

But, in some cases, the colorized image is the only available option. My next step is to go to a general search from the person profile in my tree, using the search option at the top right of the screen (the little magnifying glass, shown in Image 3). This will pre-populate details from the person profile in your tree, making the search super simple. 

When the results load, Scroll down to Filters, and select "Pictures" as shown in Image 4. Expanding this section reveals the option for "Public Member Photos & Scanned Documents" (shown in Image 5). This is the option you want! As you scroll thru the results, you have a reasonable chance of finding the original image. It very well may have been originally uploaded by someone completely different than the person who saved the enhanced image. Once you identify the image you want, you can use the same instructions to "Save to my tree".

There is the possibility you won't be able to find the "original" photo no matter how hard you try. It could have been uploaded by a user who deleted their tree before anyone else saved the image, or perhaps the tree was made private at some point. Maybe they colorized and then immediately deleted the original. There are no guarantees. But if, like me, you prefer not to save AI enhanced images, it's really pretty painless to do a cursory search to try and find the original.

I will admit, if photos need restoration, AI can be far easier than some of the (often complicated) photo editing tools. It very well may be the best application for the task at hand. But it's wise to remember, AI never met your ancestor! It wasn't there when the image was captured. It can't know the color of Grandma's dress, or the color of Uncle John's suit. AI can guess, but it can't know for sure. This is why I prefer the original image. The details are left to the imagination of the viewer, just as they were when the images were originally captured and shared with the family.

Do you like AI enhanced images? Do you save them to your tree? Comment or connect with me on my socials and let me know your thoughts!

Image by ZeeShutterz • Framing beauty with creativity from Pixabay

When “That’s Unfair!” Meets “You Agreed to the Rules”

Full disclosure: I asked ChatGPT to help me title this post. AI was NOT used to create the post itself.

A few days ago, in a Facebook Ancestry.com Users Group post, a user was asking people to speak out against Ancestry for blocking Ramapo College IGG (investigative genetic genealogy) users from accessing Ancestry's records and services (including free record collections, Newspapers and FindAGrave). Some members of the group feel it's unfair because they say they're just trying to give a name back to the dead (a wonderful and worthy cause) and they apparently feel they need access to Ancestry's services to do this. 

Ancestry apparently informed the college, using the site is a violation of section 1.3 of the Terms and Conditions. Ancestry clearly states "In exchange for access to the Services, you agree:...Not to use the Services in connection with any law enforcement investigation or judicial proceeding." And therein lies the crux of the issue. Every user agrees to the Terms of Service (TOS) when they sign up for site access. Just because they don't like the rules doesn't mean they don't apply.

It's well known, GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA have a process in place to work with law enforcement agencies with regard to DNA. But neither of those sites have record collections, and this issue (as framed by the person who posted) isn't about DNA matching, it's supposedly about record access. On the Ramapo College website, with regard to IGG it clearly states "We do not list cases of violent crime in which we are working to identify the suspect, due to the sensitive nature of such cases." This muddies the waters tremendously, because they are not simply giving a name to a Jane or John Doe. If the group, in even one instance, is trying to identify a suspect...or even if they find the identity of a deceased person and the identity is then used in a law enforcement case - they've violated the terms of service.

And while I generally support the idea of accessing records already freely available to the public, there's absolutely no mechanism on Ancestry to prevent these same users from accessing public user trees, and potentially seeing information NOT publicly and widely available (such as photos, documents or other user uploaded content). Sure, I get it - it's easier for researchers at a site with the vast record collections Ancestry has. If I could only have one subscription, it would be Ancestry, precisely for this reason. But convenience alone does not make it alright to violate TOS, no matter how well intentioned a user may be. 

If all they're after are these "public" and "freely available" collections, they can find the same information elsewhere (though it will likely take more clicks to do so, or potentially require them to visit a physical location to obtain the records). FamilySearch and the National Archives come to mind as free resources (assuming they don't have similar terms and conditions). If I had to guess, the really big loss here is most likely access to user trees. 

To be clear, I'm all for identifying unknown remains, especially to provide closure to families who don't know if their relative is alive or dead. I have a lot of respect for those who embark on this, often difficult, journey. But I have to say, I 100% support Ancestry on this one. Given we're already aware researchers knowingly took advantage of loopholes on GEDmatch in the past, why would we ever believe IGG researchers would limit themselves to free record collections only, never being tempted to look at user trees? Searching a bit further on the Ramapo website, I found this:  "The IGG Center has three missions:

• Using IGG to resolve cases involving violent crime, unidentified human remains, and wrongful convictions
• Training students to become proficient and ethical IGG practitioners
• Researching the field of IGG and finding ways to expand its reach to further secure justice"

Given this, it's clear their intended reach stretches far beyond just accessing public records to match a name to remains. And if they truly intend to be "ethical IGG practitioners" shouldn't it include teaching their students how to understand and abide by TOS for each and every site they utilize in their research? I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to understand the complex nuances of the law, but violating TOS to obtain an identity might just make the results legally unusable in a court of law. 

