Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Madaleine J. Laird
118 followers
118 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
Madaleine J. Laird commented on a post on Blogger.
You're correct, the "Published" date is the first year that particular serial was published. Sometimes this date must be calculated, based on the earliest available issue. If you could see the back end of the catalog, that field would be called "dates of publication and/or sequential designation." Using only the word "Published" as a label for that field on the front end of the catalog was a poor choice, in my opinion.

There's a difference between "serials" and "series" too, which probably isn't terribly interesting to anyone, so I won't get into it. Annual reports are considered serials.

Have you tried doing an advanced full-text search? You can limit the year of publication in various ways.  
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Madaleine J. Laird commented on a post on Blogger.
The catalog record on HathiTrust mentions that the "original" of volume 116 is located at the University of Michigan. I assume that "original" means the print version that HathiTrust digitized. If one of your local library systems offers document retrieval / interlibrary loan service, they may be able to get it for you.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Madaleine J. Laird commented on a post on Blogger.
Just call me The Catalog Whisperer. ;-)
Hathitrust Revised
Hathitrust Revised
rootdig.blogspot.com
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Madaleine J. Laird commented on a post on Blogger.
For sentimental reasons, I'll do a little crowdsourcing. The intended recipient of the postcard above apparently lived in Lexington, Nebraska, and I'm pretty sure I checked out my first library book about local history and genealogy from the Lexington Public Library in the mid-1970s. That would be My Backyard History Book, by David Weitzman. Anyway . . .

The postmark on this card appears to be "OCT 2 . . . 1905." Its intended recipient was one "F. E. Bax," known to the sender as "Cousin Fred." The sender calls himself "Ben" and signs the postcard "Your cousin." Ben also inquires about "Fred Jr."

The 1910 U.S. census for Dawson County, Nebraska, shows a Frederick E. Bax living in Lexington with his wife and three children, the eldest of whom is four-year-old Frederick E. Bax Jr. Head-of-household Frederick's place of birth is given as Missouri, while  four-year-old Frederick was born in Nebraska.

I came across several other sources for members of the Bax family, but my limited search efforts did not result in any connections between Ben, the sender, and Cousin Fred, the recipient.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Madaleine J. Laird commented on a post on Blogger.
I think this blog post highlights the need to distinguish between "search" and "research" in genealogy. Those two words are often used interchangeably in genealogical literature, but they really involve different activities. According to Genealogy Standards, "effective research questions" address "aspects of identity, relationships, events, and situations" (11). You obviously have such questions about Altje Goldenstein, such as where, when, and with whom she arrived in North America. But "Where can I find the passenger manifest with Altje Goldenstein's name on it?" is a search question, not a research question. I would also argue that any plan whose main goal is locating and examining records/sources/documents/items/whatever is a search plan, not a research plan, because it only covers the first component of the Genealogical Proof Standard. Same goes for a log that details search efforts. It's a search log, not a research log.    

Who knows, there may be some weird reason that Altje's not on any passenger manifest, and if that's the case, broadening your search certainly wouldn't help. According to a family narrative of uncertain provenance, my great-great-grandfather was once a passenger on a steamer that "got yellow fever, and when they anchored outside of Roanoke, Virginia, he and his partner . . . jumped ship and swam ashore." The fact that Roanoke is located far inland between the Allegheny and Blue Ridge mountain ranges makes it an unlikely location for such an event, so that part of the story is probably more of a tall tale. But if he really did jump ship in another place that actually had a shore, his boarding process may have been as sketchy as his hasty departure!
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Madaleine J. Laird commented on a post on Blogger.
I was going to suggest that BCG start gathering errata for Genealogy Standards the way NGS is doing for Mastering Genealogical Proof, but you've pointed out a problem with the definition of "evidence" that goes beyond the copy editing errors collected by NGS. "A research question's tentative answer" (67) sounds more like a "theory" than the definition of genealogical "evidence" as I understand it.

Thinking about terms and definitions is not a bad thing at all. I'm not sure where these discussions currently take place in genealogy world, other than on blogs and the TGF list. Topics in Genealogical Theory and Methods, aka TIGTAM (http://www.tigtam.com), would be the perfect forum, if it ever gets enough material to publish a first issue. Perhaps genealogists with postnomials talk about terminology and other big-picture issues at annual meetings or on private email lists, but then again, maybe they don't. The fact that scholarly genealogical publications focus more on method than theory doesn't seem to bode well for the field's gaining academic credibility anytime soon.

I had hoped Genealogy Standards would stop using certain words interchangeably--search and research, data and information--because they are clearly not the same concepts at all, but alas, that practice continues. I also see that librarians and archivists are still referred to as "source caretakers" and "custodians" (16). Smooth move, standard-setting genealogists. Way to insult the very people you just insisted on respecting! No wonder information professionals aren't fond of genealogists. In one short paragraph, we've reduced them to nannies and janitors when they really have The Power to Name (http://www.amazon.com/The-Power-Name-Representation-Libraries/dp/1402007760/), not to mention a profession and a scholarly field that are a lot further along than ours! And don't even get me started on "authored narrative" (64).

Good grief. I need to get myself a postnomial--posthaste!

[All the page numbers above refer to Genealogy Standards, for which I would create a citation if I wanted to figure out any of the following: which of the two places of publication to use, whether to use the name of the publisher or the name of the imprint, and whether "50th Anniversary Edition" is part of the title or not. I do not wish to figure out any of these things at this time.]
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Madaleine J. Laird commented on a post on Blogger.
+Michael John Neill also wrote about proof in genealogy and mathematics in a 20 Dec 2013 post on his Rootdig blog.
Proof of the Pudding
Proof of the Pudding
parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
Hey, that's me! Thank you, +Caroline Pointer,  for having me on What's Up Genealogy? this week.
Special week-of-NGS2013 Episode of What's Up Genealogy? with Madaleine Laird {episode 9} now just officially released.

Watch now~> 

http://www.4yourfamilystory.com/1/post/2013/05/whats-up-genealogy-episode-9-with-madaleine-laird.html

#genealogy   #familyhistory  #research #howto #Whatsupgenealogy  #wug
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
My quilt research project starts on Monday! I'm hitting the road today.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded