Expanded Commentary on the Rules of Genealogy: Rule Three

I published the first six Rules of Genealogy back on July 1, 2014. See "Six of the Basic Rules of Genealogy." This short list included the most famous and basic rule of genealogy: "When the baby was born, the mother was there." I added four rules in a post back on August 11, 2017, entitled, "New Rules Added to the old: The Rules of Genealogy Revisited." One more Rule was added to the list on August 2, 2018, in a post entitled, "A New Rule Added: The Rules of Genealogy Revisited Again." You can go back to these original posts to see my original comments and the entire list of Rules.

In this series, I am reviewing each of the Rules and expanding on the reasoning and background of each.

Rule Three: Every person who ever lived has a unique birth order and a unique set of biological parents.

This Rule addresses the challenge of adoptions, foster children, guardianships, stepchildren, and other relationships that may exist in different times and different cultures. You might not see the importance of this Rule unless you have struggled with the identity of an ancestor that may or may not belong in a family. In the recent past, this Rule has been reinforced by the ascendancy of DNA testing as an accepted part of genealogical research. Many of my friends and acquaintances have been surprised to find that the traditional view of their ancestry is not supported by their DNA test. This is particularly true of those who have discovered that they were adopted or that one of their "known" ancestors was not actually their genetic ancestor.

This Rule also implies the need to be acquainted with the changes in the laws of adoption over the years. Adoption in the United States can be divided into two major time periods: before and after the passage of the first modern adoption laws beginning in 1851. In both eras, the idea of protecting the child from knowledge of the adoption has, in many cases, made determining the ancestry of an adoptive child extremely difficult. For example, a tradition in my family was that a particular ancestor was "adopted." After searching for years, I found one church record with the notation that he was adopted. It was only with the advent of online digitized records that we found a likely set of parents for this individual. In this particular case, DNA testing was not reasonably available and in any event, an extensive DNA test among his descendants would not identify his parents.

Here are a few links to websites with information about the history of adoption in the United States. Adoption laws are likely unique in almost every other country in the world.

• What You Need to Know About the History of Adoption
• Adoption History in Brief
• A Brief History of Adoption
• History of Adoption Practices in the United States
• The History of Adoption

So why do we have to be reminded that every person has a unique birth order as well as a unique set of biological parents?

It is apparent from looking at online family trees that there are a multitude of "opinions" about the biological makeup of some families. Here is an extreme example from the FamilySearch.org Family Tree:

In this case, the list goes on. One of the entries here has the following:

You might look at the dates given in this particular entry. At least three of the children were born after the listed wife's death date. Rule Six is aimed at this common type of error. There is no reason to list all of these potential wives. Obviously, some extensive research is needed before the identity and relationship of these people can be decided. It might be interesting to note that many of the people listed have multiple record sources. 

There are multiple considerations that need to be taken into account before concluding that a child is the child of a particular set of parents. Fundamentally, the birth and death dates of the parents and date of the birth of the child should always be considered. Adoption may be more difficult to detect but continued research or in some cases, DNA testing, may indicate that a child was adopted. 

As is the case with all of the basic Rules of Genealogy, this Rule is a reminder that obvious relationships may not be accurate. 

Maryland: State Archives: Wonderful Local Sources for Genealogical Research

Maryland Hall of Records

My wife and I spent the last year (2018) digitizing probate records for FamilySearch at the Maryland State Archives in Annapolis, Maryland. Ultimately, those digital records will be available both at the Archives and on the FamilySearch.org website. If you want to have an in-depth view of working at the Archives, you can find that in my blog series entitled, "A Family History Mission." If you do a Google search for that title with my name, you will see almost 100 posts about our experiences at the archives. You can also see the following webinar on the BYU Family History Library YouTube Channel.

A Family History Mission: Digitizing Records for Family Search by James Tanner

While working at the Archives, I gained a valuable appreciation for the work of conserving and preserving important genealogical records. Our work at the Archives also gave us an appreciation for the difficulty of creating and maintaining a working archive.

https://msa.maryland.gov/

The Maryland State Archives is known as "The Hall of Records." It is located just outside of the historic downtown area of Annapolis, Maryland and adjacent to the United States Naval Academy in the Dr. Edward C. Papenfuse State Archives Building, 350 Rowe Blvd, Annapolis, MD 21401. The Archives features an active outreach program and is open for researchers six days a week except for state and national holidays. As with any government agency, it is best to double check if the Archives will be open before traveling to the facility.

We functioned as volunteers in the Archives and worked a regular shift of 8:00 to 4:30 five days a week. We were primarily involved in preparing individual documents for digitization and then digitizing those same documents plus digitizing large court record books. The focus of the FamilySearch digitization project was probate records from the Maryland State Orphans Court. The Project covers all of the counties in Maryland. Records from the individual counties were being transported to the Archives for the Project. The Project is designed to continue for many years. When we arrived, the Project had been ongoing for about five years and it will continue many years into the future.

