New Ancestry Features: One Disappeared and One Made Me Smile

As I was working on my tree this weekend, I noticed 2 new features on Ancestry. At least one appears to be a potential future feature, because it disappeared when I refreshed my screen and I was not able to get it to reappear. Thankfully, I grabbed a screenshot to share with you. The other feature has been present for two days. I can't say if it's a beta feature or a forever feature - but I sure hope it stays right where it is!

To the left is the "disappearing" potential beta feature. On the All Hints page, I noticed a section for "Free Hints". Since I have a paid subscription, this wouldn't be meaningful for me. But there are lots of users who don't have paid subscriptions. This would be a great way for them to focus on the records Ancestry can offer them, without the frustration of clicking hints and not being able to see anything. Interestingly, there were no free hint counts showing for me, just the verbiage. I wouldn't expect the results to be tied to subscription level. This, in conjunction with the new option disappearing as soon as I refreshed the screen, leads me to believe it may be a future feature they're considering and they haven't yet finished the implementation. It very well may show up as a beta feature in the coming weeks or months.

I'm not a big fan of "live testing" changes. I personally think all potential new features should be extensively beta tested to avoid issues with general rollout - preferably with a group of users who agreed to beta test knowing there could be unexpected problems. But, for a site the size, and immense complexity, of Ancestry, traditional beta testing may not be realistic. Live testing may be the only viable option. 

The second new item has been present all weekend for me - and I've been doing a happy dance since I noticed it! There's now an option to collapse Stickies. You can simply select the up or down arrow to expand or collapse the section. While the concept behind Stickies is great, I was originally very annoyed by the implementation. It ate up significant screen space on small screens, rendering Notes almost unusable. The ability to collapse Stickies is a workable compromise. Though Notes are still slightly impacted, it is significantly better than the original display. I can't say if this is a permanent feature or not. I suspect, given how many users were frustrated with the original roll out, this option may remain. If you don't have it yet, and you don't like Stickies taking up so much space, keep an eye out to see if it magically appears for you.

Ancestry used to have a direct way for users to indicate their preference to be included in beta testing. There used to be an option for "Ancestry Lab" accessed from the Extras option in the main menu. However, the Extras option appears to be gone and Ancestry Lab does not appear on the Site Map. Likewise, searching for "beta" in the support articles does not return any results. You can still find the Ancestry Lab link from a Google Search, but it loads saying there was an error and to refresh the page. On refresh, it simply returns "We’re sorry, this page is temporarily unavailable." Perhaps they're working on a new way for users to participate in betas, or maybe they're simply removing it as a whole. 

One existing feature I've noticed is not working as it used to is the checkboxes for why you accepted, ignored or marked a hint undecided. The option to select no longer appear directly after submit your choice on the person profile. In order to check the boxes and add notes now, you have to take the extra step of going to the accepted, undecided or ignored hints page, scroll to find the hint in question, and expand the option to show the checkboxes and reason. If you're like me, and you use this for every hint, it's a considerable amount of extra clicks and scrolling. Presumably, Ancestry uses this information to improve the algorithms, so I'd think they'd encourage users to use this feature. I hope this change is temporary and they return the former function soon. Note: This feature does still work on the All Hints page. Only the person profile seems to have changed.

Many people complain about the cost of Ancestry subscriptions. I personally feel the cost of making records available and maintaining a functioning site are considerable. For-profit companies have to make money - otherwise they'll cease to exist. Certainly, a part of subscription costs go towards the expansion of record sets, but some is earmarked for continual updating and maintenance of the site. While both of the potential features I've mentioned are relatively small, they are solid changes and may benefit many. It's nice to see Ancestry considering new beneficial features. And, as with the change to Stickies, they're clearly listening to some of the feedback from users. 

Have you noticed any new features while you're working on Ancestry? Not all users see the same features at the same time, so please share in the comments if you've noticed anything new lately!

Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to assist in titling this post, and creating the SEO description. All content is my own and was not edited using AI.

Drastically Improved Newspapers.com Clipping Tool

Have you tried the new and improved clipping tool at Newspapers.com? It was rolled out about a month ago but I just finally got around to trying it this afternoon - and I absolutely love it! You no longer need to clip and save multiple images when the article isn't a perfect square or rectangle. 

As an example, I'm going to use the wedding announcement for my brother and his first wife. Neither is still living and this is from 50 years ago, published in the Baltimore Sun on February 15, 1976, page 113. As you can see, the article spans over 3 columns (including the photo), but the 2nd column also includes information for a completely different wedding. I don't want the other wedding to be in the area of focus.

Previously, I'd either have to save three separate images or clip the entire area, including the information I don't really want. Now, I can outline the three different areas and create one, much cleaner, image. Here are the steps:

Outline the first area you want to include. Then, you'll see a little blue box with a plus in it:

Click on the "+" and you'll be presented with another box you can adjust the size on. 

In my case, I want to add a third area, so I click the plus again to bring up yet another box I can resize. 

Now, I'm done adding areas and I can save the clip. (But you could keep adding additional areas if you needed to). When I open the clip, I see this:

It's a perfectly highlighted area, clearly indicating the article I want to save. I've long wanted a way to do this, and Newspapers.com finally delivers! This improvement is both intuitive and easy to use. You can even go back and edit previously clipped items. The one thing I don't see any way to do is to combine if the article is on totally different pages. I did try, but it doesn't appear to be an option. 

If you've not yet tried the new and improved clipping tool, I highly recommend giving it a spin. You won't be disappointed!

My Complicated Relationship With AI Creations in Genealogy

Linda Stufflebean, (Empty Branches on the Family Tree) recently posted MyHeritage Introduces Family Infographics and Tribute Reels. Family Infographics uses your family tree and photos to create an AI generated piece of artwork. Tribute reels use photos to create a visual story of the subject. It was really interesting to see these new features in action! Her post got me thinking...

