thegenealogygirl


14 Comments

Dear Genealogy Bloggers, I love you!

I heart genealogy bloggers

For several weeks now I have been wanting to send a big thank you to two bloggers.  Randy Seaver of Geneamusings and Gail Dever of Genealogy à la carte.

Randy regularly posts lists of new and updated record collections.  These are not the blog posts I usually spend much time on.  (No offense Randy, I’m just a busy mom with a preschooler still at home…)  But for some reason, I started reading them more carefully lately.  Well, on May 12th he posted a list of new records available on FindMyPast.  Among the many collections was “National School Admission Registers & Log-Books 1870-1914.  He noted that, “Over 34,000 York School records have been added…” to that collection.

Guess who lived in York?

My Hyde family.  Including Robert and Rosey.

Now, I have looked through the indexed school records available on Sheffield Indexers and found several records for my Hyde family.  But I thought I’d give it a look and see what was there.

Guess what?

There were SEVERAL records for my Hyde family on FindMyPast that have not yet been indexed on Sheffield Indexers.  And even better – there are images!

Like this one:

HYDE, Muriel Grace, 1909 to 1910 School Record

Do you know what that is?!

It’s a record of Muriel Grace Hyde, Rosey and Robert Hyde’s oldest daughter, being enrolled, and re-enrolled, and removed, and removed again from the Western Road Infants School in Sheffield, Yorkshire, England.  This means that I have several more dates for my timeline.  Yippee!!

Thank you Randy!

 

Now let’s talk a little bit about Gail.

Gail also posts quite often about new collections and other genealogy news.  On May 16th, she posted about an update to the WWI Canadian Expeditionary Force service files.  If you remember, that very collection gave me a hint of Norma.  And from there, well, the ensuing research took me on a crazy trip down the rabbit hole.

But here’s the thing.  My 2nd great grandfather, Francis Cyprien Duval, was also a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces.  I had looked for his file before.  A few times.  After all of the “D”s were supposedly indexed.  I never found it.  But when I read Gail’s post I thought I’d give it another try anyway.  Just in case.

And there it was!

In all it’s full color, 66 page glory.  It was very enlightening.  I thought Frank stayed in Canada doing work at home during his service.  He did not.  In fact, he lied about his age so he could join up and head overseas.  He was too old, so he fudged it.  I was so surprised by that.  He claimed to be 44 years and 4 months old when he enlisted.  A mere 8 months younger than the upper age limit of 45.  It didn’t work out for him though.

On page 58 there is this telling note from the doctor:

Screen Shot 2017-06-05 at 9.03.12 PM

“Is 54 years old and looks it.”  Hmmm, did he age considerably during the short time he was enlisted?  I mean visually.  Because just shortly before this note was written he got away with saying he was 44.  😉  There are so many cool details in this file.  It is awesome.

I have no idea why I never found it before.  I don’t know if it was indexed out of order and published well after the other “D” surnames or if I didn’t search carefully.  (That is soooooo not like me, but maybe I was distracted?)  Either way, I am very glad I read Gail’s post and decided to give it another look.

Thank you Gail!

 

So.  What is the lesson in all of this?  There are two.

First, I really love genealogy bloggers!  I think we are the friendliest bunch of bloggers out there.  We share our great finds, our search strategies, awesome websites and collections, cool stories, brick walls, research woes and wonders, and so many other tid-bits.  We all make the genealogy experience SO. MUCH. BETTER. for everyone.

And second, I will never again skip a “see what’s new at such-and-such website” post.  🙂

 

What do you think?  Do you love genealogy bloggers too?  Well if you do, share a little love today and thank your genealogy blogger friends.  Because they are just plain awesome!  ❤

 

 


14 Comments

Don’t Lose Track of Your Digital Records – Give Them Distinctive Names

Print

Our world is becoming increasingly filled with digital files.  Documents, photos, videos, receipts, and so on – all digital.  For genealogists, it’s even worse.  We INTENTIONALLY look for as many documents as we can find about our family members.  Our file collections are massive.