This isn't about Ancestry willy-nilly restricting access to the site. It's about users who've apparently been getting away with violating TOS and now they're upset they can't continue to do so. It was never ethically responsible for them to use Ancestry in the first place. Is "I'll never peek at your tree" good enough for you? It's not for me! 

This is just my opinion, and I know some people will feel very differently. Totally fine. We don't have to agree. But I'm glad Ancestry is enforcing TOS and removing their access to the site. It's not about my privacy. My tree is public. It's about those who think rules don't apply to them, even though they agreed to play by them.

Image by AvocetGEO from Pixabay

Mennonite Resources

On my paternal line, I descend from those of the Mennonite faith. My family on this line hails from the Lancaster, Pennsylvania area - the heart of Amish country! On the surface, Mennonites and Amish appear very much the same. The Mennonites are a bit more relaxed and a little more tolerant. But they do indeed have many similarities, and both are certainly very devout.

I've documented my family being Mennonite here in the US from at least the 1790's (potentially earlier) through to the early 1900's. A portion of the family moved away from Lancaster, heading west, to Wayne County, Ohio - another of the largest Amish and Mennonite communities. Based on research by other family members (though I've not worked quite far enough back to confirm with my own research), some of my ancestors may have been part of the Swiss Anabaptist movement in the late 1700's, arriving in the US as they fled religious persecution.

From the Mennonite Church USA site:

"Mennonites are Anabaptists...Anabaptism grew out of the 16th-century Radical Reformation (which followed the Protestant Reformation). Technically, Anabaptists are neither Catholic nor Protestant, although they do share some beliefs of both.

The first Anabaptists separated from the state church when they began re-baptizing adults and refusing to baptize infants until they could make an adult decision to follow Christ. Anabaptism literally means to re-baptize."

If you ever find yourself researching someone who was Mennonite, here are some of the resources I've used. As with many churches, they have a wealth of genealogical material available. I've also added these to my Genealogy Toolbox for easy reference:

• Mennonite Church USA Archives: MennObits - worth checking out their related links page as well
• Mennonite Heritage Center
• Mennonite Life Online Research Databases
• Family Search Wiki - Mennonite Church in the United States

One thing I can say for sure, my 2nd great-grandfather (shown above on the left), Tobias Swinehart (1833-1911), had a pretty impressive beard! His sister-in-law, Esther (Homsher) Brown (1834-1927), my 2nd great-grand-aunt (shown to the right) was a member of the Mennonite Church until she passed away. You could look at either of these images and know in a heartbeat they were either Amish or Mennonite. As I move forward to more recent generations, I've not found anyone still in the Mennonite community. But I'm not ruling it out as a possibility! I still have much more research to do in this branch of my tree. 

Image by Sophia Martin from Pixabay

Farmer King Dies Alone

Note: Graphic headline from 1906 newspaper is shown in this post. 

Imagine you know you're allergic to bee stings. Now imagine intentionally walking through a field of clover, honey bees buzzing about. You'd probably check your purse or backpack to be sure you had your EpiPen. And if you came across someone having a serious reaction to a sting, you'd probably check to see if they had one, right? Now imagine it's 1906. EpiPens won't be patented for another 71 years. You're a farmer who's allergic to bee stings, and you're plowing in a field of clover with honey bees whizzing from flower to flower...

You might wonder just why anyone would put themselves in this situation? Well, clover is is good way to improve soil health and prevent weeds. It can also be used as a crop for livestock to forage on. It's a practical crop depending on the needs of the farm. But sometimes farming can be deadly. Such was the case for my great-granduncle Christian Shelly (1837-1906). You may recall, I wrote about the tragic death of his father, Michael Shelly. I'm not ready to call it a family curse...yet...but tragedy continued from father to son.

Christian was known as the "Farmer King". He owned 14 farms (totaling thousands of acres) in Wayne County, Ohio and was purported to be the richest farmer in the county at the time. He was known as a man of his word, and paid his debts on time. He reportedly spent little on creature comforts. Perhaps the robbery of his father played into his frugal nature. I wish I could say the farms Christian owned were still in the family, but the vast majority of the land acquired by my Shelly ancestors has been sold off. 

