One of my sons is reticent to tell people what he does or studies because when he does so, the conversation inevitably ends. He is an astro-physicist. Being over involved in genealogy as I have a tendency to be, I find the same conversation stopper. Just mention genealogy to a non-genealogist and you will get a look like you just admitted you were out on parole. One of the most satisfying parts of attending a convention, especially a genealogical convention is the ability to talk to someone who tolerates genealogy.
Many years ago, I retired from the practice of law (for the first time) to run a computer retail store and a software company. One of the most satisfying parts of retiring from law was the fact that I didn't have to tell anyone I was a lawyer. For years, when asked what I did for a living, I could truthfully answer that I was involved in computer businesses. Over the years people began to forget that I was an attorney. New friends and acquaintances didn't know. When I went back to practicing law, I was once again forced to admit that I was an attorney. Some of my newer friends were perplexed and would always ask, "When did you find time to go to law school?" assuming I had just begun the practice.
Another fall out of returning to law was the common retort, "Since you are a lawyer, can I ask you a question?" This would always be followed with a detailed account of some legal mess with an expectation that I would solve the problem for them in 30 seconds for free! I was asked that question today, for an example of the almost automatic reaction to my disclosure that I am an attorney.
Guess what? When I tell people I am a genealogist I don't get any questions. I don't think that the blank stare and shudder is really a question, it is more of a reaction. Part of the reason, I am sure for the reaction to genealogy stems from the common viewpoint that the whole subject is the purview of slightly (or more than slightly) balmy older people who have failed at shuffleboard. In the greater Mormon or LDS community of which I am a part (that is members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) genealogy has a basic religious foundation. Members of the Church are frequently exhorted to "do their genealogy." Conversations with other members of the Church which turn to genealogy generally end with a guilty explanation of why the other person doesn't (fill in the blank, i.e. have time, have the ability) do genealogy. One good thing, however, they seldom ask for a free answer to a difficult question.
I could go on with the reaction of family members to my avocation. Those who are still talking to me, will sometimes listen politely but often suddenly decide to change a baby's diaper or something else a lot more appealing than genealogy.
How do I view myself as a genealogist? Who am I? I am first and foremost a researcher. Some people enjoy sports, dancing, music, whatever, I enjoy research. (I also like music and a lot of other things just for the record). I enjoy accumulating facts, evidence and following a line of proof. I love libraries. I could spend the rest of my life doing research. Now down to reality. One of the few things I like about law is the research and writing. Second, I love to teach. I like to see people light up when they finally understand a difficult concept. There are many parts of professional teaching that I find onerous and distasteful. Mostly I don't like teaching people who don't want to learn. I like to teach genealogy because no one comes to a genealogy class because they have to. One of the worst parts of teaching, was teaching continuing education classes to attorneys. None of them had the slightest interest in being in the class, they were there because they were forced to be there. When I taught Spanish, I taught at 6:00 am because I knew that only people who wanted to be there would come to a Spanish class at 6:00 am.
I like to find out new things. If I had lived in the distant past, I would have been an explorer. I always want to go over the next hill just to see what is there, even it what is there is just the same as what is here. I found that sense of discovery and wonder in libraries and I continually find it in genealogical research. People and families are infinitely different and each has a story to tell. Discovering new facts and new stories is fascinating and inspiring.
I am a compulsive writer and talker. Sitting down in front of a blank computer screen is an invitation to write. Unless I am too sick or so tired I cannot function, ideas come to me in waves. I wake up with ideas. If I wake in the middle of the night sometimes I cannot sleep until I have written down my ideas.
Like all genealogists, I am a collector. I have collected stamps, coins, matchbook covers, animal figures, cameras, and most of all, pervasively documents, photos, and information of all kinds. I also have a hard time throwing away anything that appears even remotely useful.
I am also blessed (or cursed) with a encyclopedic memory. I often become embarrassed when I start to explain something to someone and must remember to stop before their eyes glaze over and they pass out from information overload.
You may wonder who you think you are, I wonder who they think I am.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, February 19, 2011
New tools for cleaning up data from New FamilySearch?
New.FamilySearch.org seemed to stay quietly in the background during the entire RootsTech Conference. You would've had to have been listening quite closely to detect more than passing mentions of the program. The program was during the Devotional with Elder Richard G. Scott which included a question-and-answer session. Craig Miller of FamilySearch was very particular that future developments in New FamilySearch would include the ability to edit information and to mark preferential family lines.
Presently, the program has no way of marking data which is questionable. This is especially true since the discontinuance of the dispute function. If you disagree with the entries accuracy you can begin a new discussion under the Discussion tab, but there is really nothing in the program that allows you to make changes or to indicate that the information is incorrect unless someone happens to read your discussion. There is also no external notification that a discussion has been started.
In the meantime, while we wait for the changes to come to New FamilySearch, any movement towards recognizing inaccurate, incomplete, or misplaced data would be much appreciated by some of the user (probably not those who don't recognize the problems).
In the meantime, a glimmer of relief came from an entirely different direction. Another class at RootsTech on updates from Legacy Family Tree by Goeff Rasmussen, caused me to take the time to check out the new update to Legacy Family Tree, which is even newer that the last new update that I wrote about. This post like the last one focuses on the update to the interface between New FamilySearch and Legacy Family Tree.
Legacy introduced the initial part of their interface with New FamilySearch last year and the updates this year show that they spent time looking at the other implementations of the interface and learned from their competitors. One of the first things that I noticed, having worked with the other programs, is that Legacy keeps a copy of your login and password so that you do not have to keep entering the information over and over again. This may be a small point, but it avoids an annoying problem common with the other synchronization programs. It is my understanding, that the New FamilySearch program requires the re-entering of the login and password in order to preserve the security of the program. Legacy apparently keeps the record of the login and password locally in order to avoid the security risk but also avoids the repetitious re-entering of the information.
