And at long last, the final blog post on naming your saved genealogy documents! I started writing on this topic (forgetting how wordy I get) thinking it would take up only one blog post. The more I wrote, however, the more I really thought about why I name files the way I do. I also needed to explain why I made certain decisions despite their obvious disadvantages. Fear not, this chapter is coming to a close (for now)! I would very much like to return to pretty pictures and topics that don't endlessly drag on. I hope this has been a help to at least some; it certainly has helped me better understand my own thinking about genealogy organization.
Census Records
If there is only one individual in a household, the format I use for naming census record files follows the generic one I use for birth records. Other household compositions are more complicated and vary in file name formatting.
What should come after the file type? The head of household's name. Period. (Okay, I have one exception, discussed below.) In the census records, the head of household is most often male (particularly when it's a married-couple household), so my reasoning is identical to that described in my previous post for marriage records.
Who else from the household is listed in the file name? The name of the head of household's spouse, if applicable. However, the spouse's surname is not given as long as it's identical to the head of household's surname. If a household in 1860 consisted only of John and Jane Doe, a married couple, the file name would read: Census_Doe_John_Jane_1860. I think it's unnecessary to put a married couple's surname in twice. When I see the spouse's surname absent from the file name, I immediately know it's the same as the head of household's surname. If Jane Smith kept her maiden name though, for example, the file name would be: Census_Doe_John_Smith_Jane_1860. I only put two names in a census title if the individuals are married, so despite the surname discrepancy, I still know the couple is married.
What about children or other family members? Many of the families in my ancestry have five to ten children- way too many to list in the document's file title! I still want a sense of who else is living in a home besides the head of household and his or her spouse though. My solution is this, assuming John and Jane from the above example are living with some kids, a sibling, and/or an in-law: Census_Doe_John_Jane_family_1860. (Creative, right?) This way I know there is someone else in the household. Based on who the couple is, I can at least guess who "family" represents if I remember their children. This uncertainty can be a huge efficiency problem, however, because I have to open the file to find out who is "family." It can also make it difficult to find certain individuals if they are living with other family members because the census record will be labeled with the other family members' names (sometimes a different surname, so the record would be in an entirely different surname folder than the rest of my sought-out individual's files). For example, I have a record in my "Jobin" folder titled: Census_Jobin_Anna_family_1920. Anna Jobin is listed as the head of household, so her name is on the file, and the file is in the "Jobin" folder. However, I'm not as interested in her as in the "family," her daughter and son-in-law who have a different last name. Luckily, these records tend to be the outlier, so I usually remember them and don't have to search every file. If I wanted to make each person's records easier to find, I could save identical copies of records (one for each person of interest in the document) and name each copy to reflect each individual on the record. I don't do this because I think potentially having ten copies of one census record would take up more computer space and more time to label, without providing enough benefit in return.
What about lodgers, boarders, and servants? Sometimes ancestors will pop up with non-family members. In these cases, I make an exception to my own rule and ignore the head of household, his or her family, and any other people living in the household except my ancestor(s). I name the file as though my ancestor is the head of household. In my opinion, it would be too difficult to file my ancestors under some totally unrelated person's or family's name. I do suggest keeping track in notes somewhere of with whom the ancestor is living, just in case it turns out down the road that there is a connection. Sometimes though, it'll just be a local boarding house. Therefore, I think it's more justifiable to ignore the other people because they are presumably unrelated. If it turns out they are relatives, I can always rename the file in the future based on the above format.
Other Record or File Types
For all other record types (including burials, deaths, draft registration cards, and photos), I generally stick to the simple naming format I use for birth records because these other record types frequently pertain to only one person. If a woman's maiden name is on the document, I will use that instead of her married name in the file title.
Photos can have one or many individuals in them so can be tougher. If there is a married couple, I put both individuals' names (using the wife's maiden surname when possible) in the title. If the photo is of a large group, I will name the individuals I have identified, preferably the "head couple" of a family. I have no photos in which I can identify more than two adults. I do recommend obviously having written somewhere the identification of as many people as possible in the photo if you can identify children or more than two adults; I just do not think the file name is always the best place for this information due to length concerns.
Please feel free to share your filing systems! I would love to hear how you see the issues I've addressed and if you've solved any of the problems I identified.
0 comments:
Post a Comment