Best Practices Email
I have only been doing research for a couple of years but I am finding two significant problems that I am wondering can be at least partially fixed by having a newsletter with common problems.
- There are many researchers who put the reason for listing data as "GEDCOM data". When I first started doing genealogy I didn't even know what this meant. Since then, this has become a very frustrating entry because people will often put this in without a source. When I try to email them, they often don't remember where they got the information. Only about 25% of people respond as well. I'm not sure if this is because the message is going to their junk boxes or what, but that aside, is there a way people can be encouraged to provide a reason to put that information there. GEDCOM data could be another website, family page, shoebox of stuff, old bible, word of mouth, or something else.
- There are many contributors that don't attach sources. This is particularly problematic when new information about the family surfaces with conflicting or slightly conflicting information. Sources are very important and there are a lot of people (including FamilySearch itself) that don't attach anything and just input the data. When people like me come by and want to see the original record or copy found somewhere to confirm details and cross reference with suggested sources, there is nothing. I can understand why FamilySearch does it, I assume because they have a record somewhere. But that level of confidence is not shared with other contributors.
- Many German records show baptism. When I attach the source, it puts baptism into the alternative data slot and not under christening. Is there a way the programmers can make christening and baptism the same thing. It will save a lot of time retyping the data into christening in order for ordinances to show up as green.
I am wondering if a news bulletin or tip sheet can go out to show the importance of proper sourcing.
Comments
-
FYI
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
You are not alone ...
As an aside ...
Just so that you are aware ...
[ 1 ] "GEDCOM data"
In "Reason Statements" ( ie. 'Reason This Information Is Correct:' ), that have the "Words", 'GEDCOM Data', those "Words", are AUTOMATICALLY, placed in those "Reason Statements", by the "System"; and, NOT a User/Patron; when, a User/Patron, "Uploads" a GEDCOM File, into "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch'.
By the By ...
AT LEAST, we know, when an individual/person, HAS been "Uploaded", into "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch, through/via a GEDCOM File, rather than the true and tested way.
[ 2 ] "Sources"
'Yes', there are User/Patrons that DO NOT attached "Sources".
"Sources" are NOT "Mandatory"; and, never should they be.
Even TODAY, there are People, ALL around the World, whose, "Birth"; and/or, "Marriage"; and/or, "Death", is NOT "Officially" recorded.
Even TODAY, MANY, Many, many, "Official" records are NOT available 'On-Line'.
As such, MANY, Many, many, Users/Patrons CANNOT afford the funds to obtain a "Copy" of "Official" records.
As such, even today, there are individuals/persons entered, in "Family Tree" of, 'Family Search', that DO NOT have "Sources" attached.
Plus ...
That Said ...
There were COUNTLESS individuals/persons (and, in fact, entire Families), that where "Transferred", into "Family Tree", from its predecessor, "New.FamilySearch" (ie. pre.2012), which too x2 Years; plus, MANY; Many; many, more of those individuals/persons (and, in fact, entire Families), that were, EVEN, from BEFORE, "New.FamilySearch" existed; being, the likes of, Pedigrees; and, Family Group Sheet; ETC (ie. 'Hard-Copy'/'Paper'), were submitted by Members of the Church.
'FamilySearch', ORIGINALLY the "Genealogical Society of Utah", has been operating for over 125 Years.
And, the "Temple" Work tenets, of the Church, that Members of the Church follow, have been around for even longer.
Even some of the pre.Digital "Records" (ie. 'Hard-Copy'/'Paper'), had the "Details", of "Sources"; where, the "Information was obtained.
And, "Sources" were not originally in; or, later when included, mandatory, in "New.FamilySearch".
Unfortunately, those "Sources" from BEFORE "Family Tree" were NEVER really transferred across.
There was an effort, in 2014, to 'Transfer' the "Sources", from "New,FamilySearch", into "Family Tree"; being, "Legacy Sources"; but, many of such have subsequently been "Deleted"/"Removed" by User/Patrons over he Years.
[ 3 ] "Source Linker", with regard to "Baptisms"/"Christenings", being transferred to "Other Information"
The matter of "Baptisms"/"Christenings", being transferred to "Other Information" Section, rather than the "Christening" Field, in the "Vitals" Section, has been discussed (and, debated) at length, in the various 'iterations', of the 'FamilySearch' "Feedback" Forums, over the years - the matter is NOTHING new.
In fact, there STILL appears to be NO clear consensus.
Just some 'sticking points' being [ But, NOT Limited to ...]:
▬ Is a "Baptism", a "Christening"; and/or,
▬ is a "Christening", a "Baptism"; and/or
▬ When is a "Baptism", a "Christening"; and/or,
▬ When is a "Christening", a "Baptism"; and/or,
▬ "Naming"; and, "Blessings"; and/or,
▬ Child Baptism/Christening; and/or,
▬ Adult Baptism/Christening; and/or,
▬ ETC; Etc; etc ...
.
Things are NEVER as SIMPLE as we THINK ...
Just my thoughts.
Again, just so that you are aware.
Brett
0