Back in the good old days we had vast paper filing systems.  Some of us used binders, some file boxes or cabinets, and most of us used both.  Even diligent genealogists who have collections of paper files struggle to convert all of those files to digital formats.  It all takes time.  And time is precious.

Amy Johnson Crow recently published a post that includes an interview with Drew Smith.  They tackle the very important topic of organizing digital files.  The interview is a brief 7:43, but worth your time.

As I watched, I felt pretty good about my own system for naming files.  It is right inline with the things Drew talked about.  So I thought I would share my simple digital file naming system.  It looks a little something like this:

SURNAME, Forename Middle-name, YEAR Event Name

 

Pretty straightforward.  And so far, no two filenames have been identical in my digital files.  Let’s look at three examples.

SMELLIE, Agnes, 1909 Death Record

This is a Scottish death record.  There are three entries on the page.  The entry for my family member is the first entry on line 16 for Agnes Montgomery.  Agnes’ maiden name is Smellie, I always use the maiden surname, so my file name looks like this:

SMELLIE, Agnes, 1909 Death Record

 

HYDE, Muriel Grace and Walter E Groome, 1924 Marriage Certificate

This marriage record is for Muriel Grace Hyde and Walter E Groome.  Muriel is my blood relative so she takes the first place in my file name.  I only capitalize the surname of the person who is a blood relative.  So my filename looks like this:

HYDE, Muriel Grace and Walter E Groome, 1924 Marriage Certificate

 

Every now and again I am related to both parties in a marriage like in this example:

PROULX, Joseph and DEMERS, Anne Marie, 1919 Marriage Record, page 1PROULX, Joseph and DEMERS, Anne Marie, 1919 Marriage Record, page 2

This record is in French and split over two pages.  On the first page, the marriage entry begins on the bottom right and continues onto the next page.  Joseph Proulx is my 1st cousin 3 times removed and his wife Anne Marie Demers is my 2nd cousin 3 times removed and my 1st cousin 3 times removed.  I am related to both Anne Marie’s mother and father.  {And if you are wondering, Joseph and Anne Marie are second cousins to each other.}  Because I am related to both Joseph and Anne Marie, my two filenames look like this:

PROULX, Joseph and DEMERS, Anne Marie, 1919 Marriage Record, page 1

PROULX, Joseph and DEMERS, Anne Marie, 1919 Marriage Record, page 2

 

Using this file naming system works well for me.  I can easily find a file I am looking for just by typing in the surname.  If it’s a surname that is common to my tree, I type the surname, then a comma, then begin typing the forename until I see the file I need.

I may have a great file naming system that works for me, but organizing those files is another matter.  I haven’t had the need for folders so I haven’t created any.  They all go into one large “Genealogy Record Images” folder on my computer and external hard drive.  My back up is that I upload every file to my private ancestry tree and attach it to the correct individuals.  In the description section I add citation details so that I can retrace my steps if I need to.  I also upload images to FamilySearch as a secondary back up.  Well, I guess it’s more like a fourth back up.  😉

 

Do you have a file naming system that works for you?

Print

Happy Wednesday, I hope you make a fantastic, genealogy discovery today!  Then, give it a great file name that works for you.  😉

 

 


27 Comments

Give Your Precious Photos Source Citations Too

photos need citations too-01

Have you ever found a photo on a public tree or website?  One that MIGHT be a photo of someone in your tree?  A photo you have never seen before, and maybe the only photo you have ever seen of someone?

I have.

In fact, one of my most tantalizing photo finds still vexes me.  Are you wondering why a photo find would vex me?  Let me tell you all about it.

