Footnotes! Footnotes! Footnotes! Part 2

How do you manage footnotes while you are writing so their inclusion does not halt the flow of your writing?

footnotesI struggled with this while I wrote my Kinship Determination Project (KDP) and Case Study for my portfolio for certification for the Board for Certification of Genealogists. [1]

In the end, I employed two basic techniques.

First, I internalize information as I do my research and take copious notes. Before I started writing, however, I also reread several key documents I had deemed critical to the research question. Then, I started writing. I do not consider myself a great writer, but once I “get going,” I do not like to stop. Here is what I do to accommodate my “with the flow” approach to citation inclusion.

I write three, four or even ten paragraphs before I pause. At those pauses, I go back to what I have written, do some rough editing and insert a “dummy citation.” Yes, it could be a real footnote if I have all the information handy, but instead of pulling out the document and figuring out how to cite the evidence, I insert number for the footnote and insert a code for the source, for example, DR HJB. This would tell me I needed to cite the death record of Henry J. Bode at that location. There may be many of these “dummy citations.”

I enter a footnote everywhere I think a footnote is needed. For every dummy citation I put where I think/know the information is found.  I rarely leave one blank.

Then I  continue writing.

At a (later) time of “citation inspiration,” I return to what I have written and start entering “real” citations. I dig out the source, confirm that it actually supports the statement, check Evidence Explained to see if there is any construction guidance and then build the citation. [2] If the content does not support the statement I am making, I have two choices: I can rewrite the paragraph so it is supportable or I go looking for a source that supports the statement.

This process allows me to keep up with the flow of writing, but also reminds me of a need for a citation. How do you handle the flow and the citation timing?

You might find it interesting to read my first blog on this topic, Footnotes! Footnotes! Footnotes!

Happy hunting!


What I have done since the last post: worked on my Timelines presentation for the Olympia GS to be given in March. I have a “never-evers” presentation I need to put together for February. I am excited about some great speaking opportunities that are coming my way for 2017.  I listened to some webinars on Legacy. I thought Gena Philibert-Ortega’s on “Social History” was particularly good.


[2] Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, third edition (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 2015).


Footnotes! Footnotes! Footnotes!

Do you manage your footnotes or do they manage you?

When writing my Kinship Determination Project (KDP) for my portfolio, I had trouble keeping  the footnotes “complete and accurate.”[1] They should add “consistent’ to this rubric.

I thought I had a plan. I didn’t; or the one I had didn’t work so well; or maybe it worked as well as could be expected.

Nevertheless, I thought I would outline my process. Hopefully, you can find some ideas you can use or perhaps learn from my mistakes.

I would also be interested in how you manage your footnotes when writing  a footnote intensive paper. I would like to improve this process.

Note: I don’t use RefNote or any specialized software. I used Word.

I did OK for most of the KDP in keeping my footnotes consistent.   I attained what consistency I did have by keeping a record in Word of every type of footnote and using the style as a template for future footnotes of the same type.  The footnotes were arranged by record type in the Word document–all the death footnote types were together, all the electronic ones were together, etc.

But, I learned as I wrote and some things shifted in the footnote creating inconsistencies.

Every footnote was entered as a full footnote. I did not make it a shortform, even if I knew there was a similar reference before it, until I was completely done with the paper. If I knew (or thought) that a footnote was previously used, I put the letters SF, for “short form,” at the beginning of the footnote.  If the footnote was a candidate for Ibid., I put that at the beginning as well. But I  did not convert it to a SF or an Ibid. until the very end of the writing process. Reason? I was moving around paragraphs of information right up until the end.  At one point I removed about 1000 words from my KDP. I knew I had to be careful. It also didn’t matter if I made a mistake because I knew I had to check every one.

By the time I got to the end of writing the document, inconsistencies in my formatting of even the typical footnote templates, had slipped in. I had also knew that there were consistencies, even if accurate.

So, I re-reviewed every footnote at the end of writing the paper. (Which I think you would have to do anyway.) Here is how I reviewed all my footnotes:

I first made sure that all footnotes were the same font type, size and black in color.

