Ancestry lookup needed

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Bob Bowers

Ancestry lookup needed

Legg inn av Bob Bowers » 14 des 2004 20:58:31

1895 Iowa State census

David M. McMillin (en) (an) or other born 1833 PA would be about 62 in
1895, Civil War vet
Nancy J. his wife same age

Thanks much

Bob Bowers
Lexington MA

Alan Jones

Re: Ancestry lookup needed

Legg inn av Alan Jones » 14 des 2004 21:13:22

The 1895 Iowa census on Ancestry is just an index.
It does not have the images. Here are all the Davids and Nancys.

David McMullin 11 Dubuque Co Iowa W Dubuque Dubuque Co Iowa
David McMullin 15 IA Cedar W Guthrie Jackson
David McMullen 75 Ohio W Shelby Harlan
David McMillen 58 Pennsylvania W Van Buren Birmingham
David McMullen 37 Michigan W Webster Wahkonsa;Fort Dodge;Fourth Ward
David S. McMillan 47 Penn W ??bert ?? East Watseter
David W. McMillan 1 Clay Co IA W Clay Peterson
David W. McMillan 25 Iowa Washington W Ottumwa
David A. McMillen 41 California W Winneshiek Decorah

Nancy E. McMillin 29 ?? W Page Buchanan
Nancy McMillen 42 Marion Co W Marion Knoxville
Nancy McMullin 15 Kansas W Monroe Mantria



"Bob Bowers" <boblex@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:boblex-A1F571.14583114122004@news.isp.giganews.com...
1895 Iowa State census

David M. McMillin (en) (an) or other born 1833 PA would be about 62 in
1895, Civil War vet
Nancy J. his wife same age

Thanks much

Bob Bowers
Lexington MA

Rich Heimlich

Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Rich Heimlich » 15 des 2004 00:31:32

Having just spent a couple hundred dollars for the next year, I'm now
wondering if people generally feel as if this service is worth it. So
far they have been for me because as a novice, I really don't know any
better yet, but also don't want to keep paying if there are better
(overall) ways to go about this that feature many of the same
benefits.

Their site does drive me a bit nuts as a computer developer myself.
That you can't do basic database searches like, "Show me all matches
where there is a "William, Mary and Dorothy" in the household, just
boggles my mind. Clearly they have the data stored in a database so
why not, especially for the money, give us that sort of access. It
would make finding misspellings a LOT easier. Searching NJ for all
William's (first name) about a certain age, is ridiculous.

I also notice that they claim to have the NJ Census online but it
never works for me. Also wondering about World War I registration
records and such. The nickel and dime-ing is also getting old. All
this money and I don't have access to World Trees? Come on.

Gjest

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 des 2004 01:01:57

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:31:32 -0500, Rich Heimlich <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:

All this money and I don't have access to World Trees?

http://www.ancestry.com/trees/awt/main.htm

I only subscribe to the census images anymore.

--

Dennis K.

Huntersglenn

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Huntersglenn » 15 des 2004 01:10:50

I have subscriptionis to both ancestry.com and genealogy.com, and
believe me, the searching is a heck of a lot better on ancestry.com than
it is over at genealogy.com. At genealogy.com, you're stuck with the
last name and you have to come up with every conceivable spelling. No
checking by first name or by birth year or place of birth, or getting
close matches. There are times when I'm convinced that the people who
indexed the census records at genealogy.com had some wild party
beforehand, got drunk on their butts and then sat down to read the
census records.

I'm not sure if I have the World Trees included in my subscription. If
I do, I never use them, mainly because they're only as reliable as the
research that was put into them. With all of the census records and
other records available on-line, I'd rather look up things myself than
rely on someone else's possibly flawed research.

Cathy

Rich Heimlich wrote:
Having just spent a couple hundred dollars for the next year, I'm now
wondering if people generally feel as if this service is worth it. So
far they have been for me because as a novice, I really don't know any
better yet, but also don't want to keep paying if there are better
(overall) ways to go about this that feature many of the same
benefits.