Francis Cyprien & Alice Hyde DUVAL

Francis Cyprien & Alice Hyde DUVAL

That man up there is my 2nd great grandfather, Francis Cyprien Duval.  He was born in Rimouski, Québec to a long line of French folk who had lived in Québec for a few centuries.  He was the first in that direct line to leave Québec.  He settled in Alaska and married Alice and then they moved around a bit before finally settling in Lynn Valley, BC where Francis died.  We have a few scant family notes about his parents and siblings.  I knew his parents names and that they also left Québec and were buried in Blind River, Ontario.  I had a small handful of first names of some of his siblings and just a few other facts.  Because he is one of my immigrant ancestors, I feel very fortunate to have a small collection of photographs of him.  Enough in fact, that his image is well established in my family history.  Plenty of the photos are labeled and were labeled by his children.  That means that I trust that I know what he looks like and that those labels are accurate.

There is one other important reality because he was an immigrant – I have no photos, stories, and other artifacts for the family he left behind and never saw again.

So imagine my sheer delight when I came across this photo on Ancestry.com:

Screen Shot 2017-05-20 at 6.01.34 PM

This photo is tagged to the parents, sister, niece, and grand-nephew of my 2nd great grandfather Francis Cyprien Duval as he appears in another Ancestry.com user tree.  You will notice that the original poster included the names of each person in the description of the photo – bonus points for that.  You will also notice that it has been saved to several trees (including mine).

So why does this photo vex me?

Well, I have never seen a photo of Alexis/Alexander Duval & Marie Louise Demers anywhere else.  I have nothing to compare this image to.  When I came across it, I messaged the person who posted the photo and asked about the provenance of the photo.  Who had it, how she got it, how she knew for sure that it was a picture of who she said it was a picture of.  Before I basked in the deliciousness of finding a photo of ancestors for whom I do not have a photo, I wanted to make sure this photo was really a picture of my 3rd great grandparents.  I wanted to be as certain as was possible before I called it good and saved it to my tree.

The poster of said photo was very kind, and busy, and said she would get back to me after she returned from a trip.  Totally understandable.  Despite some communication after the trip, I have been unable to acquire the information I am seeking.

I look at this photo and want so much for it to be what it is proclaimed to be.  I see features of my Grandma in their faces.  I really want to call it good.  I want to tell everyone in my family about this cool find.  But it vexes me.  I don’t completely trust it.

You have probably come across a few photos that you hoped were labeled correctly too.  For me, it mostly happens when I am researching collateral relatives – siblings of ancestors, siblings-in-law of ancestors, cousins, etc.  Often I am researching these extended family members to help me take my tree further back.  But in doing this research, I can’t help but feel connected to these aunts, uncles, and cousins.  So when I come across an image of them – I love it!  It feels like a little treat at the end of the journey of learning about their life and how they were connected to my other family members.

But just like the possible photo of my 3rd great grandparents, I don’t completely trust a photo that isn’t labeled well.

 

So how can you give a photograph a good citation?  How can you help extended family members know that this photo you have shared is attributed to the right people?

 

 

I know that Evidence Explained contains a model for citing a photograph.  I’m sure the instructions are excellent and accurate.  I should really buy that book, but I haven’t.  So here are my tips for giving a photo a good citation based on my experience dealing with thousands of photos I have inherited from both sides of my family.  Let’s use an actual photo of my grandparents to help us.

 

Ronald & Margaret - darker

Your photo deserves a descriptive title.  It doesn’t have to be long, it just needs to be somewhat descriptive.  A good title should includes names and a date or event name.  i.e. “Ronald Peterson and Margaret Ellis, photo when Ronald had leave”.  If I have lots of photos of Ronald and Margaret – which I do – I want the title to be unique to the photo.

Your photo also deserves a detailed description.  You may not know every detail, but include anything you do know.  There are several important details to try to include:

