Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with everyone who suggested using familySearch.org. For those who want to use it for the censuses, you can get a lot more free information on familysearch.org than on ancestry.com. For example, if you searched for "John Smith" on ancestry.com, the name, spouse, birth and residence are all that come up in the search whereas on familysearch.org, you will get a lot more - this is an example of a John Smith's basic record:
I'm not sure where you got this idea from - at ancestry.com, the index of the census includes all the same information that it does on familysearch.org. In particular, on the US 1940 census, there is actually more info which is index on ancestry.com than on familysearch.org. This is the info of the exact same record of John W Smith that you linked to, from Ancestry.com:
Name: John W Smith
Age: 58
Estimated birth year: abt 1882
Gender: Male
Race: White
Birthplace: Maryland
Marital Status: Married
Relation to Head of House: Husband
Home in 1940: Dover, Kent, Delaware
Map of Home in 1940: View Map
Street: Queen St
Inferred Residence in 1935: Dover, Kent, Delaware
Residence in 1935: Same House
Sheet Number: 8B
Occupation: Manager
Attended School or College: No
Highest Grade Completed: Elementary school, 7th grade
Class of Worker: Working on own account
Weeks Worked in 1939: 52
Income: 0
Income Other Sources: Yes
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members:
Name Age
Hilda Smith 39
John W Smith 58
Alton Smith 31
Mary B Smith 4
Martha Burrie 25
As you can see, it includes not only all the info on the FamilySearch record but also the street name he was living on, his occupation, highest grade completed, how many weeks he worked in 1939, income, etc. None of that info is index on the same record at FamilySearch.
I'm not sure where you got this idea from - at ancestry.com, the index of the census includes all the same information that it does on familysearch.org. In particular, on the US 1940 census, there is actually more info which is index on ancestry.com than on familysearch.org. This is the info of the exact same record of John W Smith that you linked to, from Ancestry.com:
Name: John W Smith
Age: 58
Estimated birth year: abt 1882
Gender: Male
Race: White
Birthplace: Maryland
Marital Status: Married
Relation to Head of House: Husband
Home in 1940: Dover, Kent, Delaware
Map of Home in 1940: View Map
Street: Queen St
Inferred Residence in 1935: Dover, Kent, Delaware
Residence in 1935: Same House
Sheet Number: 8B
Occupation: Manager
Attended School or College: No
Highest Grade Completed: Elementary school, 7th grade
Class of Worker: Working on own account
Weeks Worked in 1939: 52
Income: 0
Income Other Sources: Yes
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members:
Name Age
Hilda Smith 39
John W Smith 58
Alton Smith 31
Mary B Smith 4
Martha Burrie 25
As you can see, it includes not only all the info on the FamilySearch record but also the street name he was living on, his occupation, highest grade completed, how many weeks he worked in 1939, income, etc. None of that info is index on the same record at FamilySearch.
You might have missed my point. I was talking about what one can see for FREE. I am not a paying member of ancestry.com, thus all I can see for free is this (using a different random person):
Name: Janet Brandon
[Janet Smith] Birth: abt 1909 - locationResidence: 1935 - city, Los Angeles, CaliforniaResidence: city, Los Angeles, California
if I click on "view image", it tells me I have to pay for the access (I am logged in as a non-paying member). Thus, I was trying to point out that, for me anyway, I can see more for FREE on familysearch.org than ancestry.com. In fact, no-one has to be a member of anything, paying or non-paying, to see the info on familysearch.org.
I am a member of ancestry.com but not one with a current active paying account. I do note that I can see slightly more if I am signed in that if I hadn't ever joined but obviously I don't have the access that currently paying customers do.
Btw I like ancestry.com. I was just pointing out that some things are free to see on familysearch.org that aren't free to see on ancestry.com.
Last edited by susankate; 03-01-2015 at 05:15 PM..
You might have missed my point. I was talking about what one can see for FREE. I am not a paying member of ancestry.com, thus all I can see for free is this (using a different random person):
Name: Janet Brandon
[Janet Smith] Birth: abt 1909 - locationResidence: 1935 - city, Los Angeles, CaliforniaResidence: city, Los Angeles, California
if I click on "view image", it tells me I have to pay for the access (I am logged in as a non-paying member). Thus, I was trying to point out that, for me anyway, I can see more for FREE on familysearch.org than ancestry.com. In fact, no-one has to be a member of anything, paying or non-paying, to see the info on familysearch.org.