Legacy has added an evaluation function that is not as yet available in any of the other programs. Questionable data in the New FamilySearch program is marked or flagged in Legacy. Holding your mouse cursor over the flag gives you a brief explanation of what might be wrong with the data. Although the other programs that have developed synchronization to New FamilySearch show the duplications in the data, all of the duplications are shown with the same confidence level.
I found some of the flagged exceptions show in Legacy to be trivial. But the important point made is that there are real issues with some of the data in New FamilySearch and for the first time a program is attempting to alert an unsophisticated user to a problem. Even with these flags or markers, there are still major issues with the New FamilySearch data not identified or marked by Legacy. For example, New FamilySearch has six different christening dates for my Great-grandfather. The issue isn't the dates, it is the fact that in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which my Great-grandfather was a member, does not have an ordinance or function which could be called a "Christening." The Church does have an ordinance called Baby Blessing, but this is definitely not the same thing as a christening. This inappropriate data comes from the unfortunate fact that the original, now old, Personal Ancestral File program had a space for entering the christening data for every person and some people felt compelled to fill the empty space with a date and place without knowing what they were doing.
I certainly hope progress is made during the coming year towards correcting the data in New FamilySearch and I will be ready to report any and all changes.
Presently, the program has no way of marking data which is questionable. This is especially true since the discontinuance of the dispute function. If you disagree with the entries accuracy you can begin a new discussion under the Discussion tab, but there is really nothing in the program that allows you to make changes or to indicate that the information is incorrect unless someone happens to read your discussion. There is also no external notification that a discussion has been started.
In the meantime, while we wait for the changes to come to New FamilySearch, any movement towards recognizing inaccurate, incomplete, or misplaced data would be much appreciated by some of the user (probably not those who don't recognize the problems).
In the meantime, a glimmer of relief came from an entirely different direction. Another class at RootsTech on updates from Legacy Family Tree by Goeff Rasmussen, caused me to take the time to check out the new update to Legacy Family Tree, which is even newer that the last new update that I wrote about. This post like the last one focuses on the update to the interface between New FamilySearch and Legacy Family Tree.
Legacy introduced the initial part of their interface with New FamilySearch last year and the updates this year show that they spent time looking at the other implementations of the interface and learned from their competitors. One of the first things that I noticed, having worked with the other programs, is that Legacy keeps a copy of your login and password so that you do not have to keep entering the information over and over again. This may be a small point, but it avoids an annoying problem common with the other synchronization programs. It is my understanding, that the New FamilySearch program requires the re-entering of the login and password in order to preserve the security of the program. Legacy apparently keeps the record of the login and password locally in order to avoid the security risk but also avoids the repetitious re-entering of the information.
Legacy has added an evaluation function that is not as yet available in any of the other programs. Questionable data in the New FamilySearch program is marked or flagged in Legacy. Holding your mouse cursor over the flag gives you a brief explanation of what might be wrong with the data. Although the other programs that have developed synchronization to New FamilySearch show the duplications in the data, all of the duplications are shown with the same confidence level.
I found some of the flagged exceptions show in Legacy to be trivial. But the important point made is that there are real issues with some of the data in New FamilySearch and for the first time a program is attempting to alert an unsophisticated user to a problem. Even with these flags or markers, there are still major issues with the New FamilySearch data not identified or marked by Legacy. For example, New FamilySearch has six different christening dates for my Great-grandfather. The issue isn't the dates, it is the fact that in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which my Great-grandfather was a member, does not have an ordinance or function which could be called a "Christening." The Church does have an ordinance called Baby Blessing, but this is definitely not the same thing as a christening. This inappropriate data comes from the unfortunate fact that the original, now old, Personal Ancestral File program had a space for entering the christening data for every person and some people felt compelled to fill the empty space with a date and place without knowing what they were doing.
I certainly hope progress is made during the coming year towards correcting the data in New FamilySearch and I will be ready to report any and all changes.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Bound to Repeat
George Santayana, who, in his Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" could have been speaking about genealogy. During the time that I was reviewing my Great-grandmother's genealogical research, I found that she had repeated her research, over her lifetime, at least three times. She was a careful researcher and had extensive notes but the sheer numbers of people that she encountered in a research overcame her ability to keep track of what she had already researched. Although she lived a long time before computers became available, I firmly believe that she would've embraced them with enthusiasm. However, she lived a very hard life and work nights cleaning offices to support herself on a meager income and died long before computers became available.
Although today we have tremendous technological advantages and opportunities to support our research, we are still faced with the challenge of repeating research unless we keep adequate records. Yesterday, at the Mesa Family History Center I was once again reminded of this fact when I spoke briefly with one of my friends who was sitting at a table sorting documents and trying to figure out what she had done in the past. Upon talking to her, I determined rather quickly that she had no genealogical database program, not even Personal Ancestral File. She was relying entirely upon handwritten notes, family group records and miscellaneous copies of documents.
This may seem like an extreme case, but it is all too frequently found among genealogists who have ignored technology or simply not had the opportunity to become acquainted with what is available. In my friend's case, fortunately most of the information which he had originally compiled, was probably preserved online in the New FamilySearch program. But without reference to the online source and without using one of the easily available genealogical database programs, she would likely have to reproduce and repeat all of her early research efforts. I was on my way to teach a class, and could not spend a great deal of time helping her but assured her that she could contact me at any time for further help in getting her original work organized into a computer database program.
In a recent post, Randy Seaver of Genea-Musings divided the genealogical world into three categories: the traditional genealogy world, the online genealogy world, and the technology genealogy world. He estimates that 85% to 95% of all self-proclaimed genealogists still live in the traditional genealogy world. Although I may not agree with this high percentage, certainly agree that there are a large number of people involved in the genealogical process who are only vaguely aware of the technological resources available. It is also my experience that even technology savvy genealogists may be unaware of resources that are readily available on the Internet. But like my Great-grandmother, my friend, unless she takes the time and effort to computerize her investigations, may be doomed to repeat much of her previous work.