  • Who is in the photo.  Use the “front row, l-r: and back row, l-r:” style to help make sure everyone is identified.  For this photo, I can stick with the names – Ronald Peterson and Margaret Ellis – since they are the only people in the photo.
  • When the photo was taken.  List the date or approximate date of the photo.  If you don’t know the date, you probably know a date range or time period, include that.  The next generation will know even less than you do, so help them out.  I don’t know the exact date of the photo, but I know it was taken while my Grandpa was serving in the Marine Corps.  He served from 1944-1946.
  • Where the photo was taken.  This can be trickier if the photo predates you.  In the case of my photo, I know that this photo would most likely have been taken in front of one of their homes because his leave was short – 24 or 48 hours long – and he hitchhiked from Colorado to Ogden, Utah.  He was only able to be there for a few hours before he had to start back.  I know what the front of Ronald’s family home looked like and this home is not a match.  I know that I have photos of Margaret’s family home somewhere that I could compare the photo to, I’m just not sure where they are (remember, I have thousands and I’m still working on scanning and organizing).  So I would probably note this photo as possibly being taken in front of the Ellis family home.
  • The provenance of the photo.  How did the photo make it to you?  How do you know the facts of the photo?  Who labeled it?  Why would they have known who is in the photo?  This can be simple or detailed, but this part is probably the most important part of your description.  In my case, this photo was part of my Grandmother’s collection.  The photo itself was not labeled, but there are hundreds of other photos of both Ronald and Margaret that are labeled in her collection.  The details surrounding this photo were told to me by my dad.  That is an important piece of information because someone else may remember the details differently and question my description.  Knowing who gave portions of the description helps other family members weigh the differences between my description and their memory or the memory of other relatives.

 

So, what would my title and description be for this photo?

 

Title:  Ronald Peterson and Margaret Ellis, photo when Ronald had leave

Description:  Ronald Peterson and Margaret Ellis.  Photo taken in Ogden, Utah, possibly in front of the Ellis family home (more work needed to establish location) when Ronald was home on leave.  Ronald served in the Marine Corps from 1944-1946.  Their son Kent shared the following details – “Ronald was given a short 24 or 48 hour leave.  He wanted to go home and see his family and his girlfriend.  He hitchhiked and only had a few hours to spend with loved ones before he had to head back to Colorado.”  This photo comes from the collection of Margaret Ellis that is in the current care of her granddaughter Amberly Peterson Beck.

 

This photo is a family favorite, so taking time to be a bit more detailed is important to me.  However, our time as genealogists is precious and limited.  We can’t spend this much time on every single photo ever taken of all of our loved ones.

 

So, when should you be this precise?

 

  • When a photo is the only one or one of just a few of a person.  The more rare a photo, the more details we want to include – especially about the provenance.
  • When the photo has special significance like the photo of my Grandma and Grandpa from the example.  My Grandparents treasured this photo and we have all in turn treasured it.  The next generation of my family deserves to know the special details of the photo.  What makes a photo special is up to you.  Is the event special?  Is the combination of people in the photo special?  Is it just a favorite photo?  Whatever the reason it is special to you, make sure the description reflects the import of the photo for future generations.

 

Let’s look at one more example of a photo I added to FamilySearch:

Screen Shot 2017-05-20 at 7.13.49 PM

This photo was in an album my Grandmother created.  She labeled it with only the names, Beth Christensen and Margaret.

(Hmmm… I would like to point out that the home looks an awful lot like the home in the background of the photo of my Grandparents.  I think I was onto something in guessing it was taken in front of the Ellis home.)

It took a little bit of work for me to figure out who Beth Christensen was.  There were no photos of Beth in FamilySearch at the time, so I added this and two others.  My title and description are pretty simple.  I did them quickly, but because there were no other public photos of Beth, I wanted anyone who viewed the photo to know enough about where the photo came from, to trust that the image was really of Beth.  I chose to include the detail of who Beth and Margaret’s common ancestors are because they are not in the same generation.  They are 1st cousins, once removed.

My title and description aren’t quite as good for this photo – but I felt like they covered what was most important, based on what I knew.

 

So next time you post a photo to a public tree or website, spend an extra minute giving your photo a good citation.  Help your extended family members out.  Tell them who, when, where, the provenance of the photo, and any other special or important details surrounding the photo or people in the photo.  Your family members will thank you!

 

photo descriptions-01

 

 

 


14 Comments

Incest?! – An Update: ALWAYS Go To The Next Image!

Whiteley - Hyde

Yep, it’s that image again.

Last week I begged for your help to disprove my theory of incest.  My friend Cathy commented, “The biggest sore thumb I noticed was – who is Norma?”

