info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
FamilySearch comes of age
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Hayes
Apr 16, 2018, 12:42:31 AM4/16/18
to
FamilySearch comes of age
https://t.co/2do1nmRZq1
In the last couple of years FamilySearch has completely changed the
way I do my genealogy research. I now spend most of my research time
comparing records in FamilySearch with what I already have, and
reconstituting families from FamilySearch data.
It wasn't always like this.
FamilySearch has had its ups and down over the years, and sometimes
useful features have been withdrawn and not replaced for some time.
There are remnants of that in a poll in the sidebar of this blog. One
useful feature recently withdrawn was the "Search Results", which I
hope returns before long.
But what makes FamilySearch more useful now is its integration with
programs like RootsMagic and Legacy Family Tree.
The main hindrance to this usefulness is the "My Tree" attitude of
many genealogists. There are many web sites that allow you to put your
family tree on line where it can be seen by others. Some are static,
and are difficult to update. Others are dynamic. But most of them are
not collaborative. And people who have become used to that model are
suspicious of collaborative projects like FamilySearch, because they
don't like the idea of anybody else changing anything in "My Tree".
In the days when Ancestry.com had a free version called Mundia, I used
to refer to it quite a lot. It followed the "My Tree" model, and so
you could find multiple versions of the same family on line. It also
encouraged people to uncritically copy information to their own tree
from others' trees. This uncritical copying often resulted in errors
being multiplied. The majority was not always right. An inaccurate
tree could be copied 10 times, and the accurate version could be
copied only once or twice. You could follow the majority version, but
it would be wrong. For some examples, see Jane Ellwood and the perils
of online family trees, and Three Agnes Ellwoods -- Tombstone Tuesday.
FamilySearch still lets you have your tree, which no one else can
alter. But the place for your tree is on your computer. You alone
decide if you want to copy information from FamilySearch to your
computer, so nobody else can alter your tree. But you can also share
your research with others by copying information from your tree to
FamilySearch.
So this is what I do now.
I look at my "Research" file on my computer, which is a copy of my
"Main" file (where I keep mainly verified information). The Research
file is more speculative, where I add possible links to be followed
and verified later and so on.
I find a family that I have not looked at for some time, and check it
with FamilySearch, comparing the two records side by side.
Sometimes I find someone has added information that I did not have --
parents of s spouse, for example. If they look likely I copy them to
my Research file (not to my Main file at this stage).
I then click on the link to FamilySearch in my genealogy program and
log in to FamilySearch on my web browser. That brings up the same
family. For each member of the family there FamilySearch may bring up
"Research Hints". These are the best research hints in the business.
The suggestions are not always accurate, but in my experience they are
right about 80% of the time.
For example, it may suggest a link to the person in one or more
censuses. You are then offered the opportunity to attach the census
record to that person as a source. That will also create a "Residence"
event for that person in FamilySearch, which you can also copy to your
own tree on your computer if you wish. The census records are often
transcriptions, so need to be taken with a pinch of salt. There may be
mistranscriptions and spelling errors, but you can make a note of
these.
You may find that someone has already attached this source to another
person. There are then three possibilities. One is that they have
attached to to the wrong person. Another is that they have attached it
to the right person but it is not the person you are looking for. A
third, and the most common, is that the person they have attached it
to is a duplicate of the person you want to attach it to. If that is
the case, FamilySearch offers you the possibility of merging the
duplicate people.
If you are sure that they are the same person, merge them. If you have
doubts, you can contact the person who attached the record to discuss
it with them. FamilySearch has a research trail, showing every change
made by anyone, so that you can contact other users (sometimes a
long-lost cousin). When you register to use FamilySearch, your record
contains your contact information, which can include your e-mail
address. I recommend that you include that, so that people can contact
you about shared family members.
There is also, both on the FamilySearch web site and in the programs
that link to it, a place where you can have discussions about problems
relating to a particular person in your tree. Thus you can query
information that someone else has added, that you think may not be
accurate, or you can query discrepancies in records.
There are things to be careful of. For example, FamilySearch has lots
of church baptism records from the Church of England. These have been
transcribed from microfilms of the original registers, and sometimes
two or more microfilms were made of the same register. The microfilms
and the transcriptions made from them, vary in quality. One particular
error is that the transcriber often included as a "Residence" the
location of the parish where a baptism took place, rather than one
taken from the "Abode" field in the register. Where this is apparent
I usually don't copy the "residence" information, and am careful about
assuming that the place of baptism was the place of birth. Sometimes a
census will show that the date of birth was different. This is the
kind of thing you can add to the "Discussion" field.
In working like this with FamilySearch I'm usually adding several new
people to my family tree each day, even if they are only seventh
cousins. I am also organising scattered individuals on FamilySearch
into families, which helps make it more useful for other members. And
there's more than enough there to keep me busy for the rest of my
life.
One of the questions that sometimes bothers genealogists is what
happens to their research when they die, especially if no one in their
immediate family is interested. But if you share your research on
FamilySearch, it is there for others to make use of and add to, long
after you are dead.
So drop the "My Tree" approach, and rather join the larger human
family.
Source: https://t.co/2do1nmRZq1
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/
https://t.co/2do1nmRZq1
In the last couple of years FamilySearch has completely changed the
way I do my genealogy research. I now spend most of my research time
comparing records in FamilySearch with what I already have, and
reconstituting families from FamilySearch data.
It wasn't always like this.
FamilySearch has had its ups and down over the years, and sometimes
useful features have been withdrawn and not replaced for some time.
There are remnants of that in a poll in the sidebar of this blog. One
useful feature recently withdrawn was the "Search Results", which I
hope returns before long.
But what makes FamilySearch more useful now is its integration with
programs like RootsMagic and Legacy Family Tree.
The main hindrance to this usefulness is the "My Tree" attitude of
many genealogists. There are many web sites that allow you to put your
family tree on line where it can be seen by others. Some are static,
and are difficult to update. Others are dynamic. But most of them are
not collaborative. And people who have become used to that model are
suspicious of collaborative projects like FamilySearch, because they
don't like the idea of anybody else changing anything in "My Tree".
In the days when Ancestry.com had a free version called Mundia, I used
to refer to it quite a lot. It followed the "My Tree" model, and so
you could find multiple versions of the same family on line. It also
encouraged people to uncritically copy information to their own tree
from others' trees. This uncritical copying often resulted in errors
being multiplied. The majority was not always right. An inaccurate
tree could be copied 10 times, and the accurate version could be
copied only once or twice. You could follow the majority version, but
it would be wrong. For some examples, see Jane Ellwood and the perils
of online family trees, and Three Agnes Ellwoods -- Tombstone Tuesday.
FamilySearch still lets you have your tree, which no one else can
alter. But the place for your tree is on your computer. You alone
decide if you want to copy information from FamilySearch to your
computer, so nobody else can alter your tree. But you can also share
your research with others by copying information from your tree to
FamilySearch.
So this is what I do now.
I look at my "Research" file on my computer, which is a copy of my
"Main" file (where I keep mainly verified information). The Research
file is more speculative, where I add possible links to be followed
and verified later and so on.
I find a family that I have not looked at for some time, and check it
with FamilySearch, comparing the two records side by side.
Sometimes I find someone has added information that I did not have --
parents of s spouse, for example. If they look likely I copy them to
my Research file (not to my Main file at this stage).
I then click on the link to FamilySearch in my genealogy program and
log in to FamilySearch on my web browser. That brings up the same
family. For each member of the family there FamilySearch may bring up
"Research Hints". These are the best research hints in the business.
The suggestions are not always accurate, but in my experience they are
right about 80% of the time.
For example, it may suggest a link to the person in one or more
censuses. You are then offered the opportunity to attach the census
record to that person as a source. That will also create a "Residence"
event for that person in FamilySearch, which you can also copy to your
own tree on your computer if you wish. The census records are often
transcriptions, so need to be taken with a pinch of salt. There may be
mistranscriptions and spelling errors, but you can make a note of
these.
You may find that someone has already attached this source to another
person. There are then three possibilities. One is that they have
attached to to the wrong person. Another is that they have attached it
to the right person but it is not the person you are looking for. A
third, and the most common, is that the person they have attached it
to is a duplicate of the person you want to attach it to. If that is
the case, FamilySearch offers you the possibility of merging the
duplicate people.
If you are sure that they are the same person, merge them. If you have
doubts, you can contact the person who attached the record to discuss
it with them. FamilySearch has a research trail, showing every change
made by anyone, so that you can contact other users (sometimes a
long-lost cousin). When you register to use FamilySearch, your record
contains your contact information, which can include your e-mail
address. I recommend that you include that, so that people can contact
you about shared family members.
There is also, both on the FamilySearch web site and in the programs
that link to it, a place where you can have discussions about problems
relating to a particular person in your tree. Thus you can query
information that someone else has added, that you think may not be
accurate, or you can query discrepancies in records.
There are things to be careful of. For example, FamilySearch has lots
of church baptism records from the Church of England. These have been
transcribed from microfilms of the original registers, and sometimes
two or more microfilms were made of the same register. The microfilms
and the transcriptions made from them, vary in quality. One particular
error is that the transcriber often included as a "Residence" the
location of the parish where a baptism took place, rather than one
taken from the "Abode" field in the register. Where this is apparent
I usually don't copy the "residence" information, and am careful about
assuming that the place of baptism was the place of birth. Sometimes a
census will show that the date of birth was different. This is the
kind of thing you can add to the "Discussion" field.
