One of the earliest ideas the casting and producing teams for Genealogy Roadshow decided they would like to see was reunions - or, more accurately, unions - with "long lost relatives" people didn't even know they had. My first response was, "I look for dead people . . . I'm not very good at finding the living. What you want is a private eye." And I recommended one. But they insisted that I could do this (at times, the casting team had more faith in us than we had in ourselves, making our successes prove them right and, when we had a lack of results, disappoint us).
On the Nashville show, viewers saw two such "reunions," and I am pleased to be able to share a little on these since they were "my" stories. They were actually two of the first stories I worked on.
The first was "Uncle Fate," the story of a photograph showing a two-year-old White boy in the lap of an older African American gentleman. The identification was clear for the boy, but the gentleman was identified simply as "Uncle Fate." Identifying Fate was no trick and took less than thirty minutes. Since the photo was taken when the child was about age two, and the boy was born in about 1900, that dated the picture as taken somewhere around 1902. In the 1900 Federal Census, "LaFayette Cox" is listed in the family's household. "LaFayette" is often shortened to "Fayette" and, in the South, the slurring of the name would give us the name "Fate." But identification was not enough . . . it was decided (and I have to admit I was excited about the prospect) that we should try to locate living family of LaFayette Cox. I did most of it by doing the simple tracking of his family, first back, then forward. I could identify his offspring and some of the later descendants, eventually leading to the death of one of the relatives in the not too distant past (within the past 20 or so years, as I recall). This was done with the help of a posted family tree on Ancestry.com, but an email to the tree-owner did not get a response. The family had stayed in Knoxville and the surrounding area, so a connection with a genealogist in that area led to the discovery of a newspaper obituary for that recently deceased family member and the listing of his surviving family, including a daughter (identified with her married name and her husband's first name). A Google search led me to the husband, who is an educator in the Northeast U.S. I emailed him and asked for information about his wife. I had a good idea who she was (the person who had posted that tree on Ancestry.com). In this case, all my identifications panned out. She emailed back and was thrilled to have her ancestor identified and his life laid out for her. And, if you watched the Nashville show, you saw the two families united (not "reunited" - these families of two different cultures had never known of the other's existence).
Lesson learned: while on-line family trees often have incorrect information and/or holes in the lines, they can sometimes take us to clues about living family. Contacting the tree creator/poster may take us to a long-lost cousin. Together, the family members can make the tree more well-rooted, with sources cited and holes filled in.
I will write about the second of these union stories in tomorrow's blog.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Friday, October 4, 2013
What resources were used to investigate stories for GENEALOGY ROADSHOW?
The continuing belief, which many people have, that an individual's family history is all there on the Internet, just waiting to be uncovered, does cause many genealogists to snicker. Really? Of course, commercials, such as those from a large company that is well-known as the most popular pay genealogy site, perpetuate that rumor. And it can be hard to counteract that belief . . . but we keep trying.
When I was hired as the lead genealogist for Genealogy Roadshow, that was the belief of the folks who planned the show, and they were a bit surprised when I said we would have to enlist the help of others in varying locations to pull records and take photos, but they accepted my assessment when I explained the types of records available on line as compared to those that are not. And, I have to admit, they were impressed with some of the sources we were able to access (via other genealogists around the world), so we got that myth of "everything is on line" expunged. At least in house.
But we did use the Internet, of course. We were able to get a lot of information from Ancestry.com, FindMyPast, Archives.com, Fold3, FamilySearch, FindAGrave, GenealogyBank, and many others. We contacted libraries, archives, museums, the Family History Library, NARA facilities (at least four different locations), individual research experts, and more. And we were able to talk to and email the applicants for information (note: the applicants were NOT told what progress we were making or even given an idea of whether or not there was any validation to their stories until they were on camera).
