Saturday Night Genealogy Fun: Describe an Ancestor/Relative's Activities

Randy Seaver is leading us down the AI path again for this week's Saturday Night Genealogy Fun.  I decided to play along.

Come on, everybody, join in and accept the mission and execute it with precision.

1.  Do you know what activities one of your ancestors/relatives engaged in?  How much detail do you know about those activities?

2.  Use the FREE artificial intelligence tool Google Gemini 3 to describe what your ancestor or relative experienced in his/her activities (e.g., military service, a ship he migrated on, an occupation, an office she held, etc.).

3.  Share your ancestor/relative's activity of interest and description of that person's experiences in your own blog post or in a Facebook, SubStack, BlueSky, or other social media post.  Leave a link to your post on this blog post to help us find your post.

This turned out to be more interesting than I expected.

I had not used Gemini 3 prior to this, so I really did not know what to expect.  I used Randy's question about his uncle as inspiration and chose to ask about my father's service in the National Guard.  After my father died in 2019, I learned he had been in the New Jersey and the Florida National Guard.  He served in Florida from August 31, 1953 to August 30, 1956 and then from August 31, 1956 to June 5, 1957.  The reason for his discharge as an SP-3 in 1957 was that he was "Moving from state."

Putting these dates together with what else was going on in his life around that time was enlightening.  He married his first wife, Mary Lou Bowen, on December 11, 1956 in Miami.  My half-sister Laurie was born in New Jersey on September 17, 1957.  So he married Mary Lou while he was in the Guard, was discharged from the Guard, and they moved back to New Jersey (where both of them were from originally) before Laurie was born.

My father told us almost nothing about his National Guard service.  I opted to focus on his last year of service to keep the question more manageable.  So I went to the page from the link in Randy's post.  I noticed below the data entry area there were "Tools" on the left and "Fast" on the right, but I did not investigate or attempt to change them.  I typed my query in the text box:

"What did an SP-3 do in the Florida National Guard in 1956–1957?"

I got a couple of paragraphs I could see and then the text faded out.  All I could read was:

===
In 1956 and 1957, an SP-3 (Specialist 3rd Class) in the Florida National Guard was a technical expert who held the pay grade of E-4.

This rank was part of a newly established "Specialist" system created in July 1955 to distinguish skilled technicians from Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) who held command and leadership authority.
===

I couldn't make the page scroll, so I wondered if I had done something wrong or somehow annoyed the gods of AI.  I thought, "Maybe that's because I left it on Fast, so it's really short?"  So I opened Gemini 3 in another tab and clicked the arrow next to Fast.  I found "Thinking" as an option and chose that, then typed my query again.  This time I got:

===
SP-3 Role in Florida National Guard

You said

What did an SP-3 do in the Florida National Guard in 1956-1957?

Defining the Role

My initial focus is on defining the role of an "SP-3" within the Florida National Guard during 1956-1957. I'm starting by clarifying the rank and its responsibilities, aiming to provide a concise explanation of what this role entailed. I believe that understanding the SP-3 rank will allow the user to easily understand and answer their initial question.
===

and again I couldn't scroll down the page.  While I was trying to figure out what I was supposed to do, at some point I tried my down arrow, and that worked!  Suddenly I could see more text.  When I went back to my first query, it worked there also.  No surprise, "Thinking" has more information and more detail than "Fast", so I'm using that response for this post.

===
SP-3 Role in Florida National Guard

You said

What did an SP-3 do in the Florida National Guard in 1956-1957?

Defining the Role

My initial focus is on defining the role of an "SP-3" within the Florida National Guard during 1956-1957. I'm starting by clarifying the rank and its responsibilities, aiming to provide a concise explanation of what this role entailed. I believe that understanding the SP-3 rank will allow the user to easily understand and answer their initial question.

Clarifying the Pay Grade

I'm now zeroing in on the correct pay grade for an SP-3 in the 1956-1957 timeframe, which involved an adjustment. My previous assumption was incorrect, and I've verified that an SP-3 in 1955 was equivalent to an E-4, which is equivalent to a Corporal (not a Private First Class). It is critical to get the rank structure right. I am now working on understanding this rank's responsibilities.

Pinpointing the Grade

I've confirmed that the SP-3 rank was indeed equivalent to an E-4 pay grade, which is the same as a Corporal in the 1956-1957 timeframe. I needed to clarify this based on some conflicting sources, but I've now verified it. I also determined that Specialists were technical experts who did not command, but were compensated for their skills. I am working on the Florida National Guard context.

To understand what an SP-3 (Specialist 3rd Class) did in the Florida National Guard in 1956–1957, you have to look at a very specific, short-lived window in U.S. Army history.