In working like this with FamilySearch I'm usually adding several new
people to my family tree each day, even if they are only seventh
cousins. I am also organising scattered individuals on FamilySearch
into families, which helps make it more useful for other members. And
there's more than enough there to keep me busy for the rest of my
life.
One of the questions that sometimes bothers genealogists is what
happens to their research when they die, especially if no one in their
immediate family is interested. But if you share your research on
FamilySearch, it is there for others to make use of and add to, long
after you are dead.
So drop the "My Tree" approach, and rather join the larger human
family.
Source: https://t.co/2do1nmRZq1
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/
J. Hugh Sullivan
Apr 16, 2018, 7:36:16 AM4/16/18
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 06:47:19 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>FamilySearch comes of age
>
>https://t.co/2do1nmRZq1
>
>In the last couple of years FamilySearch has completely changed the
>way I do my genealogy research. I now spend most of my research time
>comparing records in FamilySearch with what I already have, and
>reconstituting families from FamilySearch data.
>
>It wasn't always like this.
RootsMagic and Legacy do link to Family Search BUT...
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>FamilySearch comes of age
>
>https://t.co/2do1nmRZq1
>
>In the last couple of years FamilySearch has completely changed the
>way I do my genealogy research. I now spend most of my research time
>comparing records in FamilySearch with what I already have, and
>reconstituting families from FamilySearch data.
>
>It wasn't always like this.
I find there is as much inaccurate data there as on Ancestry. Use them
with care.
I expect Steve knows that as well or better than I do.
Hugh
knuttle
Apr 16, 2018, 7:49:21 AM4/16/18
to
images available long before Ancestry. From FamilySearch records I
have made some significant breakthroughs. One was a relationship that my
cousin had been working on for over 50 years.
Ancestry strength is the census, but you can not rely on their
transcription because of problems caused by their transcribers lack of
knowledge about what they are transcribing and problems in the original
like handwriting, smudges, etc.
As far as integration with genealogy programs, I find it much easier to
change the search phrases in the site search window than to mess with
the genealogy programs. The main line browsers like Firefox are much
more usable than the browser in genealogy programs. I never merge data
into my genealogy database. I did a couple times when I started my
research over 15 years ago and still occasionally find garbage from
those merges.
One very important database not mentioned in the original post is
database like Google Books, Archives, and similar sites. These sites
have ebooks of many the county histories edited by Parins and others.
These books have information on the family that is not available any
other place.
There are also some great databases in Europe, that Ancestry blocks
unless you have a European subscription.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 16, 2018, 12:36:17 PM4/16/18
to
In message <pb22k0$6h5$1...@dont-email.me>, knuttle
which wouldn't let me vote, then one about how I like to communicate
with other genealogists (email) - ah, now I've found that one. (It still
won't let me click, but at least I see others have been able to, unlike
the event-based one.)
[]
your main (or only) one. You can't use it and accept hints if you want
to keep your main one elsewhere - at least, you can upload a new one,
but it has to be a different name, or if you make it the same name if
you even can, uploading a new one discards any and all hints you may
have accepted to it, and any other links you have made to it.
>> not collaborative. And people who have become used to that model are
>> suspicious of collaborative projects like FamilySearch, because they
>> don't like the idea of anybody else changing anything in "My Tree".
>> In the days when Ancestry.com had a free version called Mundia, I
>>used
>> to refer to it quite a lot. It followed the "My Tree" model, and so
>> you could find multiple versions of the same family on line. It also
>> encouraged people to uncritically copy information to their own tree
It certainly did, and still does, IMO.
>> from others' trees. This uncritical copying often resulted in errors
>> being multiplied. The majority was not always right. An inaccurate
>> tree could be copied 10 times, and the accurate version could be
>> copied only once or twice. You could follow the majority version, but
Or nonce (-:
>> it would be wrong. For some examples, see Jane Ellwood and the perils
>> of online family trees, and Three Agnes Ellwoods -- Tombstone Tuesday.
>> FamilySearch still lets you have your tree, which no one else can
>> alter. But the place for your tree is on your computer. You alone
To be fair, (a) you can have a tree on Ancestry - public or private -
which no-one else can alter; you control who can do what when you give
others access to it. And of course any genealogy prog. (that I know of,
anyway) lets you keep your tree on your computer (I use BK); perhaps
what you mean is that FamilySearch more closely integrates a local tree
with a tree on their site, if it does.
>> decide if you want to copy information from FamilySearch to your
>> computer, so nobody else can alter your tree. But you can also share
>> your research with others by copying information from your tree to
>> FamilySearch.
>> So this is what I do now.
>> I look at my "Research" file on my computer, which is a copy of my
>> "Main" file (where I keep mainly verified information). The Research
>> file is more speculative, where I add possible links to be followed
>> and verified later and so on.
So do you have to maintain the two separately? For example, when you add
a fact to your Main tree, because you've satisfied whatever criterion
you have set, do you have to separately add it to your Research one? I
can see the other way round - you'd add a speculative "fact" to your
Research tree that you wouldn't put in your Main; I was just wondering
about the other way round.
>> I find a family that I have not looked at for some time, and check
>>it
>> with FamilySearch, comparing the two records side by side.
>> Sometimes I find someone has added information that I did not have
>>--
>> parents of s spouse, for example. If they look likely I copy them to
>> my Research file (not to my Main file at this stage).
>> I then click on the link to FamilySearch in my genealogy program and
>> log in to FamilySearch on my web browser. That brings up the same
>> family. For each member of the family there FamilySearch may bring up
>> "Research Hints". These are the best research hints in the business.
Certainly, Ancestry's "Hints" often make me wonder what algorithm
they've used to suggest them. (I've even suggested/complained/whatever
that they show _why_ they're making any given hint/suggestion, but so
far it's been like banging my head against a brick wall. Or rather,
against a marshmallow.)
>> The suggestions are not always accurate, but in my experience they are
>> right about 80% of the time.
I'd say maybe 55-60% for Ancestry ones, maybe a bit less; just often
enough for them to be worth pursuing, which makes it all the more
frustrating when they aren't any good, especially when they _obviously_
aren't.
[]
create duplicates (IME, anyway): I've often found a couple to have two
identical children, if not several sets of them. And Ancestry's merge
facility - they do have one - seems to me both awkward to get to, and
awkward to use.
>> If you are sure that they are the same person, merge them. If you
>>have
>> doubts, you can contact the person who attached the record to discuss
My experience with contacting people through websites has been poor -
not the responses when they come, those have usually been fair to
excellent; I just mean that I generally find people don't reply at all.
>> it with them. FamilySearch has a research trail, showing every change
>> made by anyone, so that you can contact other users (sometimes a
Does the "every change by anyone" log ever get into a feud, where two
individuals are repeatedly changing some "fact" back and forth, or is
there some way to stop that happening?
>> long-lost cousin). When you register to use FamilySearch, your record
>> contains your contact information, which can include your e-mail
>> address. I recommend that you include that, so that people can contact
>> you about shared family members.
(Ancestry's system of course allows you to communicate, but only via
them - though you can include your email address in messages. DNAmatch
shows actual emails.)
>> There is also, both on the FamilySearch web site and in the programs
>> that link to it, a place where you can have discussions about problems
>> relating to a particular person in your tree. Thus you can query
Ancestry has the facility to add comments to a person in a tree, though
I don't think there's any pooling (i. e. comments on the same person in
two different trees don't I think get copied across).
>> information that someone else has added, that you think may not be
>> accurate, or you can query discrepancies in records.
>> There are things to be careful of. For example, FamilySearch has
>>lots
>> of church baptism records from the Church of England. These have been
>> transcribed from microfilms of the original registers, and sometimes
>> two or more microfilms were made of the same register. The microfilms
>> and the transcriptions made from them, vary in quality. One particular
>> error is that the transcriber often included as a "Residence" the
>> location of the parish where a baptism took place, rather than one
>> taken from the "Abode" field in the register. Where this is apparent
I've never been sure whether that "Abode" field is supposed to refer to
only the father, or both parents, or both parents and the child. (Of
course, in most cases, all three will be living in the same place
anyway.) Certainly, you're right that logging the baptism place as the
residence place is wrong: if small, the residence place may not _have_ a
place for baptisms. (Well, "private" or similar baptisms can I think be
done anywhere, but won't have their own register, so it will be recorded
in one nearby. Usually!)
[]
correction for a howler I see, even if the person is no relation to me.
(Depends how well the correction mechanism is working that day. Often it
won't work with my browser. Or - often on Ancestry - the
error-submission mechanism isn't offered for externally-sourced
material; fair enough they can't correct others' databases, but they
ought to allow correction of their own indexes.)
>> there's more than enough there to keep me busy for the rest of my
>> life.
Indeed! I can see never getting through it, and I'm only 57; possibly
not even getting through the parts that I do want to address.
>> One of the questions that sometimes bothers genealogists is what
>> happens to their research when they die, especially if no one in their
>> immediate family is interested. But if you share your research on
>> FamilySearch, it is there for others to make use of and add to, long
>> after you are dead.
Or any other resource of course.
>> So drop the "My Tree" approach, and rather join the larger human
>> family.
That sounds slightly hectoring (-:. AFAIAC, I _will_ share my data (in
read-only mode), and don't mind it being copied; if nothing else, though
it certainly won't stop the inidscriminate-and-careless copying of dodgy
(or _wrong_) data, but it will at least increase - however minusculely -
the proportion of good data that's out there.
>> Source: https://t.co/2do1nmRZq1
>>
>For years FamilySearch has been my primary data source. It had
>document images available long before Ancestry. From FamilySearch
Their bishop's transcript images for the Durham diocese [north of
England] cover most of (Durham, obviously, and) Northumberland, and a
lot of Cumberland/Cumbria; such a pity they're not indexed, but I have
found many a record among them.