Here is a short description of the records from the Archives' website:

The State Archives serves as the central depository for government records of permanent value. Its holdings date from Maryland's founding in 1634, and include colonial and state executive, legislative, and judicial records; county probate, land, and court records; church records; business records; state publications and reports; and special collections of private papers, maps, photographs, and newspapers.

We handled records dating back into the mid-1700s many of the earlier records have already been digitized. This brings up an important point about State Archives. When planning a research trip to an archive, take the time to do some extensive searching online before traveling to the physical location. The digitized records may be available online from one or more of the large online genealogy websites, or may even be available from the archives' websites by searching. The Maryland State Archives has an extensive catalog of records online but the vast majority of those records are only available by visiting the Archives building and asking to see the original records. Some of the digital records are also only available from computers in the Archives building. Another example of the need to physically visit the Archives is the fact that they still maintain a huge paper-based card catalog that contains entries by individual's names as well as by category of records.

Like many other archives around the country, the Maryland State Archives has a web page dedicated to genealogy or family history.

https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/homepage/html/family.html

The Archives' website also has links to their digital resources:

https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/homepage/html/online_records.html

There is also a valuable website about the online resources entitled, "Archives of Maryland Online."

http://aomol.msa.maryland.gov/html/index.html

My time working at the Archives gave me a graphic example of the reality of records searching in the United States. Despite the huge number of commonly available online records, there is still an unimaginably large number of valuable documents that can be accessed and viewed only by physically visiting the repositories. For example, the probate records we were digitizing contained comprehensive information about entire families, but this information is not likely available anywhere else and until all the records are digitized, there is still a need to look through the individual records even if at some time in the future the main entries are indexed. It is not likely that all the names in these documents will ever be completely indexed.

If you would like a good overview of the Maryland State Archives, you can see a number of videos on their YouTube.com Channel.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHfsJ4ZyklZTGKWshJDsemw

The Archives also has a continuing outreach program called Lunch and Learn.

https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/homepage/html/upcomingevents.html

As with every state archives, it is a good idea to spend some time getting acquainted with all the online offerings. 

Add The Family History Guide to your AmazonSmile Account

Here is a short description of AmazonSmile (Smile.Amazon.com):

AmazonSmile is a simple and automatic way for you to support your favorite charitable organization every time you shop, at no cost to you. When you shop at smile.amazon.com, you’ll find the exact same low prices, vast selection and convenient shopping experience as Amazon.com, with the added bonus that Amazon will donate a portion of the purchase price to your favorite charitable organization. You can choose from over one million organizations to support.

So how can you support genealogy with AmazonSmile? Simple. Designate The Family History Guide Association as the recipient. The Family History Guide Association is a qualified 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization and all contributions go to support The Family History Guide a free educational program for teaching and learning about genealogy. Your contribution can help you feel good about buying stuff on Amazon. However, if you need a tax deduction, the AmazonSmile contribution is not deductible to you, the money comes from the Amazon Foundation. But you can get a tax deduction by making a contribution directly to The Family History Guide Association.

Go to Smile.Amazon.com and designate The Family History Guide Association as the recipient. You will be helping to educate and support the thousands of users of The Family History Guide. If you are already a user of The Family History Guide, then signing up with AmazonSmile.com will help you pay back a small portion of your benefit from the program.

If you still have any questions, please review this page of The Family History Guide Association website.

https://thefhguide.com/about-assoc.html

Yes, I am the Chairman of the Board of Directors of The Family History Guide Association and my wife, Ann, is also on the Board. If you are attending RootsTech 2019 this next year, please stop by our booth and say hello or learn how you can maximize your effectiveness as a genealogist using The Family History Guide for free. The Family History Guide can only be free because of people like you who donate directly or indirectly.

thefhguide.com

What do you really know about your ancestors?

One of my main activities is helping individuals discover their ancestral past. I have found that this is best done on a one-on-one basis sitting in front of their computer (or one in a Family History Center) and systematically working backward in time looking at what is already recorded. Of course, I do find people all the time who have nothing recorded, not even their own parents. But usually, there is a place to start talking about who these people were who are called our ancestors. Almost uniformly, unless the person has been working on their own genealogy for some time, the person knows next to nothing about anyone beyond their own parents and from time to time, I find people who do not know anything about their parents, even their parents' names.

Why are so many people disconnected from their ancestral heritage?

My early years were spent in a very small town and I had lots of "relatives" that included uncles, aunts, cousins, and various other people who were supposed to be related to me in some way. As new people showed up at our house to visit or to talk to my parents, I was told that they were related some way. But until I got personally interested in genealogy, I really did not know who these people were or how they were related to me. Of course, there was always someone who could rattle off all the relationships, but I didn't understand who all these people really were.