In 1955, the Army overhauled its rank system to distinguish between Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs), who led troops, and Specialists, who were technical experts.

The Rank: Specialist 3rd Class (SP-3)

In 1956 and 1957, the SP-3 rank was equivalent to a Corporal (E-4) in terms of pay, but not in terms of authority.

• The "Technical" Soldier: While a Corporal was a junior NCO expected to lead a fireteam or squad in combat, an SP-3 was a "technical" soldier. They were paid for their proficiency in a specific trade rather than their leadership of men.

• The Insignia: They wore a smaller version of the eagle (the "Bird") with one arc (stripe) underneath it. This is different from the modern "Spec-4" rank you might be familiar with, as the system was still being tweaked.

---

What did they actually do?

An SP-3 in the Florida National Guard during this era was likely the "go-to" person for a specific technical job within their unit. Since the National Guard at the time was heavily focused on Cold War readiness and local disaster response, their roles usually fell into these categories:

• Maintenance & Mechanical: They were the mechanics keeping the Jeep fleets, M41 Walker Bulldog tanks (common in FLNG at the time), and transport trucks running.

• Communications: Radio operators and repairmen. In the mid-50s, this meant dealing with vacuum tubes and heavy, temperamental field radios.

• Clerical & Supply: Managing the massive amount of paperwork required for armory operations, payroll, and equipment requisition.

• Medical: Serving as a company medic or technician at a field hospital.

The Florida Context (1956–1957)

Life for an SP-3 in the Florida Guard involved more than just "weekend warrior" duties.

1. Annual Training at Camp Blanding: During the summer, they would head to Camp Blanding (near Starke, FL) for two weeks of intensive field maneuvers. As an SP-3, they would have been responsible for the technical upkeep of equipment in the Florida heat.

2. The Pentomic Era: The Army was experimenting with "Pentomic" divisions—units designed to survive a tactical nuclear battlefield. An SP-3 would have been trained in new, specialized equipment designed for this high-tech (for the time) warfare.

3. Civil Rights & Natural Disasters: This era saw the beginning of the Civil Rights movement and frequent hurricanes. The Florida Guard was often on standby for "state active duty" to maintain order or provide relief after storms.

---

Summary Table: SP-3 (1955–1958)

Feature	Description
Pay Grade	E-4 (Equivalent to Corporal)
Primary Focus	Technical/Administrative Skill
Command Authority	Limited (did not usually lead squads)
Common Jobs	Mechanic, Radio Op, Clerk, Medic, Gunner

In 1958, the Army changed the titles again, and the SP-3 rank was renamed Specialist 4 (SP4), which became the iconic "Spec-4" rank used for decades.

Would you like me to see if I can find which specific Florida National Guard units were active in your area during those years?

[My response] Yes, Miami

Since you were an SP-3 (Specialist 3rd Class) stationed in Miami during 1956–1957, you were almost certainly part of the 211th Infantry Regiment, which was a cornerstone of the 51st Infantry Division (known as the "Rattlesnake Division").

At that time, the 51st was a "split" division shared between the Florida and South Carolina National Guards. Miami served as the major hub for the Florida contingent.

Your Unit: The 211th Infantry Regiment

In 1956, the 211th was headquartered right in the heart of Miami. As an SP-3, you were likely assigned to one of the following Miami-based elements:

• Regimental Headquarters & Headquarters Company (HHC): Located in Miami.

• Service Company: Also based in Miami, responsible for the regiment's logistics, trucks, and maintenance.

• 1st Battalion, HHC: The command element for the first group of companies, based in Miami.

• Medical Company: Provided healthcare and field medics, also stationed in Miami.

Your Post: The Miami Armory

Your "home base" for drills and administrative work was likely the Miami National Guard Armory, located at 700 NW 28th Street.

• Fun Fact: This facility is now known as the Robert A. Ballard Armory, named after the Colonel who commanded the 211th Infantry during your era and through the late 1940s.

• During the mid-1950s, this armory was a massive social and military hub, hosting everything from troop reviews to community dances and sporting events.

Your Role as an SP-3

The "Specialist" rank structure was relatively new when you were serving (it was established in 1955). An SP-3 was the equivalent of a Corporal (E-4) but focused on technical skills rather than squad leadership. Depending on your specific job (MOS), your day-to-day likely involved:

• Maintenance: Working on the regiment's Jeeps, M35 "Deuce and a Half" trucks, or communication gear.

• Logistics: Managing the supply chain for a regiment of over 1,500 men.

• Administration: Handling personnel records or payroll at the Regimental HQ.