>records I have made some significant breakthroughs. One was a
>relationship that my cousin had been working on for over 50 years.
>
>Ancestry strength is the census, but you can not rely on their
>transcription because of problems caused by their transcribers lack of
>knowledge about what they are transcribing and problems in the original
>like handwriting, smudges, etc.
Yes, they're infamous for their transcriptions - an infamy (reputation)
which will I fear continue long after they've remedied it, assuming they
do. (Not helped by their refusal to correct or even promote the correct
above their original transcription; I just about accept their assertion
that someone may have noted a record under its original incorrect
transcription and want to find it again, but - at least where the error
is obviously wrong - their refusal to switch the correction so that it
appears as the default, with the incorrect still searchable, does not
impress. Me anyway.)
FindMyPast also have census transcriptions, as well as the 1939
"register" (a census in all but name, for our purposes anyway), and of
course many other records. FreeCEN are also working their way through,
though I'm not sure how far they've got and don't know if they offer
originals (as their sister FreeBMD does).
For example, John Smith will also find J. Smith in FindMyPast, but not
in Ancestry. Searching for John Smith in Ancestry will usually (I think)
not find James John Smith. Ancestry allow wildcards (with exceptions,
some of which generate false error messages) in names, but not in
placenames. FMP have recently introduced a number-of-hits indicator than
varies almost as you type, which is very handy. Both have an "edit
search", though they operate in different ways. Ancestry have an "or
adjacent counties" option, which is handy. FreeBMD let you pick more
than one county, which is occasionally handy. And so on.
>more usable than the browser in genealogy programs. I never merge data
>into my genealogy database. I did a couple times when I started my
>research over 15 years ago and still occasionally find garbage from
>those merges.
>
>One very important database not mentioned in the original post is
>database like Google Books, Archives, and similar sites. These sites
Good information.
>have ebooks of many the county histories edited by Parins and others.
Though often they have been OCRd, which can vary considerably in its
accuracy (sometimes it's very good, sometimes not worth even trying,
certainly if any searching is involved).
>These books have information on the family that is not available any
>other place.
>
>There are also some great databases in Europe, that Ancestry blocks
>unless you have a European subscription.
>
>
>
>
>
5
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
There are two kinds of fool. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And
one says, "This is new, and therefore better."
-John Brunner, science fiction writer (1934-1995)
>> FamilySearch has had its ups and down over the years, and sometimes
>> useful features have been withdrawn and not replaced for some time.
>> There are remnants of that in a poll in the sidebar of this blog. One
I saw a poll about use of "an event-based historical research program",
>> useful features have been withdrawn and not replaced for some time.
>> There are remnants of that in a poll in the sidebar of this blog. One
which wouldn't let me vote, then one about how I like to communicate
with other genealogists (email) - ah, now I've found that one. (It still
won't let me click, but at least I see others have been able to, unlike
the event-based one.)
[]
>> But what makes FamilySearch more useful now is its integration with
>> programs like RootsMagic and Legacy Family Tree.
>> The main hindrance to this usefulness is the "My Tree" attitude of
>> many genealogists. There are many web sites that allow you to put your
>> family tree on line where it can be seen by others. Some are static,
>> and are difficult to update. Others are dynamic. But most of them are
The Ancestry one is dynamic if you drink their juice, i. e. make that
>> programs like RootsMagic and Legacy Family Tree.
>> The main hindrance to this usefulness is the "My Tree" attitude of
>> many genealogists. There are many web sites that allow you to put your
>> family tree on line where it can be seen by others. Some are static,
>> and are difficult to update. Others are dynamic. But most of them are
your main (or only) one. You can't use it and accept hints if you want
to keep your main one elsewhere - at least, you can upload a new one,
but it has to be a different name, or if you make it the same name if
you even can, uploading a new one discards any and all hints you may
have accepted to it, and any other links you have made to it.
>> not collaborative. And people who have become used to that model are
>> suspicious of collaborative projects like FamilySearch, because they
>> don't like the idea of anybody else changing anything in "My Tree".
>> In the days when Ancestry.com had a free version called Mundia, I
>>used
>> to refer to it quite a lot. It followed the "My Tree" model, and so
>> you could find multiple versions of the same family on line. It also
>> encouraged people to uncritically copy information to their own tree
>> from others' trees. This uncritical copying often resulted in errors
>> being multiplied. The majority was not always right. An inaccurate
>> tree could be copied 10 times, and the accurate version could be
>> copied only once or twice. You could follow the majority version, but
>> it would be wrong. For some examples, see Jane Ellwood and the perils
>> of online family trees, and Three Agnes Ellwoods -- Tombstone Tuesday.
>> FamilySearch still lets you have your tree, which no one else can
>> alter. But the place for your tree is on your computer. You alone
which no-one else can alter; you control who can do what when you give
others access to it. And of course any genealogy prog. (that I know of,
anyway) lets you keep your tree on your computer (I use BK); perhaps
what you mean is that FamilySearch more closely integrates a local tree
with a tree on their site, if it does.
>> decide if you want to copy information from FamilySearch to your
>> computer, so nobody else can alter your tree. But you can also share
>> your research with others by copying information from your tree to
>> FamilySearch.
>> So this is what I do now.
>> I look at my "Research" file on my computer, which is a copy of my
>> "Main" file (where I keep mainly verified information). The Research
>> file is more speculative, where I add possible links to be followed
>> and verified later and so on.
a fact to your Main tree, because you've satisfied whatever criterion
you have set, do you have to separately add it to your Research one? I
can see the other way round - you'd add a speculative "fact" to your
Research tree that you wouldn't put in your Main; I was just wondering
about the other way round.
>> I find a family that I have not looked at for some time, and check
>>it
>> with FamilySearch, comparing the two records side by side.
>> Sometimes I find someone has added information that I did not have
>>--
>> parents of s spouse, for example. If they look likely I copy them to
>> my Research file (not to my Main file at this stage).
>> I then click on the link to FamilySearch in my genealogy program and
>> log in to FamilySearch on my web browser. That brings up the same
>> family. For each member of the family there FamilySearch may bring up
>> "Research Hints". These are the best research hints in the business.
they've used to suggest them. (I've even suggested/complained/whatever
that they show _why_ they're making any given hint/suggestion, but so
far it's been like banging my head against a brick wall. Or rather,
against a marshmallow.)
>> The suggestions are not always accurate, but in my experience they are
>> right about 80% of the time.
enough for them to be worth pursuing, which makes it all the more
frustrating when they aren't any good, especially when they _obviously_
aren't.
[]
>> to is a duplicate of the person you want to attach it to. If that is
>> the case, FamilySearch offers you the possibility of merging the
>> duplicate people.
Certainly, Ancestry's system makes it very easy to unintentionally
>> the case, FamilySearch offers you the possibility of merging the
>> duplicate people.
create duplicates (IME, anyway): I've often found a couple to have two
identical children, if not several sets of them. And Ancestry's merge
facility - they do have one - seems to me both awkward to get to, and
awkward to use.
>> If you are sure that they are the same person, merge them. If you
>>have
>> doubts, you can contact the person who attached the record to discuss
not the responses when they come, those have usually been fair to
excellent; I just mean that I generally find people don't reply at all.
>> it with them. FamilySearch has a research trail, showing every change
>> made by anyone, so that you can contact other users (sometimes a
individuals are repeatedly changing some "fact" back and forth, or is
there some way to stop that happening?
>> long-lost cousin). When you register to use FamilySearch, your record
>> contains your contact information, which can include your e-mail
>> address. I recommend that you include that, so that people can contact
>> you about shared family members.
them - though you can include your email address in messages. DNAmatch
shows actual emails.)
>> There is also, both on the FamilySearch web site and in the programs
>> that link to it, a place where you can have discussions about problems
>> relating to a particular person in your tree. Thus you can query
I don't think there's any pooling (i. e. comments on the same person in
two different trees don't I think get copied across).
>> information that someone else has added, that you think may not be
>> accurate, or you can query discrepancies in records.
>> There are things to be careful of. For example, FamilySearch has
>>lots
>> of church baptism records from the Church of England. These have been
>> transcribed from microfilms of the original registers, and sometimes
>> two or more microfilms were made of the same register. The microfilms
>> and the transcriptions made from them, vary in quality. One particular
>> error is that the transcriber often included as a "Residence" the
>> location of the parish where a baptism took place, rather than one
>> taken from the "Abode" field in the register. Where this is apparent
only the father, or both parents, or both parents and the child. (Of
course, in most cases, all three will be living in the same place
anyway.) Certainly, you're right that logging the baptism place as the
residence place is wrong: if small, the residence place may not _have_ a
place for baptisms. (Well, "private" or similar baptisms can I think be
done anywhere, but won't have their own register, so it will be recorded
in one nearby. Usually!)
[]
>> cousins. I am also organising scattered individuals on FamilySearch
>> into families, which helps make it more useful for other members. And
That - helping others - I also like to do; sometimes I'll submit a
>> into families, which helps make it more useful for other members. And
correction for a howler I see, even if the person is no relation to me.
(Depends how well the correction mechanism is working that day. Often it
won't work with my browser. Or - often on Ancestry - the
error-submission mechanism isn't offered for externally-sourced
material; fair enough they can't correct others' databases, but they
ought to allow correction of their own indexes.)
>> there's more than enough there to keep me busy for the rest of my
>> life.
not even getting through the parts that I do want to address.