Starting with footnote number 1 and going in order:

  1. I made all my footnotes into endnotes and copied them into a single Word document (I called this document the “Endnotes”). Then I changed the document with endnotes back into one with footnotes.
  2. Working back and forth between the document and the Endnotes, I checked to make sure that footnote #1 was accurately reflecting the content of the cited work, complete and in a format that was most consistent with the narrative.
  3. I re-checked each one against Evidence Explained [2] so I knew where I deviated and why.
  4. I used the Find feature to see if I had any duplicates of that footnote. Since even the most typical footnote had a unique identifier, this was not hard. (Obviously, the first footnotes were unique, so this happened later in the writing.)
  5. On the Endnotes, I changed the color of that particular footnote to green, when I was completed with checking for correctness, accuracy, consistency.
  6. Repeat, until you find a source that has already been cited. Create the shortform. Copy the shortform and paste into the Endnotes, under the first full citation.
  7. As you go, adjust the footnotes to include Ibid., if appropriate.
  8. When you are done, all Endnotes will be green; all shortforms and Ibid.s will be entered and you will have checked all against other similar footnotes for consistency. And you will have checked each type against Evidence Explained.
  9. Pat yourself of the back and repeat for the Case Study! [3]

I hope it doesn’t sound confusing. It went quite smoothly and quicker than I thought.  I am visual so the color coding was essential. The Find feature was a godsend. If I discovered an inconsistency, I could identify all of the affected footnotes and change them one-by-one.

That describe how I handled them when the document was finished.  Next we will look at how I did ciations during the writing process so they didn’t put a full stop on the flow of the writing.

Happy hunting!


What I have done since the last posting: I know it has been some time since I posted but I have traveled to the Eastern time zone 3 times in about 10 days.  Plus made presentations in about 10 venues. I also am Seattle Genealogical Society’s president.  It’s been an active fall, but is now winding down as we get ready for our daughter’s wedding in Boston.  Looking forward to it and to a little relaxation afterwards.

[1] “Rubrics for Evaluating New Applications for BCG Certification, revised 18 January 2016,” Board for Certification of Genealogists ( : accessed 9 November 2016).
[2] Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained, Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, third edition (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 2015).
[3] I wanted to make this a 12-step program, but I just couldn’t come up with two more steps to my process! 🙂



“Under Construction:” the Case Study

CS openingMany years ago, I attended a session on non-fiction writing where the lecturer described the best story line as a series of small climaxes that build to the final–punch line.  Diagrammatically, it might look like the photo on the left. I wondered if my case study or those of other more accomplished writers might follow a similar construction model.

I am working on my case study, a “proof argument.” A proof argument poses a genealogical question  and answers the question by conducting research, citing the evidence, analyzing and correlating the evidence, resolving any conflicts and then writing it up. These five steps compose the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS), the standard by which we genealogists measure our work.[1]

It is the responsibility of the writer to lay out the story, or a proof argument, in the best way possible.  But, what is the best way? Tom Jones in Mastering Genealogical Proof [2] covers this in Chapter 7, “GPS Element 5: The Written Conclusion.”

Early in this chapter, the author defines the types of proofs: proof statements, proof summaries and proof arguments. Each of these types are on a spectrum of complexity, with statements being the simplest, usually just a sentence with a citation using an original source, and proof arguments being the most complex, requiring multiple page narratives with tables, timelines, etc. to illustrate the resolution of the research question and ultimately to arrive at an answer to that question. Proof arguments are a requirement for the portfolio for certification. [3]

Dr. Jones outlined the basic construction types the proof argument might assume in the writing: single hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, building blocks and syllogisms.

I am very visual. I wondered if I could diagram these construction types of proof arguments much as my non-fiction lecturer had years before. My primary interest was whether I was writing my proof in a way that followed a MGP type.

I decided to analyze other authors’ work to determine if I could see a pattern with successful articles. I defined “successful articles” as those which had been published in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly (NGSQ), one of our most well respected journals and which regularly publishes top-flight proof arguments. [4] In the interest of time, I looked at just five of the most recently published proof arguments.

Here are the articles. Each has its own construction model.

Laurel T. Baty, CG, “Reassembling a Clark Family of Alabama, Georgia and North Carolina,” National Genealogical Society Quarterly (NGSQ), 103 (December 2015):245-261.

CS single hypThis article illustrates “single hypothesis” construction of her proof. Ms. Baty states her hypothesis and then provides the evidence to support it. Its might look like the diagram to the left.



Ronald A. Hill, Ph.D., CG, FASG, “Middle Names from 1792 and 1793 Help Reconstruct Ancestry of John Rodda Jr., Butcher at Helston, Cornwall,” NGSQ, 103 (December 2015): 263-279.

CS blocks steppedThis article illustrates “alternative hypotheses” construction of his proof. Dr. Hill presents five families who fit the initially known criteria and then eliminates four, leaving the last and best hypothesis still standing. It might look like the diagram to the left.


