A couple years ago I received from a newly found “cousin” a lot of data on the ancestors of Johanna Catarina Venninger (born 1796 in Adelshofen, Baden).  This included names, events (baptism / marriage / death), dates, locations.  While not documented, he indicated that he had done his research using FHL microfilms.  Recently I have supplemented that data via New.FamilySearch and, more recently, Family Tree.  Last year during, as part of my RootsTech trip, I was able to document 66 of Johanna Venninger’s relatives.  Next week I have my sights set on 173 more.  That will leave me with 70 (for whom I have cities of origin / residence, but no dates).

Preparation:  Last year’s research was my first at the FHL and my first time to use a microfilm reader.  The newness of it all slowed me down.  This year I feel more ready to approach the research task.  Here has been my process of preparation:

1. I generated individual reports in RootsMagic (my preferred genealogy database) listing all the events that happened in my key ancestral villages in Germany:  Adelshofen, Eppingen, Ittlingen, Kürnbach and Sulzfeld in Baden;   Leonbronn, Neipperg, Stetten and Waiblingen in Württemberg.  I saved these reports as word processing documents for further work in subsequent steps. 
2. I crossed out each event for which I had a digital copy of the event from the respective church registers and for which I also had entered the appropriate source citation in RootsMagic.
3. I searched FamilySearch.com for the microfilm numbers and descriptions for each of the respective parishes. This data was entered into a spreadsheet on which I separated out each type of record (and the order in which those record types were to be found on the microfilm).
4. I then took the documents generated in Step 1 (above); removed those records for which I already had digital images; added the microfilm number and location on that microfilm for each event yet to be found; and then, finally, generated a final document for each parish indicating the order in which I will search through the respective microfilms.  These sheets will be my research outlines.

At FHL:  While at the FHL, I will research the parish registers in the following order:  Adelshofen (69 records), Kürnbach (20 records), Neipperg (22 records), Sulzfeld (19 records), Ittlingen (12 records), Waiblingen (11 records), Stetten (11 records), Leonbronn (9 records).  As I find each record:

1. I will take a digital image of the record using CamScanner on my Asus Transformer table or myDroid Razr HD cellphone.  I will make the document and film number next to its respective event on the appropriate research outline (#4 above).  For Adelshofen I will create 4 separate documents (each with 15-20 images).  For each the other localities I will have one document.
2. I will also note on the research outline those events I did not find.
3. As I find marriage records of couples for whom I do not have the birth surname of the woman or the parents of either party, I will make note of that information (and appropriate locality) to aid further research (if time allows).  I will add by hand this data to the appropriate research outline.
4. If, as I work my way through the various microfilms, I find others with one of the surnames related my my ancestral lineage, I will make a digital copy and note as much pertinent information as I can – date, event, person(s), town.  I have prepared surname lists for each of the communities, based on my current records in RootsMagic.

Follow-Up:  If I have extra time while in Salt Lake City or, more likely, after I get home:

1. I will scan my annotated research outlines and save them to my external HD, Evernote, and Dropbox.
2. I will upload the CamScanner files (PDF documents) to Dropbox and Evernote.
3. I will separate out the individual files contained in each PDF document (I have found that screenshots is an effective way to do this) and save these individual files to my external HD and to Box.  They will be titled:  Surname, Name(s), (Reference # for direct line ancestors), Event, Date, Locality.
4. I will save each image to my FileGrove account, labeling each picture with Surname, Name(s), Keywords, Title, Caption, Source Citation, and Location.  I can also add a Note (transcription / translation or other additional information).
5. Since I already have the individuals / events / dates / locality in my RootsMagic database, I will enter the appropriate source citation for each event.  For any new data, I will make the appropriate additions to RootsMagic (including source citations).
6. I will create a new research outline for each locality in which I still have undocumented people / events.
7. Take a deep breath, shout “Hoorah!”, do the genealogy happy dance!!!!!

I know that I have set a rather ambitious goal for myself.  Last years trip to FHL took about 9 months to complete the organization, data entry, citations, backup, etc…   and I only got 66 records recorded.   This year I can build on last year’s experience.  The FHL (and microfilmreaders) will be more familiar.  I am better prepared.  I have a clearer understanding of what needs to be done after I make digital copies of microfilm records.  I have a better storage system.  And, as always, I am the eternal optimist, with a passion for learning more about my heritage.  Salt Lake City, Here I Come!

1) Running RootsMagic (or any other Windows genealogy program)

The sceenshot shows RootsMagic on my Chromebook. The app responsible is Chrome Remote Desktop which links my Chromebook to my desktop. I have used Splashtop (and other remote desktops) on tablets, but none have functioned as seamlessly as the Chrome Remote Desktop. My desktop has dual screens and runs 4 virtual desktops (giving me a total of 8 screens to play with). That functionality is nice when working on my desktop computer. It does seem, however, to create some havoc in other remote desktops I have used. Once connected to my desktop via the Chrome Remote Desktop app, I can easily access all four virtual desktops and either screen.

Once connected to my desktop, I was able to open RootsMagic, go to the file of Aaron B. Knepper (my 2g-grandfather), and view/edit the file (screenshot following). I was not able to tell that I was on a remote desktop. (I am sure that when I am away from home and on a slower internet connection, the speed will be somewhat diminished.)

I have run Windows applications on a Linux operating system both via Virtualbox and Crossover. Those have been satisfactory, but do not compare to running the same Windows applications via Chrome Remote Desktop. Chrome Remote Desktop runs in the Chrome browser in Windows (Vista, 7, 8), Mac (10.6 and above), and Linux. At the present, it does not run on Android devices, IPad, or IPhone.

2) Running LibreOffice (OpenOffice) and other open source programs

I have been using open source office suites exclusively for about 10 years – first OpenOffice; now LibreOffice. With my Chromebook I was limited to Google Docs or Zoho Docs for word processing or developing a speadsheet. (I have chosen not to use Office 365, wishing to avoid Microsoft Office – just a personal preference.) All that changed when I discovered the “rollApp” for Chrome browser. The rollApp website describes, as follows: “rollApp is an online application virtualization platform… [where] anyone can access rollApp server using regular web-browser and launch the converted applications inside a browser.  When executed via a browser, rollApp applications behave the same way as locally installed ones.”

