Is FamilySearch.org the Edsel of Genealogy?

Large corporations with huge budgets and lots of advertising can make major mistakes in promoting new products. In 1958, the Ford Motor Company produced a new line of cars called the Edsel. This model was expected to compete with Chrysler and GM in the domestic market. See Wikipedia:Edsel. The concept and ideas seemed sound at the time, but turned into a marketing nightmare. Here is a description of Ford's intentions and efforts towards marketing:

Ford later claimed to have performed more than adequate, if not superior, product development and market research work in the planning and design of the new vehicle. Particularly Ford assured its investors, and the Detroit automotive press, that the Edsel was not only a superior product (as compared to its Oldsmobile/Buick competition), but the details of its styling and specifications were the result of a sophisticated market analysis and research and development effort that would essentially guarantee its broad acceptance by the buying public when the car was introduced. Wikipedia. 

For all that Ford could do to try to sell the new model Edsel, the market reaction was negative to the car's styling and conventional build. After three years, the car was discontinued.

Now, during the past few days, I have been fielding a huge amount of negative reaction to the recent changes made in the FamilySearch.org website from experienced users as well as casual new users. The online reaction from bloggers has been either very negative or apologetic. I am certain that this reaction is far different that the usual reaction to a change in website design. The reasons given in numerous blog posts focus primarily on the utility of the new design, not merely the pretty photos and changes in colors. Alexa.com, a website that measures web traffic, shows an immediate drop in usage of over 30% for last weekend and particularly Sunday. FamilySearch.org traffic is off almost 10% for the month. It is hard to tell whether or not the dramatic decrease is just the usual seasonal variation, but it appears from looking at the last six months that all indicators, traffic stats, search analytics and Pageviews are down from just a few months ago. The bounce percentage or the number of people who look and go away, has increased to 21% over the past weekend.

These statistics agree with my personal reaction and my experience with many people over the past week.

Is this something that we will all just have to weather? Is this a temporary storm that will pass as time goes on? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

The Perceived Problems with Genealogy

I was helping one of my friends with some research recently, who was looking for some record of a birth in Pennsylvania. The problem was that the ancestor was supposedly born in 1822, long before birth records were consistently maintained. Of course, I showed her the FamilySearch Research Wiki with articles on "United States, How to Find Genealogy Records," "United States Birth Records," and the helpful "How to Find Birth Information in the United States." We also looked at the Family History Library Catalog on the specific county in Pennsylvania, Westmoreland, where her ancestor likely was born. There was a long list of resources.

We also checked the Newberry Atlas of Historical County Boundaries to make sure the county boundaries had not changed since the event occurred. This was done to see whether or not the information she was seeking could be found in some other county. As a matter of fact, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania had the same boundaries in 1822 as it has today.

That was it. Informational overload. She simply shrugged her shoulders and admitted that she could not image looking all those places. There is a perception out there that you can magically click on some link online and find whatever you want to know about your ancestors. Apparently, she was expecting me to solve the problem of finding her ancestor in a half an hour or less excluding commercials.

So one of the major perceived problems with genealogy is simply this: it is not as easy as people would like it to be.

In the case of the Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania relative, my friend kept saying how her ancestor's name was so "common." Well, yes, people do have the same surname. That can actually come as a shock to some people. Oh, and guess what? The surname can be spelled a few different ways. As we started to look at records for Westmoreland County, we immediately found people during the 1822 time period with the same name. I suggested she may want to record each of the people with the same surname, in the same county, at the same time her ancestor was supposed to be born to see if any of them or all of them are relatives. She looked at me as if I had suddenly lost my mind. The thought of doing research on more than one person was overwhelming. What if it turned out that there was really only one family of the suspect surname in the county and everyone with that name were related? She protested that if she searched all the records I was suggesting it would take a lot of time and might not produce any results.

[Side note: Sometimes my conversations with people I work with that I report in this blog are embellished to some extent for teaching purposes. However, in this case, the conversation is pretty close to reality. I try hard not to identify the people involved so they are not embarrassed if they read the posts and only very rarely has anyone felt like I was talking about them.]

I suggested that she may wish to make a list of microfilms and books that might contain information about her ancestor in the county at the time of his birth so that she could check each one. I further suggested she might want to compile this list and plan a trip to Salt Lake City, Utah where she could do the research in the Family History Library. She dismissed that as impossible. So then I suggested she make the same list but look for copies of each of the records in the library in some other repository. As an example, I took one of the Tax Roles on the list of sources for Westmoreland County and found that the Arizona State Library in downtown Phoenix, right next door, had a copy. Even that effort seemed excessive to her. My suggestion was simple, put each source listed in the Family History Library catalog into WorldCat.org and see if a local library had a copy. For those that showed copies in more remote libraries, I suggested Interlibrary Loan.