Annual Training

In the summers of '56 and '57, you probably headed north for "Summer Camp." The 51st Infantry Division typically conducted its two-week annual training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, or Camp Blanding, Florida.

---

Would you like me to look up any specific details about the 51st "Rattlesnake" Division’s operations during those years, or perhaps find more information on the Miami Armory's history?

[My response] Yes

If you were an SP-3 (Specialist 3rd Class) in the Florida National Guard in Miami during 1956–1957, you were part of a very specific era of military history. Your unit was almost certainly the 211th Infantry Regiment, which was headquartered right in the heart of the city.

Here is a breakdown of what your life and service looked like during those two years:

1. Your Unit: The "Rattlesnake Division"

The 211th Infantry was a key part of the 51st Infantry Division. Because you were in Miami, you were likely based at the Miami Armory (now the Robert A. Ballard Armory) on NW 28th Street.

• The Motto: You wore the "Paroneri" crest on your uniform, which is Greek for "Equal to the Task."

• The Atmosphere: In the mid-50s, the Miami Armory wasn't just a military site; it was a community hub. You might remember the local buzz of the city, potentially even seeing the start of the "Great Migration" and the rapid post-war growth of Miami.

2. The Rank: A "New" Kind of Soldier

You were actually a pioneer of the Specialist rank system. The Army only created the Specialist 3rd Class rank in 1955, just before you joined or promoted into it.

• SP-3 vs. Corporal: You had the pay grade of an E-4 (like a Corporal), but your job was about technical expertise rather than leading a squad.

• The "Bird": You wore the smaller "Specialist Eagle" with one arc underneath. In 1958, the Army changed your title to Spec-4, meaning the "SP-3" title you held only existed for a few years.

3. Summer Camp: Fort McClellan

For your two-week Annual Training ("Summer Camp"), you likely traded the Miami humidity for the hills of Alabama.

• 1956: Training records show the 211th spent time at Fort McClellan, AL, and Fort Stewart, GA.

• 1957: Specifically, from June 6 to June 23, 1957, the regiment was at Fort McClellan.

• The Training: This was the "Pentomic" era. The Army was obsessed with how to fight on a nuclear battlefield. You probably spent time in "Atomic War" drills, practicing how to disperse quickly to avoid being a target for a (simulated) tactical nuke.

4. Local Duty: Hurricanes and Civil Defense

As a Florida Guardsman, your "State Active Duty" was usually tied to the weather.

• 1956: In October, a "quasi-tropical storm" hit Miami, causing significant flooding and about $3 million in damage. Your unit would have been on standby for sandbagging, traffic control, and patrolling flooded neighborhoods.

• Civil Defense: During your drills, you likely participated in "Operation Alert" exercises—city-wide drills to prepare for a Cold War emergency.

5. The Gear

In 1956–1957, you were in a "transitional" equipment phase:

• You were likely still carrying the M1 Garand (the M14 didn't arrive until later).

• Your transportation was the M38 Jeep or the legendary "Deuce and a Half" trucks.

• If you were in a Heavy Mortar or Tank company (like those in Tampa/Palmetto that supported the 211th), you were working with Korean War-era steel.

---

Do you remember which specific company you were in (like Company A, B, or Service Company)? I can look up exactly which neighborhood armory that company called home.

===

And I currently can't find the papers I was sent about my father's service, so I can't tell Gemini which company he was in.  As far as the specialties go, he was almost definitely a mechanic, because that's what he did the majority of his working life.  He probably worked on Jeeps, rather than the tanks.  I'm going to look for the papers and see what else I can learn.

I found the disclaimer on the bottom of the page amusing:  "Gemini is AI and can make mistakes."  One way that appears to have played out for this query is that when I did the "Fast" method, Gemini told me that the Florida National Guard did its two weeks of annual training at Fort Stewart, Georgia.  The "Thinking" response was that the annual training took place in either Camp Blanding, Florida or Fort Jackson, South Carolina, but later it said Fort McClellan, Alabama and Fort Stewart, Georgia.  There are some other differences between the two responses, but I noticed that immediately.  Something's out of whack here.

Wordless Wednesday

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun: Rabbit Hole!

I haven't had much time recently to do deep dives in genealogy, but I can come up with something for tonight's Saturday Night Genealogy Fun challenge from Randy Seaver.

Your mission, should you decide to accept it (cue the Mission:  Impossible! music), is:

1.  Have you been down a genealogy rabbit hole lately?  What was it, and what did you find?  (If not, go find a rabbit hole!  Try your FamilySearch Notifications or Ancestry.com Photos or Stories.)

