How do the search engines stack up?

It has been a considerable time since I last wrote about search engines. The idea is to compare the various search engines with a partially random search and compare their individual results. There has been a lot of water under the bridge, genealogically speaking, since my last post on this subject. According to Google Trends, "genealogy" as a search term has continued its decline.

Although the implications of this dramatic decline may be controversial, there is an overall indication that searching generally for genealogical subjects is not as common as it once was. In previous search tests, I have used the name of my Great-grandfather, Henry Martin Tanner. But in the last test, I changed to another ancestor. I decided to use the name of my paternal grandfather, Leroy Parkinson Tanner (b. 1895, d. 1944). There should be far fewer responses for Leroy than for Henry Tanner than for his father, Henry Martin Tanner.

Most genealogists find themselves using the Internet frequently in their research. Although from the response I receive in my classes during the week, I suspect that few of them use more than whatever default search engine they have selected.

There are several websites that highlight the top 10 or the top 15 most popular search engines. The variety is interesting. For example some lists include Baidu, the popular Chinese search engine, others include DuckDuckGo. Whatever the makeup of the list, the top spot is always occupied by Google. Included in the top 4 are Yahoo, Bing, and Ask. The number five position seems to be up for grabs. By Alexa.com rank, number 5 would be DuckDuckGo but AOL appears in several of the lists. I am going to rule out Baidu simply because I do not read Chinese. Here is my list for comparison. If you want to see how any of the other popular search engines stack up, you are more than welcome to run your own tests.

• Google.com
• Bing.com
• Yahoo.com
• AOL.com
• Ask.com
• Excite.com
• DuckDuckGo.com
• Lycos.com
• Dogpile.com

The difference in the number of visitors per month between these various search engines varies by a factor of 100. For example, Google has over 100 times the number of visitors than Dogpile.com.

I always suggest that researchers check out the name of any ancestor they are researching using a Google search before spending any more time looking online. A quick search using a variety of terms will give you an immediate idea of how much information there may be online about your ancestor and whether or not anyone else has posted any pertinent information.

Here is my initial search term. The quotation marks are included, by the way.

"Leroy Parkinson Tanner" Arizona

Here are the rough results of a search in each of the above search engines:

• Google.com -- 519 results and it appears that all of them are my grandfather.
• Bing.com -- 8 results.
• Yahoo.com -- 29,800 results, but it appears that the search results include references to Parkinson's disease. By the second page of results, the responses are certainly not my Grandfather and it also appears that the search has ignored the quotation marks altogether. I counted 19 pertinent responses until the list got more and more off topic.
• AOL.com -- 10 results. It looks like to me that people using the alternative search engines are more interested in news and sports than searching.
• Ask.com -- 9 results mixed in with random other responses on two pages.
• Excite.com -- Something over 20, but the responses were so random it was difficult to tell how many were pertinent and how many were not. 
• DuckDuckGo.com -- 36 results, but they were all on target. This site also did not have a huge number of ads and extraneous information such as links to Parkinson's disease. 
• Lycos.com -- Something over 30 mingled in with non-pertinent results. But we are back to obvious, saturated advertising. 
• Dogpile.com -- Almost identical to Lycos.com, probably just over 30 pertinent results mixed in with Parkinson's disease and other, mostly advertising, links. 

Actually, the results have been utterly consistent over the years I have been running this simple test. There is a lot of extraneous noise from most of the websites. 

To give some idea of the actual number of online records for Leroy Parkinson Tanner, I did a search for his name in the FamilySearch.org Historical Records Collections and found nine records. But by "matching exactly" his name, the number dropped to two. I might mention that I see 41 sources attached to the FamilySearch.org Family Tree for Leroy.

In my search on Ancestry.com, I found about 30 records, including the ones I had already attached as sources. Most of these were photos.  

I guess there might be some arguments about the validity of this kind of test. I realize that there are some extremely sophisticated techniques that can increase specific accuracy including, but not limited, to using Boolean Operators and other techniques. But once again, I am doing all my searches with Google. I see no reason to bother with the others. 

