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.
What do you do in the case where searching for a married and maiden name yields nothing? This is for a great grandparent, and I have the hand typed family history from my grandmother stating her names. In this case, she was Slovenian, immigrated from Austria and lived in a nearby town where my grandmother was born. I cant seem to find any sign of her in the records, even using her nick name
.
Are you just typing in the name on the search line?
Sometimes that doesn't help. My family surnames are not that difficult, but they get chopped up. Sometimes I wonder how they came up with what is written down. But then we were " foreigners" back then.
I have a general idea of where they lived during each census and have had to go line by line to look for them. Have had great success.
Once you find them and you see that the name was transcribed incorrectly, you can add your version to the index. It will help others when they type in a name.
Why are my recent relatives not even showing up? Is their content based solely on information that other subscribers have entered, or does the site itself make an effort to draw from, and provide it's own access to public databases?
There are a variety of record collections on ACOM but mostly, ACOM hires people to scan and index records. There are options for subscribers to enter alternate spellings but the original indexing is not dismissed.
As mentioned, if your ancestors names were unusual or foreign, you might be having trouble finding them because names like that were often recorded incorrectly. I have an Italian branch and they are VERY difficult to research because Italian names so often were misspelled.
Additionally, ACOM's international records are very hit and miss so if your grandparents or great grandparents were first generation immigrants, you might not be finding them because their foreign records aren't on ACOM.
Also, similarly to name misspellings, make sure you are not expecting every little detail of your ancestor to be exactly right on every document. I've seen some people new to genealogy who dismiss records, especially census records, because although the individual has the right name and is in the right place, the birth year is one year off. They don't understand that the birth year on most census records is calculated by the recorded age and therefore is approximate. Even when the year is recorded, it's subject to the informant's knowledge and enumerator's accuracy. They also don't understand that census data is recorded for demographic purposes, not identification, therefore exact details weren't of a huge priority. So don't dismiss a record just because the birth year is slightly off, or maybe the birth location is incorrect. Heck, I've even seen gender recorded incorrectly.
If you tell us the names of who you're trying to research and when/where they were born (assuming they are deceased, do not give out the info of living individuals), we can do a search and see if there's anything you're doing wrong or if ACOM is just not the resource for you.
I find FamilySearch superior to Ancestry for my MA/PN/VA/OH/MO based relatives. I think overall, for the money. You are far better off using FamilySearch and ordering microfilm at your local FamilySearchCenter. $99 or whatever the current subscription is to Ancestry rents a lot of roll of $5.50 microfilm as FamilySearch.
My generalized comment would be, unless you are willing to take a lot of the tutorials at FamilySearch (or whatever the equivalent is at Ancestry) and take the time to read several books on Genealogy I would not even bother with either. There is far too much bad information out there, even so called established lineages, and far too many suggestions of additions to family trees that you are likely to just assemble a family tree of very questionable lineage. If you don’t have the time to do it right now, just put it off. Indexing will only get better and the searches better in the future. What may take a take a talented genealogist years to research and ferret out today may be accomplished in a matter of minutes 10, 15 or 20 years in the future.
For those with the time and inclination, the challenge presented by the limits of indexing today are part of the charm. Right now you are probably looking at the most exciting period of genealogical research. There are a lot of clues if you know where and how and have the means to look. Eventually an AI program will be able to access the same date that requires planes trains and automobiles in milliseconds, but for right now we are in the sweet spot of the balance between access to data and adventuresome self discovery.
One more comment on Ancestry. I have never gotten a satisfactory explanation as to what the real difference is between the library edition many use for free and the regular subscription model. Supposedly the library edition has less access, but it seems to remain a rather opaque concept. The point is, it may be that those who use the free library edition are actually missing things that are present; then again that may not be true. I have no idea.
I signed in for a free trial and started typing in names of great grandparents and got zero results on both sides.
I don't see how the site can be any use to me if it cant even bring up names of my recent relatives. Am I missing something here?
Why are my recent relatives not even showing up? Is their content based solely on information that other subscribers have entered, or does the site itself make an effort to draw from, and provide it's own access to public databases?
Would love any and all feedback on the usefulness of the site and how much information it can actually provide. When you watch WDYTYA on tv, they all use the site and make it appear as if the site will magically provide detailed info on everyone at the wave of a finger - I knew this was not true, but I at least assumed that a simple search would be able to find at least one grandparent, or great grandparent.
I ended up not extending the free trial. I found nothing I didn't already know and I know very little. No leaves for me.
I don't know why recent relatives don't show up. I understand that census data has not been released but if you can find a cousin who is also working on a family tree you might be able to get more information.
I just used Google and put in a name of my Czech relative and I got a treasure trove.
Some man interested in my ancestor's village in Bohemia did me such a favor by searching on all the census records from 1900 to 1940 and wrote out everything he found, including tidbits about them, tragedies, children out of wedlock and addresses where they lived. He even named the ships they came over on.
I now have extensive info on my grandfather's Bohemian side, including all of his 7 sibs.
What luck to find this !!!
That is a good idea, PhxBarb, putting a name of a relative in Google for relevant searches. I had been able to find some useful information this way as well. Usually if you put the entire name in quotes, you get more relevant search results.
Example:
"John M Jones" 1890-1930
Sometimes I include the birth and death dates as well for searches. Typically, I find some valid results on Find-A-Grave using Google searches on ancestors.
Back to the topic at hand, Ancestry.com has been very useful in my research overall. I only subscribe to it when I know there is free time for me to use it. I don't have an ongoing subscription. I think the 2 week free trial can be useful for some to find out.
I have never had a problem cancelling the service, but I do read the fine print on the terms of service to make sure there are no issues.
I ended up not extending the free trial. I found nothing I didn't already know and I know very little. No leaves for me.
I don't know why recent relatives don't show up. I understand that census data has not been released but if you can find a cousin who is also working on a family tree you might be able to get more information.
It's a privacy issue. People listed in trees who are living are private. Unless your recent relative is dead and gone, and noted so by the people running the tree, their name will be marked by Ancestry as PRIVATE. I am on a number of trees online from cousins... and I don't come up because I am still here.
Soon after my mom died, she started showing up, because her information was no longer private and the owners of trees noted her death.
It is much harder to find info on recent relatives than older ones. A lot of the info s protected by law, like census records that cannot be shared for 70 years. My mother is 82 and I only found the first online record of her when the 1940 census came out in 2011. Most personal info and records are kept essentially sealed for around 70 year or longer depending on the record type.
I do agree with the person who said to wait 10 years and online info will be so much better. I actually started looking online 15 years ago and dabbled on an early genealogy website, and had the same thought, so here I am 15 years later, not wanting to wait another 10, lol.
This particular great grandparent had no name change coming from europe, as her husband and children's names all come up ok. All I know of her is from my grandmother's written account, where it briefly mentions her, then "an illness" and she disappears and there is only mention of her being raised by her father. Growing up, I was always told that she was sent away to the mental hospital, but those things were never spoken of back then and it seems that the old records from the hospital are now under lock and key. I would really love to know her diagnosis and where/how she met her end.
I just cant figure out why I can find the other family members, her husband and children listed in various places, but not her, even under alternate spelling and nicknames.
I do agree with the person who said to wait 10 years and online info will be so much better. I actually started looking online 15 years ago and dabbled on an early genealogy website, and had the same thought, so here I am 15 years later, not wanting to wait another 10, lol.
This particular great grandparent had no name change coming from europe, as her husband and children's names all come up ok. All I know of her is from my grandmother's written account, where it briefly mentions her, then "an illness" and she disappears and there is only mention of her being raised by her father. Growing up, I was always told that she was sent away to the mental hospital, but those things were never spoken of back then and it seems that the old records from the hospital are now under lock and key. I would really love to know her diagnosis and where/how she met her end.
I just cant figure out why I can find the other family members, her husband and children listed in various places, but not her, even under alternate spelling and nicknames.
I'm researching mainly British records and have found that, in census records, people in mental hospitals (or lunatic asylums as they were called in UK) were usually listed with just their initials. Maybe they did the same in US censuses? If you know which town/area she was likely to be in you might be able to find her by checking the hospital census records. Obviously many initials are pretty common, but if age and birthplace match up it would at least give you something to go on.
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.