2.  Share your rabbit hole chase and results in your own blog post or in a Facebook, SubStack, BlueSky, or other social media post.  Leave a link to your post on this blog post to help us find your post.

My last rabbit hole was when Randy asked us to play around with FamilySearch's Full-Text Search two weeks ago.

As I described at the time, I didn't find any of my ancestors, so I started hunting around for other families I am researching.  The most productive search was for my aunt's maiden name of McStroul:  42 results!  And most of them were documents and stories I had not previously found.

A lot of what I found was newspaper stories.  I naturally put them into chronological order, so I could see how the family changed and developed over time.

I found it interesting to be able to follow stories about my aunt's brother over several years.  In early 1962 he completed training in the U.S. Army.  In 1969 he started college (presumably after leaving the Army, but I didn't find an article about that).  In 1973 he graduated college.  In 1978 he visited his mother from out of town for Christmas and was studying at a seminary.  In January 1980 he and his wife-to-be obtained a marriage license.  Sometime between January and May they apparently married, because his wife graduated college in May 1980 with her married name.

I found four World War II draft registrations where my aunt's grandfather was the registrar.  I figure he probably registered more than four people, so maybe the AI hasn't recognized his signature on others.

I found my aunt's mother's obituary and the obituary for her second husband.  I also found my aunt's parents listed in several deed indices in Erie County, New York.  I have a vague recollection that one of the children was born in Buffalo (I can't look it up right now, because my new computer is still in transition), so I guess they lived there long enough to buy and sell some property.  More to follow up on!

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun: Do Some FamilySearch Full-Text Searching

Randy Seaver has more AI in store for us for this week's Saturday Night Genealogy Fun.

Your mission, should you decide to accept it (cue the Mission:  Impossible! music) is:

1.  FamilySearch Full-Text Search continues to add databases and searchable images to their collections.  This is a gold mine, especially of land, probate, and court records.

2.  Pick one or two of your ancestors and see what you can find on FamilySearch Full-Text Search about them.

3.  Share your Full-Text Search find(s) in your own blog post or in a Facebook, SubStack, BlueSky, or other social media post.  Leave a link to your post on this blog post to help us find your post.

The results for most of my searches for my ancestors (and remember, an ancestor is someone from whom you descend, not a collateral relative; since there is no such thing as an "indirect ancestor", the term "direct ancestor" is redundant at best and nonsense otherwise) either had far too many results to look through, when I searched for just a surname, or no results at all, when I searched for full names in quotation marks to control the number of irrelevant results.  My names are not extremely common ones, such as Smith and Jones, but they are common enough that a blind search with no index produces far too many results to slog through.  My grandmother's name was Anna Gauntt, with no middle name that I have ever discovered, so I searched for "anna gauntt" and learned that the AI provides results with something between your search terms.  I was able to rule out all of those Anna Gauntts, because they either had middle names or initials or were not in the correct locations for my grandmother.  I abandoned my ancestors and searched for some of the unique surnames that I am doing research on.

My search for Gudapel, a name which has been used by only four people in the history of the world, produced two results.  Both had headers that read "History Records 1800–1902, Diaries 1800–1902 | New Hampshire. Genealogies 1978–1982, Society Records 1978–1982 | Maine. Genealogies 1978–1982, Society Records 1978–1982" (truncated on screen, but visible when I moused over the link).  If I were searching for a name that I did not know as well, I might have ignored these results, because I know the family was never in New Hampshire and Maine and would have no reason to appear in genealogies for those area.  Because I do know the name, I clicked on the links, hoping that maybe there was something from the 19th century, and discovered that the title was not particularly accurate.  Both links went to the same book, a 1941 Houston, Texas city directory, which did include the name of Geo. [George] Gudapel on two different pages.  While city directories can be classified as history records, the directory in question does not fall in the years of 1800–1902.  I'm not sure if I already had these directory listings.

I next searched for McStroul, a name which my aunt's grandfather created when he naturalized as an American citizen.  His original name was Moska Leib Strul.  He asked to have it changed to Leo Martin McStroul when he became a citizen.  The name McStroul belongs only to his family; when I find it, I know it has to be the right people.  When I entered it in the keyword field, I had 42 results.

I searched for McStroul when Randy did a previous FamilySearch Full-Text Search challenge.  At that time I had two results, both in my aunt's great-grandmother's will and probate.  The name appeared because my aunt's mother, who was the granddaughter of the deceased, was listed under her married name.  I noted at the time that the name actually appeared three times in the document, but only two were identified by the search.  This time the search picked up all three occurrences.