Both LibreOffice and OpenOffice suites (Writer, Calc, Draw, Impress) are available, along with other open source applications. The only difference I could see between the two Writer applications was that LibreOffice allowed files to be saved in .docx format, OpenOffice did not. (I am increasingly using the .docx format – smaller size files, compatible across applications.) While rollApp does not have its own cloud storage system, it is fully integrated with both Dropbox and Box. Since I have accounts with both Box and Dropbox, I can easily open and save documents in either place. As I continue to do more and more of my genealogical research using word processor documents and spreadsheets, the Chromebook (along with my Razr HD adroid phone) is becoming my “go to” device for work away from home.

This coming week I head to Salt Lake City for three full days in the Family History Library researching German Church Records.  My Chromebook genealogy road warrior will be with me!

I have been researching the Kneppers of Fairfield County Ohio. They are my mother’s maternal grandmother’s line. I am hoping to prove my descent from one of the Kneppers who lived in Fairfield County prior to 1820 for application to the Fairfield County Pioneers and the First Families of Ohio lineage societies. Part of my research has focused on Jacob Knepper (1772-1847) and his wife, Elizabeth Flick (1779-1831).

Fortunately, I live only 16 miles from the St. Louis County Library which houses the book loan collection of the National Genealogical Society. In that collection I found Genealogy of the Knepper Family in the United States, 1681-1911 by Margaret Knepper (1906), revised by Ethel Knepper in 1911. The author acknowledges that the book contains errors and hopes that it will lay the foundation for a “more creditable work on the same subject.” While the primary focus of the book is not my direct line, it includes a chapter on Jacob Knepper and Elizabeth Flick – including a descendancy outline of their 11 children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and spouses (where known). While none of the stories or transcriptions in the book related to Jacob and Elizabeth’s descendants, it was a great source for pointing me in the right direction about their descendants.

Next, I discovered the Knepper Line on the Deffler.com website. Here I found an extended eight generation descendancy outline starting with Tilmann Knepper (1627-1706). The website issues a clear caveat emptor: “as a compilation from a wide variety of sources, this database clearly does not meet any standard for authoritative genealogical proof. Much of it is hearsay or family legend. However, I hope it is useful or, at least, fun.” This was one of the places, but not the first, where I found a transcription of Jacob Knepper last will and testament and a transcription of the execution of a prenuptial agreement between Jacob and Elizabeth.

Yesterday I downloaded a copy of Jacob Knepper’s will from the Fairfield County Probate Court’s Will Book #3 (FamilySearch.com). I have made my own transcription. I have not yet been able to locate online either the prenuptial agreement (Pick away County, Deed Book 22, page 485) or the execution of the agreement in Fairfield County. In the absence of the originals, I began to look more closely at the transcriptions. I noted that the transcription began: “Whereas prior to the marriage of Jacob Knepper and Mary Knepper they made a marriage contract which, after said marriage and on the eleventh day of July, A.D. 1840 was reduced to writing and signed by each of them…” The pre-nup was a verbal agreement which did not get put into writing until after the marriage. A question kept nagging at me: Why Mary and not Elizabeth? I know, names are not always what we expect them to be. Perhaps she was Mary Elizabeth Flick; but I had nothing to suggested that. Perhaps she was just called Mary, even though I can find no evidence that Mary is any form of an abbreviation or nickname for Elizabeth. (I remember that I had a friend in high school whose nickname was “Pete” because her father had wanted a son.  Names and nicknames can easily surprise.)

An additional nagging fact was that Jacob Knepper had a second wife – Mary Bowman. Could it be … ? Then I saw the basic clue that I had overlooked (as had all those who simply copied the transcribed pre-nup to Elizabeth Flick’s file in their Ancestry Tree). Elizabeth Flick died in 1831. The pre-nup was signed in 1840 and executed shortly after Jacob’s death in 1847.

No, Elizabeth (Flick) Knepper had not signed the prenuptial agreement with Jacob Knepper 9 years after her death. The prenuptial agreement was between Jacob Knepper and his second wife, Mary Bowman. It was Mary Bowman who, when she came to the marriage, was “wealthy in her own right and by judicious management, she and her husband were able to give each of their children land or the equivalent in money.”

My learnings:

1. Scrutiny does NOT mean simply downloading information purportedly about an ancestor and then doing the “genealogy happy dance.” (I actually had done the happy dance when I first encountered the pre-nup. I called my mother and reported while dancing. How does one un-dance the “happy dance?”)
2. Look once; look twice; look again and again… and pay attention to those “naggings” that occur at the fringe of consciousness while exploring genealogical data. (As a friend taught me many years ago, “Trust your intuition!”)
3. More Googling wouldn’t have helped in this situation; nor would mapping; nor would another trip to the library. A time-line would have helped!  After all, I had all the information I needed to make a good (correct) decision about the data.
4. Brendan Gill (Here at the New Yorker) was right: “If the unexamined life is not worth living, the unexamined past is not worth possessing [my emphasis]; it bears fruit only by being held continuously up to the light, and is as changeable and as full of surprises, pleasant and unpleasant, as the future.” (This quote now goes in a prominent place above my computer monitor.)

My neighbor indicated the places that the family had lived (all in the metro New York City area). He also knew the names of his father’s brother and sisters. He indicated that his father had relatives in Allentown, Pennsylvania; he remembered a family reunion in Allentown. When pressed, he thought he was in 8^th grade at the time. And that was it… that was all that my neighbor could recall about his family lineage, except that it went back to Germany. I agreed to do some internet searches and see what I could discover.

My first step was to survey the Kropp surname. I discovered that Kropp had a lot of variant spellings – initial “k” or “c;” the middle vowel could be “o” or “a” or “u;” ending with “pp” or “o;” and other variants as well. It had German, Dutch, and French lines.

Next, I did a Google search for: Kropp ~genealogy. There were a few interesting sites, but nothing that seem to offer any promise. So, now for the real research. I turned to FamilySearch to see if there had been any work on William Henry Kropp. There was a single entry for him in Family Tree. His birth was listed as 20 October 1897 in Manhattan, New York. No spouse was listed. Parents were George W. Kropp and Louise Hoorman Kropp. George was born in Pennsylvania; Louise, Germany. This was a probable match: William’s birth date was off by a week; his birth place was correct. This gave me potential names for William’s parents. George was born in Pennsylvania (perhaps in the Allentown area?). Nothing conclusive at this point, but some good clues for further research.