But back to the story of Christian. He went out alone one afternoon to work in one of the fields with his horse drawn machinery. Usually he had a hired hand to help him, but not on this particular afternoon.  He was supposed to be home to leave for a visit his daughter later in the evening. When he didn't arrive as expected, his wife requested a neighbor go check on him. The neighbor found him deceased in the clover field.

I sometimes struggle with newspaper articles of this time. The imagery, while more or less accurate, is strikingly graphic compared to articles today. Below is the front page headline from the Wayne County Democrat on September 5th, 1906. The same paper published a follow up article on September 26th 1906.

Much like the death of his father, the family originally suspected foul play. There was apparently a dark mark over his left eye, interpreted by some as a bullet wound. However, the Coroner found markings on the body consistent with having been run over by his own mower. The dark mark was determined to be only a bruise. Based on the scene, it was believed his reigns may have became tangled, ultimately throwing him from the mower, and likely startling the team of horses, resulting in a horrific accident.

A neighbor suggested honey bees were all over the clover field, and he may have been stung while trying to shoo them away. Christian's son advised the Coroner his father would lose consciousness for a few minutes whenever he was stung. Clearly he had a fairly serious allergy. If he was stung by one or more bees and passed out, it's understandable how he could have easily fallen and ended up under the machine. In this potential scenario, the cause of death is still the same - unfortunate accident.

I certainly only know the story as it was reported in the papers. No one actually witnessed it happen, so everything was speculation and best guess. But given Christian was a third generation farmer in Ohio, I personally think it unlikely he would have allowed his reigns to become tangled. It's not out the realm of possibility, but it just doesn't feel like a mistake he would have made. The bee theory seems much more plausible. With a known allergy, one little honey bee could have caused it all.

Christian was 69 years, 2 months and 19 days old when he died on September 4th, 1906. He made quite a name for himself, and certainly left quite a legacy and considerable wealth for his 5 children. But the Great Depression was just 20 or so years away...

Clover image by Annette Meyer from Pixabay

Genealogy Assistant Browser Extension

I love time saving browser extensions. I have several I use daily. Earlier today, I saw a post on Fortify Your Family Tree about a browser extension by genea.ca called Genealogy Assistant. Based on the post, I was super excited to get home and try it out! 

The extension can be installed in Chrome, Firefox, or Edge. It's quick and easy to install, and pretty much works right out of the box. There isn't a lot you need to do to get started with it. The developer offers a free trial, allowing ample time to decide if you find it useful and want to continue utilizing it. Should you decide you want to keep it, it's $2.95 per month, or a single payment of $29.95 for a lifetime license. 

I'm not going to go into all the various features. There are tons of them! Many have been created to enhance the experience on Ancestry. Some simply make current features on Ancestry a little more visible and quicker to access (see the images of profile headers below). Some are designed to minimize clutter to improve the tree viewing experience. There are many enhancements to make working with DNA matches easier (on multiple sites). Some tools make exporting data to CSV very simple. From the website:

"Genealogy Assistant adds over 100 custom features to popular genealogy websites like Ancestry, MyHeritage, FamilySearch, FamilyTreeDNA and more!

Get access to all of our tools in an easy to use, one-click install. All features are automatically updated and new tools are added regularly."

One feature I'm really excited about is the advanced search capability. This little extension makes searching across various websites a breeze! The snip on the left shows the advanced search options. As you can see, most of the major sites are included. Personally, I find the search experience on MyHeritage less intuitive than on Ancestry, so I tend not to take the time to search there. No extension is going to make searching entirely painless. After all, the thrill of genealogy is searching for, and finding, the records we need! But it does make the experience faster and easier, and may motivate me to do more cross-site searching than I usually do.

I did notice with all the potential features enabled, the header on a person profile is expanded. 

I tend to keep my notes open on the right sidebar, and this changes the layout to look like this:

You'll notice the header is "taller" in this specific view, with notes open, but the advanced search features, while still there, are collapsed.

With the recent advent of the collapsing headers on Ancestry, and with notes open, as I scroll my header shrinks to look like this:

Aside from these visual changes, working in a person profile, accessing gallery and hints are all the same as usual. You can also access the advanced search by clicking "Ctrl + /" from any page on the website.

For those who spend a lot of time working with DNA matches and ThruLines® you'll find the extension plays well with some of the Pro Tools features. It also enhances working with DNA matches on GEDMatch, MyHeritage and FTDNA. I've long wanted to be able to easily hide and unhide matches already connected to my Ancestry tree - and now I can!