Now, I really don't know if she will take any of the suggested actions. What I do know is that her reaction is very, very common. Patrons at the Mesa FamilySearch Library often have the same exact reaction. Disbelief that finding an ancestor can take such time and effort. In our "have it now" me-centered society, they just refuse to believe that their problem cannot be solved immediately.

Guess what? All of us had to pass through this same experience. In every case, we have to come to grips with the reality of genealogical research: it isn't easy and it may take huge amount of time to find an answer.

My first brush with reality came in the FamilyHistory Library in Salt Lake City when I was researching my ancestor, Jens Jensen from Denmark. I asked for a microfilm roll about my ancestor and was given a role with probably 20,000 names on it where every single person had the name Jens Jensen. I began to realize that this was not going to be as easy as I thought.

What is Research? Looking beyond the survey

I recently asked the question, "What is Genealogy?" Now I ask a more difficult and important question, "What is Research?" I think it is easier to think of activities that are not genealogical research than the other way around. Let me start with a hypothetical example:

I very well know my own birthdate, but to confirm that date for government purposes or whatever, I dig out my birth certificate or request a copy from the State Department of Vital Records where I was born? Am I doing research? Even though I already knew the date?

How you answer this question depends on your understanding of the research cycle and the goals of research in general. For much of this discussion, I am going to rely on ideas and concepts covered in that fundamental genealogical reference book,

Greenwood, Val D. The Researcher's Guide to American Genealogy. Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Pub. Co, 2000.

Greenwood defines research as follows:

An investigation aimed at the discovery and the interpretation of facts and also the revision of accepted theories in light of new facts. 

So, it seems to me, that research is something more than simply confirming an already known fact by doing some investigation. So let me change my hypothetical example a little and see where that take us:

I think I know my father's birthdate and we have celebrated his birthday every year on a certain date, but when he dies, I find his birth certificate among his personal papers and the date is different than the one we had always celebrated. 

(By the way, these fact situations are purely hypothetical and do not reflect any of my own family situations directly)

Did my chance finding of his birth certificate constitute research on my part? Does research depend on my prior knowledge at all? Does research involve something more than correcting misinformation? Does it matter that I wasn't looking for a correction to his birthdate? Is the second example closer to research than the first example?

Let's move on to another more complex hypothetical.

I have only a vague idea about my family. I know my parents' names but only know some of the names of my grandparents. I find a book in my parents' home that talks about my father's family going back many generations. I am fascinated by the book and borrow it to copy out some information about my family.

Is my examination of the book and copying out information considered to be research? At this point, I think many, if not most, of the genealogical community would say yes. I have started to do research. But if we look at Greenwood's definition carefully, I think we would have to answer this question differently. This takes us into what is commonly referred to as the Research Cycle. It also brings up some important differences in what is considered research by those involved in the scientific community as opposed to those who are in the humanities including history. But in either case, the scientific or the historical, research involves an important preliminary step, usually called the survey. 

In a survey, we are trying to determine what is already known. In genealogical research this involves reviewing what our family has already preserved or accumulated. The fact that I, personally, do not know those facts is irrelevant to the issue of research. I am not plowing the field for the first time, I am merely following where others have already gone before. Research involves more than copying what others have already discovered. Any search for information can only be considered to be research when it moves beyond what is presently known. But, you argue, if I don't know a fact, isn't my search really "research" for me? Well, we could argue that for days, but merely copying what has already been written or published is not considered research. 

That is the reason the survey. Let's carry the hypothetical a little further.

As I read the surname book I found in my parents' house, I discover that the date given for my father's birth is not the same as the one on his birth certificate. They are off by years, not merely a day or month. I immediately assume that the book is wrong and forget about the issue. 

At this point, we get to the issue of sources. Why do you automatically reject the book and believe the birth certificate? Could the birth certificate be wrong and the book reflect the correct date? The answer to this question is surely yes, but here is where, for the first time in these hypotheticals that we move into the realm of research. But in most cases, despite the conflict, the researcher is still in the survey stage.

Looking to wording from the Genealogical Proof Standard, a reasonably exhaustive search assumes the examination of a wide range of high quality sources.  Is my examination of a birth certificate and a surname book, a reasonably exhaustive search? Not likely. Quoting again from Greenwood, page 6:

Another thing we can readily observe from this research cycle is that many would-be genealogists do not use all of the steps required for complete research. Too many spend their entire efforts on secondary research, thinking they are all that can be and needs to be done when they are copying the records of others and searching old family histories. 

