Unfortunately, we live in an age of identity theft and computer fraud. Fake identification for illegal aliens and criminals and other types of identity theft has caused tighter laws on information.
These shifting laws create great hardships for document repositories/archives in that they are having to pull books or microfilms or microfiche at times from the shelves that make this published information no longer available to researchers. This can vary from country to country and state to state and even within states.
Finding a proper balancing act will continue to be a problem. We urge caution in finding proper limits.
While their are many examples for and against here's one to illustrate:
A family wishes to research their family history on the great-grandmother's ancestry. Their great-grandmother is deceased and died in 1904. She died just after child birth. Most civil records published in Wyoming began recordings in 1906. The father in addition to the loss of his wife and newborn child had several other small children to care for. A major work accident crippled him resulting in his being committed to hospital and insane asylum. The youngest daughter was adopted. This adopted daughter is now deceased. All of the other children are deceased as well as the great-grandfather and have nothing in their records to help.
The adoption was thought to possibly have more information. Wyoming State law requires that only grandparents, parents or guardian of the child can get the records. Hoping the records would tell more about the mother the court was petitioned as none of those are living. The Court said that although we were not direct descendants of the adopted daughter we could have the state supplied confidential intermediary review the records for information on the mother or other helpful information since our clients were direct descendants of the mother. Again they said they would grant for the records to be searched then said they would have a confidential intermediary contact us. Without notice they quickly changed their mind and correspondence revealed the change of heart. The Judge rather than helping the family did not want to set a precedent and said since the law is still on the books that the state legislature would have to be petitioned to change the law.
The question should be who is harmed by providing the information if any. Other examples can go the other way. We don't think their is an easy catch all solution but closing off all information is also not an answer. And tying things up in legal fees, courts, and legislatures is also not the answer, but something needs to be done.
Laws are changed every day. We hope you'll talk to your legislatures, be aware of the laws, actively petition for law changes that make sense and protect opportunities for research that allow families to learn their heritage.
Something to consider. For us and for them, for generations. James.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Documenting Genealogy - A computer problem
Documenting Genealogy in any day and age is a problem. All to frequently information is undocumented. Even in our profession, years ago historians and researchers did a less than stellar job of documenting. Here are a few examples you may recall:
Books written that list a large number of sources at the beginning of the book, some good documented sources but others undocumented and all lumped together at the front of the book. Then the genealogies (Pedigree charts, family group sheets with names, dates and places) are listed but the specific sources are not identified. Ugh! What a shame!
Our perhaps you've seen a family group sheet/book of remembrance sheet that lists a few sources on the bottom of the page but doesn't identify the member of the family or individual that they pertain too or the specific event (birth, baptism/christening, marriage, death, burial, etc). Ouch! If that doesn't bother you it should. Even from an education reporting standpoint.
Students are taught when doing research papers to quote their sources and footnote the specific points that pertain to them. Family history research and genealogical research is and should be done the same. Sources each for every event, birth, baptism/christening, marriage, draft, divorce, death, burial, etc. Nothing new just how it should be done correctly.
So in an age of computer technology you think we'd improve. Unfortunately not.
Take all the leading genealogy software programs (PAF, Ancestral Quest, Family Tree Maker, Legacy, Family Origins, Roots Magic, TMG, etc.) they all are flawed in the basic area of sourcing.
With many years of experience with software development companies the solution appears to be very simple. So why don't they require it for every record creation/new name entry, event date or note. Most say it would make the product to difficult for people to use or they wouldn't do anything if they had to. Is that a good enough answer? Don't do it because people won't buy my program if I force them to enter sources. In a market driven society that makes sense.
Solution - So why not make it a setup option. For those who are serious about sourcing it would solve the problem and for those who don't care about sources they would go on as they have.
A Dream you say - Hopefully not - Here's an idea.
How could software developers solve this -
When you first enter the genealogy program you create/enter your name or select from a list of users already entered. The program picks this up and takes the current computer date and time. (ex. Personal knowledge of James Clemans, 10/6/07 8 a.m. ) At least that way anyone looking at the source knows who entered it. If it came from someone else and they didn't source anything, you would put them as the default source on everything until you have something better. At least you'd knew where it started. A list of default sources or categories are provided in most software and are customizable so it wouldn't take much. Can this problem be solved? We hope so, we plead for it to be so. If you work for a genealogy software company please make it so.