In contrast, to my friend, at the same time there were other patrons in the Mesa Family History Center, who were actively searching online and although they have been doing research for years, were finding new leads and answering questions in their pedigrees after having had a minimal amount of orientation to current online resources. Technology appears to be a challenge based on background, education, personal inclination and aptitude. I would not go so far but Donald Lines Jacobus in his book Genealogy as pastime and profession included the following quote from William Bradford Browne, who states that genealogy is a science "which requires years of preparation, and is only successfully acquired by a person naturally adapted to its study, and to whom its drudgery is pleasure and not work. It means the power to read or decipher ancient records, to understand their meaning, to read them with the understanding of obsolete meanings. It means a knowledge of law, sufficient to understand the why and wherefore of papers of a legal nature...It requires the intimate knowledge of towns, counties and states, so that the genealogist knows where certain records are at stated periods, and how these towns and counties have been divided and at what times...It requires the knowledge of the changes of the calendar from the old arrangement to the new."
The issue of background and capabilities goes to whether genealogy is inclusive or exclusive. Mr. Jacobus and his friend Mr. Browne obviously feel that genealogy is exclusive, reserved to those who have the native capability to ingest and analyze documents. Contrary to that viewpoint was the one expressed during the Devotional (Question and Answer Period) at the recent RootsTech Conference that would decidedly inclusive of anyone having an interest in and concern for their ancestors no matter what their degree of sophistication.
I think that there is a mid-road where both points of view can be accepted. Genealogy truly is difficult. It requires a large measure of experience and ability to research original source documents. For example, there is no question that in order to read an old will or deed you must have experience reading the handwriting, deciphering the law and understanding the cultural conventions of the time in question. It is understandable the the novice will view this ability as either difficult to obtain or not necessary. But we are a nation of immigrants and those who aren't didn't speak English either and it is almost inevitable that by going back in history you will finally get to something foreign to your own experience. In genealogy we are all beginners if we keep doing research. The only researchers who can claim comfort are those who specialize and do work for other than their own lines.
I think I better quit on this topic for a while. I could go on and on. By the way, part of this post was entered by speech recognition software, can you tell which part?
Although today we have tremendous technological advantages and opportunities to support our research, we are still faced with the challenge of repeating research unless we keep adequate records. Yesterday, at the Mesa Family History Center I was once again reminded of this fact when I spoke briefly with one of my friends who was sitting at a table sorting documents and trying to figure out what she had done in the past. Upon talking to her, I determined rather quickly that she had no genealogical database program, not even Personal Ancestral File. She was relying entirely upon handwritten notes, family group records and miscellaneous copies of documents.
This may seem like an extreme case, but it is all too frequently found among genealogists who have ignored technology or simply not had the opportunity to become acquainted with what is available. In my friend's case, fortunately most of the information which he had originally compiled, was probably preserved online in the New FamilySearch program. But without reference to the online source and without using one of the easily available genealogical database programs, she would likely have to reproduce and repeat all of her early research efforts. I was on my way to teach a class, and could not spend a great deal of time helping her but assured her that she could contact me at any time for further help in getting her original work organized into a computer database program.
In a recent post, Randy Seaver of Genea-Musings divided the genealogical world into three categories: the traditional genealogy world, the online genealogy world, and the technology genealogy world. He estimates that 85% to 95% of all self-proclaimed genealogists still live in the traditional genealogy world. Although I may not agree with this high percentage, certainly agree that there are a large number of people involved in the genealogical process who are only vaguely aware of the technological resources available. It is also my experience that even technology savvy genealogists may be unaware of resources that are readily available on the Internet. But like my Great-grandmother, my friend, unless she takes the time and effort to computerize her investigations, may be doomed to repeat much of her previous work.
In contrast, to my friend, at the same time there were other patrons in the Mesa Family History Center, who were actively searching online and although they have been doing research for years, were finding new leads and answering questions in their pedigrees after having had a minimal amount of orientation to current online resources. Technology appears to be a challenge based on background, education, personal inclination and aptitude. I would not go so far but Donald Lines Jacobus in his book Genealogy as pastime and profession included the following quote from William Bradford Browne, who states that genealogy is a science "which requires years of preparation, and is only successfully acquired by a person naturally adapted to its study, and to whom its drudgery is pleasure and not work. It means the power to read or decipher ancient records, to understand their meaning, to read them with the understanding of obsolete meanings. It means a knowledge of law, sufficient to understand the why and wherefore of papers of a legal nature...It requires the intimate knowledge of towns, counties and states, so that the genealogist knows where certain records are at stated periods, and how these towns and counties have been divided and at what times...It requires the knowledge of the changes of the calendar from the old arrangement to the new."
The issue of background and capabilities goes to whether genealogy is inclusive or exclusive. Mr. Jacobus and his friend Mr. Browne obviously feel that genealogy is exclusive, reserved to those who have the native capability to ingest and analyze documents. Contrary to that viewpoint was the one expressed during the Devotional (Question and Answer Period) at the recent RootsTech Conference that would decidedly inclusive of anyone having an interest in and concern for their ancestors no matter what their degree of sophistication.
I think that there is a mid-road where both points of view can be accepted. Genealogy truly is difficult. It requires a large measure of experience and ability to research original source documents. For example, there is no question that in order to read an old will or deed you must have experience reading the handwriting, deciphering the law and understanding the cultural conventions of the time in question. It is understandable the the novice will view this ability as either difficult to obtain or not necessary. But we are a nation of immigrants and those who aren't didn't speak English either and it is almost inevitable that by going back in history you will finally get to something foreign to your own experience. In genealogy we are all beginners if we keep doing research. The only researchers who can claim comfort are those who specialize and do work for other than their own lines.
I think I better quit on this topic for a while. I could go on and on. By the way, part of this post was entered by speech recognition software, can you tell which part?