MyHeritage.com launches Search Connect™

Search Connect™ from MyHeritage.com is a new collaborative technology. Quoting from the press release:

MyHeritage Adds New Collaboration Technology to its Search Engine for Family History BreakthroughsSearch Connect™ converts users' searches into results for other users, connecting people who are looking for the same ancestors and fostering collaboration TEL AVIV, Israel & LEHI, Utah, November, 2015 - MyHeritage, the fastest-growing destination for discovering, preserving and sharing family history, unveiled today an innovation that fosters collaboration in family history research. Search Connect™ enables users to easily find others who are looking for the same ancestors or relatives, and get in touch with them.
 Search Connect™ includes millions of searches made by MyHeritage members. Each search is indexed along with the full metadata (dates, places, relatives and more) included in the user's query. When another user searches for similar information, previous searches are included within the results, along with the means to get in touch with the users who conducted them.

MyHeritage conceived the Search Connect™ innovation in April 2012 when it launched SuperSearch™ its search engine for historical records. SuperSearch™ has since grown at a phenomenal pace to include 6.2 billion historical records, and Search Connect™ has amassed more than 30 million entries from searches for rare names. The size of the collection will continue to increase as users conduct new searches. Users can easily opt out and turn off the feature if they do not want MyHeritage to record their searches.
 Search Connect™ is complemented by MyHeritage's new Global Name Translation™ technology, which allows users to find other people who searched for the same name in another language. For example, a user from the USA whose last name is Mogilevsky who queries Search Connect™ to find potential relatives, will successfully find people who searched for the same last name in English, Russian, Hebrew or other languages and see who they were searching for. This maximizes the chances of locating previously unknown family members anywhere in the world.
View an example of SearchConnect™ with translation.
 “MyHeritage specializes in developing innovative technologies for family history discoveries”, said Gilad Japhet, Founder and CEO of MyHeritage. “We are particularly excited about Search Connect™ because it enables users to benefit from the knowledge of others. When searching for an elusive ancestor who had left no trace behind, Search Connect™ reveals other people who are searching for the same person, which is the next best thing. We anticipate that many of our users will discover long-lost family members thanks to this unique addition.”
Viewing Search Connect™ results is free. A MyHeritage subscription is required to contact other users.

Here is an example of a search with Search Connect™

For many researchers, the possibility of connecting with someone who is searching for the same names may be a substantial breakthrough. Look to MyHeritage.com for advanced searching technology.

Thoughts of a relative newcomer

As a relative newcomer to blogging and considering my background, it is quite evident that not only are my opinions in the minority, but I am certainly not in the pecking order to have any opinions at all. Far be it for me to rattle the cages of the lions of the genealogical community!

I may be a newcomer to genealogy blogging, but I started my technological experience back in the 1960s working on producing an electronic English/Shoshoni Shoshoni/English dictionary on the University of Utah main frame computer. This was when entering data was done on punch cards. I suppose that I do have a somewhat skewed view of the genealogical community since I, as a newcomer to genealogical research, I only started 33 years ago. Of course, at the time I started, I had only been frequenting libraries regularly since 1953. Likewise, my exposure to technology is limited since I only started an immersive involvement with micro-computers in 1975. My years owning a retail computer store and providing technical support to school systems and business hardly matter in this new world of the genealogical community. Of course, I have a limited experience also with the Internet since it already had 6 websites by the time I began using it extensively.

Of course, as a practicing trial attorney for 39 years, I had little contact with either opinions or technology. Oh, I forgot for the last 35 years we operated a computer-based graphics design and computer support business. But the fact that we produced everything from books to display advertising probably doesn't really give me any insight into technological changes even though I probably owned one of the first laser printers in Arizona and began programming in PostScript.

It is also evident that I am severely limited in the number of blogs I follow, so once again, my viewpoint is skewed and I am not yet in a position to have an opinion. Again as a newcomer, even though I realize that my opinions carry no weight, I return to my mantra: Some people eat, sleep and chew gum, I do genealogy and write.