Their site does drive me a bit nuts as a computer developer myself.
That you can't do basic database searches like, "Show me all matches
where there is a "William, Mary and Dorothy" in the household, just
boggles my mind. Clearly they have the data stored in a database so
why not, especially for the money, give us that sort of access. It
would make finding misspellings a LOT easier. Searching NJ for all
William's (first name) about a certain age, is ridiculous.

I also notice that they claim to have the NJ Census online but it
never works for me. Also wondering about World War I registration
records and such. The nickel and dime-ing is also getting old. All
this money and I don't have access to World Trees? Come on.

CLARK1528

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av CLARK1528 » 15 des 2004 01:18:56

All depends on what you're looking for.

I'm a very experienced genealogy researcher, and I probably find something on
Ancestry nearly every day. Most of the time it's the census records, but the
WWI draft cards are another good source, as are maps, city directories, and
various vital record sources.

To me, convenience is a big factor. It's certainly more comfortable to sit at
my computer with a cup of coffee or whatever than to get dressed, drive 10
miles to the nearest library, find a parking place etc.

And, the closest National ARchives is 4 hours away.

I'd suggest you take some time to become familiar with the various records
Ancestry offers rather than just looking for surnames. Often knowing what
sources are available helps one explore more effective search procedures.

Jennifer Clark

Bruce Remick

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Bruce Remick » 15 des 2004 02:43:12

"Rich Heimlich" <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jktur051o6bp859pra1fggujlsosqfvi2o@4ax.com...
Having just spent a couple hundred dollars for the next year, I'm now
wondering if people generally feel as if this service is worth it. So
far they have been for me because as a novice, I really don't know any
better yet, but also don't want to keep paying if there are better
(overall) ways to go about this that feature many of the same
benefits.

Their site does drive me a bit nuts as a computer developer myself.
That you can't do basic database searches like, "Show me all matches
where there is a "William, Mary and Dorothy" in the household, just
boggles my mind. Clearly they have the data stored in a database so
why not, especially for the money, give us that sort of access. It
would make finding misspellings a LOT easier. Searching NJ for all
William's (first name) about a certain age, is ridiculous.

Maybe that will be a capability they can add eventually. It would indeed be
useful. The one thing Ancestry does have over it's (Census) competitors is
the ability to search names using Soundex spellings and to search on each
person in a family in most Census years. Most other services allow
searching only on the head of household. If all you know is that Mary Smith
married ____ Jones, there's no real way to search for that family. Ancestry
appears to be building toward an eventual "every person" index for all
census years.

I also notice that they claim to have the NJ Census online but it
never works for me. Also wondering about World War I registration
records and such. The nickel and dime-ing is also getting old. All
this money and I don't have access to World Trees? Come on.

NJ Census is there for me. You didn't mention which year you're having
problems with. I have a brick wall that will require an "every person"
search in NJ in the 1900 Census. Ancestry has about half of the states
"every person-capable" in 1900 so far, but not NJ. Until they add it, we
can only search 1900 NJ by head of household.

What are you wondering about the WW I draft registrations? As Ancestry adds
new states they are searchable for Ancestry US Records subscribers.

From what little I've seen and heard of World Trees, you're not missing
much.

Bruce

Rich Heimlich

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Rich Heimlich » 15 des 2004 08:55:55

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:10:50 -0500, Huntersglenn
<huntersglenn@cox.net> wrote:

indexed the census records at genealogy.com had some wild party
beforehand, got drunk on their butts and then sat down to read the
census records.

I couldn't find my mother's parent's in 1930 until I checked every
"May" in her known county and with a birthdate around hers. That
showed the "Herman" family listed as "Kerman". when you look at the
actual page, there's no doubt it's an H. Not even close to a K. Makes
me wonder if corrections are possible for the next guy.

other records available on-line, I'd rather look up things myself than
rely on someone else's possibly flawed research.

I agree. I just figured that someone might have a tree that ends up
close to mine and then I could contact them to see about sources and
such.

Rich Heimlich

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Rich Heimlich » 15 des 2004 09:02:21

On 15 Dec 2004 00:18:56 GMT, clark1528@aol.com (CLARK1528) wrote:

I'm a very experienced genealogy researcher, and I probably find something on
Ancestry nearly every day. Most of the time it's the census records, but the
WWI draft cards are another good source, as are maps, city directories, and
various vital record sources.