Searches in Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.com for William Henry Kropp and George W. Kropp brought the following results:

1. 1940 US Census record for the William & Kate Kropp family. William is a public school custodian. They live on Van Siclen Ave. in Brooklyn. (I did a Google maps search for the address and found a “street view.”)
2. 1930 US Census record for the William & Kate Kropp family. William is a superintendant for an apartment building on E. 37^th Street, Brooklyn. (Another “street view.”)
3. 1920 US Census record for the George W. and Louise S. Kropp family. Son William (age 23, an electrician at the Brooklyn Navy Yard) is listed along with a brother and two sisters (names match those given by my neighbor). George W. (age 52, a policeman) was born in Pennsylvania (as was his mother); his father was born in Germany. Louise S. was was born in Germany (as were both her parents). Louise had borne 5 children, 4 of who were still alive.
4. 1918 WWI Draft Registration Card for William Henry Kropp, listing George W. Kropp as nearest relative. Address given for both is the same as the address for the Kropp family in the 1920 US Census. William is medium height and build, with brown eyes and light hair.
5. 1915 New York State Census for George W. and Louise S. Kropp. The four children (including William, an apprentice electrician) are listed. There are also three borders.
6. 1910 US Census record for the George W. and Louise S. Kropp family. The four Kropp children are all listed with middle initials. One child, Edith E., is apparently the same as Edna in the later census enumerations. Her full name must have been “Edith Edna.”
7. 1905 New York State Census record for the Geo W. and Louisa S. Kropp family. Note that George’s wife is “Louisa,” not “Louise” as in later documents. Also, in addition to the 4 children, Augusta Kropp, an 18 year old sister of George is listed.
8. 1870 US Census record for the Wm and Maria Krop family, living in Packer Township, Carbon County, Pennsylvania. (Parker Township is about 40 miles from Allentown.) William Krop is age 37 and was born in Germany. Maria is 24 and was born in Pennsylvania. Son George Krop is 2 years old and was born in Pennsylvania. They are living in a hotel.

I was fairly confident that documents 1-7 related to William Henry Kropp’s family. Document 8 seemed to be a possibility, but I could not be sure. So, I gathered up my data and presented it to my neighbor. As I tracked through them one-by-one, from the latest back to the earliest, my neighbor began to recall more information that confirmed my searches. He also learned some new information about his family:

• He did not know that his father had worked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, but know that he had been an electrician. In fact, the picture of the Flatland Avenue side of 1930 apartment building elicited a memory of his father’s opening a small store to repair electrical appliances.
• When I showed my neighbor the picture of the entrance to the E. 37^th Street apartment where his father was the superintendant, he pointed to the location of his family’s apartment, “This is where I lived.”
• When I wondered whether George W. Kropp’s middle name might have been “William” and mused that my neighbor might have been named after him, my neighbor confirmed that observation.
• My neighbor (and his wife) remembered Aunt Edna (but did not know that she was also an Edith). [One other possibility is that the census enumerator may have made a mistake in listing her name.]
• When I indicated that I was not sure about the 1870 census, my neighbor said “William was a blacksmith and Maria (pronounced Ma-RYE-ah, not Ma-REE-ah) was my grandmother.” He then went on to tell me that he had lived with his grandparents for a while.
• The date for William Henry Kropp’s birth (as recorded on his WWI Draft Registration Card) differed from that which was on the information sheet about the “Descendants of William Henry Kropp.” My neighbor indicated that the sheet was put together from memory (mostly by his sister), so the October 20^th date from the WWI card was most likely the correct date.

My neighbor was going to share this information with his brother and sister. Perhaps that will elicit more memories and more clues about family origins in Germany. His brother’s grand-daughter (a Niederhausen) had visited the Niederhausen locale in Germany a few years back. My neighbor will check to see whether there was any attempt to visit the Kropp locale.

I told my neighbor that the easy work had been done – internet searches. The hard work come in looking for birth and death records in county court houses and newspapers, etc. While there is more that I can do (e.g., search for census and other records for great-grandfather William Krop), we would need to learn of his town of origin in Germany before we could do any tracing back in Germany. If we were to find that information, I would be glad to order microfilms from the Family History Library and do some further research for him.

I suggested that he talk with his brother and sister – he is 88 and they are 83 (twins). They could be a blessing to the next couple of generations if they were to write down their recollection so that they would not be lost. I also suggested that the “Descendants of William Henry Kropp” sheet could be expanded to include spouses; as well as correcting the birth date for William Henry Kropp.”

When we were done, my neighbor’s wife began to tell me about her family lines (Todt and Rochewski). I now have another assignment!

Step 1:  Load the Document

Put the cursor in cell A:1.   From the Menu select Insert > Picture > From File and then browse to the selected document to transcribe.  I began with a photo copy of a microfilmed page of deed abstracts.   The inserted document will cover a varied number of rows and columns.   I chose a page of deed extracts (Columbiana County, Ohio) because it was fairly straight-forward and easy to read.  Because he document to be transcribed was in columns, I discovered one of the added benefits of transcribing with a spreadsheet.

Step 2:  Split the Window

Select the row immediately below the document.  From the menu select Window > Split.  You will see a heavy line appear immediately above the selected row.  This is the place where the window is split.  The document is in the upper pane and your transcription will be added to the lower pane.  (Remember, both the upper pane and the lower pane are part of the same spreadsheet document.)     Now, with your cursor on the heavy black line,  left click and hold will allow you to shrink the upper pane to an appropriate size.

Step 3 (Optional):   Re-size the Columns

I re-sized the columns so that they corresponded to the columns in the document.  Because the image of the document is attached to cell A:1, resizing the columns (even column A) does not noticeably affect the upper pane.

Step 4:  Transcribe

The lower pane can now be used to transcribe the information in the upper pane.  Because each pane functions separately, you can scroll the image of the document in the upper pane up or down to show as much as you choose.  The same can be said of the lower pane.

In the final image (below) I have shown the transcription of a page from a family Bible.  In the lower pane I have included not only the transcription, but also some notes about the original and a source citation.   You can choose to include whatever information might be important when you next work with the document.

When you save this spreadsheet you will have a copy of the original source, your transcription, and any additional notes you have added.  It will all be there in a single document.  By using separate Sheets within the spreadsheet, you might choose to include transcriptions of a number of related documents — for example, an individual’s birth certificate, marriage license, and death certificate   or   several documents related to a family   or   several grave sites in a particular cemetery or   …     Well, you get the idea.  You can make this work for you!

Map 1

Most of my German Brenner ancestors come from a small area surrounding the current city of Eppingen in Baden-Württemberg. (see Map 1)   Baden came into existence in the 12th Century and existed in a variety of forms until it was merged with Württemberg in 1948 (see Wikipedia).

2g-grandfather, Johannes (John) Brenner (who emigrated to United Stated in 1854) was born in the town of Adelshofen, Baden, in 1836.  His father, Georg Friderich Brenner, was listed as a citizen (Bürger) of Adelshofen at the time of his marriage (in Adelshofen) to Johanna Catarina Venninger (1822).  I have not been able to verify his birth place, but I believe it not to be Adelshofen.