This statement certainly applies today to those who merely copy online family trees and think they are doing genealogical research. There is a lot more to be said on this subject, now that I am started in on it again. During the month of May, I will be teaching a number of classes at the Mesa FamilySearch Library that could be considered to be a research series. There are thirteen classes scheduled and I will be reviewing those classes and my preparation by writing blog posts during the next few days and throughout the month of May. If you are in Mesa, you are invited to attend some or all of the classes and we can discuss these issues more fully. 

The Tanner Family Daguerreotype -- A Photo Identification Mystery

The above daguerreotype was reportedly of my Great-great-great-grandfather, John Tanner. However, after some extensive research and using historical and genealogical data gleaned from dozens of sources, my daughter Amy has finally made a positive identification of the people in the photograph. Unfortunately, the daguerreotype was made after John Tanner had already died. The full story is extremely complicated and reads like a novel in our blog called TheAncestorFiles. To read the entire story you have to read through this entire series of blog posts:

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: We Meet the Tanners
Part 3: What is a Daguerreotype?
Part 4: Technology Meets the Tanners
Part 5: Woman at Right
Part 6: Woman in Center
Part 7: Boy in Back — First Possibility
Part 7: Boy in Back — Additional Possibilities
Part 8: Man at Left — John Tanner?
Part 8: Man at Left — Options
Part 9: Conclusion

It will be well worth your time to read through the entire series because this is a classic example of the steps in photo identification and doing in depth genealogical and historical research.

What is genealogy?

We like to think of ourselves as part of a genealogical research community, but what is genealogy and what is research? Sometimes we accept classifications without focussing on what the definitions of the terms used. When does a person become a genealogist? If I were going to call myself a dental hygienist, there would be a pretty well-defined criteria for inclusion in that category of workers. The same would be true for attorneys, Realtors (TM), and other business related jobs or professions. Is genealogy a profession? We do have professional genealogists and even professional genealogy organizations. If it is a profession, then why do so many of us do it for free?

I look at the term in the same way as I have with other avocations such as stamp and coin collecting. When does one become a philatelist and not simple a stamp collector? When does one become a numismatist and not merely a coin collector? Aren't those names just a highfalutin way of trying to be exclusive?  So is the term "genealogist" just an exclusive way of referring to people who collect information about dead ancestors?

Unfortunately, the term "genealogist" has abundant negative connotations. In Spanish there is a saying, "He lies like a genealogist" (Mentir como un genealogista). The use of this phrase was in conjunction with those who tried to improve their social and economic status by "proving" a relationship to nobility. With such an inauspicious history, it is no wonder that the modern term, genealogist, is depreciated.

To avoid these historical connotations of unreliability and untrustworthiness, those trying to promote ancestral research have chosen to call the activity "family history." They then spend time and effort to make sure that the public doesn't mistake family historians for common untrustworthy genealogists. In addition, there is a concerted effort by many organizations, both commercial and otherwise, to recast the role of the genealogist as a family historian with an expanded area of activities to be more inclusive that just merely establishing a pedigree. The problem with this approach is that there is even less of a definition for family history. From the promoters standpoint, "family history" is a perfect term because it can be anything you want it to be and how can anyone be against families and history?

When does this change in terminology become a problem? We see this type of activity all the time with what we call "political correctness." Common terms such as "secretary" and "waitress" become unacceptable because of their connotations to the status of women. Garbage dumps become "sanitary landfills" and the examples could go on and on. Did the responsibilities or activities change? No. But the terms can no longer be used in polite society.

This trend is even more pronounced in the world of advertising where huge cultural shifts have occurred merely because of the use of a term. How many diseases and social problems do we have today merely because someone decided they were problems?

Now, is political correctness going to invade the genealogical community? Is it going to become politically incorrect to refer to what we do as "genealogy" because it might be offensive to some market segment or another? In the beginning I ask the question "When does a person become a genealogist?" Now, I ask a similar question, "When and how does a person become a family historian?" Are the two terms inclusive or exclusive? Can I be a family historian and never do any "genealogy?" Do we as genealogists really exclude family history activities. Which term is the more inclusive?

The Texas Records or Why do I keep hearing about identity theft?

Whenever I teach a class, especially to older people (which is all the time), I constantly get feedback about identity theft issues. Many people seem to think that by registering their software or purchasing items online they are opening themselves up to the dreaded IDENTITY THEFT. If you believe the advertisements on TV and on the Web, you would think identity theft was one of the most serious crimes of our times, worse than murder, burglary or auto theft. In the past, I have written a number of blog posts showing and citing actual U.S. government statistics on crime that credit card theft, copying and using credit card numbers and credit card loss make up nearly all the incidents of so-called identity theft.