Sara Anne Scribner, CG, “No Name, No Number: George Holmes’s Orphans of Washington and Jefferson Counties, Georgia,” NGSQ 103 (September 2015): 165-177.

CS orphansMs. Scribner identifies a working hypothesis early in her work, but appears to have used the “building block” approach to identifying the names of orphans who were winners in the land lottery. The author sequentially addressed each orphan with proofs for each.  Assuredly these proofs overlap, so it is not quite as “clean” as I am describing, but you can see the framework clearly in the article. I have diagrammed my proposed construction model on the left.

Sue Hahney Kratsch, “James Wesley Mooney of Will County, Illinois: Business Records Reveal His New York Family,” NGSQ 103 (September 2015): 179-200.

CS block dependantThis article could be either “building block” or a “single hypothesis” concept of construction.  The author builds a family step-by-step suggesting a building block approach but also there is a single hypothesis and all components are very interdependent.  I diagrammed this construction model showing how the blocks cannot stand on their own and need the next one and the next one to be complete.  Please read the article and decide.

Darcie Hind Posz, CG, “One George Deane or More? Determining an Identity Spanning Illinois, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri, but not Wisconsin,” NGSQ 103 (September 2015): 201-207.

CS single blockThis is an example of a “single hypothesis” addressing a question of identity.  Three fragments of a George Deane are suggested by the evidence: George Deane’s early life, including a marriage to Minnie and birth of a child and then two George Deane’s deaths, one with a marriage to Susie. Which George was married to Minnie? Which of these two fragments, if either, can be linked to the George who married Minnie? I have diagrammed this construction model on the left.

The one construction type that is mentioned in MGP, but not discovered in my very limited survey is “Syllogisms.” Syllogisms are “if/then” arguments. An example of a syllogism is “If Jill Morelli’s brother was named Fred Jacobson, then her birth name was Jill Jacobson.” I did not find any articles that used this technique as their primary structure; however, many authors use this technique within their proofs, especially when involving negative evidence.

My discoveries:

  • individual authors construct their proofs in a method that suits the evidence and research question
  • proof arguments can be a mix of types but usually there is an overarching construction type which encompasses other sub-types within it.
  • There are perhaps infinite combinations of these types and sub-types, but there is an overarching system to our proof writing which must be respected or the reader can get easily confused…not to mention the writer!
  • My proof argument was falling within an accepted structure of a “single hypothesis” with sub-types of “building block.”

These are my interpretations.  I would appreciate comments from others if they disagree or agree with my visual and narrative assessments.

Happy Hunting!


What I have done since the last posting: I have been working very hard on my case study.  I thought that it would take just a couple of days to complete, but I am on day 5 now and still have a day (?) to go.  My perspective was greatly enhanced by by letting it sit for 2.5 months.  When I read it for the “first time” after it resting, I had a fresh perspective. That “fresh perspective” meant that I had more work to do than I thought.  I have also been looking for (and finally found) a document for my personal document transcription, abstract and work plan, another component of the portfolio.  I have lots of deeds but wanted a will. I found a will.

[1] Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards (, an imprint of Turner Publishing Company: Nashville, Tennessee or New York, 2014) 1-2.

[2] Thomas W. Jones, Mastering Genealogical Proof (Arlington, Virginia: National Genealogical Society, 2013) 83-94.

[3] Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCG Application Guide (Washington, DC: Board for Certification of Genealogists, 2016) 6; accessed online at .

[4] I wish to point out that Tom Jones, the author of MGP, is also one of the co-editors of NGSQ.  He, therefore, brings a deep knowledge of writing of proofs by the best authors, but also may mean that he could edit articles to “fit” his construction types of MGP. I suspect only the former.


Keeping Track of Footnote Status

The Problem? How do you maintain writing momentum while composing footnotes? How does one track the status of footnotes as you write?

I doubt I am inventing anything here and, in fact, I suspect most folks come up with a system of some sort and perhaps one even fairly similar to mine.

I have a four methods I use to maintain consistency between similar footnotes, clean up footnotes and identify short form/Ibid footnotes. The main reason why I need multiple methods is because I find writing painful if I have to stop writing and make a footnote. What I do instead is intensely research and take notes (Evernote, Dropbox, Word are my friends). And then start writing and it can flow out of me.  “Flow” makes it sound simple; actually writing is only less painful if I do it this way.