All 42 results for McStroul that Full-Text Search found were correctly read.  A couple of the given names were misread by the AI (such as Geo instead of what actually said Leo).  Many of the documents were ones that I have not previously found, such as articles in a Kingman, Arizona newspaper and naturalizations in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where the McStroul family members appeared as witnesses.  So these are all useful in researching the family and are nice discoveries.

I tried searching for Szocherman, a name in my family that I believe more and more may be unique to that branch of my cousins.  I had no results.  But when I searched for Socherman, a spelling which some family members have adopted, I found many results, almost all of which were not for my cousins.  Amusingly, one that was my family was misread by AI and actually does say Szocherman.

After all of that, I tried to find a collateral relative in the database and searched for "frederick dunstan" in quotation marks.  Again the AI provided results with something between my search terms, and there were far more Frederick Dunstans than I had anticipated, more than was practical to look at.  I restricted the search to New Jersey and ended up with only four results, three of which were for Frederick C. Dunstan in Burlington County, which is exactly where my great-grandmother's brother should be found.  I believe this is the right person, so it appears he had a middle name, which I previously did not know, that started with C.  All three results are from deed indices from the early 1920's.  That does provide me with information about him.

Before I restricted the search to New Jersey, some of the results were for a Frederick Dunstan in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  I looked at them bcause that isn't horribly far from New Jersey and found that they were for a Frederick Dunstan from Combe Martin, England, which is in Devon County.  My Dunstans were from Lancashire, so I knew this was not my guy, but ironically, his wife's name was Jane.  Jane Dunstan is my great-grandmother and the sister of Frederick Dunstan.  I did find that entertaining.

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun: Did Your Ancestor Have a "Different" Occupation? Try "Sam the Digital Archivist" on ChatGPT

I still think it's much more beneficial for people to do their own research rather than have AI do the work for them, but I am participating in this week's Saturday Night Genealogy Fun from Randy Seaver.

Come on, everybody, join in and accept the mission and execute it with precision.

1.  Did one (or more) of your ancestors have a "different" occupation?  If so, try to find out more about that occupation in Steve Little's "Sam the Digital Archivist" custom prompt using the free ChatGPT4 artificial intelligence tool.  Click on the "Exploring unique ancestral occupations?" button and tell Sam in the "Ask anything" box to define and/or describe the occupation.

2.  Tell us about your ancestor's "different" occupation, and what Sam had to say about it,  in your own blog post, in a comment on this post, or in a Facebook post.  Please leave a link on this post if you write your own post.

So I had to start by creating a login for ChatGPT4, because I have not used it previously.  After I did that, confirmed my e-mail address, and logged in, I used Randy's exact phrasing, substituting the information for my 2x-great-grandfather.  He didn't have a particularly different occupation, but so far none of my ancestors did.  I chose him because I have previously researched what a file grinder did, and I wanted to see whether ChatGPT4 would reveal anything I had not found.

So I typed the following question for Sam:

"My 2nd great-grandfather Frederick Cleworth Dunstan (1840-1873) resided in Hulme, Lancashire, England in 1871. The census record says he was a file grinder.  What was he doing?"

And this is what Sam/ChatGPT4 told me:

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Great question! Your 2nd great-grandfather, Frederick Cleworth Dunstan, was a file grinder, which means he had a tough, dangerous, and highly skilled job in the metalworking industry. Let’s break it down:

What is a File Grinder?

A file grinder was responsible for sharpening, shaping, and finishing metal files used in various trades, from woodworking to metalworking. The job was part of the cutlery and tool-making industry, which was booming in industrial-era England, particularly in places like Sheffield and Lancashire.

The Process:

 Rough Shaping: Workers took raw, forged metal files and ground them to the correct shape using massive, high-speed grinding wheels made of sandstone.
 Sharpening the Teeth: The characteristic teeth of a file were cut (often by hand) and then refined on grinding wheels for precision.
 Smoothing & Polishing: Final grinding ensured the files were smooth, sharp, and ready for sale or use.

The Danger Factor 

File grinding was one of the deadliest industrial jobs of the 19th century due to:
 "Grinder’s Rot" (Silicosis & Lung Disease): Grinding metal and stone created a fine dust that workers inhaled daily. This led to serious lung diseases, often fatal.
 Exploding Grinding Wheels: If a stone wheel cracked or ran too fast, it could shatter, sending razor-sharp debris flying. Many workers were killed or maimed this way.
 Sparks & Fire Hazards: Grinding produced intense sparks, increasing fire risks, especially in factories filled with flammable materials.

Working Conditions

• File grinders typically worked in dimly lit, poorly ventilated workshops called grinding hulls.
• Most worked long hours (10-12 per day) for low pay.
• Protective gear? Ha! Workers had little to no protection, and safety regulations were practically nonexistent.

