Saturday Night Genealogy Fun: Surname Search in FamilySearch Full-Text Search Will Collections

And we're playing with FamilySearch Full-Text Search again this week for Saturday Night Genealogy Fun with Randy Seaver!

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

1.  How many "Wills" for your grandparents' or great-grandparents' surnames are in the FamilySearch Full-Text Search feature (see https://www.familysearch.org/search/full-text)?

2.  List the surnames and how many entries there are when you do an exact name search.  What does this tell you?  Have you found wills for all of your ancestors with these names?

3.  Share a link to your blog post, or your Facebook Status post, on this post.

I used Randy's method of searching so I would have results I could compare directly:

* On the Full-Text Search page, I put my surname in quotes (to make it exact).
* I then used the "Record Type" filter to select "Legal Records."
* Then on the "Legal Records" filter, I selected "Wills" to show only the records in that category.

Something to note is that not all records that appear under "Wills" are actually wills.

And my list is:

• Armstrong:  42,662 results

• Brainin:  4 results

• Dunstan:  386 results

• Gaunt:  1,203 results

• Gauntt:  201 results

• Gordon:  65,123 results

• Gorodetsky:  0 results

• Mackler:  137 results

• Meckler:  107 results

• Mekler:  4 results

• Novitsky:  2 results

• Nowicki:  40 results

• Sellers:  15,657 results

I listed thirteen names because I accounted for some variables.  My paternal grandmother's maiden name was Gauntt, but along with various family members spelling it Gaunt, before standardized spelling one person's name could appear either way.  My maternal grandmother's maiden name was Gordon, but her father's name was originally Gorodetsky.  My paternal grandfather's name was Meckler, but I have seen his father's name as Mekler, and later in his life my great-grandfather spelled it Mackler.  My paternal grandfather's mother's maiden name was Nowicki, but other family members who immigrated to the United States (including her father) often spelled it as Novitsky (to maintain the correct pronunciation).

What do these results tell me?  Well, I was not that surprised to see no results for Gorodetsky (suggesting that immigrants with that surname routinely changed it), but a little surprised at only four results for Brainin.  I didn't think the name was that uncommon.  I did not expect Mackler to have more results than Meckler or Mekler, and I definitely didn't expect Nowicki (the original spelling, which I suspect Americans often mispronounced) to top Novitsky.  Perhaps these relative numbers will change as more documents are added to the collection.

I expected that Gordon, Armstrong, and Sellers would have the most results.  I also expected the Gaunt spelling to have more than Gauntt (the spelling my grandmother and her family used).  I'm sure that most, if not all, of the Gordon results are unrelated to my family, as that name only began with my great-grandfather.

Let's see, which wills do I have for my ancestors?  The only one that comes to mind is for my great-grandfather Morris Meckler/Mackler.  I have not prioritized obtaining wills.  I suspect many of my ancestors died intestate, based on information I have.  But I should go out hunting for more wills.

I did see one Gauntt result that almost definitely is related to my family, as it included people in Burlington County, New Jersey.  None of the names is in my family tree at this point, though, so it's a collateral line.

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.

Treasure Chest Thursday: Jean La Forêt Announces His Life Story and Will

This 3 1/2" x 5 3/8" piece of paper was pasted onto a 3 5/8" x 5 3/4" page in a small notebook.  Both pieces of paper have taken on a little color over the years, but they were probably white when new.  No watermark is visible on either paper.  The text is cleanly and clearly typed.

The piece of paper was pasted onto the second page in the little notebook.  And nothing else about his life story or his will is in the book.  (Not much else is in the book, period.)

I don't know yet if Jean did write a will.  I decided to check right now for his name in the California death index and discovered that he died September 12, 1926 in Solano County.  This early death index does not include the individual's birthplace or mother's maiden name, but it has the age at which someone died.  Even though on the page above Jean indicated he was born in 1851, the informant, probably Emma, "youthened" him by a couple of years, and his age at death was given as 72, when it should have been 74.  I'm sure it's him, though, because the rest of the information matches up:

Jean L. (for Leon) LaForet, spouse's initial E (for Emma), and died in Solano County, where Vallejo is.  Yup, it's gotta be him.  I'll order it eventually, of course, and investigate whether a probate file exists.

But when Jean typed up this small note, he was still living in Missouri, in Maryland Heights to be exact.  That means the date when Jean and Emma moved to California has been pushed back a little more, and that Jean's list of ailments couldn't have been typed before December 4, 1921.

I noted that Jean listed only his daughter Rosita, who was Emma's child.  There's no mention of Adrienne, born in 1874, whom I believe was also his daughter.  Perhaps the "instructions and informations" were only for Emma and Rosita, but Adrienne was in the will.  I also noted that Emma was not named but was simply "His Wife."  Looks like another woman got married and lost her name!

