ProTools Got It Very Wrong

I've been using Ancestry ProTools for some time now. There are quite a few features I really like, and a few I don't really care for. But all things considered, I generally find them to be useful. I use ProTools every couple of days for filtering and watching for errors via Tree Checker.

But today, I encountered an issue where ProTools Tree Checker appears to be blatantly wrong. And it's not just alerting me to a potential duplicate or unsourced person. It clearly indicates 2 residence event errors, where no errors seem to exist.

The person in question is James Hitchcock. Due to how one of my 3rd great grandfathers married twice - to sisters, and his second wife subsequently married James, it makes him an interesting connection. He's either the husband of the wife of my 3rd great grandfather (per Ancestry), or the husband of my 4th great aunt (per FTM). I like these interesting and intricate connections. But it's not the root of the problem. In fact, I can't find the problem at all!

The important date here is date of death, in 1859. ProTools is telling me I have 2 residence events well after his death. One event is more than 10 years past the date, and the other a whopping 120 years!

I set off to search for where I went wrong. Surely, I must have entered something incorrectly. I've made the mistake of adding a 1900's date instead of an 1800's date before. On occasion, I've found where I've transposed a couple of numbers. Usually I catch these myself when I see any fact listed after the death and burial dates and I quickly fix them. I figured it would be a similar case here. But it wasn't! I have the following dated residence events:

• 04 Jul 1813
• Bet. 25 Mar1832-10 Apr 1832
• Bef. 28 May 1849
• 01 Jun 1850

There are no other residence events for this person. In fact, here's a snip of the end of his timeline. You can clearly see there's no residence fact after date of death. And none of the residence events shown above contain any date after his death. I checked every single fact entered for him (for good measure)  and none are a concern.

I'm having a hard time understanding how ProTools could get this so wrong. A simple date comparison (or even calculation) should be a no brainer for the algorithms. Generally speaking, computers do math very well. Certainly, in the case of duplicates, algorithms are saying "Hey! There's matching data here. Maybe you want to look at this." I don't expect ProTools to do anything more in the case of duplicates than alert there might be an issue. And when it comes to missing citations or only referencing another tree - those are very clear cut too. Equally as clear cut should be a date calculation. I use similar dates all the time and none of those are showing as errors.

I've gone ahead and hidden both of these notifications, since there's no option to say "Ancestry you're wrong!" and delete them. Hidden will have to do. Just like hints, it's up to each researcher to determine if the errors suggested by ProTools are really errors or not. But it does trouble me. I'm going to watch carefully for a bit. If this becomes a recurring issue, it would become annoying very quickly (and there are enough mildly annoying notifications on Ancestry already). I'm trying hard to give ProTools the benefit of the doubt here. I'm going to chalk it up to a random hiccup - they happen. If you've seen any issues like this in your own tree, please share in the comments. It's always helpful to know if others are seeing similar glitches.

Questions I Forgot to Ask

There are questions I forgot to ask while I still had the chance. This morning, I can't stop thinking about how my ancestors might have celebrated Easter, Christmas and other holidays. I have precious few relatives who might have heard the stories, and even fewer who might have participated. There's a gaping hole in my family knowledge I may never be able to fill.

I'm certain all sides of the family likely dressed their many children in their Sunday clothes (the ones with the fewest holes or less mended) and marched them off for Sunday service. But what did they do when they came home?

Candy was probably a luxury they couldn't afford. With chicken coops on the farms, and eggs being a needed commodity, did they hide eggs for the children? There was likely no extra money to hide coins or other treasures. Meals were hard enough to come by, and I know some of my ancestors ate rabbit regularly (the Easter Bunny surely wouldn't have stepped foot on the farms!) 

So what did they do? Was it just business as usual taking care of the many tasks associated with having big families? Were there any traditions they followed? Did they maybe visit a grandparent for a big meal? I don't have the chance to ask these questions now. If you're fortunate enough to still have family living, make a call or stop by and ask while you can. Take notes, and write the stories down, so they won't be lost on future generations.  

Image by Janet Meyer from Pixabay

The Curious Case of the Disappearing Hints

 

No, it's not magic! And no, I haven't worked through thousands of hints recently. The algorithms at Ancestry have been doing their thing and the number of hints on my All Hints page have been fluctuating wildly over the last few months. At one point, I had over 12,000. A few weeks ago, I was down in the 6000's. Today, I have about 8,500. It can be disconcerting to see the numbers change so drastically, but it's important to realize it's temporary! Ancestry hints come and go, an ebb and flow, as the algorithms search tirelessly for new hints and suggestions.