Why Was This Job in Hulme, Lancashire?

Hulme was part of the greater Manchester industrial area, known for its ironworking, tool-making, and manufacturing industries. Though Sheffield was the heart of steel grinding, Manchester had its fair share of metal and tool trades feeding into the broader economy.

Given that Frederick died in 1873 at only 33 years old, it raises the question:
 Could his occupation have contributed to his early death? Many grinders didn’t live past 40, succumbing to lung disease or workplace accidents. If his death certificate lists lung-related illness, consumption (TB), or a sudden accident, it could be tied to his trade.

What Next?

 Check Frederick’s death record—cause of death could confirm if his job played a role.
 Look for trade directories—they might list his employer or the workshop he worked in.
 Explore Hulme’s industrial history—find out more about metalworking in the area.
 Something else? What do you want to dig into next?

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Well, no great revelations here.  As I wrote above, I have previously researched what work a file grinder did, including health hazards on the job.  Frederick Cleworth Dunstan died of chronic bronchitis, which is indeed a lung-related illness, so his fatal illness likely was related to his trade.

The only thing Sam told me that I had not read before was that a file grinder was a highly skilled job.  My research has indicated it was more the opposite, the type of job that people who couldn't find better ones ended up in.  Part of that reasoning was related to the job hazards due to the dangerous conditions.

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun: Use FamilySearch Full-text Search

The challenge today from Randy Seaver for Saturday Night Genealogy Fun is valid for varying definitions of the word "fun."

Come on, everybody, join in and accept the mission and execute it with precision.

1.  Use the FREE FamilySearch Full-Text Search (https://www.familysearch.org/search/full-text) to find a record for one of your ancestors that is new to you.

2.  Share your results on your own blog or in a Facebook post.  Please share a link in Comments on this post if you write your own post.

I'm going to be a party pooper again, sorry.

Non sequitur:  Have you ever heard the party pooper song?
"Every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited you.
"Party pooper!  Party pooper!"

Okay, back on track.

First, I admit I had not tried to use the full-text search yet.  I hate blindly fishing around in records and much prefer to have an actual research plan.

That said, I did as Randy suggested and tried to find a new record for one of my ancestors.  I would have been happy to find a record for a relative on a collateral line.

No such luck.

I went to the link that Randy provided.  I noted that it said I would be browsing "US Land and Probate Records, Mexico Notary Records, Australia Land and Probate Records, New Zealand Land and Probate Records and US Plantation Records."  (I also noted that to the left it said, "Only two collections are currently available to browse . . . .", so something is out of date.)

I decided I would try to find something in the plantation records by using as a keyword one of the locations I am researching in the part of my family that was enslaved.  So I typed in "upatoi" (a location in Georgia) and let 'er rip.

I got a total of 24 results.  Okay, that's pretty manageable.

Then I looked at the filters.

I had options of Collection, Year, Place, and Record Type.

The first one I tried to use to narrow down my hits was Place.  The only option was United States of America, which applied to all 24 hits.  Okay, that's useless.

I looked at Collection.  That gave me choices of "Alabama, Wills and Deeds, ca. 1700s-2017 (1)", "Georgia, Wills and Deeds, ca. 1700s-2017 (4)", "Pennsylvania, Wills and Deeds, ca. 1700s-2017 (1)", and "United States, Indenture Records, 1600-2001 (18)."

As I was hoping to find information about plantation records, I chose the Georgia wills and deeds.

Boy, was I disappointed.

Nothing about plantation records.  Nothing even in the 19th century.  "Muscogee, Georgia, United States Will 1949", "Muscogee, Georgia, United States Will 1955", "Marion, Georgia, United States Deed, Mortgage 1965", and "Marion, Georgia, United States Deed, Mortgage 1960."

Okay, let's look at the indenture records.

Of the 18 records, 16 are titled "Riverdale Cemetery, Columbus, Muscogee, Georgia, United States Enslavement, Cemetery" followed by a year ranging from 1881 to 1952.  Two are "Georgia, United States Enslavement, Cemetery 1921", and you can see from the teaser text that they're the same item.  So none of these years is during the period of chattel slavery in this country, which officially ended in 1865.  And I don't understand why cemetery records are listed under indenture records.  But I gamely clicked on the first result to see what it would show me.

The first link said it was for 1881.  The page told me it was a full transcript from "Riverdale Cemetery.  Cemetery Records 1866–2000, Enslavement Records 1866–2000."  Um, say what?  What enslavement records begin in 1866, the year *after* slavery officially ended?  And the record itself was an obituary for a man born in 1881 in Alabama.  The obit mentioned he had celebrated his 50th anniversary, so figure he was at least 70 years old; that means that he died about 1951.  Sure, it's a record having to do with Riverdale Cemetery, but saying it's for 1881 is misleading at best and a train wreck at worst.  How is this supposed to be helpful to me?