I was married with a number of children before I began to unravel these relationships. In my case, because of our religious and cultural background, once I focused on the relationships, everything fell into place and I could visualize the relationships. But going to a family reunion can still be a challenge. When you get dozens of people together, all of whom are supposed to be related to you in some way, it can be a real challenge to keep everyone straight especially if you don't see or associate with these relatives on a regular basis.

But now let's move back a bit. One question I always ask prospective genealogists is the names of their grandparents and great-grandparents. If those names appear on an online family tree, they can read me the names, but otherwise, very few people know the complete names of all their great-grandparents and can tell me where they lived and where they were born without looking at some reference provided to them by someone else. If I move back one more generation, these people are totally lost.

If someone knows about a grandparent or great-grandparent, or even further back, it is usually the "surname line" that is well known. For example, if I quiz them about the identities of their great-grandmother's parents, they are totally lost. People usually do not know even the maiden names of grandparents.

Now, before you start getting all huffy about how you can name all of your ancestors individually back to Adam, I would suggest we go a little bit further and ask some more questions.

The crucial questions I always ask is where did these people live? When I ask this question, I am searching to find out exactly where they lived not just that they came from Georgia or Michigan or somewhere back East. The beginning of identifying your ancestors is learning about who they were but the beginning of learning about them and properly and accurately identifying them is learning about exactly where they lived. Yes, I do mean exactly down to the house or farm or tenement or village or town.

I start out with questions about where each of the ancestors was born. When I get a vague or missing answer, I know where to start in helping the person really discover their ancestors. Interestingly, many people get frustrated with my questions and say something like, well, its all written down right here or my mother knew all that so why are you asking me these questions? I guess the basic reason is that they are the same questions I had to ask myself many years ago when I got started.

Let me give an example. My surname family has a strong identity and tradition going back to my 3rd great-grandfather, John Tanner. I continually meet people who identify me as a relative by my surname. But if I ask these same people to tell me who their grandparents were going back to John Tanner, they cannot do so. They say all they know is that they are descendants of John Tanner and that usually ends the conversation.

Now, why is all this important? Because once some genealogists get started, all they do is collect names. I frequently hear about a genealogist who has added thousands of names to their family tree or even some who add thousands of names every year. How is this possible other than by collecting names like you would look at billboards on a freeway? Can you possibly remember or know who these people are as they flash by? How can you possibly know the accuracy of all these entries? Of course, you could just assume that everyone with your surname is related to you and add them willy-nilly to your family tree, but is this really genealogy? Is genealogy really a competition sport where the winner is the person with the most names listed?

So here we have two extremes: people who don't know who their parents are and people who have tens of thousands of "relatives" listed in extensive family trees. But guess what? They both have exactly the same problem. They know little or nothing about their ancestors.

Then there is the common response to this issue: why do we care? Why is family important?

I have spent a long time thinking about the answers to both of these questions and I have come to the conclusion that given our brief mortal existence here on this earth, family is one of the few things that really is important. Granted, I am a genealogist. Granted, I have spent a good portion of my life learning about my own ancestors. Granted, not everyone has the inclination, time, or cares to find out about their family but even if you just a soon not know about your family, you are still part of that family and they are a part of you and will come a time to all of us when all that really matters is our family.

If you don't know about your own family, fortunately, the tools to find your family are now abundantly available and they include DNA testing, online family trees that connect families, and many other wonderful resources.

I guess, when it is all said and done, that I keep going doing my own research and helping others with theirs for the simple reason that as I connect with my own family and see others connect with their family, I see how it changes our lives and how we view the world. Ultimately, we find that we are all related and that differences in race, religion, politics and other things really don't matter. We are all related.

But it does help to understand how we are related.

Why I Quote Wikipedia

Wikipedia.org

If you read any number of my blog posts, you may wonder why I use and quote Wikipedia. The answer to that question involves a number of levels of research and legal considerations which mostly revolve around copyright restrictions. The reasons I use Wikipedia also have extensive implications about why I use wiki-based genealogy programs.

Years ago, there was a controversy about the accuracy of Wikipedia and other wikis. The subject of the controversy was whether or not an online "encyclopedia" could be as accurate as a paper encyclopedia such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. The whole question seems a little bit ridiculous today since there is no question that Wikipedia has an unimaginable amount of information compared to the old paper-based encyclopedias. The real problem, however, was and is that the old encyclopedias were copyright protected. If you go to the Encyclopedia Britannica website I just linked to, you will see the copyright notification at the bottom of the page. In other words, the issue isn't just accuracy, it is primarily copyright protection. Wikipedia's Terms of Use require the information to be either in the public domain or under a free and open use license. It is as simple (and complicated) as that.