I have to start learning to use the info beyond the Census and the
somewhat basically helpful Social Security Birth/Death Index. WWI
draft cards I'm really excited about but NJ isn't online yet.

To me, convenience is a big factor. It's certainly more comfortable to sit at
my computer with a cup of coffee or whatever than to get dressed, drive 10
miles to the nearest library, find a parking place etc.

Well, that's one of the points to me. All this interest from the
Mormons and they don't have this data online? Seems like a huge
oversight. They provide so much at the Family History Centers but yet
don't go the one extra step. I see efforts underway to get the census
data out there for free, but those look like they'll finish up to 1930
long after I've let this world and I hope to still be in it for at
least 40 more years.

And, the closest National ARchives is 4 hours away.

I see there are two in Philly so I'm not that bad off. Just not
entirely sure of what I'd find there yet.

I'd suggest you take some time to become familiar with the various records
Ancestry offers rather than just looking for surnames. Often knowing what
sources are available helps one explore more effective search procedures.

Starting to do that now. They could do a better job of explaining it
all on the site.

Rich Heimlich

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Rich Heimlich » 15 des 2004 09:11:22

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:43:12 -0500, "Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net>
wrote:

NJ Census is there for me. You didn't mention which year you're having
problems with.

What I see is this:

Under Search Individual Census Databases I see "New Jersey Census,
1772-1890". If I enter any data into the screen that comes up next, I
get all sorts of hits for general US census but nothing to do with NJ
Census.

search in NJ in the 1900 Census.

I don't even see NJ 1900 as an option here, just 1900 US Census.

What are you wondering about the WW I draft registrations? As Ancestry adds
new states they are searchable for Ancestry US Records subscribers.

Just when NJ will be available. I suspect it will be of invaluable
help to me as the one key ancestor I'm looking for died late in 1918
in the flu epidemic and I suspect he filled one of these out which
could clear up a few conflicting items I already have.

Rich Heimlich

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Rich Heimlich » 15 des 2004 09:18:57

NJ Census is there for me.

Found one problem. I run Mozilla Firefox and for some reason it
doesn't work with this feature. Great..... IE lets the individual ones
work but I still don't see anything for NJ-specific past 1890.

Patscga

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Patscga » 15 des 2004 14:08:48

I've been subscribing for years. Couldn't get along without it.
Pat

Bruce Remick

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Bruce Remick » 15 des 2004 14:10:43

"Rich Heimlich" <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jurvr0l4tus2vpo6cfprddmsjt6hmbrepg@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:43:12 -0500, "Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net
wrote:

NJ Census is there for me. You didn't mention which year you're having
problems with.

What I see is this:

Under Search Individual Census Databases I see "New Jersey Census,
1772-1890". If I enter any data into the screen that comes up next, I
get all sorts of hits for general US census but nothing to do with NJ
Census.

We all seem to have different or personalized setups, but with my IE browser
I have Ancestry's "Search US Census Records" page preset as a "favorite" or
"bookmark" so I can go right there with one click. This window includes a
column of links to each census from 1790 at the bottom to 1930 at the top.
A click on any year link will bring up a search window with blanks to fill
in, one of which is the individual's state of residence and another of which
is the place of birth. You may be bringing up the wrong window to start
with.

search in NJ in the 1900 Census.

I don't even see NJ 1900 as an option here, just 1900 US Census.

As described above, click on that 1900 Census link and then fill in the
search form. Select NJ from the "All Available States" dropdown menu on the
second line.

What are you wondering about the WW I draft registrations? As Ancestry
adds
new states they are searchable for Ancestry US Records subscribers.

Just when NJ will be available. I suspect it will be of invaluable
help to me as the one key ancestor I'm looking for died late in 1918
in the flu epidemic and I suspect he filled one of these out which
could clear up a few conflicting items I already have.

I don't believe that Ancestry has published a schedule as to which or when
specific states will be added. Only 19 states completed so far.


Bruce

Huntersglenn

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Huntersglenn » 15 des 2004 19:40:03

Rich Heimlich wrote:
NJ Census is there for me.