MyHeritage has been at the forefront when it comes to engaging users with AI features. They provide many AI-assisted tools including:

• Colorizing and enhancing photos
• Estimating dates of old photos (PhotoDater™)
• Animating photos (Deep Nostalgia™)
• Creating animated video clips from a photo (LiveMemory™)
• Transcribing and analyzing an uploaded document (Scribe AI)
• Turning a series of photos into a visual story (Tribute Reels)
• Using tree information and photos to create shareable artwork (Family Infographics)

I readily embrace using AI for many tasks:

• Formatting data just the way I like
• Newspaper or document transcriptions
• Helping me come up with a catchy title or SEO description for my posts. 
• Searching for public information on an ancestor, and providing me with research suggestions
• Double checking my blog post for grammar and punctuation

Just to be clear, I do not ask AI to create my blog content for me. While it's certainly capable of generating a post in just seconds, I prefer to do my own writing. And I never use AI as a source for facts in my tree. It's just not reliable enough yet. When it comes to genealogy, AI is no substitute for actual research. As I sit here looking over this list, I realize, most of my uses for AI are data-driven.

When it comes to photos, artwork and animations (the creative side of AI), I've steered clear of using it. I truly prefer photos as close to the originals as possible. For me, even the hue of a photo tells a story. The faded colors, speckles, spots and creases all add character. I don't really care for colorized photos (though I do understand the appeal). I've dabbled with minimal photo enhancement, but I generally stay as true to the original as I can.

When it comes to animated photos (or worse, talking animations)...well...truth be told, they creep me out more than a little. I enjoy studying the subject(s) of old photos, dissecting the minute details and shadows like a fine piece of art. But I don't enjoy those same subjects turning their heads, moving or talking to me. I'd rather let my imagination bring photos to life, much as the subjects and recipients of the originals would have done. 

For ages, family historians have shared GEDCOMs, hand typed remembrances, or even summaries created by the software and websites we choose to use. Family histories may be passed out at reunions, or even published in a tidy little book and distributed to family members. But in most cases, information provided in this manner is merely a distillation of facts (perhaps with a few photos thrown in for good measure). It does little to bring our ancestors to life. While genealogists certainly appreciate any and all details we can get our hands on, the vast majority of our family probably finds these same details boring. Younger generations, with far more exposure to AI-assisted creations, might well find these new AI creations far more captivating than traditional presentations of family facts. I could easily see how they might even inspire a new generation of family historians! 

Another very real benefit may be for the older generations (meaning those who do not readily use computers or smartphones for much more than email). I realize this population is rapidly shrinking, and with them so do the memories they have tucked away. Animations or colorful artwork may very well spark something within them. Perhaps they'll say "Aunt Edna's nose isn't quite right" or "My grandpa's eyes were a more brilliant blue," and segue into stories we've never heard before. While they may be very interested in the facts, they may not have the computer skills, eyesight or knowledge to do research on their own. AI-generated content may be very intriguing to them (even if they don't understand how it's done). Grandparents often proudly point out pictures of their children and grandchildren, or drawings created by little ones and they might very well do the same with colorful artwork about an ancestor. 

While MyHeritage isn't the only site to integrate AI tools for users, it certainly is the leader of the pack in genealogy. FamilySearch.org is also ahead of the curve with their Full Text Search. Their AI integration was done with thought and purpose and has been beyond helpful for many family historians. In this arena, Ancestry and FindMyPast both offer photo colorization and restoration and a few other AI features, but they don't compare to MyHeritage in scope, or FamilySearch in usability. I'll probably continue to focus on data-driven uses for AI. But I'll watch quietly from the wings as others share their photo, artwork and video creations. It will be interesting to see how each of the big four companies move forward, maximizing and expanding the capabilities of AI functions for family historians.

Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to check grammar and punctuation, provide minor titling assistance, and creation of the brief description of this post. All content is entirely my own.

Image by Artapixel from Pixabay

Ancestry API Changes and Why Backups Matter

API stands for Application Programming Interface. It’s a set of rules allowing different software applications to "talk" to each other. Think of it as a translator that helps different programs exchange data smoothly.

In the case of Ancestry, they have a private API. This means only select third-party companies can use it. Currently, RootsMagic and Family Tree Maker have business agreements allowing API-based syncing with Ancestry. Both programs have the ability to add, delete and change data in your Ancestry tree, so accuracy and security are vitally important. Other programs may have more open APIs, and developers may be encouraged to use their APIs to expand their functionality. A good example of this is Legacy Family Tree. While they don't have their own API, they use APIs from other services to offer more features in their software.

As of April 2026, the transition to Ancestry's new API is complete. This should improve the reliability, performance and security of how both RootsMagic and Family Tree Maker function during synchronization. While it's tempting not to update, especially when those updates have a tangible cost and you may be perfectly happy with the performance of an older version — it's important to do so if you plan on continuing to synchronize trees. 

For RootsMagic, you currently need version 11.2.0 or later. If you need to update, head over to their blog for more information on how to obtain the update. If you use Family Tree Maker, FTM2024 was developed with the new API in mind. Versions prior to 2017 no longer sync.

On another note —  please remember to back up your desktop files and media. Regardless of whether you use the latest software version, things can and will go wrong. You always want a recent backup in case you need to restore. This goes for any genealogy software you may be using, even if it's not RootsMagic or FTM. Having a solid backup plan is essential. I recommend three locations. For me, those locations include my computer, a USB drive, and cloud backups.

Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to create the title, SEO description, and minor grammatical changes for better readability. The content of the post is my own.

Image by zeeve platform from Pixabay

Exploring A Lesser-Known Genealogy Resource: Sorted By Name

Occasionally, rather than using the search feature on any given big genealogy site, I'll do a Google search instead. Quite often, the top results will lead right back to one of the big sites. But, if you persevere, and scroll far enough, or jump page by page, sometimes you'll find a new resource to check out. Such was the case when I stumbled on Sorted By Name.

To be very clear, this smaller site aggregates public records derived from other sites. It does not claim to be everything for everyone. It does not claim to be a complete listing of anything. Nor does it have a fancy user interface (far from it!) It also does not provide addresses or phone number (as most databases of public information tend to do). It does provide summary information, and links for various record sets (but they don't appear to be super recent.) There's a nice range of years from the mid 1800's to the later1900's, though some states don't seem to be well represented. And if you're really ambitious, you can actually download the source files (but unless you have dreams of being a webmaster yourself, you won't need to). 