So lets all ask and be positive and maybe, just maybe, we'll get what we ask for. Even though it may make us work a little more, it will be worth it, now and later.
For Generations to come, James.
Books written that list a large number of sources at the beginning of the book, some good documented sources but others undocumented and all lumped together at the front of the book. Then the genealogies (Pedigree charts, family group sheets with names, dates and places) are listed but the specific sources are not identified. Ugh! What a shame!
Our perhaps you've seen a family group sheet/book of remembrance sheet that lists a few sources on the bottom of the page but doesn't identify the member of the family or individual that they pertain too or the specific event (birth, baptism/christening, marriage, death, burial, etc). Ouch! If that doesn't bother you it should. Even from an education reporting standpoint.
Students are taught when doing research papers to quote their sources and footnote the specific points that pertain to them. Family history research and genealogical research is and should be done the same. Sources each for every event, birth, baptism/christening, marriage, draft, divorce, death, burial, etc. Nothing new just how it should be done correctly.
So in an age of computer technology you think we'd improve. Unfortunately not.
Take all the leading genealogy software programs (PAF, Ancestral Quest, Family Tree Maker, Legacy, Family Origins, Roots Magic, TMG, etc.) they all are flawed in the basic area of sourcing.
With many years of experience with software development companies the solution appears to be very simple. So why don't they require it for every record creation/new name entry, event date or note. Most say it would make the product to difficult for people to use or they wouldn't do anything if they had to. Is that a good enough answer? Don't do it because people won't buy my program if I force them to enter sources. In a market driven society that makes sense.
Solution - So why not make it a setup option. For those who are serious about sourcing it would solve the problem and for those who don't care about sources they would go on as they have.
A Dream you say - Hopefully not - Here's an idea.
How could software developers solve this -
When you first enter the genealogy program you create/enter your name or select from a list of users already entered. The program picks this up and takes the current computer date and time. (ex. Personal knowledge of James Clemans, 10/6/07 8 a.m. ) At least that way anyone looking at the source knows who entered it. If it came from someone else and they didn't source anything, you would put them as the default source on everything until you have something better. At least you'd knew where it started. A list of default sources or categories are provided in most software and are customizable so it wouldn't take much. Can this problem be solved? We hope so, we plead for it to be so. If you work for a genealogy software company please make it so.
So lets all ask and be positive and maybe, just maybe, we'll get what we ask for. Even though it may make us work a little more, it will be worth it, now and later.
For Generations to come, James.
Online Genealogy - Mixed Reviews
Online Genealogy -
While more and more records are being entered into computers by scanning and data entry the fact remains that this amounts to an extremely small amount of filmed records or books from published sources.
A year or two ago I had a novice genealogist suggest that they were doing all their research online using online databases. They were looking up information submitted by individuals to various internet sites (Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, Genforum, Rootsweb.com, Familysearch.com) primarily and using it for all their information.
One of the starting points was Ancestral File (AF) which contains user submitted, undocumented, and unverified information. (See articles concerning AF issues) Next they had message posts from various people in family trees, forums, message boards. The one major flaw in much of this was that it was undocumented information.
Since many online database services have digital images of most Censues 1800-1930 for subscription fees (HeritageQuest, Ancestry, Newsbank, Godfrey, etc) this was a novices' idea of documentation. Undocumented posts and information and census records. A conclusion that horrifies and frustrates any research minded individual let alone a professional researcher. You need to remember that Census enumerations are secondary records. AF and online posts are not sources. They are not documentation unless written by someone who attended the event (birth, baptism/christening, marriage, death, burial, funeral, etc.). So until many more of these records are available online research will remain a part of research but not the complete answer.
Does that mean don't use them. - No. Use what you can but remember the difference between undocumented and documented information and real vital record, civil or church source records and documents. More will continue to be added and make online work more beneficial but for now, don't forget to use the books and films that are published in addition to the online. You'll save yourself and others a lot of headaches by properly documenting.