Exactly?!  Who is Norma.  I had already tried a bunch of things and just couldn’t find her.  But after Cathy asked the same question I was asking, I decided I really needed to find her.  I rededicated myself and used all of my fancy, sneaky, super-smart search strategies and I got a whole lotta nothin’.

But give me a puzzle and I just can’t stop.  So I revisited everyone in that matrimonial mess.  I found a lot more info – but nothing that answered my core question: Were Robert & Rosey Hyde husband and wife, AND uncle and niece?

The one thing I did find was a hint of Norma.  And I found it in an unlikely place.  A WWI Canadian Expeditionary Forces Personnel File.

But the really important part…

The absolutely CRITICAL part…

The it-would-have-been-super-easy-to-miss-Norma-completely part…

Norma showed up on page 50 of the file.

That’s right – page number FIVE-OH.

After a whole lotta nothin’, suddenly, there was Norma.

Thankfully I learned the lesson many years ago that many records have more than one page.  Some records have more than two pages.  And occasionally you will find a record that is a whopping 67 pages long – like the one that gave me a hint of Norma.

Now you probably want to know what exactly I learned about Norma.

And you probably want to know what else I learned about that mess up there.

Here’s the thing – it’s so complicated that my poor brain is still trying to sort it all out.  My poor brain is trying to figure out how to even begin to explain what I have learned.

So for now, let me just say that Norma exists.  She appears to be a sister of Rose Elvera Hyde Williamson.  I know her approximate birthdate.  And I know who two of her possible parents are.

The rest is going to have to wait until I can find the words.  And it’s going to take more than one post.  Because that family up there is a whole mess of crazy.

But my dear friends, this is what I want to leave you with today:

When you are looking at an image on any website – always click to the next image.  And then keep right on clicking until you come to an image that is about someone else.  The longest record I have ever found was 137 pages.  It was also a WWI record.

This WWI Canadian Expeditionary Forces Personnel File was BORRRRRRING!  And I like LOVE old records.  But it just kept saying the same things over and over and over.

Until it didn’t.

Until it told me that Norma exists.  That she is part of my family.

So whatever you do today in your genealogical endeavors, PLEASE, for the love of Norma, CLICK TO THE NEXT PAGE!

More updates on Incest?! coming next week.


17 Comments

Learning New Things

ELLIS, Margaret, toddler - smaller for FT

My sweet grandmother, Mary Margaret Ellis.

Last week was filled with learning new things.  On Thursday night I made my favorite discovery of the week while working at my local Family History Center.

This time of year I know that if the weather is nice we usually don’t have patrons come into the center.  Last Thursday was an especially nice day so I took a small stack of photos with me to scan.  The only patrons that came in were either attending a class or they were using one of the scanners and didn’t need assistance.  So, I spent my whole 2 hour shift scanning.

As I worked through the stack I had brought, I found a small bundle of negatives inside of a letter written to my grandmother by her older sister Beth.  I was excited to see what the photos were and held a bunch up to the light.  There were some sweet little gems in there.  As I was checking them out, a fellow consultant walked into the room and said, “You know our scanner can scan negatives don’t you?”

Well blow me down!

 

I DID NOT know that.

I got a quick lesson and proceeded to scan the stack of negatives.  Among them was this very sweet photo of my grandmother that I don’t recall having seen before.  A new treasure that I am delighted to have!

I have so many photo negatives at home.  SO. MANY.

Now that I know I can scan them at the center, I can save a bunch of pennies I was planning to spend having them professionally digitized.

But now I wonder how it would do with more modern photos?  Like the thousands of negatives I have saved from my whole life…

The lesson?

Know what resources are freely available to you.

 

I have been working at my local Family History Center for nearly 5 years.  I use the scanner all of the time and had no idea it could do this!  Such a happy discovery.

Happy Monday, I hope you make a fantastic genealogy discovery today!