>> One of the questions that sometimes bothers genealogists is what
>> happens to their research when they die, especially if no one in their
>> immediate family is interested. But if you share your research on
>> FamilySearch, it is there for others to make use of and add to, long
>> after you are dead.
>> So drop the "My Tree" approach, and rather join the larger human
>> family.
read-only mode), and don't mind it being copied; if nothing else, though
it certainly won't stop the inidscriminate-and-careless copying of dodgy
(or _wrong_) data, but it will at least increase - however minusculely -
the proportion of good data that's out there.
>> Source: https://t.co/2do1nmRZq1
>>
>For years FamilySearch has been my primary data source. It had
>document images available long before Ancestry. From FamilySearch
England] cover most of (Durham, obviously, and) Northumberland, and a
lot of Cumberland/Cumbria; such a pity they're not indexed, but I have
found many a record among them.
>records I have made some significant breakthroughs. One was a
>relationship that my cousin had been working on for over 50 years.
>
>Ancestry strength is the census, but you can not rely on their
>transcription because of problems caused by their transcribers lack of
>knowledge about what they are transcribing and problems in the original
>like handwriting, smudges, etc.
which will I fear continue long after they've remedied it, assuming they
do. (Not helped by their refusal to correct or even promote the correct
above their original transcription; I just about accept their assertion
that someone may have noted a record under its original incorrect
transcription and want to find it again, but - at least where the error
is obviously wrong - their refusal to switch the correction so that it
appears as the default, with the incorrect still searchable, does not
impress. Me anyway.)
FindMyPast also have census transcriptions, as well as the 1939
"register" (a census in all but name, for our purposes anyway), and of
course many other records. FreeCEN are also working their way through,
though I'm not sure how far they've got and don't know if they offer
originals (as their sister FreeBMD does).
>
>As far as integration with genealogy programs, I find it much easier to
>change the search phrases in the site search window than to mess with
>the genealogy programs. The main line browsers like Firefox are much
Yes, you have to learn the individual quirks of the various searchers.
>As far as integration with genealogy programs, I find it much easier to
>change the search phrases in the site search window than to mess with
>the genealogy programs. The main line browsers like Firefox are much
For example, John Smith will also find J. Smith in FindMyPast, but not
in Ancestry. Searching for John Smith in Ancestry will usually (I think)
not find James John Smith. Ancestry allow wildcards (with exceptions,
some of which generate false error messages) in names, but not in
placenames. FMP have recently introduced a number-of-hits indicator than
varies almost as you type, which is very handy. Both have an "edit
search", though they operate in different ways. Ancestry have an "or
adjacent counties" option, which is handy. FreeBMD let you pick more
than one county, which is occasionally handy. And so on.
>more usable than the browser in genealogy programs. I never merge data
>into my genealogy database. I did a couple times when I started my
>research over 15 years ago and still occasionally find garbage from
>those merges.
>
>One very important database not mentioned in the original post is
>database like Google Books, Archives, and similar sites. These sites
>have ebooks of many the county histories edited by Parins and others.
accuracy (sometimes it's very good, sometimes not worth even trying,
certainly if any searching is involved).
>These books have information on the family that is not available any
>other place.
>
>There are also some great databases in Europe, that Ancestry blocks
>unless you have a European subscription.
>
>
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
There are two kinds of fool. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And
one says, "This is new, and therefore better."
-John Brunner, science fiction writer (1934-1995)
Steve Hayes
Apr 17, 2018, 1:43:23 AM4/17/18
to
possible to correct it before anyone else copies it. And they can only
copy it to their own computer (and then, of course, to Ancestry). They
can't easily copy it to elsewhere in FamilySearch.
--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com
Steve Hayes
Apr 17, 2018, 3:20:43 AM4/17/18
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:34:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>In message <pb22k0$6h5$1...@dont-email.me>, knuttle
><keith_...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>On 4/16/2018 12:47 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>[]
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>In message <pb22k0$6h5$1...@dont-email.me>, knuttle
><keith_...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>On 4/16/2018 12:47 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>[]
>>> it would be wrong. For some examples, see Jane Ellwood and the perils
>>> of online family trees, and Three Agnes Ellwoods -- Tombstone Tuesday.
>>> FamilySearch still lets you have your tree, which no one else can
>>> alter. But the place for your tree is on your computer. You alone
>
>To be fair, (a) you can have a tree on Ancestry - public or private -
>which no-one else can alter; you control who can do what when you give
>others access to it. And of course any genealogy prog. (that I know of,
>anyway) lets you keep your tree on your computer (I use BK); perhaps
>what you mean is that FamilySearch more closely integrates a local tree
>with a tree on their site, if it does.
I think I'm being quite fair when I say that the FamilySearch model is
>>> of online family trees, and Three Agnes Ellwoods -- Tombstone Tuesday.
>>> FamilySearch still lets you have your tree, which no one else can
>>> alter. But the place for your tree is on your computer. You alone
>
>To be fair, (a) you can have a tree on Ancestry - public or private -
>which no-one else can alter; you control who can do what when you give
>others access to it. And of course any genealogy prog. (that I know of,
>anyway) lets you keep your tree on your computer (I use BK); perhaps
>what you mean is that FamilySearch more closely integrates a local tree
>with a tree on their site, if it does.
better, though I have read recently that a new version of RootsMagic
integrates with Ancestry. But even if that is so, it does not make the
Ancestry model the same as the FamilySearch one.
The Ancestry model is of multiple public and private family trees on
their site, which may or may not be connected with your private tree
on your computer.
The FamilySearch model is to have ONE public tree, to which all users
can connect, and their private tree (or trees, if they have several)
is kept on their own personal computer at home. So the FamilySearch
tree gradually becomes more accurate as more people contribute to it
and correct errors.
>>> decide if you want to copy information from FamilySearch to your
>>> computer, so nobody else can alter your tree. But you can also share
>>> your research with others by copying information from your tree to
>>> FamilySearch.
>>> So this is what I do now.
>>> I look at my "Research" file on my computer, which is a copy of my
>>> "Main" file (where I keep mainly verified information). The Research
>>> file is more speculative, where I add possible links to be followed
>>> and verified later and so on.
>
>So do you have to maintain the two separately? For example, when you add
>a fact to your Main tree, because you've satisfied whatever criterion
>you have set, do you have to separately add it to your Research one? I
>can see the other way round - you'd add a speculative "fact" to your
>Research tree that you wouldn't put in your Main; I was just wondering
>about the other way round.
and then to my Research tree.
But the way I do it is to copy the new info from my Main tree to
FamilySearch, and then copy it back from FamilySearch to my Research
file. It makes it much easier. No retyping.
And also, while it is on FamilySearch, I can check for other sources
and add them as well.
>>> I find a family that I have not looked at for some time, and check
>>>it
>>> with FamilySearch, comparing the two records side by side.
>>> Sometimes I find someone has added information that I did not have
>>>--
>>> parents of s spouse, for example. If they look likely I copy them to
>>> my Research file (not to my Main file at this stage).
>>> I then click on the link to FamilySearch in my genealogy program and
>>> log in to FamilySearch on my web browser. That brings up the same
>>> family. For each member of the family there FamilySearch may bring up
>>> "Research Hints". These are the best research hints in the business.
>
>Certainly, Ancestry's "Hints" often make me wonder what algorithm
>they've used to suggest them. (I've even suggested/complained/whatever
>that they show _why_ they're making any given hint/suggestion, but so
>far it's been like banging my head against a brick wall. Or rather,
>against a marshmallow.)
>
>>> The suggestions are not always accurate, but in my experience they are
>>> right about 80% of the time.
>
>I'd say maybe 55-60% for Ancestry ones, maybe a bit less; just often
>enough for them to be worth pursuing, which makes it all the more
>frustrating when they aren't any good, especially when they _obviously_
>aren't.
1. Suggestions for sources to attach. I've found that these are 80% to
90% accurate and helpful.
2. Suggestions of a person already in the database. I find these are
only about 30%-40% helpful, though the accuracy does seem to be
improving. I am very wary of these, because often they do not give
enough information to determine whether it really is the same person.
So if I have the slightest doubt, I add a new person, and then merge
them later if they prove to be duplicates. It is far easier to merge
people than to separate incorrectly merged ones.
So, for example, I find someone as a child in a census. I add the
child. Then it offers to compare the others who appear in the census.
If there is a discrepancy, say in dates, it may offer to add a new
person. It will then offer hints on each of those persons in other
censuses, and sometimes their baptism records as well.
One of the examples I gave in my article was John Ellison and Jane
Ellwood. In the original blog post there is a link to another article
from 7 years ago, saying how we had determined that three Ancestry
trees had the right Jane Ellwoood while more than 10 had the wrong
Jane Ellwood.
I had taken care to enter this into Family correctly as far as we had
it.
John Ellison and Jane Ellwood's eldest daughter was Nancy, who married
Thomas Percival. We had had five children for them from a couple of
English censuses. When I went to check there were another 5 children
that someone else had added last week. They were born after the family
had emigrated to Canada. And FamilySearch offered me two hints, both
of which I accepted. One was the eldest child, born 1880, in the 1881
English Census, and the other was the same child, aged 11, in the 1891
Canadian Census (the Canadian Census, presumably for copyright
reasons, doesn't show the rest of the family in FamilySearch, but my
wife has a workaround for that, which I'll try some day -- I think it
is doing a search for the surname at the address given for the member
you already have).
That is one of the advantages of collaborative tree building. And I
know who added the Canadian kids because FamilySearch shows me that,
and if I have any queries about them, I can ask right there in the
record, so anyone else who is interested in that family can also
contribute.