More and more online services are constantly being added and more partnerships and alliances mean more scanning of images done sooner but the volume of work to be done versus what is currently available is staggering. Just walk through any of the major repositories in the country and ask how much is digitized/scanned images, computer entered and indexed and online.
The answers may surprise you. Til next time, James.
While more and more records are being entered into computers by scanning and data entry the fact remains that this amounts to an extremely small amount of filmed records or books from published sources.
A year or two ago I had a novice genealogist suggest that they were doing all their research online using online databases. They were looking up information submitted by individuals to various internet sites (Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, Genforum, Rootsweb.com, Familysearch.com) primarily and using it for all their information.
One of the starting points was Ancestral File (AF) which contains user submitted, undocumented, and unverified information. (See articles concerning AF issues) Next they had message posts from various people in family trees, forums, message boards. The one major flaw in much of this was that it was undocumented information.
Since many online database services have digital images of most Censues 1800-1930 for subscription fees (HeritageQuest, Ancestry, Newsbank, Godfrey, etc) this was a novices' idea of documentation. Undocumented posts and information and census records. A conclusion that horrifies and frustrates any research minded individual let alone a professional researcher. You need to remember that Census enumerations are secondary records. AF and online posts are not sources. They are not documentation unless written by someone who attended the event (birth, baptism/christening, marriage, death, burial, funeral, etc.). So until many more of these records are available online research will remain a part of research but not the complete answer.
Does that mean don't use them. - No. Use what you can but remember the difference between undocumented and documented information and real vital record, civil or church source records and documents. More will continue to be added and make online work more beneficial but for now, don't forget to use the books and films that are published in addition to the online. You'll save yourself and others a lot of headaches by properly documenting.
More and more online services are constantly being added and more partnerships and alliances mean more scanning of images done sooner but the volume of work to be done versus what is currently available is staggering. Just walk through any of the major repositories in the country and ask how much is digitized/scanned images, computer entered and indexed and online.
The answers may surprise you. Til next time, James.
Myth - My Genealogy is all done
My Genealogy is all done -
Everytime I hear someone tell me their genealogy is all done, I just smile. After 35 years involvement in family history and genealogical research I have yet to meet anyone with it all done. Other research professionals smile too.
Why - What does all done mean? An individual surname line.? Four (4) generations? Back to immigrant ancestor? As much as can be done because records are not currently available (end of line)?
Does all done mean just an ancestral surname line like Clemans. Well unless you link into royalty and have the bible or other canonized sources you probably are lucky if you can go back to the early 1600's.
Some people think doing four (4) generations means its all done. Since all members of the LDS Church are encouraged to work in family history, some members in the LDS Church have that misconception. Many years ago people were encouraged to start by doing their four generations. You - Your parents, Your Grandparents, Your Great-Grandparents (That's four generations or possibly one more from you) That's at least a start.
Some people just say it's all done because they don't know. Perhaps its time to start. Start asking relatives to see what's been done and look at it. If your not sure consult a professional to review it and propose what can be done.
So the next time someone tells you it's all done - Think again and investigate. The answers may surprise you.
One last thought if you are concerned about proxy ordinance work, submission rules change(who can be sealed, when they can be submitted/105 year cutoff, etc), availability of information changes, maybe its time to re-visit and review, you may be surprised what you find.
Don't forget to look at multiple wives and children of theirs, adoptions and children born out of wedlock, they are easily overlooked.
To new surprises, James.
Everytime I hear someone tell me their genealogy is all done, I just smile. After 35 years involvement in family history and genealogical research I have yet to meet anyone with it all done. Other research professionals smile too.
Why - What does all done mean? An individual surname line.? Four (4) generations? Back to immigrant ancestor? As much as can be done because records are not currently available (end of line)?
Does all done mean just an ancestral surname line like Clemans. Well unless you link into royalty and have the bible or other canonized sources you probably are lucky if you can go back to the early 1600's.
Some people think doing four (4) generations means its all done. Since all members of the LDS Church are encouraged to work in family history, some members in the LDS Church have that misconception. Many years ago people were encouraged to start by doing their four generations. You - Your parents, Your Grandparents, Your Great-Grandparents (That's four generations or possibly one more from you) That's at least a start.