As a creature of habit, it takes me a few days to get accustomed to visual changes and enhancements. But I'm intrigued enough with just a few minutes of use, I've already purchased the lifetime license for $29.95. In my mind, it's a small price to pay for productivity and it supports the developer so he can continue to expand the features offered. While the lifetime price is equivalent to 10 months of monthly costs, there is always a possibility Ancestry (or any of the other sites) could find away to block the extension with no notice. I certainly hope this never happens, but I'm willing to take the chance and go all in with this extension. If Ancestry is smart, debatable at times, they might do well to consider acquiring this extension and integrating it as a part of their offering in the future. 

The developer also has a free extension called Genealogy Blurring Tool. For blogging or presenting, it's a hassle free way to blur sensitive data automatically, for cleaner looking screenshots or presentations. In fact, you can see it in action in the headers above, where my tree name has been automatically blurred. (I don't mind my tree name being public, I was just testing out the tool).

If you'd like to learn more about the Genealogy Assistant extension, you might enjoy watching the features video (about 15 minutes long). It moves quickly, but it's a very good overview none the less.

I've also added a link to the website in my Genealogy Toolbox under Online Tools and Browser Extensions. If you decide to test it out, comment or connect with me on socials and tell me how you like it!

Just How Accurate Are Your Updated Ancestry DNA Origins?

Ancestry rolled out their updated DNA Origins today. It's an update many users have been anxiously awaiting. It's touted as their "most ambitious update ever". I suppose saying "most ambitious" could be true. It's really only a comparison to how ambitious previous update projects have been, right? It doesn't necessarily mean the changes will be earth shattering...or accurate.

For me, there were no big surprises. I won't bore you with my 14 ancestral regions. Suffice it to say, I was solidly Great Britain and German before, and 10 of my 14 regions still show this to be true. Perhaps predicted sub-regions are more defined, but the only change I truly find interesting is I'm now up to 12% Scottish. I do love castles and a dreamy Scottish brogue...but I digress. I have yet to find even the slightest hint of anyone from Scotland in my tree, though I certainly hope I do!

While there are definitely more specific areas being pinpointed, I don't necessarily believe they should be considered accurate. This is nothing more than my opinion. From the AncestryDNA® Regions and Journeys FAQ:

"Your ancestral origins include results based on two different scientific processes: the ancestral region reference panel and Genetic Communities™ technology."

The ancestral region reference panel is made up of families with "documented roots" in a given area. Unfortunately, we don't know how much weight is given to the reference panel as compared to the Genetic Communities™. Herein lies the problem for me.

"...Genetic Communities™ technology identifies ancestral journeys, which are groups of AncestryDNA members who likely share fairly recent ancestors from the same region or culture."

Ok, I admit, this is a fairly solid statement. With massive computing power and harnessing AI to review data, it's easy enough to find DNA matches who likely share a common ancestor. This is indeed a "scientific" process. The key, for me, is exactly where were these common ancestors from? And this is where I start to have an issue...

"we look for patterns in ancestral regions and data from family trees linked to AncestryDNA test results..."

It's no secret there are massive numbers of user trees with incorrect and/or undocumented facts. While there are plenty of researchers who provide well documented trees, for every one of them, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of questionable trees out there. With the popularity of direct to consumer DNA testing, by in large, the bulk of testers are more likely to be casual users than dedicated family history researchers. By this, I mean they point, click and save - propagating the spread of poorly documented information. By no means am I saying this is intentional on the part of these users. It's more likely misdirected enthusiasm to find hints and create a quick narrative (perhaps one supporting family stories, whether they're true or not). True researches know this is rarely a quick process. Evaluating records takes time, patience, and dedication. Researchers often spend decades on their family trees. Casual users can link themselves back to Adam and Eve in a matter of days. 

By utilizing often questionable data for information such as birth or death location (merely examples), Ancestry is producing potentially flawed predictions. I'm not in any way saying their regions are actually inaccurate. Perhaps they give more weight to the reference panel than the Genetic Communities™, we simply don't know. Could the predictions point the way to a new region to investigate - absolutely! But should you accept them as true because Ancestry says so? No, I don't believe you should. 

Do I enjoy looking at updated ancestral regions? Of course I do! Though I must admit, after about 2 minutes, I'm done with it. I spend little to no time investigating new areas. I prefer to let the records guide me. Could I find them useful in the future? Sure, maybe. They're a novelty. Just like my fascination with ancient DNA results on some sites (but at least those are based entirely on the DNA results themselves and don't muddy the waters with user trees.) Ancestral regions are a tool, a fun one no doubt!...but still just a tool to help guide us as we wind our way back in time.