Whereas if someone copies something from one Ancestry tree to another,
and you ask them where they got it from and how they knew it was true
they just say that they got it from another Ancestry tree, and can't
remember which one, so you can't find who originally added it, and so
can't ask them why they did so.
I recall someone not long ago strenuously objecting to giving their
name and contact info to FamilySearch for "privacy" reasons -- but I
think it is a heck of a lot better than the anonymous irresponsibility
of the people who add dubious information to their trees on Ancestry.
If you're collaborating in genealogical research, then you must forego
the pleasures of anonymity and be willing to say who you are and how
you know what you know.
>[]
>>> to is a duplicate of the person you want to attach it to. If that is
>>> the case, FamilySearch offers you the possibility of merging the
>>> duplicate people.
>
>Certainly, Ancestry's system makes it very easy to unintentionally
>create duplicates (IME, anyway): I've often found a couple to have two
>identical children, if not several sets of them. And Ancestry's merge
>facility - they do have one - seems to me both awkward to get to, and
>awkward to use.
they've entered people from CofE baptism records they've filmed. That
means that if a couple had five children, there will be five copies of
each of the parents. And sometimes the same register was filmed twice
or three times, so you can find 15 copies of the parents.
When I find one of those, I try to get the family constituted (from a
census or two) under one set of parents, and then set about merging
the duplicate parents from within RootsMagic (it's much easier doing
it there than on the web site itself). It needs some care, especially
with common names, but I consider time spent on doing that part of my
contribution to genealogy. Others have made their research and data
available to me through sites like FamilySearch, so it's a way of
giving back.
>>> If you are sure that they are the same person, merge them. If you
>>>have
>>> doubts, you can contact the person who attached the record to discuss
>
>My experience with contacting people through websites has been poor -
>not the responses when they come, those have usually been fair to
>excellent; I just mean that I generally find people don't reply at all.
Many people don't give theirs, for "privacy" reasons, but I give mine.
Yes, you can also contact people through the site via their username,
but what if they don't log in for a year or two because they are busy
doing other things than genealogy? An email might reach them (if they
haven't changed their address), but a message left on the web site
will wait unread until they log in again.
Of course commercial sites, like Ancestry, (and Facebook) want to keep
people coming back to their sites, so they discourage people from
sharing e-mail addresses. A few years ago Facebook unilaterally
changed everyone's e-mail address on their system, without telling
them. And they keep nagging me to put their "Messenger" on my phone.
>>> it with them. FamilySearch has a research trail, showing every change
>>> made by anyone, so that you can contact other users (sometimes a
>
>Does the "every change by anyone" log ever get into a feud, where two
>individuals are repeatedly changing some "fact" back and forth, or is
>there some way to stop that happening?
Once someone changed the name of the father of one of my ancestors on
the basis of a census record, and I changed it back on the basis of
his marriage certificate and other census records, and wrote to her
and told her why. But it was quite amicable.
>>> long-lost cousin). When you register to use FamilySearch, your record
>>> contains your contact information, which can include your e-mail
>>> address. I recommend that you include that, so that people can contact
>>> you about shared family members.
>
>(Ancestry's system of course allows you to communicate, but only via
>them - though you can include your email address in messages. DNAmatch
>shows actual emails.)
and system, and to be dependent on them in order to communicate. As
people who run theatres measure things by bums on seats, so people who
run commercial web sites measure everything by clicks on ads.
>
>>> There is also, both on the FamilySearch web site and in the programs
>>> that link to it, a place where you can have discussions about problems
>>> relating to a particular person in your tree. Thus you can query
>
>Ancestry has the facility to add comments to a person in a tree, though
>I don't think there's any pooling (i. e. comments on the same person in
>two different trees don't I think get copied across).
>[]
>>> cousins. I am also organising scattered individuals on FamilySearch
>>> into families, which helps make it more useful for other members. And
>
>That - helping others - I also like to do; sometimes I'll submit a
>correction for a howler I see, even if the person is no relation to me.
>(Depends how well the correction mechanism is working that day. Often it
>won't work with my browser. Or - often on Ancestry - the
>error-submission mechanism isn't offered for externally-sourced
>material; fair enough they can't correct others' databases, but they
>ought to allow correction of their own indexes.)
and I've sometimes thought of doing that, but I think sorting out
families is a better use of my time and experience. Not only does it
directly help my research, which indexing often does not, but after
more than 40 years of genealogicval research I've gained some
knowledge of the families I'm researching and the places where they
live, including geography and social history, and that helps me to
assess the value and likely veracity of the information I find online.
So I quite enjoy following up the "niece" in the census, and often
find her in my database, or discovering that the "visitor" or
"servant" was perhaps a fifth cousin that the family perhaps didn't
even know was related.
Jenny M Benson
Apr 17, 2018, 5:38:22 AM4/17/18
to
On 17-Apr-18 08:25 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> When I find one of those, I try to get the family constituted (from a
> census or two) under one set of parents, and then set about merging
> the duplicate parents from within RootsMagic (it's much easier doing
> it there than on the web site itself). It needs some care, especially
> with common names, but I consider time spent on doing that part of my
> contribution to genealogy. Others have made their research and data
> available to me through sites like FamilySearch, so it's a way of
> giving back.
Also one of the reasons why I am a user of and contributor to
> When I find one of those, I try to get the family constituted (from a
> census or two) under one set of parents, and then set about merging
> the duplicate parents from within RootsMagic (it's much easier doing
> it there than on the web site itself). It needs some care, especially
> with common names, but I consider time spent on doing that part of my
> contribution to genealogy. Others have made their research and data
> available to me through sites like FamilySearch, so it's a way of
> giving back.
FamilySearch FamilyTree.
I am not LDS myself and don't share many of their beliefs but I have
found everyone connected with FamilySearch to be helpful and generous
(and never any attempt to convert). I am happy to do my bit for them
and I feel that the more places I put my tree online, the more chances
there are of me contacting "cousins".
--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 17, 2018, 5:59:59 AM4/17/18
to
In message <bt2bdd9p5225pqjjo...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
[]
to the one tree that rules them all? [Sorry, the parallel is
irresistible (-:]
[]
for the reduction of the probability of errors. I'm not sure how this
"copying" works, but I guess I'll find out if I ever join FamilySearch.
[Incidentally: is there any - other than the moral aspect that otherwise
you're taking without giving - pressure on participants to join LDS, or
even to have any particular religion? I must admit that the fear of that
_is_ one of the reasons I'm nervous about FamilySearch, though I freely
concede that I have never experienced any such pressure, either when
using the website or - some decades ago - visiting a Family Research
Centre.]
[]
only see your asking if they happen to look again at that part of the
One Tree - or, do they get "pinged" in some way whenever someone queries
something they have contributed (and with a link to the relevant area)?
[]
Personally, I'm happy to be contacted about anything I add to anything
(in fact I'm delighted when someone does so), but on balance I'd rather
still _have_ anonymous contributions - however dubious - than not have
them at all; they sometimes turn out to be correct and thus useful. And
I've not, in general, found anonymous contributions to be any _less_
reliable than those from people who _are_ willing to be contacted. (I
know at least one pair of researchers who are _very_ cagey - I can only
contact them via a relative, I don't even know their email address,
'phone number, or where they live! - whose work, especially at the
Northumbrian archives, I respect very highly.)
[]
your own you keep - for how the rate of the addition of duplicates, by
means such as the above (five children generating five copies of the
parents) compares to the rate of merging efforts of those like yourself?
In other words, is the amount of "bushiness" of the One Tree -
information that is duplicated, though not necessarily wrong - under
control?
[]
gives the rest of us access to information from people who _do_ have
such concerns, that we wouldn't otherwise have. Granted, it will be
frustrating when you encounter it and can't discuss it, but it's still
IMO worth having access to rather than not. (It can always point you
down alleyways that you might be able to verify by other means
subsequently.)
[]
that included an email address (could easily be implemented by filtering
on the @ character), though I have no proof of that of course. But, if
they ever did, they certainly aren't doing now: I have given mine in
messages to others (especially DNA matches), and subsequently received
direct emails, so they've got them - and I've received in-Ancestry
messages that contain an email address.
>changed everyone's e-mail address on their system, without telling
>them. And they keep nagging me to put their "Messenger" on my phone.
>
>>>> it with them. FamilySearch has a research trail, showing every change
>>>> made by anyone, so that you can contact other users (sometimes a
>>
>>Does the "every change by anyone" log ever get into a feud, where two
>>individuals are repeatedly changing some "fact" back and forth, or is
>>there some way to stop that happening?
>
>Not that I've ever seen.
That is fortunate. (Of course, I presume there's a complaint mechanism,
so if one party in such a dispute complained about the other, account
suspension might result, so such disputes might be less visible than
otherwise - i. e. one party has to yield, either due to threat of
suspension or actual.)
[]
considering how much I pay them, I'd be rather cross if I _did_ see ad.s
when using them, to be honest! But yes, I agree they do want you to keep
coming back to their site.
about a person on ancestry, whether that person gets an email to show
that I've added the comment; I think maybe they might.
[]
actually a relative, though the link may not come to light for a while.
And, as you say, servants are often relatives too.
<haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
[]
>The Ancestry model is of multiple public and private family trees on
>their site, which may or may not be connected with your private tree
>on your computer.
>
>The FamilySearch model is to have ONE public tree, to which all users
>can connect, and their private tree (or trees, if they have several)
>is kept on their own personal computer at home. So the FamilySearch
>tree gradually becomes more accurate as more people contribute to it
>and correct errors.