Some people just say it's all done because they don't know. Perhaps its time to start. Start asking relatives to see what's been done and look at it. If your not sure consult a professional to review it and propose what can be done.
So the next time someone tells you it's all done - Think again and investigate. The answers may surprise you.
One last thought if you are concerned about proxy ordinance work, submission rules change(who can be sealed, when they can be submitted/105 year cutoff, etc), availability of information changes, maybe its time to re-visit and review, you may be surprised what you find.
Don't forget to look at multiple wives and children of theirs, adoptions and children born out of wedlock, they are easily overlooked.
To new surprises, James.
PAF Insight Flaws
While PFA Insight by Ohana Software is a good product it has its flaws.
PAF Insight is a useful tool for a variety of fixes for PAF (Personal Ancestral File) Genealogy software program. Its a combination of add ons to the free program originally created and donated to the LDS Church by author Gaylon Findlay (see Ancestral Quest/Incline Software) and other blog on this.
PAF Insight has a big user base as a software add on for checking IGI (International Genealogical Index) online database for temple ordinance information. Unfortunately it has its flaws with name variations of given and surname. While it does better on given names, soundex and spelling variations on surnames are not properly checked/matched.
Users will also find that results differ when running it more than once. Some run it six or seven times. Computers are great tools but can't do everything. So while the program has it's place and is a helpful tool, Remember to check the names individually with various spelling variations on manual lookups outside of PAF Insight. The results of finding additional information to update ordinance fields will suprise you and reduce duplications. So let's reduce duplications everyone.
And don't forget, if you are just running names through PAF Insight that you pulled from Ancestral File (AF) you are making a big mistake. Read the AF disclaimer in other articles on this blog or on all printed AF pages, and either document and verify the information before submitting it or hire a qualified professional researcher or research company that does heavy screening of names. Ask about their processes and if they don't do enough checking find a good company like ours. (shameless plug)
James, forgenerations.com
PAF Insight is a useful tool for a variety of fixes for PAF (Personal Ancestral File) Genealogy software program. Its a combination of add ons to the free program originally created and donated to the LDS Church by author Gaylon Findlay (see Ancestral Quest/Incline Software) and other blog on this.
PAF Insight has a big user base as a software add on for checking IGI (International Genealogical Index) online database for temple ordinance information. Unfortunately it has its flaws with name variations of given and surname. While it does better on given names, soundex and spelling variations on surnames are not properly checked/matched.
Users will also find that results differ when running it more than once. Some run it six or seven times. Computers are great tools but can't do everything. So while the program has it's place and is a helpful tool, Remember to check the names individually with various spelling variations on manual lookups outside of PAF Insight. The results of finding additional information to update ordinance fields will suprise you and reduce duplications. So let's reduce duplications everyone.
And don't forget, if you are just running names through PAF Insight that you pulled from Ancestral File (AF) you are making a big mistake. Read the AF disclaimer in other articles on this blog or on all printed AF pages, and either document and verify the information before submitting it or hire a qualified professional researcher or research company that does heavy screening of names. Ask about their processes and if they don't do enough checking find a good company like ours. (shameless plug)
James, forgenerations.com
Ancestral File Corrections
If your still submitting corrections to Ancestral File (AF) your wasting your time.
Ancestral File is a collection of submitted information by virtually anyone in the world located at familysearch.org on the web. The information hasn't been verified by anyone and is the responsibility of anyone using it to document and verify it.
The file is not receiving new updates and has not for over five (5) yes five plus years. Contrary to what some have suggested corrections are not and have not been added for years. Workers in family history centers are not always aware of this so beware.
Information from such files unless documented with sources should always be verified.
See other stories on AF on this blog.
All for now, James
forgenerations.com
Ancestral File is a collection of submitted information by virtually anyone in the world located at familysearch.org on the web. The information hasn't been verified by anyone and is the responsibility of anyone using it to document and verify it.
The file is not receiving new updates and has not for over five (5) yes five plus years. Contrary to what some have suggested corrections are not and have not been added for years. Workers in family history centers are not always aware of this so beware.
Information from such files unless documented with sources should always be verified.
See other stories on AF on this blog.
All for now, James
forgenerations.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