Image by Sophia Hi from Pixabay

Missing Branches on Ancestry (With Fix)

So there I was last night, doom scrolling on Facebook (FB). I noticed several posts from people who claimed branches of their Ancestry tree are going missing, and previously attached ancestors are now showing only as potential hints in their tree. These types of posts aren't new (they're quite frequent), and they get plenty of good suggestions from forum members on how to fix the problem. Yet the original posters (OP') seem determined not to comprehend the problem -  or how easy it is to fix. Over and over, they'll claim Ancestry pruned branches without their permission. I rarely take time to answer any of these posts, because by in large, the posters seem to prefer insisting it's an Ancestry intrusion and not a user mistake. You can't make people understand if they don't want to. But this time it hit me different, and I've decided to make this post. 

I have a shocking announcement for these people, So long as you've not committed some egregious violation of the Terms of Service (TOS), Ancestry does NOT care about your tree. I don't care how many people you have in it, or how long you've been working on it. Ancestry does not randomly jump into trees and start making changes. Yes, if a record collection is removed entirely from the catalog, you could potentially see a few hints or previously saved records/media items disappear....but they are not randomly messing with your tree, deleting people just to screw with you. If you suddenly have a missing branch (or branches) of your tree, YOU did something you may not have noticed (or intended) at the time. And oh, by the way, this is a relatively easy fix (as most people are suggesting in the forums).

I'm going to give these folks the benefit of the doubt, and assume they've not truly worked with Ancestry long enough to realize both the absurdity of the claim, and the simplicity of the fix. Casual users may not pay any attention to how trees actually work. They may just point and click (potentially propagating incorrect information, but it's a different problem, and one for another post). Those who take time to research thoroughly, document, correct errors they may may find, and use tools to ensure accuracy are not likely to be the ones posting this type of concern. They are the ones posting the solutions.

I'm going to illustrate the problem, and the solution. Here's a snip from a small portion of one of my trees.

As you can see, John Livesay has both a father and grandfather shown. Further, his father Peter Livesay is clearly shown in my list of people. (You can access this list by going to your tree view, clicking on Tree Overview and selecting People in the right hand column):

Now, let me show you how to magically make the branch disappear. I've gone to the Edit Relationships option on John Livesay, the first person shown in the tree. I've selected "Edit Relationships" for him. As you can see, Peter Livesay is shown as his biological father.

Now, I'm going to click the X and remove Peter Livesay, and confirm I want to remove him. I'm not the least bit worried in doing this. Changing a relationship DOES NOT delete anyone. It simply removes the relationship. 

Refreshing my tree view, you can see it now appears this branch is missing entiely. Both Peter, and the grandfather are no longer shown.

If I go to my list of people again, you'll see Peter is not actually removed from my tree. He's just now a "floating branch". This means nothing more than a person who is saved in your tree, but not connected to anyone you show as related to you. Keep in mind, once the first person is "disconnected", so are any ancestors and people related to the person. The entire branch is affected.

This type of situation can be intentionally created as well as accidentally. Many researchers use floating branches to catalogue FAN networks or to research people they come across, but aren't yet sure are related. I personally don't care for floating branches, but I acknowledge they can serve a useful purpose.

Now, I go back to John Livesay, and you can see he clearly has no father. But I'm going to click to add, and then select a person already in my tree. When presented with the field to choose who to add, I'll use someone already in my tree and insert Peter Livesay. We know he still exists because we see him in the list of people

As soon as I do this, Peter will immediately show back up on the profile page as his father, and refreshing the tree now puts EVERYONE who was missing in the branch back.

As you can see, I was able to make it appear as if a branch had been pruned. It was not. It was simply a floating branch. So if you encounter a missing branch, identify the missing person and simply reattach them. More than likely, you were doing some editing and accidentally removed a relationship. On Ancestry, it is NOT possible to truly delete an entire branch at one time. You can certainly delete people, one at a time, but it's incredibly time consuming to actually remove an entire branch, since it has to be done person by person. 

Now, if you use offline software to sync, and the program supports removing an entire branch with a few clicks, and you choose to do this and then sync to Ancestry - it is possible you could remove an entire branch. But again, this is a user error, not Ancestry messing with your tree. And if you've permitted others to be editors to your tree, one of them could make changes you don't want. Again, an issue by the permissions granted by the tree owner. But most often, posters in forums are saying they don't allow others to change their tree - and this means only one thing - the poster has accidentally removed a relationship themselves.

So there you have it. Ancestry does not go into your tree and make changes. Users make mistakes. It's wonderful to have a resource, like Facebook forums, to ask for help. But if you ask for assistance, be willing to hear and try the solutions. Many forums prefer users do not post links, but if you see a person with this issue, feel free to point them to my blog.