I've had readers ask, "How do you manage all those hints?" The truth is, I don't! I know many people completely ignore the All Hints page, preferring to focus solely on one person (or branch) at a time. Being a little neurospicy, I tend to like variety. I usually alternate working on a single person, then follow up by hopping around like the Easter Bunny on Easter morning. Finishing a person (even if it's just until more hints show up) is a very rewarding feeling. But hopping gives me a sense of satisfaction no branch is being ignored. There's no right or wrong, you have to determine the strategy best suited for you and your research goals.

Over the past several months, I've noticed the oldest hints (those over 90 days old) seem to be disappearing at a pretty good clip. I shouldn't really say disappearing. They're simply being removed from the current view. Unless a record collection is actually removed, hints are still there waiting to be discovered. Not only have I seen my All Hints fluctuating, but the number of hints on a specific person may go from 20 to 2, or even 0, overnight. Typically, focusing research on a person will regenerate many hints with the click of a refresh button. Adding several new people to a branch is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. As hints are generated for these new additions, there's a cascading effect. You might add one person and you're rewarded with 10 hints for them. And then you notice you sudenly have nany new hints for someone (or several someones) in the same branch, even if you've not researched them recently.

I've seen a few posts in the forums lately where people are alarmed as hints disappear. They're afraid they'll never know if any really good hints are suddenly gone. Some go so far as to take screenshots or copy all the links as soon as they see them, just in case. I totally understand! I've felt the same way. If I find a really good hint I'm not ready to work on just yet, I do copy and save it. (Trying to relocate an elusive hint you just know yow saw in the past can be absolutely maddening!)  But saving every link can quickly become overwhelming. The longer I research, the more I realize, trust in the algorithms, they will provide. It's like nurturing a garden. Put in the effort and you will be rewarded. Even if the hint numbers dwindle for a time, be it All Hints or on a person profile, they will eventually repopulate. If they don't show up fast enough, you always have the option to go search yourself rather than relying on the algorithms. 

I actually consider disappearing and reappearing hints a good thing! It keeps things fresh. Regardless of whether you're a hopper or prefer focus, so long as you're researching, you're going to have ups and downs as the algorithms do their magic. And remember, the algorithms aren't going to present you with every possible hint. Hints are generally from the most utilized collections or those others have saved in their trees. If you're not making time to do at least a few cursory searches of your own, you may be missing out on valuable and insteresting information. 

Finally, please be sure to evaluate every hint for yourself. Just because the algoritm serves it up doesn't make it true. Just because someone else saved it doesn't make it right. Just because the name matches doesn't make it the person in your tree. And just because the OCR or AI thinks it found a name in a newspaper article does not make it so. OCR and AI are both imperfect technology (helpful, and useful, but imperfect none the less). Humans are fallible. No matter how hard we try, trees will sometimes contain accidental errors. Hints are nothing more than suggestions. Careful evaluation of each hint can save hours of time trying to unwind mistakes down the road.

Image by HANSUAN FABREGAS from Pixabay

Beyond ThruLines

Today, I stretched beyond Ancestry's ThruLines® and added a set of 6th great-grandparents to my tree! I was quite excited to "meet" Roger Gantlett and Sarah Ponting of Wiltshire, England. 

To be fair, I wsn't actually using ThruLines® on this branch of my tree. Wiltshire, England has parish records aplenty and it's been relatively easy navigating this line. But it was nice to verify Ancestry's predictions through my 5th great-grandparents on this line were correct. And even more exciting to stretch beyond them.

I'm always in awe as I scroll through the dutifully recorded events from more than 250 years ago. It amazes me to see the original writings, carefully scanned and preserved for future generations. Ink dark in some places, yet almost unreadable in others. Some entries clearly written, others not so much, as perhaps the scribe tired of penning the events of the day. I'm glad the records have been so well preserved, and they've been made available to me without crossing an ocean.