I am a member of ancestry.com but not one with a current active paying account. I do note that I can see slightly more if I am signed in that if I hadn't ever joined but obviously I don't have the access that currently paying customers do.
Btw I like ancestry.com. I was just pointing out that some things are free to see on familysearch.org that aren't free to see on ancestry.com.
Well, when I log into my free, non-paying Ancestry.com account, this is what the free 1940 census shows me:
Name: Janet Brandon
[Janet Smith]
Age: 31
Estimated birth year: abt 1909
Gender: Female
Race: White
Birthplace: New Jersey
Marital Status: Divorced
Relation to Head of House: Daughter
Home in 1940: Pasadena, Los Angeles, California
Map of Home in 1940: View Map
Street: East Villa Street Bowen Court
Inferred Residence in 1935: Pasadena, Los Angeles, California
Residence in 1935: Same Place
Resident on farm in 1935: No
Sheet Number: 4A
Occupation: Telephone Operator
Attended School or College: No
Highest Grade Completed: High School, 4th year
Duration of Unemployment: 14
Class of Worker: Wage or salary worker in private work
Weeks Worked in 1939: 52
Income: 1144
Income Other Sources: No
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members:
Name Age
Bertha Smith 64
Janet Brandon 31
The 1940 census index is free on Ancestry.com and again, I copy and pasted this from my non-paying account. I double checked I was logged into my non-paying account - my account details say "registered guest" which means non-paying. I even used a different browser to make sure it didn't auto log me into my paying account (I have a non-paying account for the purpose of being able to check what is available for free on Ancestry.com, just like this). If it's prompting you to pay, you must not be logged in or something. Or perhaps it's because you have paid in the past but cancelled? Try registering with a totally free account, one that's never had a credit card attached to it - use a different email address and follow the instructions here: Genealogical Musings: Ancestry.com Myths: No Free Account Without Trial
Well, when I log into my free, non-paying Ancestry.com account, this is what the free 1940 census shows me:
Name: Janet Brandon
[Janet Smith]
Age: 31
Estimated birth year: abt 1909
Gender: Female
Race: White
Birthplace: New Jersey
Marital Status: Divorced
Relation to Head of House: Daughter
Home in 1940: Pasadena, Los Angeles, California
Map of Home in 1940: View Map
Street: East Villa Street Bowen Court
Inferred Residence in 1935: Pasadena, Los Angeles, California
Residence in 1935: Same Place
Resident on farm in 1935: No
Sheet Number: 4A
Occupation: Telephone Operator
Attended School or College: No
Highest Grade Completed: High School, 4th year
Duration of Unemployment: 14
Class of Worker: Wage or salary worker in private work
Weeks Worked in 1939: 52
Income: 1144
Income Other Sources: No
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members:
Name Age
Bertha Smith 64
Janet Brandon 31
The 1940 census index is free on Ancestry.com and again, I copy and pasted this from my non-paying account. I double checked I was logged into my non-paying account - my account details say "registered guest" which means non-paying. I even used a different browser to make sure it didn't auto log me into my paying account (I have a non-paying account for the purpose of being able to check what is available for free on Ancestry.com, just like this). If it's prompting you to pay, you must not be logged in or something. Or perhaps it's because you have paid in the past but cancelled? Try registering with a totally free account, one that's never had a credit card attached to it - use a different email address and follow the instructions here: Genealogical Musings: Ancestry.com Myths: No Free Account Without Trial
Thanks for the link to Genealogical Musings - however, I did know that one could join and search a lot of stuff without paying - I was a registered guest long before I used my credit card to first "subscribe" in order to use my "free fortnight". Even now, I still use my account a lot as a search tool but as the article points out, a lot less can be seen if one doesn't have a subscription that if one does.
Perhaps you can access more because you are in the US? I am in Australia.
I did note that if one searches for a name via google and the entry says "XX in the 1940 census", then a census image can be accessed but it was usually a random person called XX and if one wanted a specific one, that person couldn't be accessed for free. Also, I searched via a specific link for the 1940s census and if one went in and hovered the cursor over "view record", it would bring up the info for a split second then go to the usual "there is more to see". Back to the google search, there would also always be link to archives.com and a couple of other sites and the archives.com link allowed one to search and access the 1940s census for the person one wanted. So for this particular commenter who is a "registered guest", it is easier for me to use other links to check out the 1940 census. Perhaps it is because I am Australian, i.e an international visitor, and not in the US. Also, I've been trying to think back to when I did have a paying account as well as a spare non-registered account and I have a feeling that more information was available to me while searching on my non-registered account during the time my other account was "subscribed" than now when both accounts are non-registered.