I clicked on the first link for "Georgia, United States Enslavement, Cemetery 1921" to see if it was any better.  It was listed as a full transcript from "Georgia.  Cemetery Records 1866–2000, Enslavement Records 1866–2000."  Okay, same logic problem as the previous one.  This was also an obit.  This man was born in 1877 in Upatoi and died at 82, so it's from about 1959.  The 1921 that shows up in the link name?  "The aldermanic form was government was abandoned in Columbus in 1921."  Even less relevant than the first link I tried!

I then tried to cut down on the number of hits.  I had "upatoi" as my keyword, so I added "crawford" (one of my family names).  Silly me, I thought the search engine would search for records where both words appeared and cut down the number of hits, maybe even to zero.

I was wrong.

Instead of 18 results, I now had 6,760.  It would appear that adding a term causes the search engine to return results with either of the search terms, not both of them.  I did note that if you add a plus sign in front of a term, it will include that term.  When I searched for +upatoi and +crawford, I had no results.  Well, I did cut it down to zero!

I tried one last search.  I used "slaves" as my keyword.  I had 446,052 results.  I restricted the place to Marion County, Georgia, and the number of results dropped to 41.  The links were to wills and deeds ranging from 1846 to 1862 as far as the period of slavery was concerned, but several titles listed years after 1865 and even into the 20th century.  I clicked a link to one that was titled "Marion, Georgia, United States Deed, Mortgage 1936."  The image was said to be from "Marion.  Deeds 1845–1965, Mortgages 1845–1965."  It was actually from 1858–1859.  I did not find "1936" anywhere in it; the closest was "one hundred thirty six."

I went back to the search results page and added "kinchafoonee" (another location associated with the family), and the results stayed at 41.  Since my previous attempt at adding a name appeared to indicate that the search engine was returning results with either search term, I interpreted this to mean that none of the records for Marion County include Kinchafoonee in the text, or at least not with that spelling.  When I added a plus sign in front of each term, I had no results, so my interpretation appeared to be correct.

I never even saw anything with results that said they were from plantation records.  I suspect that the only way to get those is with the plantation owner's name.  Since I still have not found the name of a single slaveholder in my family, I guess I won't be getting far with those.  I did not see a way to focus my browsing on just one set of records included in the full-text search.

Obviously, the advantage of the full-text search is that it's creating a searchable database of words from handwriting, which is very cool, and that you don't have to wait for a real index.  On the other hand, it's like putting a search term into Google, which used to be great but has been getting worse for quite some time.  You get results with your search term (well, if you're lucky; nowadays Google routinely returns results with no appearance of your search term anywhere on the page), but the context could be anything.  An index gives you context.  And yes, I admit I am very biased, because I'm an indexer.

After this dismal experience, I am reminded of a study I read about many years ago.  Researchers observed people searching for information.  The people searching used an index or did a general text search, such as by using Google.

Even though search results were consistently better and desired information was found more quickly when using the index, the majority of searchers, when allowed to choose the search method, defaulted to doing a general text search the majority of the time.  When it was pointed out to them that the results were better with the index, the response was that it was simply easier to do the general search, and they didn't care that the results were not as good.  Me, I care.  My time is valuable.

I am very happy for Randy that he found five new records for his ancestor.  After seeing my search results, I think I'm going to wait for actual searchable indices for these record collections.  I get tired of beating my head against the wall after a while.

Addendum:  I decided to try one last time, with one of the unique surnames I am researching.  My aunt's paternal grandfather changed his name when he became a U.S. citizen.  He made up a name, which is unique to that family.  If I find that name, it's my aunt's family.  I searched for that name in the database and got a grand total of two hits:  my aunt's great-grandmother's will and her probate.  The reason the name showed up is because my aunt's mother (the granddaughter of the deceased) was named in the will under her married name.  Because it's a unique name, it allowed me to find the will, so that's a new record!  Yay, I found one, even if for my aunt's ancestor and not mine!  And now I know when her great-grandmother died, which is new information.

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun: Are You Experimenting with Artificial Intelligence for Genealogy?

For tonight's Saturday Night Genealogy Fun challenge, Randy Seaver has posed a question that has actually been occupying my brain for a while.

Come on, everybody, join in and accept the mission and execute it with precision.

1.  Are you experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) for genealogy and family history?  What have you learned so far?  What have you done to date?  What GPTs have you used?  What results have you had — good or bad?