The main landing page is simplistic. For the sake of testing the site out, I used 2 names from my mother's side of the family, followed by 2 from my father's. Each search dropped me on the page with the correct surname, but I still had to scroll (or use Ctrl+F) to find the given name on the page. And in one case, I had to move a couple pages ahead (so the search was close, but not spot-on to the correct page). The first 4 searches I did weren't really helpful. Then I tried using my grandfather's name, and it did return 2 results. There was no new information for me though.

I noticed many results seemed to be from an area where my ex-husband has relatives (Missouri), so I tried a name from his side of my tree and finally had success! Was it an earthshattering wonderful result? No, it was simply a confirmation of a SSN and birth in 1885. I tried another name from his mother's side of the family, and again was rewarded with an accurate result. I was pleasantly surprised when search result showed this (I blanked out part of the Social Security number....I know it's public information but still.....):

Again, not earthshattering, but it was interesting to see the various iterations of the daughter's name spelled out. Encouraged, I spent a little time searching for 2 people I know had several marriages each, and where I'm missing the given name for some of the spouses. Sadly, my luck did not continue.

My results were slightly more miss than hit. While search capability is very limited (NO fancy filtering or full text search on this site), the simplistic format of results wasn't entirely displeasing to me (or perhaps the simple HTML site just brings back nostalgic memories of my first website). They claim to have over 400 million entries, and say search engines do not index all their pages. I noticed some areas tended to be represented better than others. New York and Missouri seemed to show up fairly frequently. While Ohio and Florida were less represented in my particular searches.

The site is free to use, and while it certainly wouldn't be my first stop for day to day research, when I find myself doing the same searches over and over on Ancestry, I might just head over to see if anything different pops up on Sorted By Name. Because really, can one ever have enough free resources to investigate? I think not! Cracking a brick wall might happen in the most unexpected place. And sometimes, a change in how data is presented can make something you might not have noticed suddenly click. 

Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to assist with the title and search description for this post. All post content was created and written entirely by me. 

Thinking About the FamilySearch Crash Course at Family History Daily? Read This First

Family History Daily just announced a new online course. It's called the FamilySearch Crash Course. Before I go into more detail, Family History Daily has a wealth of free information! Their main landing page has lots of articles, and the main menu includes Free Genealogy resources, Beginner Help, and Expert Guides. These are definitely worth checking out! You can learn a lot from their free articles, all without spending a dime.

Several years ago, I was looking for an online course to help me improve my research. I was restarting my tree, and wanted to learn more, so I could feel more confident. I originally found the site while evaluating various course options. At the time, they offered lifetime access (including to any future courses) for just shy of $150. I signed up, and diligently worked through all the courses. I learned a lot, and I definitely became a better researcher! I've enjoyed the periodic releases of new courses, and I've always taken time to work through each new course, because we never know it all. And we can all benefit from continued learning. 

While they still offer complete access to all courses, it's now $240 per year. You can still purchase individual courses, the price ranges from $59 to $249, and those do provide lifetime access - but only to the specific course purchased. I find the current complete access pricing a bit convoluted. They say "Take advantage of everything the course center offers with monthly or yearly access." While they do indicate the cost is $20 per month, it also says it's billed annually at $240. I looked, but did not find any option to truly subscribe month to month. It is absolutely possible to finish all the courses in far less than a year, and for anyone looking for solid and easy to understand courses, $240 isn't a bad price. But to continue paying the fee year after year would certainly add up. For those who may already be paying for subscriptions to Ancestry, MyHeritage and/or FindMyPast, the cost for continued access to Family History Daily year over year could be prohibitive. After all, most people probably don't go back and do courses a 2nd time. So continued access would mainly be to get the benefit of new courses. While I love the site, and they offer a wonderful learning experience, I wouldn't pay $240 year after year. If I were looking now, I'd probably pay for a single year, and then decide whether new courses would be beneficial at an individual course price.

But in any case, I do have access to the new FamilySearch Crash Course. From the course description, "You’ll learn how to search smarter, uncover records many researchers overlook, and finally break through frustrating research dead ends." There are 3 sections, with a total of 42 lessons. There are also hands-on activities, and quizzes to help you make sure the information is sinking in.

• Section 1: Mastering Search on FamilySearch (15 lesson)
• Section 2: Making the Most of the FamilySearch Family Tree (13 lessons)
• Section 3: Focused Research Strategies (14 lessons)
• This section includes how to make the most of the FamilySearch Wiki

I don't want to sacrifice all my research time, so I'm just fitting in a little daily learning, with one lesson per day. As far as the first topics on effective searching, the information is well organized and easy to understand, and search concepts could be applied to many sites. The cost for this course individually is $99. Before I'd plunk down the money for the course (no matter how helpful it may be) I'd suggest taking a peek at the Learning Center on FamilySearch.org. There are 225 pages of resources you can review for free. You can also head over to the FamilySearch Research Wiki where there's useful information on more topics than you can imagine - and it's totally free! Or, head over to YouTube, where you have 423 videos to choose from. 

I'm definitely not saying the Family History Daily course isn't worth it. I can only offer my opinion once I fully complete the course. If you're new to researching, and your plan is to stick with FamilySearch.org because it's totally free to use, you might very well benefit from the individual course. And if you simply prefer structured learning, it's a viable option. Based on previous courses I've completed at Family History Daily, you'll receive a solid introduction to the site, how to make the most of it, good research practices, and you'll be prepared for more success in your research. And if you want to go further with your learning, a year's subscription would definitely provide a solid base of knowledge - if you work through all the courses. But I'd be careful to make sure the subscription isn't on auto-renew (or remove your credit card information after the first billing). The current pricing model isn't as beneficial as the one in place when I originally signed up. 

In summary, I'd absolutely give the site 5 stars for content and presentation (both the free articles and the courses). But my overall rating would now be 3 stars, simply because the current subscription model, in my opinion, isn't sustainable. 

Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to assist with the title and search description for this post. All post content was created and written entirely by me. 