 

 


13 Comments

Finding “Hidden” Records on FamilySearch

FamilySearch_Logo

If you are reading this, you are most likely familiar with searching for records on FamilySearch.  What you may not be familiar with are three types of “hidden” records you can utilize on FamilySearch – images that aren’t indexed but are part of a partially indexed collection; browse collections; and digitized microfilm collections in the catalog.

Hidden Record Type 1:

Images that aren’t indexed but are part of a partially indexed collection.  I will use some Québec records as my example.  Let’s start with the Québec search page on FamilySearch:

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.52.32 AM

 

You will notice at the top of the page it reads, “Québec Indexed Historical Records”.  It is important to note that not everything in this list is completely indexed.  As I scroll down the page I can see a list of Québec records, which also includes larger collections that have Québec records in them.

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.52.49 AM

 

Only a few collections are showing until I click “Show all 21 Collections”.

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 11.00.33 AM

 

 

As I scroll down the list, I am looking for any collection that has a camera beside it.  That means there are images in the collection.  Close to the bottom is a collection entitled, “Quebec, Catholic Parish Registers, 1621-1979”.  It has a camera icon which means there are images in the collection and it lists that there are 79,535 indexed records in the collection.  The question I have is, are there more records in the collection that aren’t indexed?  I simply click on the collection to go to the search page.

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.54.15 AM

 

Once I am on the search page I scroll to the bottom.  The collection has a browse option at the bottom that reads, “Browse through 1,399,175 images”.  This means that in this collection of 1,399,175 images, there are a little over 1.3 million records that are not indexed.  If I click that “Browse through 1,399,175 images” button, I can search the records like digital microfilm.

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.54.29 AM

 

I get this list of parishes to help me navigate the images.  I noticed one today that I have never seen before:

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.54.40 AM

How’s that for a parish name?  😉

Here is a parish that I regularly search:

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.54.56 AM

I click on the parish name again and get this:

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.55.03 AM

Then I can click on one of the date ranges and get this:

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.55.17 AM

It is basically a digital microfilm.  This particular collection is tricky to navigate because it contains such a large span of years and the years are written out like this “one thousand seven hundred forty seven”, except they are written in French.  Despite it being a bit trickier to navigate, it is totally worth it.  I get faster every time, it just takes a little practice.

Any collection that contains images has the potential to contain more images than indexed records.  If everything is indexed in a collection, you will not see the browse option at the bottom of the search page.  MANY indexed collections contain images that are not indexed.

Hidden Record Type 2:

Browse collections.  These collections are also accessed from a main search page.

We will go back to the Québec search page and scroll to the bottom.

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.52.32 AM

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.52.56 AM

These collections are labeled as “Québec Image Only Historical Records”.  Most locales have several of these browse collections.  None of the records are indexed yet.  I clicked on “Quebec Notarial Records, 1800-1920”.

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.53.28 AM

You will notice that I have no search box, just the “Browse through 4,956,093” images link.  When I click that I am taken to this page:

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 10.53.38 AM

From here I can select a location, I chose Iberville:

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 11.12.41 AM

Then I choose a range of documents:

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 11.12.59 AM

Then I am once again looking at a digital microfilm.  This particular collection would be hard to use unless I have a time frame and location in mind for the record I am seeking.  That information would come from other good research.

Hidden Record Type 3:

Digitized microfilm collections in the catalog.  This particular type of record is brand new to me.  In fact, I have no idea when FamilySearch started doing this.  They snuck it in recently.  I discovered this record type while I was using microfilm at the FHL in SLC.  I had a list of Estate Files I was looking for.  I had found 6 and went looking for the 7th file when something wasn’t quite right.  That led me to look at the catalog entry for the microfilm to double check the information I would expect to find.  I thought maybe I had written the microfilm number down incorrectly.  This is the page I went to:

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 11.19.36 AM

I scrolled down to find my microfilm number in the collection of 419 microfilm to see this list:

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 11.19.44 AM

Ummmmmm… see those little camera icons on the right?!  This entire collection was digitized AFTER I had made my list of microfilm to search just shortly before going to the library.  When I click the camera I get a digital microfilm that looks like this:

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 11.20.01 AM.png

What on earth?!  When did FamilySearch start doing this???  The craziest part is that the images aren’t on the South Africa search page, not in the same grouping you can find here.