Who is the ultimate arbiter, both of new material, and of corrections,
>their site, which may or may not be connected with your private tree
>on your computer.
>
>The FamilySearch model is to have ONE public tree, to which all users
>can connect, and their private tree (or trees, if they have several)
>is kept on their own personal computer at home. So the FamilySearch
>tree gradually becomes more accurate as more people contribute to it
>and correct errors.
to the one tree that rules them all? [Sorry, the parallel is
irresistible (-:]
[]
>>>> So this is what I do now.
>>>> I look at my "Research" file on my computer, which is a copy of my
>>>> "Main" file (where I keep mainly verified information). The Research
>>>> file is more speculative, where I add possible links to be followed
>>>> and verified later and so on.
>>
>>So do you have to maintain the two separately? For example, when you add
[]
>>>> I look at my "Research" file on my computer, which is a copy of my
>>>> "Main" file (where I keep mainly verified information). The Research
>>>> file is more speculative, where I add possible links to be followed
>>>> and verified later and so on.
>>
>>So do you have to maintain the two separately? For example, when you add
>Yes, if I'm satisfioed that it is accurate, I add it to my main tree,
>and then to my Research tree.
>
>But the way I do it is to copy the new info from my Main tree to
>FamilySearch, and then copy it back from FamilySearch to my Research
>file. It makes it much easier. No retyping.
The "No retyping" is attractive - not just for the saving of effort, but
>and then to my Research tree.
>
>But the way I do it is to copy the new info from my Main tree to
>FamilySearch, and then copy it back from FamilySearch to my Research
>file. It makes it much easier. No retyping.
for the reduction of the probability of errors. I'm not sure how this
"copying" works, but I guess I'll find out if I ever join FamilySearch.
[Incidentally: is there any - other than the moral aspect that otherwise
you're taking without giving - pressure on participants to join LDS, or
even to have any particular religion? I must admit that the fear of that
_is_ one of the reasons I'm nervous about FamilySearch, though I freely
concede that I have never experienced any such pressure, either when
using the website or - some decades ago - visiting a Family Research
Centre.]
[]
>That is one of the advantages of collaborative tree building. And I
>know who added the Canadian kids because FamilySearch shows me that,
>and if I have any queries about them, I can ask right there in the
>record, so anyone else who is interested in that family can also
>contribute.
Though the original person who contributed what you are querying will
>know who added the Canadian kids because FamilySearch shows me that,
>and if I have any queries about them, I can ask right there in the
>record, so anyone else who is interested in that family can also
>contribute.
only see your asking if they happen to look again at that part of the
One Tree - or, do they get "pinged" in some way whenever someone queries
something they have contributed (and with a link to the relevant area)?
[]
>I recall someone not long ago strenuously objecting to giving their
>name and contact info to FamilySearch for "privacy" reasons -- but I
>think it is a heck of a lot better than the anonymous irresponsibility
>of the people who add dubious information to their trees on Ancestry.
>If you're collaborating in genealogical research, then you must forego
>the pleasures of anonymity and be willing to say who you are and how
>you know what you know.
That's your viewpoint, which you are entitled to hold of course.
>name and contact info to FamilySearch for "privacy" reasons -- but I
>think it is a heck of a lot better than the anonymous irresponsibility
>of the people who add dubious information to their trees on Ancestry.
>If you're collaborating in genealogical research, then you must forego
>the pleasures of anonymity and be willing to say who you are and how
>you know what you know.
Personally, I'm happy to be contacted about anything I add to anything
(in fact I'm delighted when someone does so), but on balance I'd rather
still _have_ anonymous contributions - however dubious - than not have
them at all; they sometimes turn out to be correct and thus useful. And
I've not, in general, found anonymous contributions to be any _less_
reliable than those from people who _are_ willing to be contacted. (I
know at least one pair of researchers who are _very_ cagey - I can only
contact them via a relative, I don't even know their email address,
'phone number, or where they live! - whose work, especially at the
Northumbrian archives, I respect very highly.)
[]
>There are lots of duplicates in FamilySearch too -- for example,
>they've entered people from CofE baptism records they've filmed. That
>means that if a couple had five children, there will be five copies of
>each of the parents. And sometimes the same register was filmed twice
>or three times, so you can find 15 copies of the parents.
>
>When I find one of those, I try to get the family constituted (from a
>census or two) under one set of parents, and then set about merging
>the duplicate parents from within RootsMagic (it's much easier doing
>it there than on the web site itself). It needs some care, especially
Do you have a feel - for the One Tree I mean, not any private one of
>they've entered people from CofE baptism records they've filmed. That
>means that if a couple had five children, there will be five copies of
>each of the parents. And sometimes the same register was filmed twice
>or three times, so you can find 15 copies of the parents.
>
>When I find one of those, I try to get the family constituted (from a
>census or two) under one set of parents, and then set about merging
>the duplicate parents from within RootsMagic (it's much easier doing
>it there than on the web site itself). It needs some care, especially
your own you keep - for how the rate of the addition of duplicates, by
means such as the above (five children generating five copies of the
parents) compares to the rate of merging efforts of those like yourself?
In other words, is the amount of "bushiness" of the One Tree -
information that is duplicated, though not necessarily wrong - under
control?
[]
>>My experience with contacting people through websites has been poor -
>>not the responses when they come, those have usually been fair to
>>excellent; I just mean that I generally find people don't reply at all.
>
>When you register on FamilySearch, they ask for your e-mail address.
>Many people don't give theirs, for "privacy" reasons, but I give mine.
Ah, so you _can_ register without giving one. IMO, that is good - it
>>not the responses when they come, those have usually been fair to
>>excellent; I just mean that I generally find people don't reply at all.
>
>When you register on FamilySearch, they ask for your e-mail address.
>Many people don't give theirs, for "privacy" reasons, but I give mine.
gives the rest of us access to information from people who _do_ have
such concerns, that we wouldn't otherwise have. Granted, it will be
frustrating when you encounter it and can't discuss it, but it's still
IMO worth having access to rather than not. (It can always point you
down alleyways that you might be able to verify by other means
subsequently.)
[]
>Of course commercial sites, like Ancestry, (and Facebook) want to keep
>people coming back to their sites, so they discourage people from
>sharing e-mail addresses. A few years ago Facebook unilaterally
At one point, I had the feeling that Ancestry "lost" internal messages
>people coming back to their sites, so they discourage people from
>sharing e-mail addresses. A few years ago Facebook unilaterally
that included an email address (could easily be implemented by filtering
on the @ character), though I have no proof of that of course. But, if
they ever did, they certainly aren't doing now: I have given mine in
messages to others (especially DNA matches), and subsequently received
direct emails, so they've got them - and I've received in-Ancestry
messages that contain an email address.
>changed everyone's e-mail address on their system, without telling
>them. And they keep nagging me to put their "Messenger" on my phone.
>
>>>> it with them. FamilySearch has a research trail, showing every change
>>>> made by anyone, so that you can contact other users (sometimes a
>>
>>Does the "every change by anyone" log ever get into a feud, where two
>>individuals are repeatedly changing some "fact" back and forth, or is
>>there some way to stop that happening?
>
>Not that I've ever seen.
so if one party in such a dispute complained about the other, account
suspension might result, so such disputes might be less visible than
otherwise - i. e. one party has to yield, either due to threat of
suspension or actual.)
>
>Once someone changed the name of the father of one of my ancestors on
>the basis of a census record, and I changed it back on the basis of
>his marriage certificate and other census records, and wrote to her
>and told her why. But it was quite amicable.
I would hope that that remains the case most of the time.
>Once someone changed the name of the father of one of my ancestors on
>the basis of a census record, and I changed it back on the basis of
>his marriage certificate and other census records, and wrote to her
>and told her why. But it was quite amicable.
[]
>Aye, being commercial they want to lock users into using their site
>and system, and to be dependent on them in order to communicate. As
>people who run theatres measure things by bums on seats, so people who
>run commercial web sites measure everything by clicks on ads.
>
I can't remember when I last saw an ad. on Ancestry, or FindMyPast;
>and system, and to be dependent on them in order to communicate. As
>people who run theatres measure things by bums on seats, so people who
>run commercial web sites measure everything by clicks on ads.
>
considering how much I pay them, I'd be rather cross if I _did_ see ad.s
when using them, to be honest! But yes, I agree they do want you to keep
coming back to their site.
>>
>>>> There is also, both on the FamilySearch web site and in the programs
>>>> that link to it, a place where you can have discussions about problems
>>>> relating to a particular person in your tree. Thus you can query
>>
>>Ancestry has the facility to add comments to a person in a tree, though
>>I don't think there's any pooling (i. e. comments on the same person in
>>two different trees don't I think get copied across).
>
>That's why I prefer FamilySearch's "one tree" model.
>
Does sound better. I'm not sure, if I add a comment to someone's page
>>>> There is also, both on the FamilySearch web site and in the programs
>>>> that link to it, a place where you can have discussions about problems
>>>> relating to a particular person in your tree. Thus you can query
>>
>>Ancestry has the facility to add comments to a person in a tree, though
>>I don't think there's any pooling (i. e. comments on the same person in
>>two different trees don't I think get copied across).
>
>That's why I prefer FamilySearch's "one tree" model.
>
about a person on ancestry, whether that person gets an email to show
that I've added the comment; I think maybe they might.
[]
>So I quite enjoy following up the "niece" in the census, and often
>find her in my database, or discovering that the "visitor" or
>"servant" was perhaps a fifth cousin that the family perhaps didn't
>even know was related.
