Sunday, September 11, 2016

Mary's Misleading Obituary


Printed and online obituaries can be full of wonderful family information. Unfortunately, they often contain errors, also.

Mary Maddox Neff's 1907 obituary is a good example of the types of mistakes that you might see. Taking the information in the obituary as entirely true could lead to bad assumptions and missed records.

Deconstructing the obituary, there were 19 facts.
  • Two were incorrect. 
  • One was unknown. 
  • Five were unknown, but probably true. 
  • One other key fact was missing. 
The overall analysis is 80 percent true and probably true. That's not too bad -- unless you were depending on the 20 percent of information that isn't true.

Always take obituaries as clues, rather than absolute truth.



For anyone researching this family, the analysis and obituary follow.

Fact Content Truth
Marriage Date 1851 * False
Number Children Four ** False
Child Name James ** Unknown
Child Name Christina ** MISSING
Birth County Pickaway County Probable
Burial Acasto, MO Probable
Church Member of Methodist Church Probable
Funeral M.E. Church in Mt Sterling, IA Probable
Spouse Birth 1831 Probable
Birth State Ohio True
Birth Year 1834 True
Child Location Ft Madison, IA (Cantril) True
Child Location Pueblo, CO (Schafer) True
Child Name Absolom True
Child Name Mrs George Schafer True
Child Name Mrs T N Cantril True
Name Mrs Mary Neff True
Spouse George Neff True
Spouse Death October 6, 1897 True
Survivors 2 children and 2 grandchildren True

*The Neff marriage was celebrated in Pickaway County, Ohio, on February 1, 1852. Reference book 4-255.
**The 1900 census showed that Mary had 5 children, 2 of whom were living. James was never on the census, but most likely would have been born between 1860 and 1863. Child Christina was the eldest in the census and was entirely omitted in the obituary in both child count and list of names.





Fort Madison (Iowa) Weekly Democrat, 11 September 1907, Page 2, Column 3

Friday, September 9, 2016

Filtering Mary, Part 3

(Not) Just the Facts


You've selected a type of record, carefully reviewed the indexed content and then set your filters appropriately. But you just cannot find that elusive person. You begin to think they just aren't in the record set.

Are the facts getting in the way? The facts as we perceive them today may not match the information at the time. Maybe there is missing or incorrect information and your filters are hiding the record. Maybe the indexer made a mistake when transcribing the record. Or maybe that elusive person gave an incorrect answer.

Age and date of birth are "facts" that are often inconsistent across the lifetime of those who were born before the age of birth certificates and drivers licenses. It's useful for filtering, but don't depend on it. If you are using a narrow range for a birth year, try increasing the range. It's easier to control the range on Family Search than on Ancestry.

Looking at Mary Maddox Neff, I found that she was very consistent in stating her own age and birth year. Her age was always within a one-year range which can be explained by the date of the census. However, her husband, George M Neff, seems to have taken an anti-aging tonic. He grew two years younger by the end of his life. Their daughter's age was so inconsistent that I'm still not positive whether Elizabeth Ann Neff Shafer had a sister Ann or just changed her name around.

Take a moment to think about that elusive person. Might they have made themselves older to marry, to join the military, to avoid a head tax or to draw a pension? Might they have shaved off some years to avoid the draft, to be younger than a husband or to participate in a program such as Social Security or Medicare?

One of my female ancestors married a man who was ten years younger. Yes indeed, she tried very hard to hide her age!

Do consider opening up the date of birth filter if you're not finding the record you are seeking.

Friday, August 12, 2016

Filtering Mary, Part 2


Pick Your Poison


My mother used to tell me to pick my poison when I had to choose between two things I didn't care for. No, we're not talking politics!

The search filters at both Ancestry and Family Search can hide records from you -- picking correctly is critical so your results are not poisoned. As we search, we grow our knowledge about an ancestor, but each record has only a tiny bit of the knowledge that we may have acquired. If we filter our search with everything we know, key records may be hidden. We're searching for the records, not the whole person.

Today we'll look at a search about Mary Maddox Neff's father done on Ancestry. I was astounded by how using very logical filters resulted in poor results.

Mary's father, Lazarus Maddox, was a single man of about 25 at the time of the War of 1812. He would have been a member of the Ohio Militia and I knew from a list that he had served in the war. What more could I learn from Ancestry?

Following past concepts, I started with his name, but not too exact, as it was spelled in various ways. The search was limited to the United States and, from the first result list, I clicked into the Military category.

From this focused category, I then refined the search. I selected people living in Ohio who served in the military starting 5 years before and ending 5 years after 1812. That would certainly cover the period of the War of 1812.




No matches! What do you mean no matches?!




Taking away the year filter and keeping the Ohio filter gives a result.




Are you as puzzled as I am? Why doesn't the Roster of Ohio soldiers in the War of 1812 meet the limits of both the year (1812) and the state (Ohio)? Clicking into the record, we see it's an image with a list of soldier names.




When the book was indexed by Ancestry, the dates of service were not included in the index even though they are included in the image. Because Ancestry didn't capture the dates, I can't search on them!




Returning to search filters, what else can I find? Removing the Ohio filter and adding the date filter, we get a different result.




Clicking into one of the records, I am now able to see what was indexed by Ancestry. Interestingly, the date of service was not indexed, but apparently the date of the entire record set was included. The Ohio company name was indexed, but there is no correlation that Lazarus lived in Ohio, which was the filter that I set.




Editing the search, I can set Ohio as a Keyword -- a word to be searched that might appear anywhere within the index. Requiring an Exact match on a Keyword is dangerous. I don't do that often, but within this record set, I wanted to see only the two Ohio records.




Now I see only the two records in which I am interested.



Frustrating? Definitely! Two entirely different record sets had information, but the filtering was not compatible with both.

Imagine facing this sort of a problem with a common name such as John Smith! What strategy can you use?

Start by picking the record set you want to search. Click into any record in the record set. Don't worry whether or not it is for your family member. Look through the text items -- not the image -- and see what information is indexed. Pick your search filters based only on what is indexed.

This strategy works on both Ancestry and Family Search. Searching on the indexed information within a single record set will reveal more and hide less.



A note for Maddox researchers: Captain Robert Bradshaw's company (first record set) was part of the Ohio 2nd Regiment. Both Colonel Robert Safford and Colonel James Renick were commanders in the 2nd Regiment.