Of course we used Census records (state, federal, military, slave, etc.), city directories, vital records, military and pension records, immigration and naturalization documents, wills and probate documents, deeds, family letters/journals, etc., and anything we could access. Many of these items are not found on the Internet. But even many of those required some sleuthing techniques to uncover (different name spellings, browsing microfilmed books for a record that could have been generated on any date within a certain time span, handwriting interpretation - in any of a number of different languages, knowledge of research techniques that vary depending on the record format, etc.). The amount of education required to know how to do this is extensive - our research experts are all well-versed in research techniques that have been learned over decades and by attending courses, workshops, webinars, seminars, and lectures, plus reading help books, syllabi, etc. And, at the same time, being in a constant "learning" mode, since new websites, search formats, and other technology are developed to make our resource searches more effective and time-efficient, and we need to be ready to change approaches as the situation warrants.
So, what resources were used to investigate stories for GR? Every ones we could get our hands on or get others to access. And networking with each other, including the production team, to make the best use of time and resources, was of prime importance. We were a team and we used each other, down the line, to help each other. Our different skills were of access to each other. I would not say, "Don't try this at home" - because that's a great place to try it! I would say, "Don't try this by yourself" - use the networking option and ask for help! I'm really glad I did!
When I was hired as the lead genealogist for Genealogy Roadshow, that was the belief of the folks who planned the show, and they were a bit surprised when I said we would have to enlist the help of others in varying locations to pull records and take photos, but they accepted my assessment when I explained the types of records available on line as compared to those that are not. And, I have to admit, they were impressed with some of the sources we were able to access (via other genealogists around the world), so we got that myth of "everything is on line" expunged. At least in house.
But we did use the Internet, of course. We were able to get a lot of information from Ancestry.com, FindMyPast, Archives.com, Fold3, FamilySearch, FindAGrave, GenealogyBank, and many others. We contacted libraries, archives, museums, the Family History Library, NARA facilities (at least four different locations), individual research experts, and more. And we were able to talk to and email the applicants for information (note: the applicants were NOT told what progress we were making or even given an idea of whether or not there was any validation to their stories until they were on camera).
Of course we used Census records (state, federal, military, slave, etc.), city directories, vital records, military and pension records, immigration and naturalization documents, wills and probate documents, deeds, family letters/journals, etc., and anything we could access. Many of these items are not found on the Internet. But even many of those required some sleuthing techniques to uncover (different name spellings, browsing microfilmed books for a record that could have been generated on any date within a certain time span, handwriting interpretation - in any of a number of different languages, knowledge of research techniques that vary depending on the record format, etc.). The amount of education required to know how to do this is extensive - our research experts are all well-versed in research techniques that have been learned over decades and by attending courses, workshops, webinars, seminars, and lectures, plus reading help books, syllabi, etc. And, at the same time, being in a constant "learning" mode, since new websites, search formats, and other technology are developed to make our resource searches more effective and time-efficient, and we need to be ready to change approaches as the situation warrants.
So, what resources were used to investigate stories for GR? Every ones we could get our hands on or get others to access. And networking with each other, including the production team, to make the best use of time and resources, was of prime importance. We were a team and we used each other, down the line, to help each other. Our different skills were of access to each other. I would not say, "Don't try this at home" - because that's a great place to try it! I would say, "Don't try this by yourself" - use the networking option and ask for help! I'm really glad I did!
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Basic guidelines to select GENEALOGY ROADSHOW stories
Four cities were selected to host the Roadshow: in order, Austin, Nashville, Detroit, and San Francisco. But when it came to airing the shows, the order was adjusted slightly and the first filmed is the last to be shown (I have suspicions as to why, but don't want to start rumors, so I'll just say it was a decision by the production folks).
Family history "stories" or questions were solicited from these various cities by way of Internet shout outs and advertisements on the respective PBS stations. Nevertheless, a few applications came in from cities not remotely close to the four chosen locations. In a few instances, promising stories from these "other" locations were passed on to the research team.