Despite the vague nature of the so-called identity theft crime, this buzz word is being used in a variety of circumstances to promote both commercial and political special interests. Where it impinges on the genealogical community is in the area of governmental restriction on the availability of vital records and other types of records. There is an unproven and unsupportable allegation that genealogists' access to some types of records is core cause of identity theft.

If you would like me to go back through the statistics yet again, I would be glad to do so, but I am certain that nothing has changed. Think about identity theft the next time you give your credit card to a server in a restaurant, not when you look at the Social Security Death Index.

So here we go again, using the boogy man of identity theft to limit genealogists' access to records. The Texas State Legislature has jumped on the identity theft bandwagon. Michael McCormick sent out the following notice:

TSGS LEGISLATION ALERT!  - House Bill 3252 – Closing Birth and Death Records 

House Bill 3252 by Representative John Zerwas (Fort Bend County) would close Texas birth records for 125 years and Texas death records for 50 years.  Under current Texas law, birth and death records now become public information 75 years after a birth and 25 years after a death.  Proponents of the bill believe that closing birth and death records for 125 and 50 years will prevent identity theft and fraud.  

TSGS is actively opposing this legislation.  Click here to read the full Legislation Alert.

This type of legislation is nothing more or less than a chance to enhance the revenue of the state. It has nothing to do with identity theft. All this really means is that Texas can charge for the copies of its vital records for a longer period of time. I defy anyone to quote to me actual crime statistics from Texas that show any connection between the length of time vital records are closed and the incidence of use of those records in any crime!

Of course, Texas officials are concerned about identity theft. Here is an article called appropriately, Identity Theft, from the Attorney General of Texas, Greg Abbott. If you take the time to read the entire article, you might notice two things; first there is no mention of the definition of identity theft and second, if you have a problem you go to the Federal Trade Commission, not any Texas agency or even the police or sheriff. Isn't it strange that if identity theft is such an issue, that no Texas agency handles complaints?

Down the left-hand side of Attorney General Greg Abbott's website, there are a whole lot of crimes listed. Click on a few and you will see that he cites Texas law for many of the problems listed. Why not for Identity Theft? Because there is no commonly accepted definition of the crime.

One thing that is commonly done to enhance the appearance that identity theft is a huge problem is to include it with general statistics on fraud without breaking out the multitude of different acts classified as fraud. Who cites these vague statistics? Almost uniformly it is companies who are trying to sell you some sort of service to prevent identity theft which they would not be able to do if they cited accurate statistics.

If you buy into the statistical fraud that is used to promote the fear of identity theft, you can easily find documents such as this alarming "White Paper" called "Identity Theft in Texas" from an organization not well identified in the paper as "Identity Theft 911." Oh, guess what? They want to sell you identity theft protection services.

What do you do if you are a good genealogist? You look at the lack of sources or you check the sources to make sure the information is correct. Where did this company get its statistics? From Texas? Nope. From the Federal Trade Commission.

So where have I gone in the past when I write about this subject? To the Federal Trade Commission website? Well, yes but they don't compile crime statistics they compile complaints. How does the Federal Trade Commission define "identity theft?" Here is the quote, "Identity theft happens when someone steals your personal information and uses it without your permission."

Before I get into another round of statistics to support my position, please start with this post I wrote not too long ago

Genealogy and Identity Theft

There is a real problem here. But limiting access to public records is not the cause and the problem is not going to be solved by extending the time limit on vital records protection by a state.

Family Tree Magazine's Top 40 Bloggers for 2013

Genealogy's Star is honored to be included in Family Tree Magazine's Top 40 Bloggers for 2013. If you are just starting to read genealogy blogs, you certainly have a good place to go for recommendations. I am aware of dozens more high class blogs that deserve attention, so if you are writing a blog with some aspirations or another, keep blogging and be true to yourself. Try to find your own voice and talk to your readers. It is helpful if you are also passionate about your subject matter.

I often get asked if I ever do anything besides write and talk. That pretty well sums it up. I do sleep and I do eat, but most of the time I am thinking about topics or writing about topics or expounding topics to my long-suffering wife. No, I never run out of things to say, but occasionally I get so tired that I can't think and it is time to do something else for a while like take photographs or work with our local Scout Troop.

One thing you can count on, if anything happens in the genealogical community of note, I will try to write about it. But with so much going on, I do have to be selective. If you have suggested topics, I am always open to suggestions. I enjoy most of the comments, but after 38 years of trial practice as a attorney, I always seem to find some type of counter-argument for supporting my position. Don't take it personally.

Thanks for reading my blog and thanks to Family Tree Magazine for putting up with my writing for yet another year.