Middle names/initials
what is the proper way to enter a name? If the name at birth is John Anderson Ford, should it be in the tree as John Ford, John Anderson Ford, John A. Ford, or John A Ford (without the period)? I’ve seen same people come up as 4 different people depending on how you search the name. Is there an easy way to fix this for searching purposes? And what exactly is the proper way to enter the persons name if you’re adding them to your tree?
答え
-
Good question. Here's the official word from a Help Article: https://www.familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Entering-names-on-Family-Tree&lang=en
That doesn't quite address what you are asking, though. I personally use the name the person went by for most of his adult life. For example, my great grandmother was named Lorraine Belle, but she styled herself 'Laura B Taylor' on her chiropractic license, in her advertising and when she participated in musical concerts. So I would put her name as Laura B. and put all other variations in the other names section lower down.
This is especially important for me because we had several family members who changed their names. Elizabeth Jane became Florence...grandma knew her, thank goodness! Charles Moore became Charles Taylor....surname changed - that was a fun research project! William Henry was known as Hank. (Although this one was more of a nickname because he signed William H.)
I'm sure there are other ways and means that still follow the guidance in the Help Article above. Maybe others will give you their thoughts as well.
0 -
This is a great question. I would personally put the full name because maybe you find him as John on a record, and maybe Anderson on another one. Plus, if you have a birth record, that would be a primary source for his name. I would keep alternate names in the alternate name place on FamilySearch.
Carol
0 -
I like the period, but I don't think it matters on FamilySearch. Maybe someone else can tell us.
0 -
Doesn't make a difference for the searching and matching in FamilySearch Famiy Tree.
0 -
It doesn't make a difference in searching, but is cleaner looking to leave the period off. I was taught this way in a family history class in SL family history center.
0 -
In classical genealogical standards, an initial with a period is an abbreviation while an initial without a period is just a single letter used as a middle name.
Using that standard, John A. Ford has an abbreviated middle name that people should keep on researching until they can find out what the A. stands for and then get rid of the abbreviation. In Family Tree, as far as possible, abbreviations should be avoided. Abbreviations basically mean that the information is incomplete. In addition, abbreviations lead to confusion and misinterpretation.
Again using that traditional standard, John A Ford means that John's complete middle name is an "A" that does not stand for anything else.
In summary, for clarity and completeness, enter "John Anderson" in the Given Names field and "Ford" in the Last Names field.
0 -
I remember a Barefoot Genealogist video where she said to leave out periods and just about all punctuation if at all possible because it helps the search engine to find more possible matches. Because this is computerized genealogy I follow this practice. Anything I can do to help those search engines work is a good thing.
I also try to use the given or birth name in the Name field and use the alt name field for everything else. Same reason as above.
0 -
To the extent search engines struggle matching fields with punctuation, it is the search algorithm that needs updating, not the way the name was spelled. Most search engines have no trouble with punctuation. Whatever search engine in question will eventually be updated to today's basic standards, so if we changed punctuation to help the faulty search engine, in the end all we will have accomplished is muddying the waters when it comes to how a person's name was properly spelled.
0 -
For those who look at this later--here is the relevant portion of the FamilySearch policy:
"enter the person’s birth name or complete legal name...
"If the person did not use his or her legal name in life, you can [optionally] enter the commonly used name in the Vitals section and the legal name in the Other Information section...
"Avoid... most punctuation marks. Hyphens and apostrophes are okay if they are a part of the actual name"
It is unclear what "did not use" means in the policy--clearly the person used it once, otherwise it wouldn't be their birth or legal name. How much non-use is sufficient for inputting a more commonly used name? It appears to be up to the users to determine the answer that question. I have a relative who went by a different name for the last 10 years of his 60-year life, so based on the policy I can put either name in the main name field. The next user who comes along can opt to change that name and they would be well within policy also. I'd worry about edit wars but usage is low enough at this point that it isn't much of a concern.
To add to the ambiguity, it is also unclear what "commonly used name" means. Most commonly, people tend to be known by nicknames or other shortened forms, depending on the setting. "Common" may instead mean commonly known on official documents, but that can also vary by time and place. FamilySearch leaves it up to the users to decide what "commonly used name" means.
I recently changed a person's last name to "Mountague" because that is what was most commonly used in official documents during his life. The next user was unhappy about it and changed it back to "Montague," because that is the name he is most commonly known by now. The ambiguity of the policy means that both of our views are technically acceptable, and it all comes down to the latest user's preference.
0 -
I always use the fullest name, for reasons already mentioned, plus it seems more complete to me. More information is usually better. Glad to know the period is optional. Indexing has gotten me out of the habit of using it.
0 -
To answer your question about the middle initial, if you don't know the middle name at the time, I would say put the period; this is because some people actually have a middle name that is only an initial. It sounds weird, but this is what I mean:
"John A. Ford" could be John Anderson Ford.
"John A Ford" (without the period) is simply John A Ford; he has no actual middle name, just a middle initial. In this case, when there is no period following the middle initial, it technically indicates that the "A" is not an abbreviation for anything.
This is what I was taught in the family history major at BYU:) I'm also an editor, so I had cringed at the lack of period until our professor explained why one of her people actually would not have a period following his middle initial.