Johanna Venninger’s father was born in Sulzfeld, Baden. He married Johanna’ mother (Elizabetha Fleck) in Adelshofen in 1789.  Johanna’s Grandfather Fleck was born in Ittlingen, Baden, but married three different Adelshofen women (1843, 1762, 1768).

Map 2

In addition to Sulzfeld and Ittlingen, other Brenner ancestors and collaterals came from Stettin, Kuernbach, and Neipperg.  Map 2 indicates the relationship of all these towns to one another.  (For the sake of this exercise, distances are measured on a straight line between the various communities and do not reflect the actual travel distance by roads)

As I review the information in my RootsMagic database, I find that I have 112 events (births, baptisms, confirmations, marriages, and deaths) listed in Adelshofen.  These are events in the lives of Flecks, Venningers, and Brenners.  They are dated from 1716 to 1873.

Sulzfeld was the location for 53 such events; all for Venningers from 1729 to 1834.

Kuernbach was the location for 34 events (from 1550 to 1752).  Families involved were Nasts, Samstags, Trauttlinns, Jaiches, and Ludwigs.

Neipperg was the location for 29 ancestral events (from 1664-1770) involving the Fabers and the Uhls.

Ittlingen was the location for 26 ancestral events (from 1665-1795) involving the Flecks and the Conrads.

Stettin was the loction for 16 ancestral events (from 1667-1689) involving the Stolzenhabers

My database for Baden residents  includes 49 Venningers, 29 Nasts, 23 Flecks, 13 Uhls, 10 Brenners, 9 Conrads, 6 Fabers, 6 Stolzenhabers, 3 Samstags, 3 Ludwigs, 2 Trauttlinns, and 1 Jaich.

Interestingly enough, even though Eppingen was the central city in the area (a population of about 2750 in 1825) there is no indication that any of my ancestors came from Eppingen.  I have wondered whether some regional events, shopping, other commerce or trade brought people of the region to Eppingen, giving rise to the possibility of some connections being made between families from the surrounding communities.

Fortunately, church records from the Evangelische Kirchen of the area are available on microfilm (Family History Library and Family History Centers) for our perusal.  Those records are extremely helpful even though they require some practice at reading the old German handwriting.

• In my “rookie” enthusiasm, whenever I had found a precise date for an individual’s birthday I would enter that date into RootsMagic (often with a source citation). Later, if a particular census record seemed to generally agree (the specific date was within the range suggested by the individual’s age as reported in the census record), I would add a citation for that census record as a source for the specific birth date. I know… not too swift on my part! (I certainly wasn’t operating under the umbrella of the Genealogical Proof Standard.)
• Step two began when I realized that it would be more acceptable to cite multiple sources for a particular information item/fact/event/date only when the multiple sources were in 100% agreement about the item/fact/event/date. I have been reworking the birth date data for my direct line ancestors in RootsMagic. I have removed the multiple citations for specific dates unless the source were in total agreement. I then created new birth events for the additional data pieces with their appropriate citations. Since most census enumerations just list age (not birth dates), I would calculate the year of birth and enter that date with the prefix “about.” In most cases this step is sufficient to provide me with enough data to proceed with confidence.
• Step three, however, has arisen because my great grandmother Mary Ellen Cole, daughter of George Washington Cole and Sarah A. Renkenberger, wife of Lloyd Brenner, either a) was confused about the year in which she was born or b) chose to confuse others about how old she was. Great grandma Brenner seemed to get younger as the years rolled by. Because of the wide range of possible birth dates (about 1861 to about 1866) in the 9 sources I currently have, I have corrected her data in my RootsMagic database to include the inclusive range suggested by the given age for each census year (see below).

Because I do not have a birth certificate or a family Bible record, I have had to deal with nine individual sources containing information about my great grandma Brenner’s birth date. Not one of them is in complete agreement with any other. It’s time to put on my thinking cap and analyze these data carefully.

As I was in the process of working on this issue, I learned that a new program, Evidentia (“Evidentia is the genealogy software that supports your research by guiding you through the Genealogical Proof Standard”), had been released. I have recently been looking for this kind of tool. I decided to give it a try using the data regarding my great grandma Brenner’s birth date.  In order to get oriented, I watched the YouTube videos on Evidentia – an introduction; getting started (4 parts); and creating templates. As is my usual wont, I then jumped in so that I could learn as I moved along. I hit a few bumps and snags along the way, but nothing serious. Soon I was on my entering data.

Since Evidentia uses a “source-centric” approach, step one is to “Document A Source.” I had a copy of Mary Ellen Brenner’s death certificate. I created a source called “Ohio Death Certificate” (which I can use for other Ohio death certificates found on FamilySearch. Next, I had to identify the “Provenance” of the source using a drop down list. This was fairly straight-forward. I was using an image copy which I had downloaded. The final step for documenting the source was to create the bibliography source citation (called the “Source Listing”). There is a handy pop-up citation creation tool which populates both the Source Listing and the “Citation” (long footnote citation). The screen for documenting a source is shown below:

While Evidentia does have a large number of citation templates built into the software, it was necessary for me to create a few of my own. For the more recent U.S. Census years, the built-in template were for NARA microfilm records. Since I was using images downloaded from Ancestry.com, I have to adapt the built-in templates using the “Template Creator.” After a couple of abortive attempts, I got the hang of template development and moved ahead. In one case, I had a field for the NARA microfilm roll number in two different ways (Film# and Film #). Both showed up in the final template. No problem, I re-opened the Template Creator and edited the template and removed one of the field designations. Problem fixed.  I entered nine sources.