Your Next Breakthrough Might Be Hiding on Linkpendium

I site I don't see mentioned often enough is Linkpendium. For those who've been researching for some time, you're likely already familiar with the site....but when was the last time you gave it a spin? With the monumental goal to "...index every genealogy, geneology, :) family history, family tree, surname, vital records, biography, or otherwise genealogically-related site on the Internet", you can imagine they have a massive amount of links! According to Google, more than 10 million of them. And it's totally FREE to search!

Linkpendium is an extensive resource directory with multiple ways to search. Results encompass both free and subscription sites. On the home page, there are 2 distinct search options. Prominently located on the home page is the Family Discoverer search. It looks like this:

It's a little hard to tell in the image, but it says this searches "30,491,448 FREE genealogy sources." These cover 2,800,000 pages they index. In addition to a name, you can select a location of Worldwide, or a specific state.

On the right hand sidebar, you'll find additional ways to search. 

While you can reach localities and surnames from links by scrolling farther down on the home page, the city, county or family surname searches take you right to a Linkpendium resource page. It's a bit faster than navigating through links. They also note, these pages may contain resources not included in the search engine. If you're researching, be sure to try all the various search options to get the best results.

Since I've been searching for Abijah LeRoy (or LeCroy, or Lewy or....you get the idea) for more than a decade, I typed in the name of someone who may be his father, and conveniently also the name of his brother -Thomas LeCroy. I filtered to Georgia as my location. In just 46 milliseconds, Linkpendium returned 55 results for me to check out.

 Since limiting by date range isn't a search option, it may take a little patience to review results. As with any browser page, you can still use Ctrl+F and search for specific words on the page if it's easier for you. The results did correctly identify the brother, Thomas LeCroy's marriage to Lydia McCracken, but I already had this piece of information. So, nothing new today. 

Then, I decided to take a stab using one of Abijah's known children, Benjamin Franklin LeRoy. I found information on his marriage (already know to me) but it was from a page I'd never seen before for Murray County Museum (with many links to all kinds of useful information on Murray county, Georgia), Unfortunately, the home page indicates the site founder passed away and there will be no further updates to this newly discovered site. But I'm happy it's still being hosted for researchers to find. A quick search shows there's more information for me to examine for another surname (Luffman) in my tree! While I didn't find any new breadcrumbs for the search I started with....I'm pleasantly surprised to have this new Murray County Museum page to delve into further. Were it not for Linkpendium, I'd likely never have found this page. 

First created in 2003, Linkpendium is still being actively updated (as recently as March 26, 2026). Not every search will return results. And not every result will be the one you're looking for. But if you're hunting for a great resource perhaps offering some suggestions you've not yet investigated, Linkpendium is well worth a look from time to time. With ongoing updates, you never know when a surprise result might show up! (As always, I've linked this in my Genealogy Toolbox under Link Lists/Search Tools). 

How to Analyze GEDCOM Files Efficiently with GEDminer

I've been looking forward to trying GEDminer, a GEDCOM analyzer. I'm going to resist the temptation to compare it to other consistency checkers I've used, because this one is exceptional and outshines any other I've tried. On the features page you'll find the brief description of:

"Upload a GEDCOM file and instantly access 12+ genealogy analysis tools — demographics, migration maps, error detection, census gaps, kinship calculation, and more."

I gotta tell you, when they say "and more" they mean it! I'm not going to list every feature (the list is simply too long) but even if you don't try it, it's worth heading over to the features page to see the potential it might offer, if and when you need it. Given this is a totally FREE site, and your data is parsed in your browser so it never leaves your computer, you can feel confident when using this tool.

While the site is totally FREE, you can register for an account if you wish. You can also support the site with a donation if you feel inclined to do so. With an account, you can save up to 3 trees. The data saved is parsed and only includes names, dates, places, and relationships. One feature I don't often see, but they offer, is the option to replace a file with a newer version - a feature I've longed for on sites like MyHeritage. If you don't sign up for an account, nothing is saved at all. 

On the Overview page, you'll find some stats as well as an "on this day" feature outlining births, deaths, and marriages on given dates. My sourcing and citations were 98-99%, but my completeness score is 73% - giving me an overall score of 88.79%. Given I know I'm missing some crucial dates, this was expected. To give you an idea of the user interface, here's a screenshot of my overview:

Clicking on any of the issues listed provides more explanation and detail. There's even a section for "quick wins" (sortable by impact or effort required) to help quickly improve your scores. Each page appears to have numerous filter and sort options.

The other main pages are:

• Directory (People, Occupations, Locations and Kinship)
• Integrity (Suggestions, Errors, Vital Sharpener, and Tree Structure)
• Discovery (Migration Analysis, Census Toolbox, Gap Detector, Incomplete Families, DNA Planner and Plan Generator)

I do want to take a moment to call out the Census Toolbox. A quick look at mine shows I moved on from the 1850 to the 1860 census, and I've done a fairly good job with it. But many other census years are really lacking in my research (just as I alluded to in a recent post). 

It goes a step further and suggests all the potential missing censuses, not just from the US, but other countries as well. (Clearly, I have a lot of work to do!!)

If you're still not sure about trying it, head on over to Fortify Your Family Tree - This Free, Elegant GEDCOM Analyzer Is a Wonder for a more in depth review. 

I've barely scratched the surface on this wonderful resource. You truly have to see this in action to appreciate all the features. Each page is filled with useful insights to help you uncover patterns, find potential errors and identify where more research is needed. I find the clear graphics and color coding very satisfying. The data is presented in clear, easy to understand format. This site is also linked in my Genealogy Toolbox under GEDCOMs. 

If you aren't already using this site, give it a try and let me know your thoughts! 

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

3,129 Relatives Later…I’m Still Just Getting Started

I took a moment this weekend to reflect on my tree as it currently stands. I pondered the growth of a genealogical tree compared to real life trees. Plantd has a wonderful (quick to read and easy to understand) post on the life-cycle of real trees (not to say our genealogical trees aren't real - they very much are!) We all start our tree as a seedling. It sprouts and then goes through a period of rapid growth. Our trees may quickly develop into a sapling (young adult trees). They grow taller and stronger, supporting a growing canopy of branches and leaves. The roots grow deeper to support the tree as it inevitably grows in size. 