Well, as I learned just last Saturday: Don't dawdle if you have a new piece of info...put it out there, and see if someone else connects with it.
Months ago I got a NYS death cert. for my grt. grandfather. And I was surprised that it contained the names of his parents in Ireland...in my experience with immigrants this is often skipped or reduced to last name of father only. Well, I belong to several web sites, including some in Ireland. One is even divided into sections specific to very small geographical areas, and I have posted about my two most difficult grt. grandparents before. There were tantalizing duplicate names in public records, but nothing more than that.
Finally after months of dawdling I put the info about my grt. grandfather's parents on the site. Within a few hours I had an excited response. A local man who had been in touch with before, wrote excitedly "Yes! I think we have it." (meaning something that tangible link these people to this area.)
And indeed, in a few hours he was back with his tree, that of a friend and an Irish death certificate. Seems my grt. grandfather had a sister whom I had no knowledge of, who was present at this father's death (in her house it seems), and a good bit of info. from the cert. as well. Furthermore, having this info it was easy for these two men to follow her and her children down on their trees, and they came across connexions to my grt. grandmother's brother in Ireland, for whom I had only a name. It seems that my grt. grandfather's niece in Ireland, married his wife's nephew, and this union leads to the connexion with the two fellows who helped me.
Furthermore, it looks like I can now legitimately link to two families in Ireland with my surname, whom I visited forty-five years ago in an effort to establish a connexion based on old letters. At the time it seemed only possible, but not even the oldest in his eighties could remember it. What it looks to have been the case is that the connexion was one generation further back than we thought...and out of memory.
So, I would encourage anyone with new data to put it out there asap so that others who are following trees allied with yours can take a look at it. I feel both foolish and elated that I finally got around to itl
This is interesting, and thank you for bringing it up. I guess I always assume that if someone has their tree private that means they don't want to be bothered and they don't wish to share anything. A lot of times I see "hits" on an ancestor but it's in a private tree, so I just skip over it, believing the person would never share any info with me if I asked.
Same with the DNA matches. I get so frustrated when I see so many "very high confidence" cousin matches, and the person has a tree with over 10,000 people, but it's private. Do you think they really want to be bothered by a message from someone like me?
I always figure making it private is like having an unlisted phone number: it means "Do Not Disturb." At least that's what it would me to me if I did it.
Are you one of the very few private tree owners who want to help others, or do you think a lot of the others feel like you do? I'm really reluctant to make a pest of myself with strangers.
Not at all. I keep my primary tree private because I store speculative connections in it for further research, and I don't want anyone to copy inaccurate information. If you contact me, I will happily share my information!
Hello all, first time posting on this thread, I think. I appreciate all your tips so I will post a couple. Being a long time Mason, I emailed the Missouri Masonic Lodge and asked for several of my ancestors entry dates. I received my dads and g/fathers but also great grandfathers which I wasn't sure if he was. Also my maternal greatgrandfather who the MO Masonic Lodge said they didn't have his entry date but they had his transfer date from Mena, Arkansas. I had no clue he was in Arkansas as he was born and raised in upper Missouri and later in Independence and Kansas City, Mo. where he transferred his membership in 1901. I did the same for my moms and grandmothers Eastern Star membership. Missouri encouraged me to add my folks affiliations along with moms high schools Rainbow Girls and dads high schools DeMolay dates. The organizations in Missouri didn't ask for fees like the Indiana Masonic Lodge did. I understand the Arkansas Masonic Lodge will NOT transmit anything electronically unless they have changed in the last five years.
One of my "golden rules" with genealogical research is to verify what you find with original records!
For instance, you find a date and place of birth on a man's World War I draft card. Even when you find the same information on his death certificate, I always will look for, and hopefully find, the original record of birth and/or baptism (whichever is applicable). I can not tell you how many times I have come across inaccurate information on things like marriage or death certificates, or even tomb stones having the wrong date or year of birth.
Also, never assume! Ever. Even when you see two people with an unusual surname in a small town, verify to the best of your ability that they are or are not related. Never assume a connection or anything else. Primary sources are one of your best friends in Genealogy.
Birth and death certificates are great, if you are researching relatively recent people. But prior to the mid 1800s, good luck finding those primary sources.
And with my ancestors, baptisms never seem to happen at the time of birth. Some of them happen when the kid is 4-5 years old, and the birth date is written down there, but it's not a primary source, it's just what the parent told the minister, from their memory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