If the writing naturally breaks up into chunks, I will write then do footnotes and then repeat. But, trust me, at the beginning, the paper is pretty ugly.

Here we go…

Method 1:

  1. I insert the footnotes into the very ugly draft. There are two types–ones I found while researching– These are usually in good shape because I carefully compose them while I am researching.  The other category are ones based on my documents I have collected over the years that I wish to reference in the document. These I  compose as I find I need them.
  2. Each footnote is also copied onto a Master Source List and placed in an appropriate category, e.g. censuses 1850 and before, vital records, books, etc. and in alpha order within each category.

Method 2: Color coding

  1. If I find I am missing a source,  I will make a footnote and instead of a citation I write what I am missing, e.g. “DR for Antje R.” or even “what was I thinking here?” These I put in red.
  2. If I have a partial footnote or I am missing information, I enter the partial citation, I enter a note to myself. For example, a newspaper clipping in my file but with no newspaper noted, I will put the citation in as I know it but put “What is the newspaper’s name?” in red. I might be able to find the name of the newspaper later.
  3. If I think the citation is complete and I am happy with it, I color it green.
  4. After all citations are green, I will then, and only then turn them all black.

Method 3: identifying Short form and Ibid opportunities

  1. I make all citations long form until all citations are “black.”
  2. While I write and if I think I have used it before (usually I know this because it appears on my Master Source List) I place a “SF” at the start of the citation indicating this citation is a candidate for a short form citation or “IBID” indicating there might be an opportunity to just use Ibid. But, I won’t know this until the paper is finished

Method 4:

  1. To cross check the citations after they have all turned black, I plan on (haven’t gotten this far yet on any document) turning them into endnotes (yes, you can change them back to footnotes when you are finished), and check each one very carefully.  I am not sure yet how this will work, but I think I will pick off the first one, paste it into a separate Word document making another Master Source List II, and turn the appropriate ones into short form or add Ibid. This will force me to look for inconsistencies, anomalies (should be few, but I know a few sneaked in).
  2. I will check each one against EE [1] to make sure any changes I have made are defensible.
  3. I think I will have to do this because I wasn’t religious about entering every unique citation into my first master source list, but even if I had, I would still probably make a Master Source List II because I want my citations to be super-consistent and composed appropriately.

Hope this helps someone.

Happy Hunting!


What I have done since the last post: worked on my KDP almost exclusively, toning up my two presentations for Jamboree which is just in 2.5 weeks, and signed up for their live streaming of their DNA Day. I bought some downloads from NGS and have listened to a couple so far (Judy R on women and the law and Lisa Alzo on eastern European brick walls).

[1] Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace,” third edition (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2015).

NGS: The FAN Club

2014 ESMI attended a number of Elizabeth Shown Mills‘s presentations this past week at the NGS 2016 annual conference in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (see photo at left). [1]  ESM rarely works with direct evidence and is usually in the extreme ends of the lineage trying to solve her research question. Her presentation on identifying John Watts, “Reasonably Exhaustive Research: The First Criteria for Genealogical Proof,” soon to be a NSGQ article, is a study in extremely complex FAN Club research. [2]

What is a FAN Club? Friends, Associates and Neighbors comprise any person’s FAN Club. These are the individuals who surround us and who we interact with regularly. We call upon them to assist us in our dealings that generate documents that survive to today. More importantly, we find our FAN Club being kin, especially before the 21st century.

For example, when it is time to fill out the request for the Civil War pension and you need to have some attestations of your service and good character. Who are you going to ask to give character witness? –your comrade in arms from your unit. Your unit was comprised of individuals from your state and often included kin.

Or, you are a member of a church. Who is on the church rolls with you?—other church members, many of whom may be family members

It is time for you to emigrate. Do you just pick up and go?–no, you probably entice others from your small town to emigrate as well and all appear on the passenger manifest together. Do you shoot darts at a map to determine where you are going to settle?—again, no. You instead pick an area you have heard about, because others from your parish have migrated before you to that place.

These are just 3 examples of different FAN Clubs. As you can see one person can have many FAN Clubs at the same time and individuals may “occupy” overlapping groups. In very difficult problems, such as the identification of John Watts, not only did the FAN club include multiple types of clusters, but it grew in numbers of individuals as more evidence was found. A FAN Club is never static. It will increase in size as new information is obtained and new names are added. It will shrink as individuals are identified who do not answer the research question.