>
Yes - I would say that more than 50% of the time, a "visitor" is
>find her in my database, or discovering that the "visitor" or
>"servant" was perhaps a fifth cousin that the family perhaps didn't
>even know was related.
>
actually a relative, though the link may not come to light for a while.
And, as you say, servants are often relatives too.
>
>
>
>
5
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
...Every morning is the dawn of a new error...
>
>
>
5
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 17, 2018, 6:12:00 AM4/17/18
to
In message <fjltkc...@mid.individual.net>, Jenny M Benson
<nemo...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
[]
>found everyone connected with FamilySearch to be helpful and generous
>(and never any attempt to convert).
... and that is my experience too.
> I am happy to do my bit for them and I feel that the more places I
>put my tree online, the more chances there are of me contacting
>"cousins".
>
How many places _do_ you have your tree online (I'm not asking you to
list them), and how often do you update them (or does it vary between
places)? Do you find keeping them all up-to-date onerous, or not?
FWIW, I uploaded - originally the same GeDCom - to both Ancestry and
RootsWeb some years ago (before Ancestry took over RootsWeb), but have
incorporated quite a lot of Ancestry's "hints" into the version on there
(mainly, only where they agree with the research I've done on my own
tree since). I'm unlikely to upload a new (and now much bigger) GeDCom
to Ancestry, since they provide no means to do so without losing all
links. I think these are the only two places I've published a tree (I
think I did upload something to the site whose name I forget that is
based in Israel, but didn't pursue it as their free implementation
limited it to only a tiny number of people, and I didn't see any gain
for me in paying them).
(m...@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998
<nemo...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
[]
>I am not LDS myself and don't share many of their beliefs but I have
Me too ...
>found everyone connected with FamilySearch to be helpful and generous
>(and never any attempt to convert).
> I am happy to do my bit for them and I feel that the more places I
>put my tree online, the more chances there are of me contacting
>"cousins".
>
list them), and how often do you update them (or does it vary between
places)? Do you find keeping them all up-to-date onerous, or not?
FWIW, I uploaded - originally the same GeDCom - to both Ancestry and
RootsWeb some years ago (before Ancestry took over RootsWeb), but have
incorporated quite a lot of Ancestry's "hints" into the version on there
(mainly, only where they agree with the research I've done on my own
tree since). I'm unlikely to upload a new (and now much bigger) GeDCom
to Ancestry, since they provide no means to do so without losing all
links. I think these are the only two places I've published a tree (I
think I did upload something to the site whose name I forget that is
based in Israel, but didn't pursue it as their free implementation
limited it to only a tiny number of people, and I didn't see any gain
for me in paying them).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Veni Vidi Visa [I came, I saw, I did a little shopping] - Mik from S+AS Limited
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
(m...@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998
Jenny M Benson
Apr 17, 2018, 7:17:40 AM4/17/18
to
On 17-Apr-18 11:11 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
> How many places _do_ you have your tree online (I'm not asking you to
> list them), and how often do you update them (or does it vary between
> places)? Do you find keeping them all up-to-date onerous, or not?
It was rather misleading of me to say "put my tree online". I wasn't
>>
> How many places _do_ you have your tree online (I'm not asking you to
> list them), and how often do you update them (or does it vary between
> places)? Do you find keeping them all up-to-date onerous, or not?
expecting to be taken up on it! More accurately I should have said
"have a genealogical presence online". I have a tree on Ancestry and
contribute to FamilySearch FamilyTree and also use LostCousins and my
blog (very occasionally!) and interact with a few mailing lists/newsgroups.
Ian Goddard
Apr 17, 2018, 8:14:15 AM4/17/18
to
On 16/04/18 05:47, Steve Hayes wrote:
> But what makes FamilySearch more useful now is its integration with
> programs like RootsMagic and Legacy Family Tree.
I can't say I'm enthused about linkages with any Windows-only
> But what makes FamilySearch more useful now is its integration with
> programs like RootsMagic and Legacy Family Tree.
proprietary programs.
Ian
J. Hugh Sullivan
Apr 17, 2018, 8:24:45 AM4/17/18
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:48:13 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>In my esperience, not quite as much. And in FamilySearch it is
>possible to correct it before anyone else copies it. And they can only
>copy it to their own computer (and then, of course, to Ancestry). They
>can't easily copy it to elsewhere in FamilySearch.
The problem with genealogy is that even "facts" from 200+ years ago
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>In my esperience, not quite as much. And in FamilySearch it is
>possible to correct it before anyone else copies it. And they can only
>copy it to their own computer (and then, of course, to Ancestry). They
>can't easily copy it to elsewhere in FamilySearch.
can be misleading. Sometimes we figure that out and sometimes we
don't.
How many baseborn males took the surname of the mother and have
descendants trying to find them. How many mons died and the kids moved
to the brother's family and we think they were his. I can guarantee
that both happened pretty often.
My DNA matches a Wyatt and only one other Sullivan. His DNA does not
match any other Wyatt. Yet, since before 1700 he has been a Wyatt and
I have been a Sullivan.
My earliest known male ancestor has 9 different sets of parents on
Ancestry and, as I recall, the same number on Family Search. And I can
prove all of them wrong. But people copy that crap every day and think
they solved the puzzle. Most of us are too anxious to descend from
Charlemagns or Jesus and we grab whatever is offered.
Like you, anyone else's work tells me where to look, not what to
accept. To that extent Ancestry and Family Tree are not much
different.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Apr 17, 2018, 8:38:45 AM4/17/18
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:38:20 +0100, Jenny M Benson
<nemo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Also one of the reasons why I am a user of and contributor to
>FamilySearch FamilyTree.
I don't share my tree with Ancestry or Family Search. I had a web
<nemo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Also one of the reasons why I am a user of and contributor to
>FamilySearch FamilyTree.
site for 2 years that did not allow either to harvest my data. I gave
the facts and noted what was unarguable logic, but not proof.
Why? About 20 years ago I told several people about a theory and they
wound up publishing as their own. Later I discredited the theory but
they refused to change. So they go back to 862 AD and I go back to
1790.
Hugh
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 17, 2018, 12:40:42 PM4/17/18
to
In message <UL6dnQgGlsuLeEjH...@brightview.co.uk>, Ian
I understand your principle, but it's not as if FamilySearch have
declared they will _only_ work with those prog.s; _nothing_ has been
_removed_ from what anyone can do, only something _added_.
(I have no connection with either software.)
FindAGrave and Brother's Keeper (another Windows-only [though I suspect
it would work under WINE] genealogy software) have recently come to some
sort of agreement; this doesn't decrease the usability of FindAGrave.
(Which I find a useful site, though I prefer Gravestone Photographic
Resource [http://gravestonephotos.com/] for UK ones [both have some
coverage outside US and UK as well].)
worse, lectured. Dont'scare the horses by waving facts around.
- David Butcher, RT 2014/11/29-12/5
declared they will _only_ work with those prog.s; _nothing_ has been
_removed_ from what anyone can do, only something _added_.
(I have no connection with either software.)
FindAGrave and Brother's Keeper (another Windows-only [though I suspect
it would work under WINE] genealogy software) have recently come to some
sort of agreement; this doesn't decrease the usability of FindAGrave.
(Which I find a useful site, though I prefer Gravestone Photographic
Resource [http://gravestonephotos.com/] for UK ones [both have some
coverage outside US and UK as well].)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Heaven forbid today's audience should feel bombarded with information or
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
worse, lectured. Dont'scare the horses by waving facts around.
- David Butcher, RT 2014/11/29-12/5
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 17, 2018, 12:42:42 PM4/17/18
to
In message <5ad5e354....@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Hugh
Sullivan <Ea...@bellsouth.net> writes:
[]
[]
Sullivan <Ea...@bellsouth.net> writes:
[]
>My DNA matches a Wyatt and only one other Sullivan. His DNA does not
>match any other Wyatt. Yet, since before 1700 he has been a Wyatt and
>I have been a Sullivan.
The two of you are getting on a bit, then ...
>match any other Wyatt. Yet, since before 1700 he has been a Wyatt and
>I have been a Sullivan.
[]
Steve Hayes
Apr 17, 2018, 1:28:39 PM4/17/18
to
doesn't have to be Anglican to use the Church of England registers.
Steve Hayes
Apr 17, 2018, 1:48:15 PM4/17/18
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:59:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>In message <bt2bdd9p5225pqjjo...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>>But the way I do it is to copy the new info from my Main tree to
>>FamilySearch, and then copy it back from FamilySearch to my Research
>>file. It makes it much easier. No retyping.
>
>The "No retyping" is attractive - not just for the saving of effort, but
>for the reduction of the probability of errors. I'm not sure how this
>"copying" works, but I guess I'll find out if I ever join FamilySearch.
This is how the copying works:
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>In message <bt2bdd9p5225pqjjo...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>>But the way I do it is to copy the new info from my Main tree to
>>FamilySearch, and then copy it back from FamilySearch to my Research
>>file. It makes it much easier. No retyping.
>
>The "No retyping" is attractive - not just for the saving of effort, but
>for the reduction of the probability of errors. I'm not sure how this
>"copying" works, but I guess I'll find out if I ever join FamilySearch.
In RootsMagic (which I refer to since it loads twice as fast as
Legacy), I have open the record of an individual. On the left is the
record in my computer, on the right is the record of that person in
FamilySearch.
The FamilySearch one has this:
Residence
[ ] 1911 Oswestry Rural, , Shropshire, England.
