Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > england.genealogy.misc > #87

Re: FamilySearch comes of age

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:59:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <bt2bdd9p5225pqjjofs2lf33t1sqovf403@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes 
><hayesstw@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:

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. 


>
>[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 
>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. 
>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 
>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 
>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 
>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.)
>>
>>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.
>[]
>>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; 
>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 
>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 
>actually a relative, though the link may not come to light for a while. 
>And, as you say, servants are often relatives too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>5

-- 
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

Back to england.genealogy.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-16 06:47 +0200
  Re: FamilySearch comes of age Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) - 2018-04-16 11:36 +0000
    Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-17 07:48 +0200
      Re: FamilySearch comes of age Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) - 2018-04-17 12:24 +0000
        Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-17 17:40 +0100
          Re: FamilySearch comes of age Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) - 2018-04-17 18:12 +0000
  Re: FamilySearch comes of age knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-16 07:49 -0400
    Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-16 17:34 +0100
      Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-17 09:25 +0200
        Re: FamilySearch comes of age Jenny M Benson <nemonews@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-04-17 10:38 +0100
          Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-17 11:11 +0100
            Re: FamilySearch comes of age Jenny M Benson <nemonews@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-04-17 12:17 +0100
          Re: FamilySearch comes of age Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) - 2018-04-17 12:38 +0000
          Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-17 19:33 +0200
        Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-17 10:59 +0100
          Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-17 19:53 +0200
            Re: FamilySearch comes of age Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) - 2018-04-17 18:19 +0000
              Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-18 05:34 +0200
            Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-17 20:36 +0100
              Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-18 05:43 +0200
  Re: FamilySearch comes of age Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-04-17 13:14 +0100
    Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-17 17:40 +0100
      Re: FamilySearch comes of age Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> - 2018-04-18 21:37 +0100
        Re: FamilySearch comes of age Jim Dell <James.Dell@SBCGlobal.net> - 2018-04-19 09:26 -0400
        Re: FamilySearch comes of age Jim Dell <James.Dell@SBCGlobal.net> - 2018-04-20 14:56 -0400

csiph-web