In 1920, when the envelope discussed in last week's post was mailed to Jean, his address was in Overland, Missouri.  In 1921, when he typed this short note, he was in Maryland Heights.  According to Google Maps they're only about five miles apart, so he didn't move far.

I wonder what happened that stopped Jean from writing the will in this notebook, which it appears he planned to do.  I also wonder why he went to the trouble to type up this introduction when he was going to write the will by hand.  Maybe he did write the will but simply never put it in the notebook.  Ah, well, when I get around to seeing if Jean had a probate file, I'll find out if there was a will and if it was handwritten.

Jean also typed "His LIFE from Birth to SEVENTY."  If he intended to write about his life, that might help explain why he kept such an interesting collection of documents.  So far I have seen no evidence of his life story, but I still have more documents to go through!

What Was the Rest of the Story?

I've written previously about doing heir research, one aspect of forensic genealogy.  I track down the family connections, find contact information for heirs, and pass on everything to my client.  I rarely find out what happens after that (though once I had an adventure and went in person to talk to a potential heir).

Sometimes, however, I find stuff that makes me wonder just what happened in the family.  One case I recently worked on left me with lots of questions afterward — not about who the heirs were, but why they ended up being the heirs.

As usual, I was given some bare-bones information about a man — we'll call him "Joe" — and was asked to track him forward in time.  I needed to find what happened to him, his wife, and the child in the household in the 1930 census, and also to check on the wife and child in the 1940 census (who were not the same as those in 1930).

Most of the time, given this set-up, the heir turns out to be the child, or perhaps that person's children if the person has already passed away.  Sometimes it's the spouse, if the people in question were of an appropriate age to have survived until the present day.

I learned that Joe was one of eight children.  He himself was married three times.  He and his first wife had a son.  His second wife, the one in 1940, had a son from a previous relationship.  Joe had another stepson later, though I was unable to determine who that man's mother was.

When Joe wrote his will, his seven siblings were still alive, as was his biological son.  So who were his heirs?  His three sisters, but none of his brothers, and no one else.  He mentioned a stepson (the one whose mother I was unable to identify) in the will but said that he had already been provided for.  And he specifically stated that he had no issue.

So here's the first time my curiosity was piqued.  Why leave bequests to the sisters but none of the brothers?  Did he not get along with his brothers?  Were they all so well off that he decided they didn't need anything from him?  And what about his son?  I found the birth record; there's nothing on it to indicate any question of paternity.  Did Joe learn something about his son that made him question whether he was really the father?  Maybe that's why he and wife #1 divorced?  Or maybe he just had a totally broken relationship with his son after the divorce?

After finding this will, I then had to research the families of the three sisters to determine their heirs, as all three also had passed away.  Only one of the sisters — let's call her "Jane" — had a will.  She left everything to her son and stated that she had "no other child living."  In researching her part of the family, I found that the son was from her first marriage.  Her first husband died young, and she remarried.  She had a daughter — "Joan" — from her second marriage.  Joan married and had a daughter.  Sadly, Joan committed suicide.  But her daughter is still alive and has a child of her own.

Then my curiosity kicked in again.  While Joan's death explains the phrase "no other child living", I wonder why Jane left nothing to her granddaughter.  Did Jane blame her granddaughter's father in some way for Joan's death?  Was she so distraught over her daughter's death that she couldn't bear to have a relationship with her granddaughter?

Some interesting family dynamics seem to be going on here, but ones I'm unlikely to learn about.  I'm just left wondering, what was the rest of the story?

British War Wills Digitized and Going Online

clip from Fleetwood will

Wills from more than 230,000 British soldiers who died during World War I are being digitized and made available online.  Soldiers kept the wills in their pocket service books; the wills and other documents in the books are being digitized.  Plans are to digitize all the World War I wills in time for the 2014 centenary of the war.  These wills are part of a larger project to digitize all 41 million British war wills, from the Boer War to the Falklands War, and make them publicly available.

The story is on BBC and Huffington Post, among other sites.  The news organizations were given access to the first wills to be placed online.  BBC has "clips" of five wills, among them that of Mick Fleetwood's grandfather, who died in 1915 of dysentery.  Huffington Post has images of three complete wills.

The link in the BBC story is incorrect (maybe they'll correct it at some point).  The correct URL for the database is https://www.probatesearch.service.gov.uk/, as shown in the Huffington Post story.  When you find a will you're interested in, you add it to your basket.  The cost for copies of the wills appears to be £6 each.

One disadvantage to the search is that you are required to enter a year.  If you don't know the year, I guess you can always search one year at a time.  On the other hand, it says very clearly at the top of the search page (both basic and advanced) that they want your feedback.  Guess what I'll be mentioning?