I don't have it on my daatabase, so I click in the box to the left of
it, and this come up on the screen:
________________________________________
This fact will be copied to RootsMagic
Residence
Date: 1911
Place: Oswestry Rural, , Shropshire, England
Detail:
Contributor / Reason
Modified: 22 March 2018 by AnneHellewell
Reason:
Sources
(sources can be transferred on the Sources tab)
_________________________________________________
I can click OK if I want to copy it, and Cancel if I don't.
I can copy the source reference in the same way, which tells me that
it refers to Kate B. Ellison in the household of John Ellison "England
& Wales Census 1911"
And if I then go and look in the source for that information it
produces this:
______________________________
Footnote: "England and Wales Census, 1911," database, FamilySearch
(https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X726-SRR : 2 August 2017), Kate
B Ellison in household of John Ellison, Oswestry Rural, , Shropshire,
England; from "1911 England and Wales census," database and images,
findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO RG 14, The
National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.
Short Footnote: "England and Wales Census, 1911," database,
FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X726-SRR : 2
August 2017), Kate B Ellison in household of John Ellison, Oswestry
Rural, , Shropshire, England; from "1911 England and Wales census,"
database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.);
citing PRO RG 14, The National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.
Bibliography: "England and Wales Census, 1911," database, FamilySearch
(https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X726-SRR : 2 August 2017), Kate
B Ellison in household of John Ellison, Oswestry Rural, , Shropshire,
England; from "1911 England and Wales census," database and images,
findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO RG 14, The
National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.
______________________________________
That's quite a lot of typing to save.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Apr 17, 2018, 2:12:53 PM4/17/18
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:40:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>In message <5ad5e354....@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Hugh
>Sullivan <Ea...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>[]
>>My DNA matches a Wyatt and only one other Sullivan. His DNA does not
>>match any other Wyatt. Yet, since before 1700 he has been a Wyatt and
>>I have been a Sullivan.
>
>The two of you are getting on a bit, then ...
Thankfully.
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>In message <5ad5e354....@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Hugh
>Sullivan <Ea...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>[]
>>My DNA matches a Wyatt and only one other Sullivan. His DNA does not
>>match any other Wyatt. Yet, since before 1700 he has been a Wyatt and
>>I have been a Sullivan.
>
>The two of you are getting on a bit, then ...
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
Apr 17, 2018, 2:19:54 PM4/17/18
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:53:08 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>In RootsMagic (which I refer to since it loads twice as fast as
>Legacy), I have open the record of an individual. On the left is the
>record in my computer, on the right is the record of that person in
>FamilySearch.
If RootsMagic screens worked like Legacy (family up and down, not
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>In RootsMagic (which I refer to since it loads twice as fast as
>Legacy), I have open the record of an individual. On the left is the
>record in my computer, on the right is the record of that person in
>FamilySearch.
sideways) I would not need Legacy.
GEDs don't transfer well. The name source with Legagy is not lost in
RootsMagic. But coming back the name source goes to Unspecified, not
the name. I mentioned this to Bruce some years ago.
Hugh
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 17, 2018, 3:39:00 PM4/17/18
to
In message <g7ccddplp3jp79c69...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
Looks very good. Does require you to use the compatible software of
course.
paste ... (-:
[]
Grissom" (CSI).
course.
>
>And if I then go and look in the source for that information it
>produces this:
>
>______________________________
>Footnote: "England and Wales Census, 1911," database, FamilySearch
>(https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X726-SRR : 2 August 2017), Kate
>B Ellison in household of John Ellison, Oswestry Rural, , Shropshire,
>England; from "1911 England and Wales census," database and images,
>findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO RG 14, The
>National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.
>
>Short Footnote: "England and Wales Census, 1911," database,
>FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X726-SRR : 2
>August 2017), Kate B Ellison in household of John Ellison, Oswestry
>Rural, , Shropshire, England; from "1911 England and Wales census,"
>database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.);
>citing PRO RG 14, The National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.
>
>Bibliography: "England and Wales Census, 1911," database, FamilySearch
>(https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X726-SRR : 2 August 2017), Kate
>B Ellison in household of John Ellison, Oswestry Rural, , Shropshire,
>England; from "1911 England and Wales census," database and images,
>findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO RG 14, The
>National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.
>______________________________________
>
>That's quite a lot of typing to save.
>
Although, in this example, two of the blocks could be done with cut and
>And if I then go and look in the source for that information it
>produces this:
>
>______________________________
>Footnote: "England and Wales Census, 1911," database, FamilySearch
>(https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X726-SRR : 2 August 2017), Kate
>B Ellison in household of John Ellison, Oswestry Rural, , Shropshire,
>England; from "1911 England and Wales census," database and images,
>findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO RG 14, The
>National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.
>
>Short Footnote: "England and Wales Census, 1911," database,
>FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X726-SRR : 2
>August 2017), Kate B Ellison in household of John Ellison, Oswestry
>Rural, , Shropshire, England; from "1911 England and Wales census,"
>database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.);
>citing PRO RG 14, The National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.
>
>Bibliography: "England and Wales Census, 1911," database, FamilySearch
>(https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X726-SRR : 2 August 2017), Kate
>B Ellison in household of John Ellison, Oswestry Rural, , Shropshire,
>England; from "1911 England and Wales census," database and images,
>findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO RG 14, The
>National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.
>______________________________________
>
>That's quite a lot of typing to save.
>
paste ... (-:
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Everyone learns from science. It all depends how you use the knowledge. - "Gil
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Grissom" (CSI).
Steve Hayes
Apr 17, 2018, 11:29:07 PM4/17/18
to
Rootsmagic is Census records.
In Legacy the description of a person in the census (relation to head
of family, age, occupation etc) gets transferred to a Place field in
RootsMagic.
[follow-ups set to soc.genealogy.computing]
Steve Hayes
Apr 17, 2018, 11:38:14 PM4/17/18
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:36:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Yes, and that requires software developers to provide the facility to
link their program to FamilySearch. I know RootsMagic and Legascy do
so, but I'm not sure about others.
Not really. The three blocks you see just display the different
formatting of the same data in RootsMagic.
You could copy and paste from the web site -- that's what I did when I
used PAF, but it copied and pasted the formatted text, not the data
that the program uses to produce its own source footnotes. That uyou
had to type in, or copy field by field.
link their program to FamilySearch. I know RootsMagic and Legascy do
so, but I'm not sure about others.
formatting of the same data in RootsMagic.
You could copy and paste from the web site -- that's what I did when I
used PAF, but it copied and pasted the formatted text, not the data
that the program uses to produce its own source footnotes. That uyou
had to type in, or copy field by field.
Charles Ellson
Apr 18, 2018, 4:37:21 PM4/18/18
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:40:07 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>In message <UL6dnQgGlsuLeEjH...@brightview.co.uk>, Ian
>Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>>On 16/04/18 05:47, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> But what makes FamilySearch more useful now is its integration with
>>> programs like RootsMagic and Legacy Family Tree.
>>
>>I can't say I'm enthused about linkages with any Windows-only
>>proprietary programs.
>>
>>Ian
>
>I understand your principle, but it's not as if FamilySearch have
>declared they will _only_ work with those prog.s; _nothing_ has been
>_removed_ from what anyone can do, only something _added_.
>
>(I have no connection with either software.)
>
>FindAGrave and Brother's Keeper (another Windows-only [though I suspect
>it would work under WINE]
>
It does.
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>In message <UL6dnQgGlsuLeEjH...@brightview.co.uk>, Ian
>Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>>On 16/04/18 05:47, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> But what makes FamilySearch more useful now is its integration with
>>> programs like RootsMagic and Legacy Family Tree.
>>
>>I can't say I'm enthused about linkages with any Windows-only
>>proprietary programs.
>>
>>Ian
>
>I understand your principle, but it's not as if FamilySearch have
>declared they will _only_ work with those prog.s; _nothing_ has been
>_removed_ from what anyone can do, only something _added_.
>
>(I have no connection with either software.)
>
>FindAGrave and Brother's Keeper (another Windows-only [though I suspect
>it would work under WINE]
>
Jim Dell
Apr 19, 2018, 9:26:31 AM4/19/18
to
Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:40:07 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <UL6dnQgGlsuLeEjH...@brightview.co.uk>, Ian
>> Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>>> On 16/04/18 05:47, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> But what makes FamilySearch more useful now is its integration with
>>>> programs like RootsMagic and Legacy Family Tree.
>>>
>>> I can't say I'm enthused about linkages with any Windows-only
>>> proprietary programs.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>
>> I understand your principle, but it's not as if FamilySearch have
>> declared they will _only_ work with those prog.s; _nothing_ has been
>> _removed_ from what anyone can do, only something _added_.
>>
>> (I have no connection with either software.)
>>
>> FindAGrave and Brother's Keeper (another Windows-only [though I suspect
>> it would work under WINE]
>>
> It does.
>
How did you get Brother's Keeper to work under Wine?
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:40:07 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <UL6dnQgGlsuLeEjH...@brightview.co.uk>, Ian
>> Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>>> On 16/04/18 05:47, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> But what makes FamilySearch more useful now is its integration with
>>>> programs like RootsMagic and Legacy Family Tree.
>>>
>>> I can't say I'm enthused about linkages with any Windows-only
>>> proprietary programs.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>
>> I understand your principle, but it's not as if FamilySearch have
>> declared they will _only_ work with those prog.s; _nothing_ has been
>> _removed_ from what anyone can do, only something _added_.
>>
>> (I have no connection with either software.)
>>
>> FindAGrave and Brother's Keeper (another Windows-only [though I suspect
>> it would work under WINE]
>>
> It does.
>
Jim
Jim Dell
Apr 20, 2018, 2:56:03 PM4/20/18
to
Jim
0 new messages