Thursday, February 17, 2011
A return to speech recognition
At the recent RootsTech conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, I attended a class taught by Anne Roach of FamilySearch. Right off the bat, she inspired me to go back and take another look at speech recognition. Off and on over the years I have spent time trying to use speech recognition software to speed up my writing. Unfortunately, each time that I tried to use the software it turns out that the software was not capable of following my dictation without an unacceptable level of errors.
Because of the volume of writing I have been doing recently, I decided to give speech recognition another try. I researched the programs, looked at the reviews and decided to purchase one of the newer programs. I had previously used Dragon NaturallySpeaking and found it to be a very good program except for the limitations of speech recognition in general. This time, I decided to try the Macintosh version. The program is called Dragon Dictate and is based on the Dragon NaturallySpeaking model.
As I had expected, after receiving the program, I remembered that learning speech recognition software was very similar to learning an entirely new language. In this case, there are 184 pages of commands and instructions. Most of the instructions are fairly simple to remember but it is a challenge to learn to distinguish between the commands and the text you are dictating.
All of the speech recognition programs require a training mode, where the user reads a selection of text and trains the program to recognize his or her voice. It is critical to the use of the program that this training be done to the extent that the program needs to learn the user's voice or the speech recognition will be faulty. After spending a short time training the program, I decided to launch right into trying to dictate a blog post.
To my pleasant surprise, the program seems to work very well and is recognizing my speech without too many problems. The main problems seem to center around mis-recognition of the words and my inability to remember all of the commands. I would expect that as I studied the program and learn the commands that my ability to dictate will speed up considerably. What I also found previously, was that I had a tendency to use the mouse even though I was trying to dictate with the microphone. Learning the commands will probably eliminate nearly all of the need to use the mouse.
I also found that having a good quality USB microphone was absolutely essential to adequate dictation. Even though the program came with a microphone, I purchased a higher quality microphone almost immediately and noticed a marked increase in the capabilities of the program to accurately represent the text that I was dictating.
For individuals with handicaps or other challenges that prevent using a keyboard effectively, voice recognition would be an effective way to enter text into the computer. Any time you are using the dictation program, it is very important to watch the text carefully as it is entered by the program so that you can make corrections “on the fly.” It is apparent from the dictation which I have all already made, I will have to go back and do a significant amount of proofreading, which is not one of my strong points.
It is certainly apparent that speech recognition has come a long way since the first demonstration that I saw at the world's fair in Seattle in 1962. However, I don't think that the speech recognition program will help me think or do research any faster, as it appears that this blog post took just about as long as it would have had I typed out the text rather than dictated it through the program. My goal is to continue to use the speech recognition software and from time to time, I will give updates on my impressions of how my use of the program coming along.
Because of the volume of writing I have been doing recently, I decided to give speech recognition another try. I researched the programs, looked at the reviews and decided to purchase one of the newer programs. I had previously used Dragon NaturallySpeaking and found it to be a very good program except for the limitations of speech recognition in general. This time, I decided to try the Macintosh version. The program is called Dragon Dictate and is based on the Dragon NaturallySpeaking model.
As I had expected, after receiving the program, I remembered that learning speech recognition software was very similar to learning an entirely new language. In this case, there are 184 pages of commands and instructions. Most of the instructions are fairly simple to remember but it is a challenge to learn to distinguish between the commands and the text you are dictating.
All of the speech recognition programs require a training mode, where the user reads a selection of text and trains the program to recognize his or her voice. It is critical to the use of the program that this training be done to the extent that the program needs to learn the user's voice or the speech recognition will be faulty. After spending a short time training the program, I decided to launch right into trying to dictate a blog post.
To my pleasant surprise, the program seems to work very well and is recognizing my speech without too many problems. The main problems seem to center around mis-recognition of the words and my inability to remember all of the commands. I would expect that as I studied the program and learn the commands that my ability to dictate will speed up considerably. What I also found previously, was that I had a tendency to use the mouse even though I was trying to dictate with the microphone. Learning the commands will probably eliminate nearly all of the need to use the mouse.
I also found that having a good quality USB microphone was absolutely essential to adequate dictation. Even though the program came with a microphone, I purchased a higher quality microphone almost immediately and noticed a marked increase in the capabilities of the program to accurately represent the text that I was dictating.
For individuals with handicaps or other challenges that prevent using a keyboard effectively, voice recognition would be an effective way to enter text into the computer. Any time you are using the dictation program, it is very important to watch the text carefully as it is entered by the program so that you can make corrections “on the fly.” It is apparent from the dictation which I have all already made, I will have to go back and do a significant amount of proofreading, which is not one of my strong points.
It is certainly apparent that speech recognition has come a long way since the first demonstration that I saw at the world's fair in Seattle in 1962. However, I don't think that the speech recognition program will help me think or do research any faster, as it appears that this blog post took just about as long as it would have had I typed out the text rather than dictated it through the program. My goal is to continue to use the speech recognition software and from time to time, I will give updates on my impressions of how my use of the program coming along.
Backing up your genealogy files -- offsite storage
The term "backup" is high ambiguous. A number of genealogy programs, including the venerable Personal Ancestral File (PAF), have a file option called "backup" included in the menu. Although the term is used, choosing this option does not in fact make a backup copy of your data. In the case of PAF, the program makes a compressed copy of your file on the same disk as the original, unless you specifically direct the program otherwise. In my experience, those who use this command simply because they have been told to do so, rarely, if ever make a separate copy of their file on another device.
What is a backup copy of your file? As clearly as I can explain the concept, it is a separate copy of your data file on a completely separate disk or other media. When you create a new file in any program including genealogy programs, the program saves the new file to your hard drive. Unless you tell the program otherwise, the file is likely saved in some default location on your hard drive. Sometimes the programs save the file to a default "My Documents" file on Windows Operating Systems. Sometimes the file is saved into a file folder created and named by the program and located in the folder containing the copy of the program file. This is usually the case with Macintosh systems unless you have designated an alternative place for the file to be saved.
