Do you have any ancestors who
seem like they just don’t want to be found? Thought so. Even when you know
they were in a certain place at a certain time, the records just won’t
cooperate. Sometimes this is because the record in question simply wasn’t
created. Other times, your ancestors may have switched venues on you without
warning—say, run off to get married across county or state lines. But when
dealing with online databases, much of the time the problem lies not with the
record itself, but with the indexing we’ve come to rely on to find it.
I recently encountered this
when searching for the death record of my husband’s great-great-grandfather,
John Franklin Beum. From John's obituary, I knew the exact date of his death:
December 17, 1909. I knew he died in one of two counties: either Franklin
County or Delaware County, Ohio. But for the life of me, I couldn’t seem to
coax his death record from FamilySearch.org,
even though Ohio began keeping state-mandated death records a year earlier, in
December 1908. I last looked for it about 18 months ago, when I set my work on
that branch of the family aside. I picked it up again last month, while
preparing an application to Century Families of Ohio. I’m happy to report
success this time around, and although I don’t profess to have all the answers,
I thought I’d share the five techniques I used to get there.
1. Pick the specific database(s) you think should hold the record.
In this case, John should
have been in the “Ohio, Deaths, 1908-1953” database, which offers digital images of
the records. To get to it, I went to the FamilySearch home page and bypassed the main
search box. Scrolling down to “Browse By Location,” I chose “United States.” On
the next page, I scrolled down to select “Ohio” in the left-hand sidebar. A list of 19 databases for Ohio records came up. I then
selected the database mentioned above. The advantage of doing this is that it
provides a more focused search and weeds out the records of, say, a John Beum
who lived in Wyoming. It also allows you to try some of the more advanced search techniques
listed below.
2. Use the asterisk (*) wildcard.
On FamilySearch.org, as with many
online search engines, the asterisk symbol can be used to stand in for any
number of unspecified letters. It’s a useful technique for overcoming
variations in spelling, and has often helped me find a miswritten or misindexed
record. In the past, I’ve seen this short but tricky surname spelled Beum
(correctly), Beam, Bearn, Berne, Beaum, Benns, etc. So knowing my previous
difficulty, when I went looking for John this time, I tried entering his first
name with the last name Be* (the only consistently correct letters).
FamilySearch, however, requires at least three letters in a wildcard search. For a
surname with only four letters, this presents a bit of a problem. I tried Be*m,
Be*n, and others, but none of these returned the result I was looking for.
3. If a surname search doesn’t work, try alternative search terms.
Fortunately, FamilySearch offers a number of search
fields that may help in difficult cases. You can search by location, by the
year of a specific event (birth, marriage, or death), or by the name of a
spouse or parent. I decided to ditch the troublesome surname altogether. Even
though John is a common name, I had a middle initial, an exact year, and a probable county name to help me. I entered the following terms:
- First name: John F.
- Last name: (blank)
- Life event: death; death place: Delaware County; year: 1909
Even though I had a lot of
results to go through, I took my time with them, looking at the dates, places,
and parents’ names on each one. If you get a bingo! moment on the first page, consider it a bonus. I didn’t. But
on the third page of results I found the one I was looking for:
So what happened? From what I
can figure, John’s death record was not completely indexed. Whoever indexed it
apparently couldn’t make out the surname beyond the first two letters, and it
entered the database as “Be…” No wonder the three-letter wildcard search didn’t
work! What I didn’t expect to find was his entire middle name. I could have
included that in the first name search field, if I had known. Oh well. I had my prize: an image of John Franklin Beum's death certificate.
So what’s my last tip?
So what’s my last tip?
5. If you still don’t find what you’re looking for, try a different
database, or make a note to search again on a future date.
The good news is that
FamilySearch is continually adding to its databases and bringing more and more
searchable records online. When I have to suspend a search for awhile, I make a
note of the date of my last search, the database(s) I tried, and the search
terms I used. I put this information in the person’s “notes” section in my
genealogy software program, and also jot a quick handwritten reminder to myself and
stick it in the front of my surname binder. That way I can pick up the search
again another day.
So if your ancestor is
playing hard to get, even when you think he or she should have left a record in a particular database, try these tips
and see if they help. Sometimes coaxing an ancestor out of hiding takes a combination
of trial-and-error, perseverance, and—let’s face it—just plain luck. Here’s
wishing you success with your hunt!
--Shelley
Related Posts:
John F. Beum - Sunday's Obituary
--Shelley
Related Posts:
John F. Beum - Sunday's Obituary
Great post on reminding people to try and search again , especially because of the updates !
ReplyDeleteGlad you found it helpful. Thanks for reading!
ReplyDeleteGreat post Shelley,
ReplyDeleteWildcard has been especially helpful to me in the past. As with try again another day. We all develop defaults and habits in our search techniques. Sometimes trying again later helps us remember to search creatively.
Good point, Rorey. I agree that sometimes approaching a search with fresh eyes is the ticket to success--it certainly helped me in this case. Thanks for taking the time to share your comment.
DeleteGood post Shelley. I like the way you laid it all out so plain and clear
ReplyDeleteMuch appreciated, Michelle!
DeleteThank you! This is so clearly written and easy to take advice from. We also have a surname that could not provide a three-letter clue for an wildcard asterisk search: Kirven, Kervin, Kirvin, Kerven. That would be OK for two wildcard searches, BUT the actual name is found in some census by the designation of Kiw*** -- because of the census-taker's cursive writing -- go figure.
ReplyDeleteI actually like doing first-name searches, especially if you can add something definite like a BD date, and a sure place. Found my uncle's wife "Annette" that way.
How encouraging that databases are constantly expanding. So hopeful. And thanks for this post!
It's funny how surnames can trip you up, isn't it? First name searches aren't always the quickest thing to try (especially with a common name), but like you, I've found they can be surprisingly successful. Thanks for reading, Mariann!
DeleteGreat advice!
ReplyDeleteAnother tip: When I suspect that I can't find someone because the database is incomplete - either date gaps or missing counties, I will enter date range and location, but leave the name fields blank (or use Smith). This shows whether there are any records to be found yet.
That's a great tip, too! I often wonder if a particular county's records have been indexed yet in various databases, and hadn't thought about using that technique to test the waters. But it makes perfect sense and only takes a minute. Appreciate the comment!
DeleteI did a similar search for a birth record. I know the name, Edward Holiday and birth date, but couldn't find him. So I looked at every Edward born in 1909, his birth year. At the very end, on the 12th page, I found Eddie Holidi, listed with the correct parents, and HE was listed as a female! Interestingly, he married, had 3 children and I hope he didn't get laughed at when he joined the military. BUt another search techinic is just the first name.
ReplyDeleteThat's a wonderful example of how perseverance can eventually win the day. It's certainly not easy when even the sex of the person is incorrect! Congrats on finding your Edward. And thanks for reading and taking the time to share your story.
Delete