Over decades, our trees continue to grow stronger and larger. Eventually, they become mature trees. At this point, with a solid trunk, many branches and good set of roots - vertical growth may slow and branches and leaves tend to fill out in areas where they already exist. There is still growth, it just seems to happen more slowly. At this stage the tree becomes an integral part of the ecosystem (in our case, perhaps the basis to help other researchers). Luckily, unlike many real trees, our trees don't have to fall or decay to become the basis for new growth. We can continue to grow our trees for....well...forever if we choose! 

Indeed, even in nature, there are trees living incredible life spans. The giant redwoods (sequoias) are thought to be able to live an astonishing 3.500 years! And while written texts go back as far as 5,500 years, none of us are likely to find written traces of our ancestors anywhere near so old. The oldest traceable family tree is of the Lurie family, dating back to 1037 BC (a stunning 3,063 years!) In more recent discoveries, DNA has unlocked more information on human history. Human DNA 45,000 years old has been found in Germany. And, DNA from Neanderthals has been dated to over 430,000 years ago! Thus far, my family seems very ordinary. As we stretch back in time, ordinary becomes less and less documented, and harder and harder to find. The oldest person in my tree is my 6th great-grandfather, John Martinus Homsher (1689-1747). 337 ago years seems like forever, but it's just s drop in the bucket.

I've intentionally grown my tree slowly. Despite being in my second decade of research, my tree is still young. This is in large part because, like many new family historians, I made mistakes...and LOTS of them! I started and scrapped multiple trees before I found my footing and felt confident in my research. My most recent tree (the one I swore to myself I would "do the right way this time" and never have to start over) was created in early 2021. So it's really only 5 years old. As of this post, I have 3129 people in my tree. Of those, only 38 need some form of documentation. Because I don't place a huge emphases on DNA matches, I've only placed 53 of them thus far (combined from both my and my ex-husband's plethora of DNA matches). I tend to prefer to find where they fit organically (when possible), rather than spending hours trying to dissect and document just to add one DNA match. Eventually, if I keep at it, many will find their way to their proper leaf.

Since my original purpose was to leave a more solid family history for my son than I had, I occasionally look at my tree from the perspective of him as the home person. I've located all his direct ancestors up to and including all of his 3rd great grandparents (both maternal and paternal.) And, out of 64 of his 4th great grandparents, I'm only missing 17. I must admit, he's not nearly as interested in genealogy as I am. He does occasionally enjoy hearing an interesting tidbit or two, but he doesn't share my passion for research. No matter, because I'll continue my search for decades to come! I don't think I'll ever tire of finding new discoveries...or having 20 browser tabs open in the relentless pursuit of one ancestor...or the satisfied feeling of finding where one more DNA relative fits in my tree. 

Image by Dee Guss from Pixabay

Two Free Sources For Locating Digitized Newspapers Online

Recently, Thomas MacEntee wrote about Newspaper Finder in his post Newspaper Finder: The Free Tool Every Genealogist Needs to Find Historical Newspaper Archives Online. The site has the potential to be very useful. But it's new. And new generally comes with some growing pains. I'll most certainly be keeping an eye to see how it expands and develops. They currently include 32 databases (all the major subscription sites like Newspapers, OldNews, NewspaperArchive, Genealogybank, and more). I have no doubt they'll be expanding their offering as time goes on. The site is entirely free to search. If you'd like to read another great user review of the site, head on over to Marian B Wood's post Checking Out Newspaper Finder on Climbing My Family Tree. 

The one issue I had was the search results. Upon clicking on a pin on the map, they show as a list of the newspaper names, years included, and the website where the repository is located. It would be most intuitive to click the website (but those aren't hyperlinked). It took me a moment to realize you have to click on the publication name instead. Those are hyperlinked, but they don't really stand out. Once you click the publication name, you are taken to the site so you can do a more detailed search.

However, the location I needed in my research tonight wasn't coming up. To be fair, it only means this new site doesn't have a database where the particular location and potential titles I wanted are included. And to be extra fair, no one site is ever going to have 100% of anything. It's not really a limitation of the site....just a limitation based on the specific area I needed to search. So I did some more Googling and discovered another fantastic resource.

Talk about not being intuitive...the site is the Montana State University Billings (MSUB) library site. I know right?! How can a Montana college website be a great newspaper reference?! Well, under their History resources, they offer Historical U.S. Newspapers Online. The Home page for this section includes not only the option to search by state, but a section on other pages linking to websites with newspapers from many states. While some of these additional resources appear to be a little more specialized, it's still good information. Clicking on a letter in the menu bar takes you to the states, and each state shows an alphabetized list of newspapers with years. Clicking the link takes you directly to the site where you can do further searches. This site is also free to use.

I'm sure there's overlap between the 2 sites. But there are also differences. On the MSUB site, I was able to find a publication more suited to the data I was looking for...but sadly the years did not encompass the ones I need. But whenever I discover new tools (especially free ones) the time spent is never wasted. Both of these sites will be a great addition to your toolbox, and speaking of toolboxes, I've added both to my Genealogy Toolbox under Indexes/Databases/Newspapers. 

Note: While both sites are totally free to search, some results are to subscription sites where you would need a membership to do further research.

Ancestry's Index Panel: I'm Trekking Through the 1850 Census Faster Than Ever

Census records are a goldmine of information. As I've mentioned before, I like to mine all the details. This takes time. For a big family, it can be quite a bit of time. Often, I find myself zipping past census hints, in favor of something I can work on more quickly. 

Recently, I decided to set out on the task of getting through some of those census records. They're important, and I need to stop glossing over them. I'm starting with the 1850 census. Using the Ancestry Hints By Specific Record Collection I previously wrote about, I'm able to see all the hints I'll be working with - only those hints (so I'm not tempted to bypass them). My only current goal is to make it through all the 1850 census hints I have. Then, I'll move on to 1860. Wash, rinse, repeat. 

I'm not worrying about how many other hints this is adding on my main hints page. I'm simply plugging away at a concrete goal I've set for myself. While I'm making progress, I haven't been spending as much time checking out new features, updates, tools or websites. However, I was reminded recently about a handy feature on Ancestry I either never really paid much attention to, or forgot about - and it's a big time saver for my census journey. Let me explain the backstory...