0 -
Ty @Charlotte Noelle Champenois for that detailed answer 😊 one of the reasons I was asking was because I would see one person listed several times with different id numbers because the middle name or initial would be one of each of the 3 mentioned or there would be no middle name at all. If everyone would stick to one standard way of “creating” a person, this would save many of us a ton of time. I just wouldn’t know how to let folks know the “right” way to enter info lol. It is my understanding that when y’all are doing the indexing, you don’t use periods (or that’s what I read somewhere on here) so if there was a record for a John A. Ford, would it be indexed as John A Ford? And if I searched for John Anderson Ford, would that same John A Ford show up in the search results? It seems like it would based on the answers here, but then we have the issue of the multiple John A Fords that’s really the same person... 🤦🏻♀️
0 -
Also, I just want to clarify... ***I do not know of anyone named John Anderson Ford (I’m sure there are some out there) it’s just a random name I pulled outta my head to use as an example***
0 -
You're welcome!
With the previous, downloadable indexing program, periods were not included. Now, with the online version of the indexing program, I believe people can either add a period or not; apparently the system recognizes "John A. Ford" as equal to "John A Ford."
What's indexed is what's found on the record, though (plus or minus a period:), meaning if the record actually lists him as "John Anderson Ford," the indexer would index him as such, not abbreviating his middle name into an initial. The reason we end up with so many different versions is because people's names show up in many different ways in various documents throughout their lives. That's when it comes down to the system needing a human to sit down and sort through the possible duplicates to decide whether or not they are, in fact, actually the same person and to merge them if they are. There's no good way to avoid the creation of duplicates since we also don't want computers deciding whether someone is the same person and wreaking havoc . . . Making that kind of decision takes human intellect and decision-making, which computers just can't manage 😃
0 -
Again, the official policy allows for many interpretations and preferences. Everyone is willing to share their preferred way of doing things, and everyone I've met who has a preference, simply interprets the loose language of the policy in a manner that matches their preference. They aren't officially wrong, even if their way doesn't match the next user's preference. Neither is the next user wrong when they change it to their preference. I wish there were a real standard. There isn't.
0 -
lol I need a job, sounds perfect for me... y’all can throw my name in that there hat for qualified individuals teehee 😜
0 -
I agree @Nathan Twyman there really should be a standard for many of these sort of things, we were discussing in another chat with @Dennis J Yancey I think it was about “reason for adding this source” area, which is another area that should have a standard, especially because a lot of this stuff is added by your average Joe/Jane and not everyone knows exactly what to put in that box all the time (myself included)
0 -
i used to do that also @nanlwar nanlwar but for searching purposes I’ve learned that the persons “official birth name” isn’t necessarily always the way to go when searching, so one really needs to check all possible spellings, nicknames etc. ugh I’m getting overwhelmed just thinking about it 🤣
0 -
I recently had a long discussion on that very topic on the FamilySearch feedback site. Everyone had a different opinion on how it should be used, including two high-ranking FS personnel who disagreed with one another.
There was also no indication that additional clarity was even being considered. They have other priorities.
0 -
I agree that there are many changes that need to be made, however it’s my understanding that Issues relating to the FS main search site, have to be or need to be directed to folks over there (I don’t think there is a group here that is dedicated to that particular area, I think the folks here are more focused on the community portion of the site - I could totally be wrong but that’s my understanding of how things work based on a response from @Janell L Vasquez in another chat). With that said, I 100% agree there should be a standard - even if it’s just a multiple choice checkbox or anything just so we can keep it all kinda uniform). I think these sort of concerns are definitely valid and should be brought to the attention of someone who we can go into more detail with about our conerns. Perhaps @Janell L Vasquez or @Mark Mitchell could point us in the right direction? 🤷🏻♀️I dont know🤷🏻♀️ exactly what their roles are here but they are the ones who usually respond to Community.FamilySearch.org Feedback Queries.
0 -
Here is the site to provide such feedback if you want to: https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics. However, requests for standardization on these fields have been submitted many times, so there is probably little point in doing it again. (This is not a knock on FamilySearch--it is their prerogative to address concerns and to prioritize however they please.)
0 -
Shouldn't we be using the Alt Name field for different spellings, nicknames, married names etc?
0 -
@X24mom X24mom you would be great at Indexing, but the pay is just in virtual gratitude. Indexers are volunteers from all over the world. They index because they see the value in records being indexed. Their gift is kind of a payback because they saw great value in the indexes that they have used.
0 -
When asking a search engine (google, FamilySearch, Ancestry, or other) it is always good to try with limited information, more information, alternative information, and with extra clues. I have had amazing results using "Frank Yetter archery," "Yetter archery," "Jetter," "Frank W. Yetter," "Frank Yetter 1947," and "Frank Woodworth Yetter"
There is search power using very specific terms as well as very abbreviated terms.
0 -
@Carol Lou Hill i experimented with that last night, and I got different results each time I actually just mentioned it in my response to @Nathan Twyman I use the “search this person” option on the “person” page a lot when I’m searching for records of someone I already have in tree... I used that option with the persons name entered several different ways and adding “aka” in the “other” section. I assumed the system would search that person using both names but it did not and that’s kinda what I wish it would do and I’ll explain when I ask my new question lol.
0 -
😜 awwww shucks! Jk 😂 I know and I wish I could dedicate time to doing that sort of thing. I find so many mistakes (found records on ancestry the other day that had my ancestors listed as living with another family - but the records were out of order and that’s how the mistake was made) I send several requests each week to ancestry about issues and making corrections ... no one had ever even acknowledged that they received my request. I do not like the way things are done over there at all. I’ve found that familysearch has almost all the same info as ancestry and FS seems to have more viewable records than ancestry and I’m very grateful for that. The volunteers here are awesome and they do a wonderful job! I’m very grateful! Thank you all so much!
0