So.

Check the catalog, and check it again, and check it again.  I know that the rate of digitization far exceeds the rate of indexing but apparently FamilySearch can’t keep up with cataloging in an orderly fashion either?

One important last thought – FamilySearch often has images available that go away once the entire collection is indexed.  If you find an image that is important to your research, PLEASE, don’t assume the image will always be there.  Save a digital copy of that image.

And while we are on the subject of disappearing images, it is important to know that the contractual agreements that FamilySearch enters into with the owners of records can change at any time.  In fact, several collections that matter to me and my research are no longer available.  FamilySearch still holds the microfilm, but they are under lock and key because the contracts were renegotiated.

 

Have you been using these three types of “hidden” collections on FamilySearch?

 


18 Comments

Learning From My Cousin’s Loss – A Story About Archiving

Flickr couleur

Flickr app icon

My cousin Bobbi is currently on a cross country trip visiting various cousins and significant family sites.  It’s a true genealogy lover’s dream trip.  I’ve been enjoying her brief updates on Facebook with a few photos and little stories of her adventures.  But last week, while still on her trip, Bobbi shut her iPhone in her car door.  Broken phone.  Lost photos.

Oh the heartbreak!

I read her post and thought of the many times I’ve heard people say that their phone crashed, was dropped in water, or broke and they hadn’t downloaded their photos and videos in X amount of time.  Those stories are almost always followed by the inevitable lamenting of lost memories.  My sister recently lost a months worth and that month included her son’s 8th birthday.

Every time I hear something like that my heart stops.  I am TERRIBLE about downloading the photos and videos from my phone.  I know you can use iCloud, and I have in the past, but my phone is so full that I have to pay $5/month to use it.

Well, in Bobbi’s post about her phone breaking, someone left a comment and told her that she should use the Flickr app on her phone.  They explained that you can turn on a setting to automatically download every photo you take.

What?!

Why, oh why, didn’t I know this before?

I added the app immediately and my phone has been chugging away for days.  Every photo – all 2.9K of them – have uploaded to my Flickr account and now it’s working through the videos.  The videos take A LOT longer than the photos.

I already had a Flickr account and I love it for so many reasons but now I have an app on my phone (and on my husband’s phone) that is doing the work for me and making sure my precious memories aren’t lost.

And… Flickr is completely free!

If you decide to give it a try here are a few tips.  Once you have the app on your phone and have an account set up, click the settings icon in the upper right of the app.

IMG_5244

Then click on Auto-Uploadr

IMG_5245

Then turn on the Auto-Upload photos option.  That’s it!  Now all of your photos will start uploading and will be stored in a folder called “Auto Upload”.  All photos that upload through this auto feature are automatically marked as private and will only be visible to you unless you choose to change the setting.

IMG_5238

If you happen to have a preschooler who likes to take 50+ pictures in a row of absolutely nothing, you will be lucky enough to see whole sections in your new folder that look like this.

IMG_5247

And this.

IMG_5248

And this.  Isn’t it fabulous?  In all seriousness, I love that he enjoys taking photos.  I should probably clean them out of my phone occasionally.  Now, I will have to clean them out of my phone and my Flickr account.  Maybe not all of them though…

IMG_5246

While the videos are waiting to load they look like this.  Once they have uploaded they show a video icon with the length of the video.  I will mention that once they show up it still takes a little while before they will play the entire video.  The first few that popped up didn’t play properly for several hours.  I was getting nervous but I checked again and they work great now.

If you are a bit lazy about your archiving like I am, the Flickr app may be perfect for you!  I am loving it.

By the way – did you know that most TV devices, like the Roku and Apple TV, have a Flickr app that allows you to view your photos and videos right on your TV?  We have that and every now and again we will look through pictures as a family.  Pretty awesome technology!

 

Happy Monday.  I hope you make a fabulous genealogy discovery today!