The next step was the one that took the most time – entering “Catalogue Claims” for each of the source records. This meant extracting each bit of information from the source, connecting it with an individual, naming the particular type of information (for example: birth, death, marriage, military, education, naturalization, etc.), and finally indicating the quality of the information (primary, secondary, negative). My biggest learning during this step was the large amount of information that can be extracted from individual sources. This is especially true with census enumerations. A part of my previous “rookie” mistakes was looking for particular information in records, finding those particulars, and then moving on. As I started pulling information from the source and entering it into Evidentia’s Catalogue Claims, I found myself looking much more carefully at the census records and trying to extract every bit of information that I could. Of course, much of the information had nothing to do with the research task at hand – that is, identifying the birth date for Mary Ellen Brenner (nee Cole). However, that information is now stored in Evidentia and can be used when appropriate while pursuing other research goals. The Catalogue Claims screen is below:

The final step is “Anaylze Evidence.” Evidentia does not allow short-cuts. If you don’t begin with documenting your source, you can’t proceed to the extraction of information – Catalogue Claims. If you haven’t completed all the steps of Catalogue Claims for each of the sources, you cannot move on to Anaylze Evidence. This step is the development of your “Summary Conclusion” (proof statement) which proceeds from a) identifying the Evidence Quality (direct, indirect, negative) for each assertion from the Catalogue Claims that relate to the “Subject” (Mary Ellen Brenner) and the “Claim” (Birth) and b) analyzing the assertion. The Analysis is not determined by filling in a standard form or choosing an entry from a drop down menu. The analysis is accomplished by thinking through the Assertion and then writing your own personal assessment. As I worked through the various assertions, it became clear that my great grandmother had some issues with having others know how old she was. So, the variety of census enumerations contained a variety of ages – great grandma Brenner seemed to be getting younger as she got older. Perhaps she was self-conscious about being 4-5 years older than great grandpa Brenner. I can only guess at her motivation, but the pattern is fairly clear.

I found only one significant problem with the software. When I began to work on the Analyze Evidence form, I notice that there was one assertion that had no reference to Mary Ellen’s birth. In fact, it was about the birth place of her husband’s parents. I went back to the Catalogue Claims record for that source and there was no connection to Mary Ellen or to her birth. Because the Evidentia software listed the assertion, I had to process it before I could enter a Summary Conclusion. My solution was to select “Negative” as the Evidence Quality and to write “Not applicable.” in the Analysis box. That was sufficient to allow me to proceed. The Analyze Evidence screen is below:

Having done all this work, I was then able to create a Report. My Summary Conclusion was: “Mary Ellen Brenner (nee Cole) was most likely born on 24 August 1862 or 1863.” The complete report is below (after a few summarizing comments).

This was an extremely helpful process and I found Evidentia to be fairly easy to work with after a brief trial-and-error period. I had been working on Mary Ellen’s birth date before discovering Evidentia. I was arriving at the same conclusion, but without the clarity of process. Evidentia forced me to look at every piece of evidence related to my great grandma Brenner’s birth date that I had collected. I couldn’t overlook anything. Everything had to be accounted for. Furthermore, the final Analysis of the evidence and the Summary Conclusion were totally up to me. My thinking was not strained through someone else’s filter. Evidentia led me carefully through the Genealogical Proof Standard process so that I could make my final assertions about the evidence and what I had had “proven.”

I was working from a trial copy of Evidentia which I had downloaded after giving my name and email address. I am convinced; I am going to purchase Evidentia for my own regular use. Disclosure: I am not affiliated with Evidentia; in fact, my only contact with Evidentia has been the perusal of their website, viewing their YouTube videos, and downloading their trial software. Here’s my final report:

Analysis:  9 sources were considered in evaluating this claim.

The Ohio Death Certificate – Mary Ellen Cole (Brenner)[1] asserts that Mary Ellen Brenner was born 24 August 1864 at Lewistown, Ohio. The source reviewed was an Image Copy. The person providing the information is believed to be a Secondary Source (meaning the person did not have direct knowledge of the fact or event). The information supporting the claim is considered Direct (meaning it is explicitly stated as fact).

All birth years that likely originated with Mary Ellen herself, vary from those possibilities that came from her parents. There is no evidence to suggest that August 24th is the correct month and date of Mary Ellen’s birth. Mary Ellen likely knew her own birthday. The evidence of all the sources, other than the 1870 & 1880 censuses, suggest that Mary Ellen tried to mask the true year of her birth. That she was born in 1864 is, therefore, suspect.

The Ohio Death Certificate – Mary Ellen Cole (Brenner)[2] asserts that Mary Ellen Brenner was 80y, 9m, 17d old on the day of her death. The source reviewed was an Image Copy. The person providing the information is believed to be a Secondary Source (meaning the person did not have direct knowledge of the fact or event). The information supporting the claim is considered Indirect (meaning it is implied by the facts rather than explicitly stated).

This calculated date originates from the given date of 24 August 1864. That date likely originated with Mary Ellen herself, since her husband Lloyd was the Informant. It varies, of course, from those possibilities dates that came from her parents. It is likely that August 24th is the correct month and date of Mary Ellen’s birth. That she was born in 1864 is, however, suspect.

The 1870 Census – G.W. Cole Family[3] asserts that Mary Cole, female, white, was 8 yers old, born in Ohio. The source reviewed was an Image Copy. The person providing the information is believed to be a Primary Source (meaning the person had direct knowledge of the fact or event). The information supporting the claim is considered Indirect (meaning it is implied by the facts rather than explicitly stated).

This is the earliest record of Mary Ellen’s birth. The data most likely comes from one of her parents. This would place her birth in either 1861 or 1862. The Cole family was enumerated in August, most likely Mary Ellen’s birth month. Even though the enumeration before her likely birth date, it is quite possible that the infromant made a mistake and indicated that Mary Ellen was 8 (instead of 7).

The 1880 US Census – G Washington Cole Family[4] asserts that Mary Cole, white, female, was 17 years old, born in Ohio. The source reviewed was an Image Copy. The person providing the information is believed to be a Primary Source (meaning the person had direct knowledge of the fact or event). The information supporting the claim is considered Indirect (meaning it is implied by the facts rather than explicitly stated).

This is the earliest record of Mary Ellen’s birth. The data most likely comes from one of her parents. This would place her birth in either 1861 or 1862. The Cole family was enumerated in August, most likely Mary Ellen’s birth month. Even though the enumeration before her likely birth date, it is quite possible that the infromant made a mistake and indicated that Mary Ellen was 8 (instead of 7).

The 1900 US Census – Lloyd Brenner Family[5] asserts that Mary Brenner, white, female, 35 years old, was born August 1864 in Ohio. The source reviewed was an Image Copy. The person providing the information is believed to be a Secondary Source (meaning the person did not have direct knowledge of the fact or event). The information supporting the claim is considered Indirect (meaning it is implied by the facts rather than explicitly stated).

This agrees with the Death Certificate date (month and year). Once again, this came from Mary Ellen who apparently kept getting younger as she got older. August as birth month is likely correct. The year (1864) is probably wrong.)

The 1930 US Census – Lloyd Brenner Family[7] asserts that Mary E Brenner, white, female, age 64 was born in Ohio. The source reviewed was an Image Copy. The person providing the information is believed to be a Secondary Source (meaning the person did not have direct knowledge of the fact or event). The information supporting the claim is considered Indirect (meaning it is implied by the facts rather than explicitly stated).