I use a spreadsheet to transfer all the data from a given family on a census record. I like a standard way of formatting (using the concatenate function to string data together). Then I copy this data into a document before I begin updating each person in Ancestry. It leaves me with a list of all the facts I need to add, and a full summary to paste into my transcription field in the citation for each person. This is the simplified version. I have a few other steps in the process to get it to work just so, but you get the idea. I'm more than a little OCD about how I work with a census record. Certainly not everyone would want to go through my whole process, but I'm betting some of you have a process you like to follow.

In order for my spreadsheet to do its magic, I need to list each family member in their own column, not rows as a census is presented. I can't tell you how much time I've spent diligently transferring the contents of each row into the necessary columns (flipping back and forth endlessly between tabs as I entered the data in columns). And here's where I can't believe I've dedicated (but not wasted) so much time I didn't need to! 

If you open the image of the census record, at the bottom of the screen is a little toolbar. We've probably all used the filmstrip view at some point. And I'd imagine everyone has used the arrows on the sides of the image to move forward and backward through pages....but how often do you use the index panel? Here's where to find it:

You might recall, I work on a small screen, so this next screenshot is not all the data. But it gives you the general idea of the format you'll see. Each line of the census is already transcribed!

The hard work is already done! Because I already have all the headings for each field in my spreadsheet, I just need to highlight, copy and paste all the family members into my spreadsheet. I do spot check fields like occupation, attended school, etc, just to be sure all the data is there - but most of the time it's very complete. I occasionally find a name transcribed incorrectly like "Susah" instead of "Sarah", but all in all, this saves me a ton of transcription time.

Now, if you've followed along this far, you might say..."Uh, Doris, you said you put each person in a column. You just copied rows." And you'd be right! I plop the copied data in my spreadsheet below where I want it. Then I right-click and copy it from within my spreadsheet, navigate to the first column for the data, and I paste-special (Excel) transposing rows and columns. This gives me exactly the layout I want to make my spreadsheet provide the specific formatting I use - all without having to do any (or very little) transcription myself. I'm going to hazard a guess and say this is saving me at least 50% of the time I spend working with census records. 

I won't bore you with any more of the details on my personal process. But if you'd like to see a little more on how to grab all this information, I found this video very helpful. (I've added it to my Genealogy Toolbox under "Articles, Tips/Tricks, Guides". 

While I still have to tweak a little for my own process, this is a huge timesaver! And as always, verifying is important. This isn't a substitute for making sure the transcription is correct (but it sure makes it a lot faster and easier to do). This feature is available on other images as well. And while I can't say for certain if every record set is as detailed as census records, you can be sure I'm going to start checking....right after I've finished my 1850 census project (and hopefully a few more years as well). Let me know if you already use this feature, or if you think it's going to help you in your own research. 

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

American Ancestors: Perks Well Worth the Cost

Disclaimer: All thoughts & opinions are my own. I do not receive compensation or consideration for posts. 

I've subscribed to AmericanAncestors for several years. I've found there are some great benefits to being a member. I do all of my research online, so having extra resources beyond those found on the big 4 websites (Ancestry, FamilySearch, MyHeritage, FindMyPast) always interests me. 

Ho-hum perks of being a member: They offer the ability to build your tree on the site, But, I didn't find the interface to be anything special - certainly not as good as Ancestry. They also offer a quarterly magazine, but I'm not a big fan of magazines (digital or otherwise) so this wasn't a big factor for me. They also feature additional publications and tools you might be interested in checking out. I haven't used these myself, but they are on the site.

The perks I DO really like are:

• Access to 10 billion searchable names and records in the AmericanAncestors database
• Free access to partner databases

Let's break it down a little. As far as the searchable records on the site, they offer access to hundreds of databases. The search screen shows they currently have 507 databases. Some of these are not necessarily different from databases you may already have access to via the big 4 sites. But 224 are touted as being unique to AmericanAncestors. They also have a Digital Library & Archives containing digitized materials from three repositories: the Wyner Family Jewish Heritage Center (highlighting records for New England's Jewish community) R. Stanton Avery Special Collections (including family bibles and genealogies among other select records), and the Brim-DeForest Library (a book collection including family and local histories as well as other books). Not all of these collections will be of interest to every family researcher, but certainly these additional repositories could be beneficial to some.

And then there's the magic of partner databases! 

Let's start with a site currently experiencing some issues. NewspaperArchive is normally about $140 per year (I used to subscribe, but stopped when the National Genealogical Society offered it as a free perk of their membership.) I noticed today AmericanAncestors also offers access with their membership. Currently the site is recovering from a service disruption, but hopefully it will be back online soon. Is this newspaper site better than Newspapers.com, OldNews or GenealogyBank? It's hard to give a solid answer. Your research needs may be different than mine, and newspaper coverage can vary widely by site and area. I haven't had the best luck with NewspaperArchive, but I like having the option to search at no additional cost! 

In the past, I also subscribed to Genealogical to access their eBooks in the Genealogical Publishing Company (GPC) eBook Collection. Their current subscription rate is $135 per year. Their digital collection is fully searchable, both within titles and text. You can now access this collection for free with an AmericanAncestors subscription! This is an absolutely awesome perk! I had been waiting to renew until I needed to use the collection, so this was a fantastic surprise.

Additional third party partner databases include:

• Archives Unbound
• Gale OneFile: Diversity Studies 
• The Gale OneFile: Fine Arts & Music Collection 
• Foundation for Medieval Genealogy
• Informe Academico
• Irish Newspaper Archives
• HistoryGeo.com
• The HistoryMakerss
• 19th Century U.S. Newspapers
• Early American Newspapers Series 1
• The New York Times
• Parchemin Notarial Database
• Genealogy Quebec

I haven't added up the value of having all these databases available, but certainly, the value far exceeds the cost of membership to AmericanAncestors.

I used to pay for an individual membership at AmericanAncestors at a cost of $99.95 per year. This level also includes (in addition to the features listed above) free admission to American Ancestors in Boston, discounts on programs and services, and exclusive offers - including 10% off a Tier 1 membership to GEDmatch (the value of this is about $12). If you live in the area and want to access in person, it's still a very good deal. But I don't live nearby and am not planning on visiting - so I didn't really need the bells and whistles. When it came time to renew this year, I was on the fence. I was cutting back a little on my subscriptions and I was just going to let this one lapse until I needed it. And then I received the email there was a subscription level I didn't see displayed anywhere when browsing the site...

