[Genealogy] New York's Bourbon County, New Full-Text search 5-week class, Independence and Exhaustion

[Michael John Neill]

Need to unsubscribe? Manage here
<https://genealogytipoftheday.com/mailman/listinfo/genealogy_genealogytipoftheday.com>
.

Genealogy Update 31 August 2026


** Bourbon County, New York?
** 5-Week Class on Using FamilySearch's Full-Text Search
** Becoming Independent from an Exhaustive Search

------------------------------
Bourbon County, New York
------------------------------
[image: image.png]

A declaration for pension made out by David A. Newman on 22 May 1912 in
Linn County, Iowa, stated that he was born on 12 April 1830 in Bourbon
County, New York.

The writing is clear and that’s how I’m going to transcribe it because that
is what it says: Bourbon County, New York.

However it’s wrong. Of course it’s not wrong simply because I said so. Far
from it. After all, it’s not a date of which I have any first hand
knowledge.

On virtually every other record where David provided a place of birth, he
gave the state of Kentucky. If a county was given, it was usually Bourbon.
David’s parents lived in Kentucky from their 1815 marriage in Bourbon
County, Kentucky, through at least the 1830 census. At some point they
moved to Indiana and lived in at least two counties in that state. There’s
nothing indicating they ever lived in New York. And while it’s possible, it
doesn’t seem likely since every other record on David and this family
indicated they were in Kentucky from 1815 through sometime in the 1830s. I
don’t *know *why this record says New York. There’s nothing on the document
to indicate where the place of birth came from and I certainly was not
there to witness the creation of the declaration.

Seeing the New York reference did cause me to go back and review what I had
on this family during the time period David Newman was born to Augusta and
Melinda (Sledd) Newman. Nothing suggested they were elsewhere. Of course,
it is always possible. It’s just not too probable.

And it’s not too probable that every other document is wrong and this one
is correct. It certain is possible. But it is highly unlikely.

What’s more likely is that the reference to New York is a mistake.

I’ve seen a reverse problem in another family. In that case the relative
was born in New York, but is listed in one census when his daughter
indicated her father was born in Kentucky. In that case, an examination of
census entries indicated that the enumerator used two letter abbreviations
for many locations and had somewhat sloppy handwriting and apparently
confused “Ny” with “Ky.” Their “N” and “K” letters were different but
similar.

Is that what happened here? Don’t know.

It could be that David orally provided the information for the declaration.
It could be that he brought his discharge paper, family bible, and perhaps
other documents with him to have the declaration filled out and some of
those handwritten documents might not have been too easy to read by the
individual filling out the form.

David died two years after this declaration was made out. How aware was he
of what information it contained? The witnesses are not close family
members and would have been less likely than a son or daughter to have
noticed an error. And it’s worth remembering that witnesses are testifying
that David signed the document and that they knew who he was, not that any
of the information contained in the statement is correct.

My transcription of the document is true to the original. I may add *sic* after
the birth place in New York to remind myself later that it does give that
state. My discussion of the reason why is best left to what I really know
and that discussion needs to be clearly made separately from my
transcription.

I’m fortunate that I have enough records on David that I know not to look
for him in New York State.

Sometimes we are not so lucky.

-------------------------------

5-Week Class on Using Full-Text Search

-------------------------------

*5-week class on Using FamilySearch’s Full-Text Search*

With Michael John Neill

Are you getting the most from FamilySearch’s Full-Text Search? Our five
session class on FamilySearch’s full-text search will help you to get the
very most from this truly paradigm-shift way of searching. Presentation and
discussion is practical and down-to-earth. Students will receive practical
and easy-to-implement search strategies and will be encouraged to share
successes and failures with other class members via an online group and
discussion sessions.

Week 1

Overview of FamilySearch full-text search.

This session will provide an overview of full-text search methodology,
discuss how full-text search is different from typical searches, discuss
workarounds for transcription errors, searching specific sets of images,
and search organization.

Week 2

Sourcing and Determining what has been found with FamilySearch full-text
search.

This session will discuss determining what has actually been located,
downloading all information and images for a complete source citation, and
creating a completion citation.

Week 3

Common Name Searching at FamilySearch full-text search.

This session will discuss some specific strategies for searching for common
names in full-text search.

Week 4

Problem-Solving with FamilySearch full-text search.

This session will discuss search formulation, tracking, and problem-solving
when specific items have not been located.

Week 5

Wrap up

Structure

Lectures will be available for downloading the week before the discussion
session. Students will view presentation and do optional homework the week
before the discussion. Each week’s discussion will review the lecture,
discuss homework assignment, and have time for student questions and group
discussion. Homework is optional, but will help students to understand
concepts and get more from discussion sessions.

Discussion sessions will be held:

15, 22, 29 September and 6 and 13 October at 7:30 pm central time.

Class meetings will be via Zoom. Class communication will be via a Google
group. Registration for class is $70
<https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BKU7EFP9P55C4>.
Purchasers of one of Michael’s previous FamilySearch’s full-text webinars
can order class for $20 less–contact Michael to request special discount
registration link.

Registration is limited and can be processed here
<https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BKU7EFP9P55C4>.
Confirmation of registration will be made within 24 hours of receipt.
Contact Michael at mjnrootdig at gmail.com <mjnrootdig at gmail.comm> with
questions.


-----------------------------------------

Becoming Independent from an Exhaustive Search

-----------------------------------------

One of the key components of the “Reasonably Exhaustive Search” (which is
one of the foundations of modern genealogy methodology) is that “at least
two sources of *independent information* items agreeing directly or
indirectly” be used in reaching a conclusion.

Independent information items have unrelated origins.

Like most theory, it looks simple and elegant on the printed page and is
often not so simple or clear in real life.

While this is a worthy goal, it can be difficult determining that two
sources are truly independent of each other in regards to a specific piece
of information.

Would a birth certificate and a baptismal record from Illinois in 1890 that
contained the names of the father and mother be independent for the names
of the parents? After all, they likely had the same informant. Would the
parents’ knowledge of their relationship to the child be “unrelated?”

Would a parent-child relationship stated in a family bible’s entry for the
birth in 1850 and the statement of that relationship in a 1930-era
intestate probate case really be independent? I’m not certain. It would
depend or maybe it wouldn’t.

I know what independence means in theory. It's sometimes in the real world
situation where the reality is a little murky. This is largely because we
don't know all the details of how every record was created--we simply
can't.

What I am certain of is that thinking about your sources of information and
how that information probably came to be in the record is good for your
genealogical research. It is also good to think about how pieces of
information from different records in different times and different places
may actually have the same origin.


*Need to unsubscribe? Do so at:*
*https://genealogytipoftheday.com/mailman/listinfo/genealogy_genealogytipoftheday.com
<https://genealogytipoftheday.com/mailman/listinfo/genealogy_genealogytipoftheday.com>*

Michael John Neill
Genealogy Tip of the Day
PO Box 17
Henderson, IL 61439
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://genealogytipoftheday.com/pipermail/genealogy_genealogytipoftheday.com/attachments/20260831/606b7b08/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 374014 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://genealogytipoftheday.com/pipermail/genealogy_genealogytipoftheday.com/attachments/20260831/606b7b08/attachment-0001.png>