This would make Mary Ellen’s birth year either 1865 or 1866. This is the latest birth year suggested by Mary Ellen. No, not likely at all.

The 1940 US Census – Lloyd & Mary Ellen Brenner[8] asserts that Mary Brenner, white, female, age 75, was born in Ohio. The source reviewed was an Image Copy. The person providing the information is believed to be a Secondary Source (meaning the person did not have direct knowledge of the fact or event). The information supporting the claim is considered Indirect (meaning it is implied by the facts rather than explicitly stated).

This would make Mary Ellen’s birth year either 1864 or 1865. Mary Ellen aged an extra year from the previous year’s census, but this still doesn’t fit.

The Cemetery – Grave Marker – Lloyd and Mary E Brenner[9] asserts that Mary E Brenner (“Mother”) 1864 – 1945. The source reviewed was an Image Copy. The person providing the information is believed to be a Secondary Source (meaning the person did not have direct knowledge of the fact or event). The information supporting the claim is considered Indirect (meaning it is implied by the facts rather than explicitly stated).

Since the tombstone includes both Lloyd and Mary Ellen’s dates of birth and death, the informatin date to at least 1949. Even though this is in potential agreement with three other sources, they all likely have the same origin – that is, Mary Ellen herself. Not as reliable as the 1862 or 1863 dates provided by Mary Ellen’s parents.

The 1920 US Census – Lloyd Brenner Family[10] asserts that Mary E Brenner, white, female, age 54, was born in Ohio. The source reviewed was an Image Copy. The person providing the information is believed to be a Secondary Source (meaning the person did not have direct knowledge of the fact or event). The information supporting the claim is considered Indirect (meaning it is implied by the facts rather than explicitly stated).

This would make Mary Ellen’s birth year either 1865 or 1866. This is the latest birth year suggested by Mary Ellen. No, not likely at all.

End Notes

1  1870 U.S. census, Mahoning, Ohio, Population Schedule, 19, ,26-31, dwelling 139, family , ; digital image, Ancestry.com (:); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm , roll .

2  1870 U.S. census, Mahoning, Ohio, Population Schedule, 19, ,26-31, dwelling 139, family , ; digital image, Ancestry.com (:); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm , roll .

3  1870 U.S. census, Mahoning, Ohio, population schedule, 19,1,26-31, dwelling 139, family , ; digital image, ancestry.com (:); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm , roll .

4  1880 U.S. census, Mahoning County, Ohio, population schedule, Beaver Township, enumeration district (ED) 91 p. 21, dwelling 179, family, 181, G Washington Cole family; digital image, Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com : accessed 15 June 2011); citing NARA microfilm publication T9, roll 1045.

5  1880 U.S. census, Mahoning County, Ohio, population schedule, Youngstown Township, enumeration district (ED) 71 p. 12B, dwelling 237, family, 249, Lloyd Brenner family; digital image, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 June 2011); citing NARA microfilm publication T9, roll 1239.

7  1930 U.S. census, Mahoning County, Ohio, population schedule, Youngstown, Ward 4, Block 230, enumeration district (ED) 50-59 page 11B (written), dwelling 175, family 203, Lloyd Brenner family; NARA microfilm publication T625, roll 1845.

8  1940 U.S. census, Mahoning County, Ohio, population schedule, Youngstown, Ward 4, enumeration district (ED) 96-83 page 5B (written), dwelling 89, Lloyd & Mary Brenner; Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : downloaded 28 September 2012); NARA microfilm publication T625, roll 3270.

9  Belmont Park Cemetery (Trumbull, Ohio, United States), Lloyd and Mary Ellen Brenner, ; photo by Dana Bode, ???.

10  1920 U.S. census, Mahoning County, Ohio, population schedule, Youngstown, Precinct C, enumeration district (ED) 197 page 11B (written), dwelling 227, family 249, Lloyd Brenner family; NARA microfilm publication T625, roll 1415.

Prepared by Bart L. Brenner

Evidentia® 2012

for Evaluating Genealogical Evidence:

Because I am a hobby genealogist / family historian, I have developed my own processes. I have strive to inform those processes with the best practices of the broader genealogical community. As a teen, I helped my uncle re-shingle the roof of our house. As he would lay the first shingle in a row – over-lapping the edge by 1/3 or 2/3 of the shingle – I would ask “Why?” His answer was always “It’s SOP (standard operating procedure).” To which I would always come back with “Why is it SOP?” Standards are important, but they need to be understood. I need to know why a particular standard has been developed before I am willing to make it a regular part of my repertoire. As a result, I tend to develop my own processes and practices, informed by the standards, rather than slavishly following someone else’s formula, even though it has the stamp of being SOP.

This exercise, in two modes, has helped my clarify my own process for examining and evaluating genealogical evidence. That process is:

• See the Big Picture (individuals and events don’t happen in isolation)

I had clear evidence suggesting that my 2g-grandfather did served in the 19^th OVI, the 44^th ONG, and the 155^th OVI (and no evidence suggesting that he did not). When I looked closely at the 1950 certificate about John Brenner’s service in the 11^th OVM, I began to have questions because it didn’t seem to fit the big picture.

• Remember my Goal (in a more formal process: the “research question”)

I was interested in confirming my 2g-grandfather’s Civil War service, with special interest in assessing whether he served in the 11^th OVM.

• Assess what fits into the Big Picture and Explain what doesn’t fit (painting with a broad-stroke brush)

All the information / evidence regarding the 19^th OVI, the 44^th ONG, and the 155^th OVI fits the big picture; the information / evidence regarding the 11^th OVM did not fit (especially the indication of John Brenner’s birth date as 15 April 1843). The issue here is consistency – Does the evidence paint a consistent picture throughout my research? Inconsistencies need to be explained.

• Assess the Connections between the pieces and Explain the Disconnects (painting with a detail brush)

There was an evidence trail that connected my 2g-grandfather to the 19^th OVI, the 44^th ONG, and the 155^th OVI, but not to the 11^th OVM. The only evidence connecting him to the 11^th OVM was the 1950 certificate from the Office of the Ohio Adjutant General. Clearly the Office of the OAG had mixed together information regarding two different men named John Brenner (both living adjacent counties in Ohio). The issue here is corroboration – Do the individual pieces of evidence corroborate one another or not? If not, then this needs to be further analyzed and explained.

• Come to a Conclusion (well reasoned, supported by the evidence at hand; in a more formal process: “proof”)

While I do not know how the Office of the Ohio Adjutant General received information about the removal of my 2g-grandfather’s grave from Oak Hill Cemetery to Belmont Park Cemetery, it is reasonable to conclude that the receipt of this information was the occasion for said information to be mis-filed with the wrong John Brenner. It finally comes down to “What do I believe about the evidence?” I may be wrong, but I must be clear about my conclusions. Others may disagree. The discovery of new evidence may prove me wrong. But my conclusion, for now, is where I stand.

• Be Open to New Evidence (and perhaps a new conclusion)

It is conceivable that the information regarding the 1843 birth of the John Brenner from Columbiana County could have been the information that was mis-filed (rather than the information regarding my 2g-grandfather’s burial). Were that to be the case, then I would have to re-assess whether or not my 2g-grandfather had served in the 11^th OVM. Conclusions can change – by the introduction of new evidence or by the re-evaluation of existing evidence. Conclusions are not meant to be “eternal truths.”

regarding Standard Genealogical Classification of Sources, Information, and Evidence:

1. Classification of Sources, Information, Evidence does NOT Replace Analysis and Evaluation

Designating sources as original / derivative, information as primary / secondary, evidence as direct / indirect / negative is a task in classification that sets the stage for analysis and evaluation; it is not evaluation itself. Direct evidence gleaned from primary information found in original sources may still be incorrect. As James Tanner (“Primary and Secondary Sources — Genealogy and Hearsay”) suggests “A priori designations may fatally prejudice consideration of valuable clues leading to an accurate picture of an ancestor.” Classification doesn’t replace analyzing and evaluating. At it’s best, it only lays a clear foundation from which to proceed.

2. Methodological Tools, not Guarantees of Certainty

Classifying sources and information / evidence does not guarantee a result. The classification categories are simply tools to aid in the reflective processes by which we come to reasonable conclusions (“proofs”). It is not always clear, for example, whether a source is a primary or secondary source or whether the absence of information is negative evidence. Michael Hait (in a comment on his blog post, “Reconciling conflicting information–a case study”) writes “So whether it is primary or secondary is actually a less important consideration than that it is likely the highest-quality and most reliable piece of information that we have….” Inability to distinguish the proper classification does not necessarily impede good evaluation. Good tools help, but are no substitute for good analysis and evaluation. Another observation from James Tanner (“Primary and Secondary Sources — Categorizing Evidence”): “The evidence is what it is. Whether you believe it or not is really the question. … But whether or not a particular piece of evidence is reliable or unreliable has nothing to do with assigning it to an artificial category.”

3. Evidence-based or Conclusion-based?

Earlier this year Randy Seaver summed up an interesting conversation about two different approaches to genealogy (“More on Conclusion-Based and Evidence-Based Genealogy“). I followed that conversation with interest, trying to assess my own practice. The current exercise of classifying sources, information, and evidence brought me back to that conversation. As a puzzle solver, I like to start in the middle and work my way out… I don’t think that necessarily fits either category. It probably means that I am some kind of an amalgam, a blend of both approaches. I suspect that it ultimately doesn’t matter which approach one takes, as long as one researches carefully, cites regularly, reasons well, and shares judiciously. Each of us must determine which approaches will aid us in doing our best work in genealogy / family history.

In Summary: When a genealogist / family historian evaluates evidence gathered during research in order to arrive at assertions that bear a higher degree of confidence, the standards defined by the broader genealogical community (e.g., the BCG Genealogical Standards Manual or E. S. Mills’ Evidence and Evidence Explained) are helpful tools, not to be ignored; but, in the final analysis, good judgment and sound reasoning are the most important tools.

After reading Michael Hait’s blog posts (“Reconciling conflicting information” and “Reconciling conflicting information–a case study”)  and  I developed a spreadsheet for classifying each document (and its information) related to John Brenner’s Civil War service. I classified each document as either Original or Derivative; each information item as either Primary or Secondary; each bit of evidence as either Direct, Indirect, or Negative in answering the research question. (Actually there were 4 research questions: Did John Brenner [10 February 1836 – 28 September 1909] serve in the 19^th Ohio Volunteer Infantry? the 44^th Ohio National Guard? the 155^th Ohio Volunteer Infantry? the 11^th Ohio Volunteer Militia?)

A photo of a letter (hand-written by John Brenner in 1900) provides primary information and direct evidence of his service in the 19^th OVI. It provides indirect evidence of his service in the 44^th ONG and 155^th OVI (the regiment numbers are not given). It also provides negative evidence of his service in the 11^th OVM. Even though it was written almost 30 years after the events it details, I am inclined to classify this letter as a primary source since John Brenner certainly knew about his military service.

Photos of two discharge certificates (19^th OVI and 44^th ONG) are primary sources (dated on the day of his discharge; one of them indicating “Gov. Print. Office, May 15, 1861”). They provide primary information; direct evidence of John Brenner’s service in the 19^th OVI and the 44^th ONG; and indirect evidence of his service in the 155^th OVI.

John Brenner’s pension records are original sources, providing primary information and direct evidence regarding his service in the 19^th OVI and 155^th OVI. They provide no information regarding the 44^th ONG because that was service to the State of Ohio, not the United States. I am uncertain regarding the status of the 11^th OVM. Was it only an Ohio unit (1 month’s service in 1862) or had it been nationalized as a part of the Federal army? If the unit was nationalized, then John Brenner’s pension records are negative evidence regarding his service in that unit; if not nationalized, then there would be no expectation for its inclusion.

I find that the 1890 US Census Veteran’s Schedule to be somewhat problematic as to classification. It is an Original source. Due to the detail (enlistment and discharge dates), I might surmise that John Brenner, himself, is the informant, but I have no way of knowing if that is so. [According to an article in the National Archives' Prologue Magazine, “Question 2 on the general population schedules inquired whether the subject had been 'a soldier, sailor, or marine during the civil war (United States or Confederate) or widow of such person.' ... According to enumeration instructions, if the veteran or widow responded 'yes' to Union service, the enumerator produced the veterans schedule, marked the family number from the general population schedule, and proceeded to ask additional service-related questions.” http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1996/spring/1890-census-2.html ] Whatever the provenance of the 1890 Veteran’s Schedule for John Brenner, it provided direct evidence of his service in the 19^th OVI and 155^th OVI. Omission of reference to the 44^th ONG and 11^th OVM must beconsidered in the same manner as with the pension records.