Many of the current genealogy programs have menu selections that allow you to designate where you would like your "backup" files to be recorded. However, unless you make this selection, the program will save files in whatever default location is set by the developer of the program.
This problem of where files are saved is not unique to genealogy programs. Normally, without intervention, all user created files, depending on the programs' defaults, will be saved in different folders on your hard drive. Word processing documents in one location. Genealogy files in another location. Photographs and other graphic files in yet another location. Before you can properly backup any part of your computer system, you need to get control of the location where your files are stored. It is very common for me to find genealogists who have several, sometimes many, copies of their data files all over their computer's file system. Often, they have no idea which of these duplicate files is the most recent and may have added data to different files at different times. Sometimes they are even surprised to find out they have duplicate files at all.
My method of solving this problem is to create one file folder, which I keep on my desktop level, where I save any and all my data file, from any and all my programs. This puts almost all of the data files in one place. There are a few exceptions with programs that will not allow their data files to be located outside of the same folder containing the program. If I cannot work around this problem, I make sure I am not using that particular program for the creation of any of my own primary data files, i.e. files I want to keep.
Backing up all of my data files then just involves making a copy of the singe data file (usually called "James" or whatever) onto an external hard drive. Now, in the case of my iMac computer, I use Time Machine which makes a complete copy of my hard drive many times a day. I use a 2 Terabyte back up external hard drive that can continue to keep the updated copies for many weeks and months back. In addition, I make another separate copy of the data file and anything else of value, on a different external hard drive. From time to time, I also make a backup copy onto a portable external hard drive and give the copy to one of my children somewhere around the country.
This last step is important. To have a true backup of you data, not only does the copy have to be separate from your main computer, it also needs to be offsite. If your house burns down or is broken into, you could still lose an onsite copy. Any time I do a significant amount of work, like hundreds of additional scans or a lot of writing, I also make copies onto separate computers in addition to the external hard drive backup. One of those is a laptop which I usually carry with me on trips. Just in case.
You could make a copy onto a flash drive. In my case, my files exceed the size of the largest currently available flash drive. But in your case, you may be able to use a flash drive. But I suggest also making a copy on an external hard drive and don't forget to store a recent copy with a friend or relative. (Good friend and good relative).
Some people suggest storing your data online. I am not really happy with that idea. In my case that type of storage would be relatively expensive in both money and time. I am not convinced that any one of the online storage companies will be there functioning in three or five years, so I am reticent about using online storage. It is a viable option, if you also have a local and offsite copy of all of your data.
Some people use safety deposit boxes. I don't. As a probate attorney, I have handled many, many probate cases and had a significant number of problems gaining access to safety deposit boxes. Also, because of the difficulty of gaining access to the safety deposit boxes, you are not as likely to make incremental backups. I suggest that because of data migration issues and accessibility, safety deposit boxes would not be my first (or second, or third) choice.
Whenever you make a copy of your files. Make sure the copy is able to be used and open. I am also skeptical of compressed files. With cheap storage readily available, there are no longer practical reasons for backing up files in a compressed format. There are still programs, such as PAF, that use a compressed file format for their "backup" files. I do not like this idea because over time the program that makes the compressed file, like Windows Zip, will change and may not work to unzip the files.
All computer storage is dynamic, that is, subject to change. I will address the issue of file migration in a subsequent post.
What is a backup copy of your file? As clearly as I can explain the concept, it is a separate copy of your data file on a completely separate disk or other media. When you create a new file in any program including genealogy programs, the program saves the new file to your hard drive. Unless you tell the program otherwise, the file is likely saved in some default location on your hard drive. Sometimes the programs save the file to a default "My Documents" file on Windows Operating Systems. Sometimes the file is saved into a file folder created and named by the program and located in the folder containing the copy of the program file. This is usually the case with Macintosh systems unless you have designated an alternative place for the file to be saved.
Many of the current genealogy programs have menu selections that allow you to designate where you would like your "backup" files to be recorded. However, unless you make this selection, the program will save files in whatever default location is set by the developer of the program.
This problem of where files are saved is not unique to genealogy programs. Normally, without intervention, all user created files, depending on the programs' defaults, will be saved in different folders on your hard drive. Word processing documents in one location. Genealogy files in another location. Photographs and other graphic files in yet another location. Before you can properly backup any part of your computer system, you need to get control of the location where your files are stored. It is very common for me to find genealogists who have several, sometimes many, copies of their data files all over their computer's file system. Often, they have no idea which of these duplicate files is the most recent and may have added data to different files at different times. Sometimes they are even surprised to find out they have duplicate files at all.
My method of solving this problem is to create one file folder, which I keep on my desktop level, where I save any and all my data file, from any and all my programs. This puts almost all of the data files in one place. There are a few exceptions with programs that will not allow their data files to be located outside of the same folder containing the program. If I cannot work around this problem, I make sure I am not using that particular program for the creation of any of my own primary data files, i.e. files I want to keep.
Backing up all of my data files then just involves making a copy of the singe data file (usually called "James" or whatever) onto an external hard drive. Now, in the case of my iMac computer, I use Time Machine which makes a complete copy of my hard drive many times a day. I use a 2 Terabyte back up external hard drive that can continue to keep the updated copies for many weeks and months back. In addition, I make another separate copy of the data file and anything else of value, on a different external hard drive. From time to time, I also make a backup copy onto a portable external hard drive and give the copy to one of my children somewhere around the country.
This last step is important. To have a true backup of you data, not only does the copy have to be separate from your main computer, it also needs to be offsite. If your house burns down or is broken into, you could still lose an onsite copy. Any time I do a significant amount of work, like hundreds of additional scans or a lot of writing, I also make copies onto separate computers in addition to the external hard drive backup. One of those is a laptop which I usually carry with me on trips. Just in case.
You could make a copy onto a flash drive. In my case, my files exceed the size of the largest currently available flash drive. But in your case, you may be able to use a flash drive. But I suggest also making a copy on an external hard drive and don't forget to store a recent copy with a friend or relative. (Good friend and good relative).
Some people suggest storing your data online. I am not really happy with that idea. In my case that type of storage would be relatively expensive in both money and time. I am not convinced that any one of the online storage companies will be there functioning in three or five years, so I am reticent about using online storage. It is a viable option, if you also have a local and offsite copy of all of your data.
Some people use safety deposit boxes. I don't. As a probate attorney, I have handled many, many probate cases and had a significant number of problems gaining access to safety deposit boxes. Also, because of the difficulty of gaining access to the safety deposit boxes, you are not as likely to make incremental backups. I suggest that because of data migration issues and accessibility, safety deposit boxes would not be my first (or second, or third) choice.
Whenever you make a copy of your files. Make sure the copy is able to be used and open. I am also skeptical of compressed files. With cheap storage readily available, there are no longer practical reasons for backing up files in a compressed format. There are still programs, such as PAF, that use a compressed file format for their "backup" files. I do not like this idea because over time the program that makes the compressed file, like Windows Zip, will change and may not work to unzip the files.
All computer storage is dynamic, that is, subject to change. I will address the issue of file migration in a subsequent post.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Online availability of records sweeps ahead
When I started posting online a few short years ago, it was big news in the Blogging community every time another large collection of records went online. Lately, posting records online has become so common that when huge collections are posted, there is hardly any notice. If there is one technological change that is affecting the way we do genealogy more than any other, it is the increased availability of online original source material. It is further apparent from comments to my last post that there are a significant number of genealogists out there who are not only unaware of the records being added but are resentful of the changes these huge databases make necessary. I will do a post in the near future on how to some degree advances in the availability of online genealogical records is driving some of the technological advances.
I decided to do a review of some of the larger websites that are continually adding content, mostly of original sources, every day, day after day. These are not in any order but collectively have accumulated a tremendous number of files, records, individuals or however they account for their records online. If you haven't checked some of these sites recently, you are going to be surprised.
For a very extensive list of online digital collections go to the Online Education Database. This is a very comprehensive list.
Here is a partial list:
Ancestry.com
There has not been a lot of fanfare recently about acquisitions by Ancestry.com, but the list of genealogy databases posted or recently updated is impressive. I am not sure if the link will work without a subscription, but the list includes some huge databases added just since the first of the year. The spectrum of types of additions is impressive, with everything from military records to New Zealand Electoral Rolls. There does not seem to be any way of determining the actual number of new records, but the list is impressive none the less. Ancestry.com is a subscription website.
FamilySearch.org
FamilySearch does keep a count of the number of records added and it appears that there were close to 200 million new records in January, 2011 alone with likely an equal or greater number to be added in February. The records added by FamilySearch are free and fully searchable. These records include many that have never previously been available online. The records are being added from scans of the 2.4 million rolls of microfilm in the FamilySearch Granite Vault.
Internet Archive
Not generally identified with genealogical resources, this huge archive has some surprising records, such as tens of thousands of census records from around the world. There are also increasingly a large number of personal records, journals, photos, movies and other records of every description and type. As with the other large record sources, additions are made frequently. At the recent RootsTech Conference, the founder of the Internet Archive, Brewster Kahle, announced an initiative to digitize the Library of Congress. If you didn't know, the Internet Archive has the complete U.S. Census with free access.
Google Books
The last time Google announced any numbers with respect to the digitized books in it collection back in October of 2010, the number stood at 15 million. Since that announcement, many more millions of books must have been added. A very rough search on the word genealogy returned 1,060,000 results. The term "family history" returns about 790,000. This site is one to be familiar with.
Washington State Archives
Although limited to records from Washington State, this free collection currently has 99,410,409 records with 30,593,695 online. Makes you wish you had relatives from Washington State.
There are many more sites that could be added to this list. If you have a favorite mega-library I have overlooked, please post a comment with a link.
I decided to do a review of some of the larger websites that are continually adding content, mostly of original sources, every day, day after day. These are not in any order but collectively have accumulated a tremendous number of files, records, individuals or however they account for their records online. If you haven't checked some of these sites recently, you are going to be surprised.
For a very extensive list of online digital collections go to the Online Education Database. This is a very comprehensive list.
Here is a partial list:
Ancestry.com
There has not been a lot of fanfare recently about acquisitions by Ancestry.com, but the list of genealogy databases posted or recently updated is impressive. I am not sure if the link will work without a subscription, but the list includes some huge databases added just since the first of the year. The spectrum of types of additions is impressive, with everything from military records to New Zealand Electoral Rolls. There does not seem to be any way of determining the actual number of new records, but the list is impressive none the less. Ancestry.com is a subscription website.
FamilySearch.org
FamilySearch does keep a count of the number of records added and it appears that there were close to 200 million new records in January, 2011 alone with likely an equal or greater number to be added in February. The records added by FamilySearch are free and fully searchable. These records include many that have never previously been available online. The records are being added from scans of the 2.4 million rolls of microfilm in the FamilySearch Granite Vault.
Internet Archive
Not generally identified with genealogical resources, this huge archive has some surprising records, such as tens of thousands of census records from around the world. There are also increasingly a large number of personal records, journals, photos, movies and other records of every description and type. As with the other large record sources, additions are made frequently. At the recent RootsTech Conference, the founder of the Internet Archive, Brewster Kahle, announced an initiative to digitize the Library of Congress. If you didn't know, the Internet Archive has the complete U.S. Census with free access.
Google Books
The last time Google announced any numbers with respect to the digitized books in it collection back in October of 2010, the number stood at 15 million. Since that announcement, many more millions of books must have been added. A very rough search on the word genealogy returned 1,060,000 results. The term "family history" returns about 790,000. This site is one to be familiar with.