From Casting Team to Research Team
Story selection was made by the casting team. They went through all the applications and chose cases based on a variety of criteria, including the applicant's life in the target region (greatly desired were people who had lived in the respective state for some period of time and, hopefully, whose family also had ties to the venue - though that was not always possible). Also of concern was the interest of the story or family line (an applicant whose ancestor had crossed paths with, or was related to, an individual of some renown was likely to catch attention as being of interest to the general public). Those applicants who had fascinating stories that would make "good programming" (meaning "good ratings") were also attractive (a story about a relative who just disappeared - what happened to him/her? - was more intriguing than one about a family of farmers).
Sorting through the many applications was not in my job description (and I was OK with that . . . I'd surely want to do them all!), but those who did make the selections were not always familiar with what sorts of things were likely to produce results. Finally we created a few guidelines: if a genealogist sent in a story that had been researched for over five years with no results, it was not likely that we would have success in the short period of time we had. Also, stories of adoption or unknown parents/fathers with no clues about names, dates, and places were most likely out of our realm (though we did have a few successes). We suggested that unprovable stories be avoided, but usually that still required some research to come up with that conclusion, so we did research a great many stories that ended up in limbo. It was frustrating at many times and often we went away from the question or story submitted by the applicant to see if we could come up with something, possibly unrelated, that would give the applicant a new perspective on his/her family.
Shortly after we began the research process, the casting director suggested a process to help us move through the case selection a bit quicker: take four to six hours per story to determine if it was workable. Now, many times we needed much less time to come up with that conclusion while many times we could have used a bit more - but stories were still coming in and requiring analysis (the last stories were literally received in the five days prior to the last filming day). Also, some applicants sent in over a dozen stories (each requiring four to six hours of analysis, unless some were intertwined with others). Decision-making time constraints probably means that some of the stories we might have addressed were not fully revealed and were passed over. I am sorry if that occurred.
From the Research Team to the Production Team
Once stories were researched and reports were written, they were posted on a website designed for use only by those on the different teams - research (us), casting (the first stop for the selection), and production (the ones who added the history, researched and wrote the "scripts," and verified anything that was questionable). The production folks then turned over what was to be addressed (some stories were less likely to be of interest to the audience and/or the applicant) in a written form for the on-air talent (D. Joshua Taylor and Kenyatta Berry) to review, question, and get comfortable with so that they could introduce the applicants to their ancestors. That on-air talent used their own expertise in genealogy (which is extensive) to polish the things that may have been a bit unclear to the production team, but everyone worked together.
From Filming to Editing and Data to the Applicants
I was in communication with all levels, including the person who was responsible for putting the images together for the back stories and the family histories. But many, many more images were gathered than there could possibly be time to show on air. Applicants were sent packets of images and full reports of the research done (including sources) so they could continue the search on their own and/or hire a professional genealogist to proceed where the GR research team left off. And we did leave off . . . it was impossible to carry things as far as we could see they could go (usually, we included "suggestions for further research" in the reports).
Editing required a huge number of people working with sound, visual segues, syncing different takes, etc. None of the on-site filming was done in sound studios so the sound techs had their work cut out for them from balancing sound in an outdoor environment to filming done in old buildings with 30-foot ceilings!
So when you look at the videos of the show, please keep in mind that the different teams needed to put this together were extensive and dedicated. People put in many more hours than for which they were paid. They worked to make a program that would entertain, intrigue, and maybe even educate a general public for whom family history research is not yet a reality.
A reviewer in the New York Times suggested that the show is unnecessary since all the information found by the researchers could be located by anyone who is Internet savvy - it's all right there. I hope that some of the documents shown by Josh and Kenyatta will let people know that this is far from the truth. In future posts, I will detail some of the repositories and resources we used.
Family history "stories" or questions were solicited from these various cities by way of Internet shout outs and advertisements on the respective PBS stations. Nevertheless, a few applications came in from cities not remotely close to the four chosen locations. In a few instances, promising stories from these "other" locations were passed on to the research team.