Found one problem. I run Mozilla Firefox and for some reason it
doesn't work with this feature. Great..... IE lets the individual ones
work but I still don't see anything for NJ-specific past 1890.

I use Netscape 7.1, but I've also accessed ancestry.com through IE and
haven't found the process to be any different.

When you first log in at ancestry.com, go to the home page. There
should be a box there, in the bottom left hand corner, showing the
various census years. At this point, your only choices are the census
years, and not the individual states.

Select a year and you should then get a search page. There are blanks
there for first name, last name, state, county, township and various
other blanks that correspond with a particular census year. At this
point, you have to tell ancestry which state you want to search through.
So, as an example, I selected the 1930 census, then put in the last
name Heimlich, left the first name blank, and then selected New Jersey.
After that, I get the 440 approximate matches (because I did a "Best
Matches" search, and not an exact search.

It's usually better to use the drop down menu that ancestry provides as
opposed to typing in the name of the state, especially with earlier
census records since there are many states that for one reason or
another, aren't accounted for. For instance, there's nothing for
Virginia in the 1790 census (there are a few other states missing from
that census as well).

Now, if you're starting your search from the "Search Records" page and
not the Home page, then you're given different options. That's where
you find the categories for "Featured Census Collections" and "Search
Individual Databases". This is where you're finding that "New Jersey
Census, 1772-1890". I've not had much with getting those databases to
come up. Whenever I select a database and hit "Go", it brings me back
to the same page, which is why I prefer to use the options on the Home page.

Let me know if you have better luck that way.

Cathy

Tara

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Tara » 15 des 2004 20:34:07

"Huntersglenn" <huntersglenn@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jx%vd.1029$Tf5.1009@lakeread03...
<snip>
It's usually better to use the drop down menu that ancestry provides as
opposed to typing in the name of the state, especially with earlier census
records since there are many states that for one reason or another, aren't
accounted for. For instance, there's nothing for Virginia in the 1790
census (there are a few other states missing from that census as well).


On the 1790 census search page, at the bottom under "Additional Info" it
tells about how some of the schedules for the 1790 census came to be
missing. Often when I find missing bits like that, it'll mention it in their
description of the database.

Now, if you're starting your search from the "Search Records" page and not
the Home page, then you're given different options. That's where you find
the categories for "Featured Census Collections" and "Search Individual
Databases". This is where you're finding that "New Jersey Census,
1772-1890". I've not had much with getting those databases to come up.
Whenever I select a database and hit "Go", it brings me back to the same
page, which is why I prefer to use the options on the Home page.

All of those grouped census indexes like that are from a bunch that Ancestry
bought from another source when they were first starting out. There was a
discussion about it here a few years back. I don't remember the details of
where they came from, but they are a completely separate index from the ones
Ancestry compiled themselves. I've had some luck with them in the past when
I wasn't getting a hit from the regular index. I'd try there and sometimes
the transcriber had read the name differently and I'd get a hit. Then I'd
could just go into the images manually and access the entire household info.
For awhile, they were the only indexes that Ancestry had for the 1860-1880
censuses. I haven't had to use them much the last couple years though.

--
Tara Larkin
Remove NO SPAM to reply by email.

Tara

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Tara » 15 des 2004 20:52:37

"Rich Heimlich" <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jktur051o6bp859pra1fggujlsosqfvi2o@4ax.com...
<snip>.
Their site does drive me a bit nuts as a computer developer myself.
That you can't do basic database searches like, "Show me all matches
where there is a "William, Mary and Dorothy" in the household, just
boggles my mind. Clearly they have the data stored in a database so
why not, especially for the money, give us that sort of access. It
would make finding misspellings a LOT easier. Searching NJ for all
William's (first name) about a certain age, is ridiculous.
snip


One problem with that is that they haven't grouped most of their census info
by household, only as individuals. Perhaps if they could add in a "page
number" field to their search criteria, (or something similar that is
already in the database) it would come close to doing what you want without
having to completely re-index the census to add a "Household" field.

Some of their passenger lists have family group numbers which is similar to
what you want. When I find a close match on a passenger list, I can search
again using just the family group number and find out who else came over
with them.