Washington State Archives
Although limited to records from Washington State, this free collection currently has 99,410,409 records with 30,593,695 online. Makes you wish you had relatives from Washington State.
There are many more sites that could be added to this list. If you have a favorite mega-library I have overlooked, please post a comment with a link.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
FamilySearch hits a gold mine of luddite comments
When I wrote my Blog post entitled "The Deeper Meaning of RootsTech -- Modern Luddites Revisited" I had no idea of the gold mine of ludditic comments that lay right in front of my eyes. There are currently 553 comments to the December 13, 2010 post by Paul Nauta entitled "FamilySearch.org Website Changes - updated." The vast majority of these comments are revelatory in the depth of their angst over the change to a new website format that includes a huge amount of information, never before available. Here are a few of the more interesting comments with the senders' names omitted:
I cannot imagine what it is that some of these people are looking at? It could not possibly be the same website I get on my computer when I type in "familysearch.org." What do they think they were finding in the "old site" that they cannot find in the new site? The Ancestral File was and is a compilation of user contributed family trees. There are almost no sources listed and the information cannot be considered reliable unless the source is given. The same could be said for the entries in the PRF. Many commentators claim years of experience with the old site and claim "years of ease finding data," again, what did they think they were getting with the old site? Until the addition of menu links to the old FamilySearch Research Pilot and the Historical Books collection, there was virtually no primary information in the old site except temple ordinance records that have now been moved to the New.FamilySearch.org website. As pointed out above, the new site has a tremendous amount of information not available on the original site and now readily searchable.
I can only imagine the frustration of the FamilySearch team at reading this drivel in comments. Why are the commentators going back to look for information they apparently already have in their databases? Again, what are they looking for? Reading on down through the almost endless list of comments you would think that the updated website was difficult to use. It is not. Or that it lacked information. Just the opposite.
What this all boils down to is change. The old site, even though it lacked substance in the form of original source records, was familiar. On commentator complained that the Texas Death Records were not available on the new site. There are, in fact, three different Texas Death collections with one, Texas Deaths, 1890-1976 has 4,281,854 records. These records were not and are not available in any form on the old FamilySearch.org website. So where is the complaint?
Just for a test, I put in just the name of my Great-grandfather Henry Martin Tanner on the first page of the updated site. With just his name only, I found 26,714 results. However, the first record found was a link to his death certificate. With two clicks, I had a copy of the original Death Certificate from 1935. That was not even possible on the old site. How is this more difficult that the old website? I cannot imagine.
OK, I cheated. I used my Great-grandfather Henry Tanner. Let's try someone really difficult to find, my Great-great-grandfather on my mother's side, Samuel Linton. No dates, just a name. Here we go! Hmmm. This is more difficult than I thought. There are 5426 results. Maybe I should put in the fact that any event occurred in Ireland? (Where he was born). A few entries down the page, there was the entry for him in the 1900 U.S. Census living with his daughter, my Great-grandmother Mary L. Morgan with her two children, Linton and Harold. This record was and is not available in the old website.
Wait a minute, from reading all these comments this should be next to impossible to do what I just did. I must be looking for people who are too easy to find. Let's try someone really obscure. My Great-great-grandfather Ove Christian Oveson who was born in Denmark. If I believe the comments, it should be really, really hard to find him, since he was born in Denmark and all. Oh dear, there are 234 results. I don't know if I can stand having all these choices. Hmmm. I guessed right. This is turning out to be a lot more difficult than the other two. Oh, guess what. I just remembered, he spelled his name as "Oveson" with an "o" even though he was from Denmark. I was looking for "Ovesen." There he is in the old Ancestral File record. First up. No problem. Now what could all those detractors be talking about?
As Click and Clack the Tappet Brothers would say, "Now it is time to play, stump the chump." Can the new site really be this easy to use? Am I missing some deeper significance? Let's look for someone not even related to me. Somebody famous. How about Abraham Lincoln. I seem to remember something about him being in Illinois. Putting the name and place into the search fields I come up with 380 results. Being very lazy, I decide to add one more piece of information and see what happens. I put in that he was born in Kentucky. There is he is, with the indisputable fact that he had two wives, one of whom was named Ann Rutledge. (Do your history folks, this is getting to be a little bit ridiculous). The information on his marriage to Ann Rutledge comes from that reliable source the Ancestral File. I am glad all those commentators are satisfied with that source and didn't want any more sources.
I must being doing something wrong. How could I find all these names so easily in such a rotten database? Now here is the real test. Can I find Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 U.S. Census? This time I am going to the Historical Records Collections directly. I click on Canada, US and Mexico and get a list of collections. I click again, this time on dates from 1850 to 1899. I scroll down the page. (Wait a minute. I just realized the problem. All of these people do not know how to scroll! Hmm. That must be it). I find the U.S. Census for 1860 and put in the name Abraham Lincoln (actually quite a common name). I also add Illinois as a place. What a surprise. He comes up as the second entry.
So far, I haven't been able to see what all the fuss is about. Every person I have looked for has come up as one of the first few hits. Everyone. I must be doing something very wrong.
I cannot for the life of me find the difficulty or complication. Each time all I did was put in a name and records came right up. What do the records need to do? Wave a flag and shout?
With all that ire and venom directed at the updated website, there must be a deeper problem. Something I have overlooked in finding my ancestors and other people so easily. What could it be? Someone, anyone out there in the cyber world, let me know what I am missing. Why do I think the updated FamilySearch website is ridiculously easy to use? There must be something wrong with the way I am searching, maybe it is because I am trying with unique names like Ove Oveson or Abraham Lincoln? Anybody got any ideas?
Who are these people who take the time to write incomprehensible complaints about a program that is this easy to use and so full of information?