From Casting Team to Research Team
Story selection was made by the casting team. They went through all the applications and chose cases based on a variety of criteria, including the applicant's life in the target region (greatly desired were people who had lived in the respective state for some period of time and, hopefully, whose family also had ties to the venue - though that was not always possible). Also of concern was the interest of the story or family line (an applicant whose ancestor had crossed paths with, or was related to, an individual of some renown was likely to catch attention as being of interest to the general public). Those applicants who had fascinating stories that would make "good programming" (meaning "good ratings") were also attractive (a story about a relative who just disappeared - what happened to him/her? - was more intriguing than one about a family of farmers).
Sorting through the many applications was not in my job description (and I was OK with that . . . I'd surely want to do them all!), but those who did make the selections were not always familiar with what sorts of things were likely to produce results. Finally we created a few guidelines: if a genealogist sent in a story that had been researched for over five years with no results, it was not likely that we would have success in the short period of time we had. Also, stories of adoption or unknown parents/fathers with no clues about names, dates, and places were most likely out of our realm (though we did have a few successes). We suggested that unprovable stories be avoided, but usually that still required some research to come up with that conclusion, so we did research a great many stories that ended up in limbo. It was frustrating at many times and often we went away from the question or story submitted by the applicant to see if we could come up with something, possibly unrelated, that would give the applicant a new perspective on his/her family.
Shortly after we began the research process, the casting director suggested a process to help us move through the case selection a bit quicker: take four to six hours per story to determine if it was workable. Now, many times we needed much less time to come up with that conclusion while many times we could have used a bit more - but stories were still coming in and requiring analysis (the last stories were literally received in the five days prior to the last filming day). Also, some applicants sent in over a dozen stories (each requiring four to six hours of analysis, unless some were intertwined with others). Decision-making time constraints probably means that some of the stories we might have addressed were not fully revealed and were passed over. I am sorry if that occurred.
From the Research Team to the Production Team
Once stories were researched and reports were written, they were posted on a website designed for use only by those on the different teams - research (us), casting (the first stop for the selection), and production (the ones who added the history, researched and wrote the "scripts," and verified anything that was questionable). The production folks then turned over what was to be addressed (some stories were less likely to be of interest to the audience and/or the applicant) in a written form for the on-air talent (D. Joshua Taylor and Kenyatta Berry) to review, question, and get comfortable with so that they could introduce the applicants to their ancestors. That on-air talent used their own expertise in genealogy (which is extensive) to polish the things that may have been a bit unclear to the production team, but everyone worked together.
From Filming to Editing and Data to the Applicants
I was in communication with all levels, including the person who was responsible for putting the images together for the back stories and the family histories. But many, many more images were gathered than there could possibly be time to show on air. Applicants were sent packets of images and full reports of the research done (including sources) so they could continue the search on their own and/or hire a professional genealogist to proceed where the GR research team left off. And we did leave off . . . it was impossible to carry things as far as we could see they could go (usually, we included "suggestions for further research" in the reports).
Editing required a huge number of people working with sound, visual segues, syncing different takes, etc. None of the on-site filming was done in sound studios so the sound techs had their work cut out for them from balancing sound in an outdoor environment to filming done in old buildings with 30-foot ceilings!
So when you look at the videos of the show, please keep in mind that the different teams needed to put this together were extensive and dedicated. People put in many more hours than for which they were paid. They worked to make a program that would entertain, intrigue, and maybe even educate a general public for whom family history research is not yet a reality.
A reviewer in the New York Times suggested that the show is unnecessary since all the information found by the researchers could be located by anyone who is Internet savvy - it's all right there. I hope that some of the documents shown by Josh and Kenyatta will let people know that this is far from the truth. In future posts, I will detail some of the repositories and resources we used.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