Well, where would we be if we didn't have different opinions on a variety of subjects? Every day that I got up and went to court, I knew with a certainty, that whatever I said would be vigorously opposed by either the opposing counsel or the court. I am more than used to being told I am wrong and I am further more than used to getting up the next day and doing it all over again.

Stay tuned.

What is the future of genealogical blogs?

If genealogical blogging had a Golden Age, in my opinion, that Golden Age has now over. For example, in the past, bloggers have been featured as participants in many major conferences. There was a time when bloggers were prominently featured in national conferences. Blogging, like the Internet in general, was originally viewed as a non-commercial activity. As the commercialization of the Web quickly changed, some "bloggers" acting as entrepreneurs, began to reap the monetary rewards of popularity. Blogs became the basis for creating a big business focused around a blogging personality.

Most business began to incorporate a blog for promotional purposes. The incorporation of blogs into the constant stream of advertising has changed the way blogging is viewed by the public and also the part blogging plays in the greater genealogical community. This view of blogging became apparent when the traditional news media, i.e. newspaper reporters and TV crews, began to share the space formerly reserved for the "bloggers" at conferences. Blogging, even genealogical blogging, has become more about promoting business objectives than promoting individual participation in genealogy.

There was an important shift when this occurred. The genealogy bloggers, with a few notable exceptions, were unpaid and technically not employed by the traditional media. Their popularity alone made them a part of their participation in conferences. The idea was to use the bloggers' popularity to promote not only the conference but also the vendors at the conference. As a result of this commercialization, some bloggers were able to transform their popularity into a personal promotional businesses. Others, with no interest in that aspect of the blogging activity, kept on writing about genealogy. But now bloggers are generic. The fact that a blogger writes about genealogy does not mean that his or her posts are valuable for "media relations" even for genealogically related activities. In fact, the opposite is true. Many of the bloggers at major conferences have no association with the genealogical community, in fact, they are merely employees of various corporations and other entities. As purveyors of media contacts, they outrank genealogists.

As blogging became commercialized, the general public began viewing blogging as just another media outlet for news and commercial commentary. Almost all the blog posts I now see now are created by commercial enterprises. Today, blogs are also the new venue for press releases. Many current "news" stories now originate in blog posts. Commercial bloggers talk about product announcements and politics and promote business interests. Blogging has been moved from its "outsiders" status into the establishment, as part of the establishment's official media offerings. Many of the remaining genealogy blogs are focused on promotion of either a sponsoring commercial enterprise or another social entity, even if that enterprise is nothing more but the promotion of a genealogical "personality" to make money from books or to promote appearances at conferences.

It would appear that many bloggers began writing with the expectation that they would receive the same type of commercial and social recognition accorded the more prominent participants. Of course, I have been involved directly in commercial activities. I have written books and articles for which I have been paid. I have received stipends for attending conferences. I have also run "specials" for different companies that paid a "commission" on contacts. But my participation as been far from personally profitable. I certainly do not keep writing because I am paid. It is nice to get paid from time to time, but that has never been my primary motivation. I am certainly not writing this post as an "outsider" to the genealogy blogging community. I am pointing out that the number and frequency of the casual genealogical blogging has dramatically declined concurrent with the fact that the commercial aspects of blogging are growing more prevalent.

With the rise of commercial blogging, the social networking side of blogging has been preempted by other social networking entities. I have written some recent posts about the shift in social networking websites. One marked effect of this shift is an additional de-emphasis on personal, non-commercial blogging. Once the general public and particularly the genealogical community began to identify blogs with businesses and genealogical organizations, the attraction of the individual bloggers began to wane. Blogging has become like the coupon mailers. We examine the envelopes and only open them to quickly check the offers for ones that attract our attention. The rest go directly into the trash.

A few genealogy bloggers, those that have not moved primarily to Facebook, still keep a following solely as bloggers. But the number of readers is dropping for those who did not start out with a substantial reader base before the dramatic shift in blogging occurred. Those of us who write regularly have to examine our own personal motivation for spending our time writing.