I still have much more to uncover. I know Roger and Sarah were married (by license) on October 13th, 1757, but I don't yet have confirmed birth and death dates. I know they had a daughter Sarah Hart Gantlett (my 5th great-grandmother), but I also see some of their other children, both baptized and buried, in the records. I need to work slowly and add as many as I can find. I'll set aside time to review this particular record carefully, likely going page by page. It's only 68 pages, and in the past, I've found it can be well worth the time to review the entirety of the parish ledger.

One document I saw showed Roger's signature. It put to rest the question of Gauntlett (as quite a lot of records show) or Gantlett (how he signed his name). A quick look shows me I'll likely be able to add the names of both of their parents, but I don't want to rush. I want to take time to "get to know" Roger and Sarah first. To hopefully find his occupation, see how many children they had and how many they lost. I like to reflect on how their lives were so different than ours.

I only have 5 of my 6th great-grandparents identified thus far. Not accounting for possible (ok, likely) pedigree collapse, I only have 251 more to go!

Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

Could Cherokee Be Back On the Table?

I'm still on the hunt for any clues to my 2nd great-grandfather, Abijah LeRoy. He's the reason I started researching...he's also one of my most stubborn brick walls. I've previously shared our family lore, what I know, and how (were it not for the proof of his children) he seemed to never exist. 

For some time, Ancestry's ThruLines has suggested his mother may have been named Dorcas (possibly Cherokee, but last name is totally unproven at this point) and his father John LeCroy (a spelling variation I'm used to trying). In fact, Abijah may have been named John. I'm not sure yet. However, poking through those DNA match trees didn't yield any definitive "Ah ha!" moments. I really thought Dorcas may have been wishful Cherokee thinking. The given name may be totally right, but that doesn't make her Cherokee. Recently, as algorithms update, so too did the information shown in ThruLines. I noticed John LeCroy had only 39 DNA matches, and Dorcas suddenly showed 54. Certainly, since DNA inheritance isn't exact, it's not surprising to see a small difference in matches, but 15? Looking further, it appeared Dorcas may have had another son, named Thomas LeCroy (this is where all those new DNA matches were). I went ahead and tentatively filled John, Dorcas and Thomas in my tree, even though I've yet to document to my satisfaction. That covered potential 3rd great-grandparents (even if they are a work in progress).

Given the sharp difference in DNA matches, I wondered if perhaps Thomas had a different father. For the time being, I've added an unknown LeCroy as his other parent. A few days after doing this, I noticed even more new potential ThruLines extending further back. The next suggested 4th great-grandparents are a Chulio Tuskingo (Cherokee) and Lucy Daul. This loosely backs up an entry from a book "Ties That Bind: The Story of an Afro-Cherokee Family in Slavery and Freedom" by Tiya Miles. While the story compellingly mentions a John LeCroy, I've not yet found enough documentation to prove the account. I did find one property deed, using FamilySearch's full text search, but it alone is not enough. All my matches to this couple descend through Dorcas, making me wonder if this is a real connection or wishful thinking. And then came the "Cherokee is back on the table" moment...a potential 5th great-grandmother, Nionne Ollie Attakullakulla. Keeping in mind, I'm totally unsure of this trajectory, I've not added any more names to my tree beyond those I mentioned...but I have poked around in my DNA match trees, and my interest is piqued. 

I have 51 DNA matches to Nionne. 10 of those descend from Chulio (obviously still in question). But there are 8 other potential lines with 41 matches! I can easily understand how anyone looking for Abijah or Thomas might perpetuate incorrect information, but now I have 8 more other potential Native American ancestors. While I haven't had time to research any of these in detail, poking through trees shows a couple actually reference Dawes Roll entries. I clearly have a lot more research ahead! I do know for sure, I have some kind of DNA connection to a group of 51 people also looking into Cherokee ancestors, and 41 of them are not through Abijah, Thomas, Dorcas or Chulio. I see a glimmer of possibility!

Could we all be wrong? Certainly! We are talking about the early 1700's for this potential 5th great-grandmother. There will be few if any records. It will not be easy to research. And the Cherokee family story is a common one. But could all these people researching different ancestors be wrong? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps I dismissed the Cherokee possibility too soon. Maybe my 1st cousins and I who've tested simply didn't inherit the DNA. But unquestionably, we have DNA matches to 51 other people also looking into Native American heritage. I need to begin the search into each of them to see if there's a true trail of records, or if debunking the family story will be my own personal trail of tears.