It's a digital subscription only. For only $49.95 per year, I replaced 2 subscriptions - NewspaperArchive AND GPC library (worth $275 if I subscribed direct) AND I still have access to all the other partner databases. It was a no brainer for me. I did lose the free in person access (though passes are available at $20 per day if needed), the discounts on programs and services and the exclusive offers (but the GEDmatch discount wasn't terribly substantial anyway).

So, if you like to have a lot of other database options, for $49.95 per year AmericanAncestors is truly a fantastic value. If you aren't yet convinced, you can sign up for a free guest membership to access a limited number of databases, and get a feel for whether you'd like to upgrade to a digital or individual membership. I believe the digital membership is by far the best value if you do the majority of your research online.

Image by klimkin from Pixabay

Detailed Instructions for Using RootsMagic to Create a Minimal GEDCOM

 I like to have my tree on multiple sites. A few times a year, I've been creating a GEDCOM from either Ancestry or Family Tree Maker (FTM) and uploading it to MyHeritage and Findmypast. These are simply the sites I choose to use. If and where to upload GEDCOMs is a personal preference, depending on your specific needs.

There  are numerous other sites and software where GEDCOMS are accepted. Reasons one might want to upload could include:

• My #1 reason - having easy access to hinting from the sites I subscribe to
• Keeping multiple online backups
• Searching for more DNA matches
• Collaborating with relatives and family groups
• Utilizing specific research tools provided by software or websites

GEDCOM files generally contain a lot of information, most often including citations and facts, and potentially media depending on the program used to create the file. I've long wanted to be able to create a minimal GEDCOM, since all I'm interested in is hinting. I wanted a GEDCOM with only name, birth date/location, death date/location, marriage/location and divorce/location. I only want the basics...just enough to provide sufficient data to prompt the algorithms for hints. 

My preferred desktop software is FTM. I can absolutely export a GEDCOM, but the options for filtering the contents are slim. Ancestry provides a one-size-fits-all download solution, no editing options there. GEDCOMs can be manually edited, but it's simply not a viable option for trees with large amounts of people and data. At one point, I found a website where they used to offer a program with the ability create exactly the file I was after (called The Complete Genealogy Builder). Sadly, the software has been discontinued and is no longer available for purchase. I didn't want to have to buy (or learn) new software specifically for creating these GEDCOMs. With a little persistence, I found a way to do it reasonably easily with RootsMagic. While not my preferred software, I do have the most recent paid version (RM11). According to Google, you very may be able to do this process with the free version, RootsMagic Essentials, as well. It does take a few minutes of setup each time you want to create this type of GEDCOM, but it's by far the easiest way I've found to do it. Here's are the detailed steps.

First, export your GEDCOM from your preferred software, or download from your preferred site, such as Ancestry. (Note: If you're a RootsMagic user, I'd still recommend exporting and working with the GEDCOM separate from your main research tree. If anything goes wrong or you make an error, you don't want to risk messing up all your hard work!) Since the main sites I upload to already privatize living people, I don't worry about doing it in my GEDCOM. But it's important to double check how the uploaded file is handled on each site. As an example, GEDmatch requires you to privatize your own file. Be sure you check each site's requirements so you don't encounter any unexpected surprises or problems.

Once you have your initial GEDCOM, import it into RootsMagic by selecting File > Create a New RootsMagic File > Import > GEDCOM > and select the location of your GEDCOM file.

Then, open your newly created file and select Tools > Fact Tools > Add or Modify Fact Types. Then Run the Selected Tool. You should have a screen like this:

Next is the most time consuming part. You'll need to edit each fact you don't want in the GEDCOM. Select the Fact Type and click Edit. You'll want to UNCHECK Include When Exporting GEDCOM Files. Then click OK. (Facts have this box checked by default). 

For facts you are keeping in the GEDCOM (especially if you use custom facts) be sure to check each one to determine if Use Description Field is included by default or not. You may wish to make adjustments to include or exclude them, depending on the purpose of your GEDCOM, and the information you're entering in the field. As an example, I have custom Marriage and Divorce fields to record timeline events for additional spouses I'm not researching or including in my tree. These facts are set up as individual person facts (not family or shared facts as the standard Marriage and Divorce facts are). In these cases, I include the name of the additional spouse in my description. Even on a minimal GEDCOM, I want to have the names visible when I upload to another site, so I must ensure those facts are using the Description.

You'll have to go thru every fact type one by one. When you're done excluding all the facts you don't want, and verifying the description use on the fields you do want, click OK on the bottom of the Fact Types screen. 

This is where I wish there was an option to save, but unfortunately, there is not. You'll have to repeat this process each time you want to create a minimal GEDCOM. CAUTION: Your fact changes will be lost after you exit the file you're working with, regardless of whether you save it or not.  It's critical you do the GEDCOM export prior to closing the file you're working with. The good news? Now, you're ready to export your modified GEDCOM! 

Click on File > Export Data > GEDCOM

From here, you can specify where you want the file exported. I recommend reimporting the file into RootsMagic (or your preferred software) to double check and make sure everything looks just as you want it. Once you've verified, you're ready to upload to the sites or software where you want to use this GEDCOM. 

Here are links on how to import GEDCOMs to the major websites:

• Ancestry - Uploading a Family Tree
• MyHeritage - How do I upload (import) a GEDCOM file to my family site on MyHeritage?
• Findmypast - How to import your family tree using a GEDCOM file
• FamilySearch - How do I upload my GEDCOM file?
• GEDmatch - Uploading a GEDCOM File on GEDmatch - Genetic Genealogy Research (VIDEO)

I've also updated my Genealogy Toolbox to include these links, under GEDCOMs, in case you'd like to reference them in the future.