I have seen a similar phenomena with online videos. This past week YouTube.com started a commercial, paid, video service called YouTube Red. Many of the videos on YouTube are blatantly self-promoting. We have also seen the creation of YouTube.com celebrities with millions of video views. My now adopted state of Utah has several international YouTube celebrities. The move by Google to monetized what has been a "free" service is similar to what has happened in the genealogical blogging community.

It will be interesting to see how blogging, and particularly genealogy blogging, evolve in the future. My guess is that no matter what happens, I will keep writing and be along for the ride. I guess I will eventually have to find a care center with high-speed Internet access.

When is enough, enough?

One suggested standard for genealogical research involves the phrase, "a reasonably exhaustive search." The question I pose involves not only this suggested limit to research but addresses the more general issue of genealogical limits as they apply to all phases of genealogical or historical research. When I begin to help someone with genealogical research, I sometimes ask them what they expect to find or achieve. I phrase the question like this, "What do you expect me to help you find today?" There is usually a followup question that goes something like this, "How much time are you expecting to spend today?" The answers to these questions give me a good idea about the scope and limits of what I need to do to help them find their family.

I think there is a much wider issue however. The wider issue involves the ultimate goals and expectations of the researcher. For those who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the goal is usually couched in terms of finding opportunities to perform Temple ordinances for their deceased ancestors. See also Baptism for the Dead. With the online research and record hint tools available today, this is goal that is often fairly easy to achieve.

But, I am focusing on the greater context of genealogical research as it applies to a more intensive and much wider investigation. One thing is apparent, many genealogists have not thought through what they are trying to accomplish. From my own experience, I would guess that during the first fifteen or twenty years that I spent accumulating information about my family, I had almost no concept of what I was trying to accomplish. I was too busy trying to organize and evaluate the mass of information I acquired and I spent very little time reflecting on what I was going to do with all that information, i.e. the piles of paper, that I accumulated.

Some researchers set a short-term goal such as compiling a book about a particular ancestor and his or her descendants. Once that goal is achieved, if it is, they are at a loss as to what to do next and many simply stop doing research at that point. I am certainly not criticizing that goal or any personal goal set by a researcher. I am simply asking the questions that need to be asked to focus genealogical research in a way that is productive. The real question is why am I still doing genealogical research 33 years (going on 34) after I started?

It would be simplistic to attribute the longevity of my interest solely to a religious motivation. If the religious motivation were sufficient, then many more members of the LDS Church would be actively involved in family history. During the past ten years or so, I have returned to the issue of motivation many times. I no longer worry as much about the ultimate goals as I do about the methodology for the preservation of the information I have already accumulated.

Let me give an example. During my years of research and accumulation, I have acquired several of my ancestor's original journals, diaries and other original documents. For the most part, there has been almost universal disinterest in these valuable artifacts. When I was much younger and as a child, I recall seeing other important artifacts that have long since been lost by the family. Diligent searches have not produced any information as to what happened to other missing documents and memorabilia. What produced this lack of interest on the part of the family members who most likely simply threw out the unwanted items? In fact, who accumulations of previous genealogical research have been lost or could have been lost had I not "rescued and preserved" the piles of documents and paper. Some of documents that were in danger of loss included historical letters and photos that were and are of general historical interest.

What motivates one person to preservation and another to disinterest? Why do I have piles of boxes of documents while other family members throw away even the limited amount of information they have about their family?

If we could answer this question, we could probably also answer the question in the title to this post. The limits you impose on your involvement in genealogy are highly personal. Some view genealogy as a profession and have the goal to "make a living" from their involvement. Their activities are calculated to improve their professional standing and the recognition, honors and rewards that come from personal achievement. At the opposite end of the spectrum, we find those whose interest in their family history seems to be entirely absent. They do not care enough to know anything at all about their own history.

I recently taught a very short class  about family history to a group of about twenty older men. There were only one or two of them that could recite their ancestry back even two or three generations with the exception, perhaps, of their surname line. General interest in families does not translate into interest in genealogy.