2.  Tell us about your AI experience in a comment on this post or in a Facebook post.  Please leave a link on this post if you write your own post.

I'll start out by saying that I am not going out of my way to experiment with artificial intelligence.  I have used no GPT's or set up any searches, no matter how much Bing keeps pressuring me to do so.  Google was bugging me about it also but seems to have given up.  I signed up for Bard at the beginning but decided it wasn't for me.

I know that I have been experimenting with AI anyway, whether I want to or not.  It's built into the hints that the genealogical database sites use, it's permeating our search engines and their algorithms, and it's being integrated throughout the computer and business worlds, because it's the latest greatest coolest thing that's going to make our lives easier and more wonderful and solve all the world's problems

Oh, wait, that isn't true?  Gee, you'd never know it from the way it's being touted.

Color me a skeptic, but I read an insightful article recently (and I'm still trying to figure out where I put it on my desk, which is why I haven't already posted my thoughts about AI) which pointed out that not only, as Randy mentioned, does AI give incorrect information when it doesn't know the answer because it just has to tell you something, but relying on AI to do your thinking for you means you are not using your own brain to do your thinking.  Go down that path often enough, and how long will it take for your brain to need AI for all those answers?

This is the stuff that many science fiction stories are based on:  technology being oh so convenient and performing all those boring tasks for people and people becoming more and more reliant on technology, to the point where it's no longer a choice to rely on technology, because people are no longer capable of doing those tasks themselves.

Using Randy's examples:

• Writing a biographical sketch:  Ancestry can already do this when you post a tree and input some dates (I'm sure that's classified as AI).  I'm pretty sure other sites and databases can do something similar.  Or, heaven forfend, you can write one yourself, using the same data.  AI will write in a standard formulaic manner.  You can actually give it personality.

• Writing an obituary (yours or someone else's):  Yes, you can have the computer create an obituary for you, or (again) you can write it yourself, using the same information.

• Book recommendations:  You can do this with a search engine already.  Search for books on a given subject, and you will receive a list longer than you want to look through.  You can do the same thing on Amazon.  I admit this is a situation where it's helpful to have that kind of capability, because you can't find what you don't know about.  But this capability has existed for years and years.  We didn't need ChatGPT to do it.

• MyHeritage features:  So, as I wrote above when commenting on Ancestry, another site can also create a biographical sketch based on information that has been fed into it.  RecordFinder sounds suspiciously like twitching leaves on Ancestry and hints on FamilySearch.

• Ancestry's AI feature:  Wow, I can input a search like that into Google and get something similar.  And Google is drawing from many more sources than Ancestry.  Actually, Google searches Ancestry also.

• DeepStory:  I already find it frighteningly misleading the directions that MyHeritage is taking on having moving and talking photographs and use of multimedia, because it won't take long for people to forget that they're all computer-generated and are not our relatives, just someone's interpretation of what they might have been like.  I want reality, not someone else's version of what it possibly could have been.

• FamilySearch's full text search:  I find it ironic how this is now being received, when not that long ago at an early RootsTech — you know, that genealogy conference that actually used to be about tech in genealogy?; nowadays referencing one URL in your presentation counts as tech — an app for reading handwriting came in second(!) in the innovator challenge to something as banal as being able to record a phone call on your mobile phone.  I guess the church finally decided that reading handwriting was worth something.  I have often wondered what happened with the programmer(s) working on this question years ago.

That said, I will admit that it's a lot harder to learn how to read old handwriting than how to write something relatively straightforward such as an obituary or a quick historical profile of a person.  But this will quickly become something where people don't check the writing themselves to verify the reading made by AI, they'll just accept it and move on.  Gee, I hope it's accurate.

• Google Bard/Gemini and MS CoPilot:  You can create your own images/collages with standard photo editing software that already exists.  Some of the programs are even free.  The more you do it, the better you become.  Why let someone else's AI improve, instead of improving yourself?

Another thing to keep in mind is that, along with only being able to provide answers based on what information it has available, AI has already been found to carry on and put forward the preconceptions of the people who program it.  So if it doesn't have more than one perspective available, or if one perspective is weighted more strongly, that will affect the answers it provides.

So, cynic that I am, I am not jumping on the AI/ChatGPT bandwagon and have no plans to do so.  I know I can't avoid it entirely, and I'm not trying to, but I'll use it judiciously and continue to rely primarily on my brain and my own abilities to puzzle things out, write obituaries for family members when the need arises, make collages, and research what happened in the times and places my family members lived.  I'll even continue to write my own blog posts, like this one.  After all, how do we know that Randy didn't just feed ChatGPT the topics he wanted to cover and let it write his column?