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.

The Ancestry Record Collection With Broken Citation Editing

 

It's been broken for months upon months! The Ancestry record collection "Web: Obituary Daily Times Index, 1995-2016" has been preventing me from editing my citations for records in this collection. This is a really useful record set for me, and not being able to cite to my satisfaction is frustrating.

Editing citations is part of my routine. Not only do I save transcriptions, but I also include additional details I may want for the future, in the "other information" field. This saves me unnecessary "re-researching" in the future. My citations my not be up to genealogical par (in fact, I know they're not!), but they work for me, so long as I can be consistent. I've learned it the hard way, consistent documentation is key, and it's a step I won't skip lightly.

Sure, I can still save the fact. I can check the boxes why I accepted the hint. The citation is listed under Ancestry Sources, and I can still select the facts to attach to the record. For casual users, they may stop right there (if they even bother to go this far). I, however, want to take one more step and edit the citation itself...and this is where it all goes wrong. I've submitted feedback numerous times, but there's really no easy way to say "Hey, Ancestry! This is broken!"

Upon editing the citation and clicking save, I'm presented with this screen:

While the Ancestry presented citation details are still available to view (not edit, once it's broken, it's broken), there's a solid disconnect in the background, preventing me from updating and saving any of my own changes. In the past, I've found the citations screen doesn't like certain characters, such as a ~ (tilde) or \ (backslash), so I always take the extra step of changing or removing these characters. I actually do go back and refer to my citations, and it's the "other information" field I generally want to see. This field isn't displayed on the "view citation" screen. It's only accessible by opening the citation editing screen. Once editing is broken, I can no longer open the screen, so I can't see this field at all.

I've tried several times over the last 8-ish months, each time hoping the save will miraculously work. I've given up hoping I'll be able to fix the old incomplete citations. I'll just have to accept I'll have a handful of un-editable citations in my tree. I really have 2 viable choices:

1. Save the fact with the "standard" Ancestry citation (accepting some citations won't meet even my lower standards)
2. Skip using these hints entirely (making them fully available for future use and editing without having to keep a list)

I won't bellyache about how much users pay in subscription costs, or how every feature should work every time. I know not every problem is a quick fix, and there has to be a priority in how developers spend their time. I guess I simply wish is there was a way to know a real person reads user feedback...to know they have this problem on a list to be fixed...and to have a way to know when it's finally resolved. While I know Ancestry is busy rolling out new features (equally as important to a company trying to both attract and retain users), I sometimes wonder if the money grab of new users has become more important than maintaining less exciting features dedicated researchers depend on.

Since the accuracy of hints and Thru Lines are inextricably intertwined with the validity of user trees, by way of the algorithms, ensuring dedicated researchers have the tools and record sets they need to create accurate trees is a huge benefit to Ancestry. Good trees provide good hints, and better Thru Lines for everyone. I don't think this is a me thing (because this is the only record set where I'm having the issue). But if by chance you're using this collection, you edit your citations on Ancestry, and you're not having the same issue, please let me know!

Image by Annica Utbult from Pixabay