I suggest that we each examine our goals. My goals have evolved over the years and presently, my major goal is to organize and put online all of the information I have accumulated. Your own goals might be less complicated or more complicated, but I think that it is good idea, especially those of us who are older and have less time to change our goals, to spend some time making a plan as to how we are going to spend our genealogical time.

Do you ever have proof in a historical context?

Proof is a highly subjective term. I have been reflecting on my years of trial practice recently and this idea of proof keeps coming up in my thoughts. In the genealogical community, if you do a search on the terms "genealogy proof" you will find there are even a few books on the subject.

• Mills, Elizabeth Shown. Genealogical Proof Standard in Action How to Build a Case When No Record Exists. Arlington, Va: National Genealogical Society], 2007. See also, Genealogical Proof Standard in Action How to Build a Case When No Record Exists. Arlington, Va.; St. Louis, MO: National Genealogical Society] ; Jamb Tapes, 2007.
• Jones, Thomas W. Mastering Genealogical Proof, 2013.
• Rose, Christine. Genealogical Proof Standard: Building a Solid Case. San Jose, Calif.: CR Publications, 2005.
• Stevenson, Noel C. Genealogical Evidence: A Guide to the Standard of Proof Relating to Pedigrees, Ancestry, Heirship, and Family History. Laguna Hills, Calif.: Aegean Park Press, 1979.

When I was representing a client in a trial either before a Judge or before a jury, I would attempt to "prove my case." This involved providing testimony on each of the facts that were in dispute. I would carefully choose my questions and my exhibits (documents) to support my clients' view of the facts. I was required to do this by the Rules of Professional Responsibility or Conduct. Rule 3.1 states as follows:

Advocate
Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims And Contentions 

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

If the court decided in my clients' favor, then I won and "proved my case." But, wait. Then the opposing attorney could appeal the court's decision. On the appeal, the appellate court could reverse the decision of the trial court. Then I didn't prove my case at all and I lost (i.e. my clients lost). Wait again, its not over yet. Then I could make a further appeal to a higher court, such as the state supreme court (or in a Federal case to the U.S. Supreme Court). The Supreme Court could then reverse the ruling of the Appeals Court and I was back in the category of proving my case and winning for my clients. So I learned that "proof" was, and is, a very slippery term.

But according to some, we are supposed to gather our genealogical evidence and then use that evidence to prove our ancestry (or the ancestry of a client if we are being paid to do research). It is really comforting to have "proved" a certain family relationship, especially if the "proof" involves the use of DNA "evidence." Then we can write about our "proof" in a "proof statement" and follow the provisions of the "Genealogical Proof Standard." However, all this seems rather silly to me especially since I am so used to having proof be a very "slippery term." It reminds me of an oral argument I had before the Arizona Court of Appeals where the opposing attorney kept claiming that his client had proved their case in the courts below. The three panel, Appeals Court Judges, were extremely uncomplimentary in their questions and statements and tried to point out to him that the lower court "proofs" meant absolutely nothing when the case was on appeal. Of course, he lost his case and I won mine, but it was very uncomfortable watching an attorney be humiliated by the Judges.

So what do genealogists really mean when they throw around terms such as "evidence" and "proof?" They can't possibly be using the terms in a legal sense since, as I have repeatedly pointed out, there are no genealogical juries or judges and there is also no appeal to a higher genealogical court. There is an obvious reason why the so-called genealogical proof statements almost never get challenged: there is no one interested in your family history other than your family. At least there is no one willing to spend the time to go through the hoops to publish a rebuttal.