The reason why someone would drop from the list is if they defied Newton’s Laws of Physics:

Principle 1: and object (individual) cannot be in two places at the same time.

James Smith #1 farms on Smith Creek and James Smith #2 farms on James Creek in 1850–at the same time. These are two different James Smiths. Understanding the distances one could travel in the time frame of investigation is necessary to eliminating individuals from a FAN Club.

Principle 2: one object (individual) cannot occupy the same time twice as someone else. James Smith #1 resides on land from 1812 to 1850. James Smith #2 resides on land from 1830 to 1860. These are probably two different James Smiths because their timelines are not in alignment.

These are extremely simplistic examples and are only used to illustrate a point of identity of same named individuals; not to illustrate reasonably exhaustive research, which would be necessary to actually eliminate John Smith #2 in each instance.

Same named individuals can only be separated by using reasonably exhaustive research and having alignment of geography, time AND the FAN Club.

I would also suggest that you probably use it more frequently than you think. Your FAN Club size may be small and you can quickly eliminate all but one. This type of research is particularly critical for Irish and Scandinavian ethnic groups whose naming practices result in many individuals having the same name.

Happy Hunting!


What I have done since the last posting: attended the NGS 2016 conference, blogged about the conference, presented twice and became inspired as I read the submissions of others for certification at the BCG booth. Next up? Whidbey Island GS and Jamboree! Next blog (probably)—coincidence and decision-making.

[1] Photo of Elizabeth Shown Mills & Jill Morelli, taken at the request of Jill Morelli by an attendee, May 2014.  Photo taken NGS 2014 conference in Richmond, VA.

[2] FAN Club is a group composed of friends, associates and/or neighbors devised by Elisabeth Shown Mills, also called “cluster research.” The use of FAN Club principles are used repeatedly in solving genealogical problems.


Case Study Tips & More

2016 AZ mtnsAs some of you know, I have been taking a six week driving “sabbatical” since my retirement on 6 January 2016.  This has been a great few weeks so far and I expect it to be even better.

My goals for the trip have been:

  • get to the warm (see pic on left)
  • do some research in Salt Lake City
  • write a bunch of my portfolio (Case Study & Kinship Determination Project or KDP)
  • visit some friends along the way


Get to the warm:

I have definitely accomplished that (see above!).  I will spend about 3+ weeks in Arizona and southern California in full sunshine and 80 degree temps!  Woo hoo!

Research in SLC:

I spent four days there doing research. Of course, as soon as I left I noticed that I had missed checking out a database that is only available at the library, so I hired my friend, Barry Kline, who I knew was still there to check it for me.  Great job, Barry.  Just what I needed.

2016 AZ study stationWrite a bunch of my portfolio:

I wanted to come out of my week in Colorado (post-SLC) with my Case Study in very good shape.  Well, it took longer than that but I really like what it looks like.  A little more work but it is shaping up nicely.

I want to complete my AZ segment of the trip with a very good start on my KDP (see study station at left).  Right now–it is really ugly, but it is getting incrementally better every day (sometimes the increments are very small, however.).  I am finding some items I need to access, and so, I will be ordering some tapes so I can review them when I get back to Seattle.  It is also possible that I will have to re-up my “on-the clock”. As you can tell from the countdown clock on the sidebar, I only have two full months left. I have some information in Iowa that I need to get but I won’t be there until August, when I do another 7 week driving trip.

Visit friends & relatives

I have had the joy of being in Colorado with my husband’s two brothers and one of  the sister-in-laws. I am in AZ staying with a friend and will head out the end of this month to San Diego to meet up with my brother and his wife for a few days.  Then, it is on to Fresno to visit with another friend, BUT I have to be back in Seattle on the 8th so I can fly to Chicago on the 9th for the weekend.

Whew!! This retirement thing is exhausting.

2016 AZ postitsI promised some tips for the Case Study.  Here is what I discovered:

  1. Jot down 5 or 6 possible case studies.  Remember every immigrant is a problem of identity here and there; every person with multiple birth dates for the same person is conflicting direct evidence.
  2. Pick a problem you already have “solved.”  Do not pick one you haven’t solved.
  3. Once you pick your problem, write up your research question.  I had a hard time with this (I know it shouldn’t be, but my preconceptions kept getting in the way.)
  4. Determine what kind of a conflict it is and then read NGSQ articles for ones that are similar. While you are reading, look for a format or structure that fits your problem–you do not need to reinvent the wheel. There are good examples out there.
  5. Start writing; the sooner the better.
  6. While you are writing (at least this was true for me) there will be “little discoveries” along the way that needed to be researched. At first I was disappointed that I hadn’t noticed them before but then I viewed them as little challenges within the bigger one of the Case Study.