One other method I've had some luck with is the "Keyword" field on their
searches. I can't think offhand how to use it effectively on a census
search, but I've had luck with it on marriage records and things like that
where I know two names to search for. Some of the marriage indexes have two
spouse fields, but when they don't, one name in the keyword field can really
help cut down results when it's a common surname.

And as frustrating as searching Ancestry can be, as others have pointed out,
Genealogy.com is much worse. At least the Ancestry programmers appear to
have asked a few genealogists some questions before designing the databases,
and some of our feedback seems to be getting through, because the new
databases are getting better all the time..... well, except for the
newspaper searches. But that's a whole other discussion....

--Tara

Rich Heimlich

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Rich Heimlich » 15 des 2004 21:47:34

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:10:43 -0500, "Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net>
wrote:

We all seem to have different or personalized setups, but with my IE browser
I have Ancestry's "Search US Census Records" page preset as a "favorite" or
"bookmark" so I can go right there with one click. This window includes a
column of links to each census from 1790 at the bottom to 1930 at the top.
A click on any year link will bring up a search window with blanks to fill
in, one of which is the individual's state of residence and another of which
is the place of birth. You may be bringing up the wrong window to start
with.

What you describe above is the US Census, not the NJ Census. You're
just searching for NJ residents of the US Census. NJ ran their own
census apart from the Federal census generally every 10 years on the
5's between the Federal, so 1885, 1905, 1915...

I don't believe that Ancestry has published a schedule as to which or when
specific states will be added. Only 19 states completed so far.

I can't wait!

Rich Heimlich

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Rich Heimlich » 15 des 2004 21:51:06

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:43:38 -0500, Huntersglenn
<huntersglenn@cox.net> wrote:

Select a year and you should then get a search page. There are blanks
there for first name, last name, state, county, township and various
other blanks that correspond with a particular census year. At this

Again, what you're describing is different from what I'm looking for
(and have no found, though with poor results). You're describing
searching for NJ residents of the US Census. There is also a NJ Census
that has nothing to do with the US Census that NJ ran every 10 years
between the Federal US Census (1885, 1895, 1905, etc.)

Individual Databases". This is where you're finding that "New Jersey
Census, 1772-1890". I've not had much with getting those databases to

That's what I was talking about. I can't get it to come up in Firefox
but it comes up with no problem in IE.

bob gillis

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av bob gillis » 15 des 2004 22:14:40

Rich Heimlich wrote:
That's what I was talking about. I can't get it to come up in Firefox
but it comes up with no problem in IE.

That is a known problem. The older Mr Sid does not work in Firefox or
Netscape 7.x

bob gillis

ecunningham

Ancestry & NJ Census

Legg inn av ecunningham » 15 des 2004 22:35:28

Rich Heimlich wrote:

What you describe above is the US Census, not the NJ Census. You're
just searching for NJ residents of the US Census. NJ ran their own
census apart from the Federal census generally every 10 years on the
5's between the Federal, so 1885, 1905, 1915...

Rich: You will have a long wait for this one! The state census are not
indexed or soundexed and in some cases are in horrendous conditon to
the point of being unreadable! However, they (along with the WWI
draft) have been filmed by LDS and are available at some local NJ
libraries, the state library and thru LDS Family History Centers if
you can't wait. BTW, the state census also had huge errors--missing
people, changes of sex, changes of nationality, wrong first names,
initials only, grossly phonetic spelling, etc. Plus 1915 was the last
one.
ecunningham@att.net

Mark Barnett

Re: Is Ancestry.com one of the best sources?

Legg inn av Mark Barnett » 22 des 2004 05:05:47

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:55:55 -0500, Rich Heimlich
<agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:10:50 -0500, Huntersglenn
huntersglenn@cox.net> wrote:

I couldn't find my mother's parent's in 1930 until I checked every
"May" in her known county and with a birthdate around hers. That
showed the "Herman" family listed as "Kerman". when you look at the
actual page, there's no doubt it's an H. Not even close to a K. Makes
me wonder if corrections are possible for the next guy.

Ancestry.com is allowing you to submit corrections.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «alt.genealogy»