But it is interesting that such rebuttals do exist. I recall that for years and years I had a certain wife recorded for one of my Mayflower ancestors, Richard Warren. His wife had been "proved" to be Elizabeth Juett or Marsh. This was recorded in books published by the General Society of Mayflower Descendants (aka the Mayflower Society) in their books. Hmm. But in 2002 further "evidence" convinced the Mayflower Society that his wife's name was Elizabeth Walker after the discovery of the will of her father Augustine Walker. See Edward J. Davies, "The Marriage of Richard1 Warren of the Mayflower", The American Genealogist, 78(2003):81-86; Edward J. Davies, "Elizabeth1 (Walker) Warren and her Sister, Dorothy (Walker) (Grave) Adams", The American Genealogist, 78(2003):274-75. The "correction" was published as a sticker that was put in the front of the book about Richard Warren. See the following:

Wakefield, Robert S, Janice A Beebe, and General Society of Mayflower Descendants. Richard Warren of the Mayflower and His Descendants for Four Generations. Plymouth, MA: General Society of Mayflower Descendants, 1991.

Perhaps all of these genealogical proof statements are really just waiting around until someone spends the time and the effort to "disprove" them and replace them with more accurate "proof statements." By the way, if I argued to a jury in court that my client had "proved" his or her case, the opposing counsel would object and the Judge would tell me to rephrase my argument. The Judge would then instruct the jury that they were the ones to decided whether or not my case had been proved. All attorneys can do (and all genealogists can do) is present the "facts" and their arguments in favor of a particular decision. As I have now said twice; proof is a slippery term.

Some time ago, my friend, Tony Proctor, wrote a post on his blog, Parallax View, entitled, "Proof of the Pudding." This is a very good statement about proof and genealogy from a scientific standpoint. His post was written, in part, as a response to the books I cite above.

I fully realize that there is nothing I can write or say that will change the status quo in the greater genealogical community about the current usage of the terms proof and evidence, but I will still keep writing and talking about the subject, nonetheless. It would be really nice if all those practicing genealogy adopted a skeptical attitude towards all genealogical conclusions and the accuracy of all historical records, but that seems extremely unlikely. For the time being, we will still have people claiming that they have "proved" their ancestry and publishing their "proof" in books, journal articles and online family trees. We will also have a core group of "professional" genealogists that will continue to teach and preach proof and evidence to the masses.

The Status of Online Social Networking from a Genealogist's Perspective

I guess I should expect to get all sorts of business promotional requests on LinkedIn.com but I am getting really tired of the blatant pornography requests on Google+. In fact, I am about ready to close down the Google+ site altogether. People who show up wanting to add me to their circles who have no identifying information, few or no followers and a photo of someone who looks like a model are simply fraudulent. I am also getting tired of such requests that originate in the Middle East and appear to be solicitations from terrorist organizations. Mix this with programmers from India and you have a totally dysfunctional media outlet. Google+ was once a promising alternative to Facebook, but it has become almost useless.

We are now watching the rise of Instagram.com. It was once a quick photo site, but has evolved into a major media location for businesses and other organizations. The amount of advertising as increased incrementally with its popularity. I have tried not to use Instagram for genealogy and keep only a few contacts within my immediate family. Earlier this year as I have noted in previous posts, Instagram diverted most of my family from their blogs. Some of the family members who used to post on their blogs regularly, have now stopped and our major contact, other than Facebook, seems to be on Instagram.

Of course Facebook keeps rolling along. It has become a major source of genealogical news as well as the "go to" place to find out what is happening with friends and relatives. I am getting high marks on LinkedIn for Social Networking even though my only contact is through posting what I write on my blog. I have come to the conclusion that most of the people who read my blog, do so from Facebook. It is interesting that the RootsTech 2016 crew has decided to use Facebook as the primary media to communicate with the Ambassadors. It has also turned into a major advertising outlet with unsolicited posts. I stopped watching TV years ago and it wouldn't be too hard for me to stop any one of the social networking outlets. Of the available social networking websites, Facebook is clearly the leader in genealogy related material.

I am not sure that YouTube.com qualifies as a social networking website, but the genealogical content is massive. If you search for genealogy topics and genealogy company names and personalities in either YouTube or Facebook you will find a huge amount of information.

I don't have a dog or a cat or a baby at home any more and there are no plans for any of them, so don't expect cutesy post on Facebook from me. I also make it a rule not to pass on random viral posts, although I do post something unusual from time to time. You will also learn very, very little personal news about me or my wife from Facebook. I still like email and my blogs.