The National Park Service database of Civil War Soldiers and Sailors (a Derivative source with secondary information) lists six entries for John Brenner in Ohio. Two of them (1^st OVI and 8^th OVI are for units enlisting those living in other parts of Ohio). There are two John Brenners serving in the 19^th OVI; one in Company A; the other, Company B. All information about my 2g-grandfather indicate that he served in Company B. The other two entries are for the 11^th OVI and 155^th OVI (National Guard). This database might indicate that the 11^th OVI (1 month service in 1862) had been nationalized. [Note: The information for Ohio Soldiers and Sailors in the database was gathered by volunteers of the Ohio Genealogical Society. That certainly leaves room for mistakes to have been made. Notation on the National Park site regarding the 11^th OVM indicates that “'Compendium of the War of the Rebellion' by Frederick H. Dyer contains no history for this unit.”]

Now to the ‘culprit’ – that is, the 1950 certificate from the Office of the Adjutant General of the State of Ohio indicating that John Brenner served in the 11^th OVM. This is clearly a derivative source containing secondary information – developed 89 years after the fact and reflecting records held by the AG’s Office. The name, rank, unit, mustered in and mustered out dates are are direct evidence of John Brenner’s service in the 11^th OVM. The birth date (4-15-1843) would appear to be negative evidence suggesting that perhaps the John Brenner referred to is not my 2g-grandfather. His birth date is 10 February 1836. In fact, the John Brenner who is my 2g-grandfather did not arrive in this country until 1856, 13 years after the birth of the John Brenner who apparently served in the 11^thOVM. The confusion comes with the listing of John Brenner’s death date and burial location. These coincide exactly with my 2g-grandfather.

Since my 2g-grandfather was originally buried at Oak Hill Cemetery in Youngstown, Ohio, but his grave was later removed to Belmont Park Cemetery by his son, Judson, I would guess that the information concerning the removal of his grave to Belmont Park Cemetery was at some later point forwarded to the Ohio Adjutant General’s Office and added to the wrong John Brenner file. This would explain the inconsistencies recorded on the 1950 certificate regarding the John Brenner who served in the 11th OVM.

According to Joshua H. Horton (A History of the Eleventh Regiment (Ohio Volunteer Infantry). Dayton: W. J. Shuey, 1866. Online in Google Books) the 11^th OVM recruited from 5 southwestern Ohio counties and one county in northeastern Ohio (Columbiana County). The 1870 U. S. Census records for West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio, shows a John Brenner (son of Michael and Gertrude Brenner), age 27, born in Pennsylvania. His age is consistent with the 15 April 1843 birth date given on the 11th OVM Certificate from the Ohio Adjutant General’s Office.

The evidence is rather conclusive that John Brenner, my 2g-grandfather, served in the 19^th and 155^th Ohio Voluntary Infantry units, as well as the 44^th Ohio National Guard. The John Brenner who served in the 11^th OVM was not my 2g-grandfather, but probably was the son of Michael and Gertrude Brenner. He resided in Columbiana County, Ohio, in 1870 and likely was recruited from that county in 1862. The 1950 derivative certificate would seem to indicate an error in the records of the Office of the Ohio Adjutant General.

In a subsequent post, I will outline my learnings from this process of classifying and evaluating the evidence regarding John Brenner’s Civil War service.

A Kanban is “A visual process management system that tells what to produce, when to produce it, and how much to produce.” (see Wikipedia)

the condept was developed by Toyota.   The Wikipedia article lists six core principles identified by David Anderson. The first three seem relevant to a genealogy process tracker (research log) – “Visualize” (make the workflow visible – e.g., a Kanban board); “Limit Work-in-Progress” (do not exceed available capacity); “Manage Flow” (monitor, measure, report).

This seems inherently obvious BUT, for one who likes to chase rabbit trail after rabbit trail while doing genealogical research, the core principle of limiting work-in-progress is the very thing that seems most difficult for me to do. After reading briefly about Kanban development I realize that part one of the reasons that I follow rabbit trails is that I have not conceptually visualized my research process. Will a Kanban approach help? I don’t know, but I am willing to try.

Interestingly, while I had never heard of Kanban boards, I found that my son and I had used the concept as we were setting up our website. In our research wiki (a private MediaWiki installed on our website) we had a “Development ToDo List.” It contained three sections:

• “To Do” (a fluid listing / tracking of tasks to be accomplished);
• “For Consideration” (a list of items / issues to be considered before listing as ToDos or dropping);
• “Explore!” (a list of web sites to be explored as possibly containing information / procedures / ideas that may, at some later time, be added as ToDos).

Each section was populated with an expandable list of tasks. The ‘description’ area for each task was also a place to append notes. Each task was assigned to either my son or me. The ‘status’ area for each task listed:

• “Pend(ing)” = not yet begun;
• “InPr(ocess)” – begun, not completed;
• “Done” = task completed.

It’s nice to know that we were using a ‘tried and true’ process that had a name of its own! I guess we were using a 3^rd generation Kanban process (Gen1 = cards; Gen2 = a wall board with ‘sticky’ notes; Gen3 = digital, Wiki). I haven’t done anything with the Gen3 Kanban since we got through the initial process of setting up our website. Jill Morelli’s question (“Can I use a Kanban effectively to improve my genealogical research? ”) has now become my question.

I considered setting up a Kanban log in my Research Wiki but quickly realized that multiple column charts are not easy in MediaWiki markup language. I’ve done it before, but would have to re-learn the task. Not impossible, not even overly difficult, but not necessary when I can set up the exact some process in a spreadsheet. So, I opened LibreOffice and got to work.

 ToDo List:

I created the beginnings of a ToDo List that incorporates the process I am currently pursuing to “tidy” up my RootsMagic 5 data base before I import it into our TNG website.

 For Consideration List:

Last February I visited the Family History Library in Salt Lake City and began my work on German church records for the Baden communities of Adelshofen, Kuernbach, Ittlingen, Sulzfeld, Waiblingen and the Wuerttemberg community of Leonbrun. Now I will have to order copies of microfilms to be delivered to the Lindemann branch of the St. Charles County Public Library for further work. I have listed all these microfilms in the list of items to be considered.

Explore! List:

This evening I visited the Ohio Genealogical Society website and looked at the list of member databases that can be searched online. While I could have put these items in the Consideration List, I have chosen to put them here, as a beginning,

It should be noted that these lists are all fluid. They are to grow as new possibilities arise. Items will be moved up from the “Explore!” and “Consideration” lists as my research takes me in the indicated directions.

This is a trial balloon on my part. Is it enough to keep me from pursuing research “rabbit trails?” Probably not! In fact, I find a lot of pleasure in the serendipity of rabbit trail “finds.” Hopefully, following this Kanban tracking process will help provide a crisper focus for my research. We’ll see. I’ll report on my successes, shortcomings, failures, and learnings in later posts.