In the end, I got more than I bargained for–which was a very pleasant gift.

Happy Hunting!


What I have done since the last post:  a lot.

My Genealogy Goals for 2016

Happy New YearDo you make resolutions?  I decided to identify goals instead. My resolutions tend to  be broken in the first month and then not looked at again–at least that’s my pattern. I work continuously on my “Goals” and if I don’t get it right the first time I keep working on them.  Here are my Genealogy Goals for 2016.

  1. Have Fun!  Lucky for me, I have fun practicing genealogy and observing every day improvements.  Having fun to me includes sharing my passion, my knowledge and my experience with as many people as possible.  This sharing will include more lecturing, more writing, more mentoring and more researching than in the past.  I feel I am on track with  this goal with retirement on 6 January. I know this goal isn’t as measurable as Amy Johnson Crow would like (Click here to go to her blog about setting genealogical goals.) but I can live with that.
  2. Submit my portfolio to the Board of Certification for Genealogists.  Notice that the goal isn’t to “pass”–that would be a bonus! The “resolution” is, however,  to submit it before the National Genealogical Society conference in May.  There are a couple of things that could derail that schedule but Plan B is to submit the portfolio before the end of 2016.
  3. Become a well known regional expert in Swedish research. I am working at this very hard. I would eventually like to extend the definition of “regional” to national, but for now, I will be happy with a strong reputation in the WA, OR and even BC area. Present status: some genealogists in the Seattle area view me as knowledgeable. 🙂
  4. Attend one or more of the major institutes in 2017: SLIG (Salt Lake Institute of Genealogy), GRIPP (Genealogy Research in /Pittsburgh) and/or Gen-Fed, the newly resurrected NARA course (yea!!). SLIG and Gen-Fed are on my “cross-hairs.”
  5. Technology:
    1. get my website up and running
    2. change the look of my blog…it’s looking a little stodgy these days!

In 2014 I also identified goals for 2016 for a ProGen class assignment (has it been that long?) focusing on lecturing. Here are the items for 2016 as stated back in 2014.  Since actions in 2016 are usually predicated on applications you make the previous year, I have placed comments concerning achievement on each:

  • Speak at WSGS (Washington State Genealogical Society) and two other major seminars: WSGS has morphed into the NwGC, Northwest Genealogical Conference.  I will be out of town for the conference this year. I will, however, be speaking at Indianapolis, Minneapolis, and two academic conferences here in Seattle.  I think those count!
  • Speak at Puget Sound chapters (2): I will well exceed this goal, probably by the end of January!
  • Speak at NGS 2016: goal achieved.  I will be presenting twice in Ft. Lauderdale. This is my first year speaking at NGS.
  • Speak at SCGS Jamboree: goal achieved.  I will be presenting twice in Burbank. This is my second year speaking at Jamboree.
  • Apply to SCGS Jamboree 2017: I will do this as soon as the Call for Papers comes out. I can never assume I will be selected in the next year just because I spoke at the last one.
  • Apply for NGS 2017, Raleigh, NC: The Call for Papers has just been announced. I will submit eight.
  • Apply for FGS conference 2017: I will do this as soon as the Call for Papers is announced. I wasn’t selected for 2016.
  • Submit one article to NGSQ: This will probably be my case study, which I will have submitted for my portfolio. (Note: I have just been informed that the editors wish to print my Gender Balance article if I can respond to the reviewers comments appropriately. Woo hoo!)
  • Submit two articles to other genealogical publications: I am totally up for this once the portfolio is submitted.

The above 2016 goals (made in 2014) assumed I had submitted my portfolio and was certified, so I have had to modify some of the goals from the previous years.  But we move on! Generally, I am about 1 year ahead of my ProGen goals, which is a good thing.

Thanks to each of you-my readers!  It is great to know that some of what I write is of interest and I hope a bit of a help. I wish you each achievement in your genealogy goals for the new year.

Happy Hunting!


What I have done since the last posting:  I have been working on my Case Study.  I will write about the process soon–lots of little discoveries. I also am getting ready for my first webinar for the Southern CA GS. You can register here:  I was informed of the NGSQ article which I am thrilled about–but I admit, some of the comments are conflicting. I am mentally and physically getting ready to retire.  It’s a little scary, but exciting too.