One more quote before I go, "This is not as user friendly as the last site, I hope that it gets changes back very soon I can not find anything." Who are these people? Where did this stuff come from?
- Everything is now so complicated, for instance why not say HOME at he top of the page instead of a picture of a tree?
- I need sites that dont have to be redone all the time.Any ideas? [typos in the original]
- This is terrible I cant find my previous information or even know how to navigate this updated site.
- Please give us the old system back, this new site is unusable.
- My job of helping others with their research has been complicated by the changes in this web site. What may seem easy to use by the originators, but it is NOT to the average individual or me, who is an experienced researcher and user of your past sites.
- This site is SOOOO frustrating.....and my computer, brand new and fast, absolutly hates it. [typos in the original]
- Why fix something that was not broken? I was just learning the old system and was very pleased with it. It was fantastic.
- Just awful Everything I loved about the old site is now gone
I cannot imagine what it is that some of these people are looking at? It could not possibly be the same website I get on my computer when I type in "familysearch.org." What do they think they were finding in the "old site" that they cannot find in the new site? The Ancestral File was and is a compilation of user contributed family trees. There are almost no sources listed and the information cannot be considered reliable unless the source is given. The same could be said for the entries in the PRF. Many commentators claim years of experience with the old site and claim "years of ease finding data," again, what did they think they were getting with the old site? Until the addition of menu links to the old FamilySearch Research Pilot and the Historical Books collection, there was virtually no primary information in the old site except temple ordinance records that have now been moved to the New.FamilySearch.org website. As pointed out above, the new site has a tremendous amount of information not available on the original site and now readily searchable.
I can only imagine the frustration of the FamilySearch team at reading this drivel in comments. Why are the commentators going back to look for information they apparently already have in their databases? Again, what are they looking for? Reading on down through the almost endless list of comments you would think that the updated website was difficult to use. It is not. Or that it lacked information. Just the opposite.
What this all boils down to is change. The old site, even though it lacked substance in the form of original source records, was familiar. On commentator complained that the Texas Death Records were not available on the new site. There are, in fact, three different Texas Death collections with one, Texas Deaths, 1890-1976 has 4,281,854 records. These records were not and are not available in any form on the old FamilySearch.org website. So where is the complaint?
Just for a test, I put in just the name of my Great-grandfather Henry Martin Tanner on the first page of the updated site. With just his name only, I found 26,714 results. However, the first record found was a link to his death certificate. With two clicks, I had a copy of the original Death Certificate from 1935. That was not even possible on the old site. How is this more difficult that the old website? I cannot imagine.
OK, I cheated. I used my Great-grandfather Henry Tanner. Let's try someone really difficult to find, my Great-great-grandfather on my mother's side, Samuel Linton. No dates, just a name. Here we go! Hmmm. This is more difficult than I thought. There are 5426 results. Maybe I should put in the fact that any event occurred in Ireland? (Where he was born). A few entries down the page, there was the entry for him in the 1900 U.S. Census living with his daughter, my Great-grandmother Mary L. Morgan with her two children, Linton and Harold. This record was and is not available in the old website.
Wait a minute, from reading all these comments this should be next to impossible to do what I just did. I must be looking for people who are too easy to find. Let's try someone really obscure. My Great-great-grandfather Ove Christian Oveson who was born in Denmark. If I believe the comments, it should be really, really hard to find him, since he was born in Denmark and all. Oh dear, there are 234 results. I don't know if I can stand having all these choices. Hmmm. I guessed right. This is turning out to be a lot more difficult than the other two. Oh, guess what. I just remembered, he spelled his name as "Oveson" with an "o" even though he was from Denmark. I was looking for "Ovesen." There he is in the old Ancestral File record. First up. No problem. Now what could all those detractors be talking about?
As Click and Clack the Tappet Brothers would say, "Now it is time to play, stump the chump." Can the new site really be this easy to use? Am I missing some deeper significance? Let's look for someone not even related to me. Somebody famous. How about Abraham Lincoln. I seem to remember something about him being in Illinois. Putting the name and place into the search fields I come up with 380 results. Being very lazy, I decide to add one more piece of information and see what happens. I put in that he was born in Kentucky. There is he is, with the indisputable fact that he had two wives, one of whom was named Ann Rutledge. (Do your history folks, this is getting to be a little bit ridiculous). The information on his marriage to Ann Rutledge comes from that reliable source the Ancestral File. I am glad all those commentators are satisfied with that source and didn't want any more sources.
I must being doing something wrong. How could I find all these names so easily in such a rotten database? Now here is the real test. Can I find Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 U.S. Census? This time I am going to the Historical Records Collections directly. I click on Canada, US and Mexico and get a list of collections. I click again, this time on dates from 1850 to 1899. I scroll down the page. (Wait a minute. I just realized the problem. All of these people do not know how to scroll! Hmm. That must be it). I find the U.S. Census for 1860 and put in the name Abraham Lincoln (actually quite a common name). I also add Illinois as a place. What a surprise. He comes up as the second entry.
So far, I haven't been able to see what all the fuss is about. Every person I have looked for has come up as one of the first few hits. Everyone. I must be doing something very wrong.
I cannot for the life of me find the difficulty or complication. Each time all I did was put in a name and records came right up. What do the records need to do? Wave a flag and shout?
With all that ire and venom directed at the updated website, there must be a deeper problem. Something I have overlooked in finding my ancestors and other people so easily. What could it be? Someone, anyone out there in the cyber world, let me know what I am missing. Why do I think the updated FamilySearch website is ridiculously easy to use? There must be something wrong with the way I am searching, maybe it is because I am trying with unique names like Ove Oveson or Abraham Lincoln? Anybody got any ideas?
Who are these people who take the time to write incomprehensible complaints about a program that is this easy to use and so full of information?
One more quote before I go, "This is not as user friendly as the last site, I hope that it gets changes back very soon I can not find anything." Who are these people? Where did this stuff come from?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)