There are any number of reasons you might want to create a minimal GEDCOM. The facts you wish to include may be completely different than those I use. But the creation process is the same! It only takes 1/2 hour or so to create a minimal GEDCOM using RootsMagic. Perhaps in the future more software or websites will offer easier ways to do this, but this process accomplishes the goal without the need for time consuming manual editing or purchasing additional software. If you've long wanted a way to do this, or if you've found other easier ways to do it, let me know! 

Dead or Alive? Divorced or Widowed?

As shown in 1911 and 1912 directories 

It's tempting to assume a spouse is dead when we wee someone listed as widow or widower. Such was the case when I found my 1st cousin 3x removed listed as a widow in the "St Joseph, Missouri, City Directory" in both 1911 and 1912. Though the addresses were different (but near one another), the message was the same. Amanda was, sadly, a widow.

Amanda Hortense James (1844-1932) married Fred Smith Lathrop March 29th, 1882, when she was 38 years old. It was her first marriage. Due to her age, it wasn't surprising they had no children. I felt a bit sad for her. She finally married, only to lose her husband. But this wasn't really the full picture!

When I got around to adding the 1910 census for Amanda, imagine my surprise to see her listed not as a widow - but divorced (and living with her sister).

Year: 1910; Census Place: St Joseph Ward 8, Buchanan, Missouri

But, in the 1920 census, she was once again listed again as a widow.

Year: 1920; Census Place: Chicago Ward 23, Cook (Chicago), Illinois

There were clearly two versions of the story. It wasn't unusual at the time for a divorced woman to say she was widowed, or perhaps even still married. Divorce still had quite a lot of stigma attached to it at the time. I tended to lean towards divorced since the 1910 census was the earliest mention of it, but with conflicting information, I had to set out in search of more records.

Fred Smith Lathrop (1852-1927) wasn't really high on my research priorities list. But this glaring difference in the records made me go back and give him a second look. Turns out, I found another marriage record for him from August of 1905, when he married a woman by the name of Josefa. I also found him in the 1910 and the 1920 census (though he was misrepresented as Ted instead of Fred in 1920). But, in both cases, the unusual name of Josefa made it clear I was looking at the same couple. Fred and Josefa remained married until Fred's true death in December 16tn, 1927.

Amanda never remarried. She continued to use the Lathrop surname until she passed away in April 1932. I'll never know if she claimed to be widowed to avoid social stigma, she was embarrassed, or because the divorce had been so painful she preferred to say Fred was dead. I still haven't located a divorce record to shed light on the reason for the split, or exactly when it happened. But it was clearly between the 1900 census, when Amanda and Fred were still together, and his next marriage in 1905.

This really reminded me not to make assumptions, and not to take everything at face value. Whenever possible, it's always best to have more than one source for the most important facts of birth, marriage, divorce, and death. Granted, there are time periods when finding even one record can be challenging. And it may not always be possible to verify every date. In some cases, we just have to make an educated guess. In these cases, I try to use "about" "before" or "after" to help remind me to watch for more information, and to indicate to others I'm not 100% sure - so they will hopefully be equally cautious and perhaps locate a record I've not yet found.

Could They Be Related to Doc Holliday?

1872 John Henry Holliday**

I was talking with a coworker (we'll call him Tom to protect his identity) at lunch on Friday. He asked if I ever do genealogy for others. I shared I had done some volunteer research for another co-worker, in search of his father's biological parents. He was interested to hear we believed we'd found solid leads in the right direction, but needed DNA confirmation before moving forward again. (Will the DNA test ever be done? I'm thinking probably not....but if it is...I'll be happy to pick back up where I left off).

Anyhow, Tom went on to share his family story of potentially being related to Doc Holliday. He's always been interested in trying to prove the connection. As a follow up, I asked if he was interested in actually doing the research, or just interested in finding out if it was true. As I suspected, it was the latter. 

He provided me the name of his grandfather, from whom the family story had been shared. (This turned out to be an important stepping stone later.) I told him when I get frustrated working on my tree, maybe I'll give it a go for him. I realize, being related to someone famous is typically more family story than family truth. But still, I thought it might be a nice diversion at times to poke into the history (without feeling like I need to do the level of detail I maintain in my own tree).

So, I started a tree on Ancestry where I could begin to flesh out Tom's family tree. I easily found him in public records, and his parents from a newspaper article. And then hints stopped. Normally, the more hints I save the more hints I get. It didn't hold true in this case. But the all-important name and birth location of his grandfather came in handy! I plugged it in, and voila! I was back in business. 

I spent an evening deciding the main facts I'd save, and just who would make it into this tree (vs. just being listed for reference in the notes field). It's not quite a "quick and dirty tree" since I may want to share the results (and have them be a useful jumping off point if anyone wants to do further research), but it's also not an incredibly detailed tree. I'll hit the basics (birth, marriage, divorce and death) as well as the added facts of residences, military service, and burial locations (just in case anyone ever wants to visit cemeteries). I'll certainly save all applicable records, but I won't take the time to mine all the facts. It should be more than enough information if anyone in his family has an interest to take it further in the future.

A quick Google told me Doc Holliday (born John Henry Holliday) was born in 1851 in Georgia. He had no living descendants of his own. He had one biological sister and one adopted brother, who both died young. Tom's family lore places him as the great-granduncle of Tom's grandfather (if the story is being relayed correctly). Given Doc Holliday's one biological sibling (the one potentially making him any kind of uncle, grand or otherwise) is known to have died young, it's already a big red flag. It doesn't mean there's no possible distant connection, but I'm not holding my breathe.

After just one evening, I'm at Tom's great-grandparents (born 1898 and 1902). I'm going to need to go back quite a bit further. I'll likely need to be able to reach into the 1700's (not always easy, or even possible, to do). Thankfully, others have researched Doc Holliday's ancestry, and I was able to find some names to watch for. Will they match up to anyone in Tom's tree? Not likely, but it's still a fun exercise for me. I just hope Tom won't be disappointed when/if nothing turns up. 

No matter the results, it's still a fun family story. Stories shape families in imperceptible ways. There's nothing wrong with passing them down (but preferably with the caveat they may or may not be true). And who knows? Maybe the genealogy bug will bite someone new and they'll take the tree and run with it! For me, it would be a successful outcome if this helps inspire just one new family historian.

**Photo is public domain from 1872