The greater issue of the accuracy of wikis is still a matter of some controversy. The wiki-type program implies and involves collaborative contributions that are freely editable by any registered user. The content is either moderated by some sponsoring organization or collaboratively watched and moderated by the wiki's users. There are also situations where moderation involves both the sponsor and the users. The larger genealogy community has a number of wiki-based websites such as the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, WikiTree.com, and Geni.com. There is some degree of hand-wringing among genealogists over the fact that wikis are subject to user editing. Although the mechanisms for moderation vary, the main idea of the wiki is that the users will correct any inaccurate information.

Unfortunately, there is a segment of the potential users of wikis that believe that they are inherently inaccurate, incomplete, and therefore unreliable because of this user involvement and the fact that the entries are not static but can be changed. Unknowingly, these detractors are simply expressing the same arguments and doubts about the reliability of wikis that were rampant during their early development. I have been addressing this issue for many years. For example, see "Can the FamilySearch Family Tree become an accurate master reference?" back in 2016 or another post entitled, "Is Wikipedia a Genealogical Source?"

If I were using a paper resource such as a printed encyclopedia and I found a mistake or inaccurate statement, there is nothing that I could reasonably do to correct the information. If I find the same type of inaccurate information in a wiki, I can research the correct information and change the entry and at the same time provide a link to the original source where I obtained the correct information. This is the real difference between the idea of paper sources and the malleability of wikis. In a sense, they are living, breathing entities that can evolve as new information and corrections are made.

Do wikis become more accurate or less accurate over time? There is an extremely extensive and important article in Wikipedia on the subject entitled, "Reliability of Wikipedia." I am not going to quote the entire article but I will point out that the article concludes that wikis and Wikipedia, in particular, are self-correcting and tend to become more accurate over time. There are currently 249 source citations to the article.

Back to the issue of the genealogical wikis. They are wikis. They will have a tendency to become more complete and more accurate over time. If you want to rant about the changes in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, read the above article on the Reliability of Wikipedia and look at every one of the sources before you make a comment about why you would never put "your" information in the Family Tree or any other wiki-based program.

The main issues with changes on Wikipedia revolve around controversial celebrities, political, and religious issues. These are areas of controversy in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree also, primarily with people who are "famous" or who were significant immigrants or other categories. Dismissing the Family Tree because of change is really putting your faith in a chimera. You could only dismiss a wiki program for accuracy if your own "information" was absolutely correct in all respects and you were entirely unwilling to share your information and you did not want to face the prospect that someone else may have information that is more correct than your own. When I get complaints about rampant changes on the Family Tree as the excuse for not participating, I simply respond that, yes, you do have correct errors, but that over time, the errors and changes diminish as the community comes to a consensus.

Genealogical research is always open-ended. There is always the possibility that one more document, record, or analysis will change an entry. Change is inevitable.

Genealogists are predominantly reclusive and claim ownership of their research and are thereby protective of that research. They are threatened by the possibility that their information may be lost but are frequently unwilling or unable to provide a clear way to share and preserve their information. Many genealogists are in the "I am going to publish a book about my ancestors" mode and some of them actually do publish such a book. Many of those who have published a book have stacks of copies of the book that they are trying to "sell off" to pay for the publication and cannot give away. Of course, not all genealogists fall into all of these categories, but I do not have to go far for examples. Professional genealogists are fixated on protecting their research because of their need to sell the results to make a living. Everything they publish must be tightly controlled and copyright protected and they are fierce in protecting their copyright claims.

All of the people with these attitudes towards genealogical research feel threatened by wiki-based, online family trees. They primarily object to and are threatened by the fact that wikis can be changed when the basic strength of all wikis is the fact that they can be edited and changed. They are also concerned that "their" information will be lost. As a side note, there is a lot of genealogical information out there on paper that needs to be corrected and lost. This fear of loss, however, does not extend to backing up their data or providing for its preservation when they die.

I quote Wikipedia for the same reasons I use the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. Ultimately, I trust both venues because my experience has led me to trust them. No, they are not perfect, but they can be corrected and ultimately, the information in them both will be preserved and corrected and become unimaginably complete. Like the quote attributed to President Harry S. Truman, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I would add and don't rant about the kitchen and those of us who can stand the heat. Our gain -- Your loss.

Jake Shimabukuro at RootsTech Salt Lake City!

RootsTech 2019 has announced another fabulous Keynote Speaker. Quoting, in part, from the announcement, "Jake Shimabukuro, will be the featured keynote speaker at RootsTech 2019 on Saturday, March 2 at 11 AM MST. Don’t miss this opportunity to hear Jake’s inspiring story and listen to this one-of-a-kind ukulele master musician play the instrument like you’ve never heard it before."

Unless you are from Hawaii, you may not be familiar with Jake, but the announcement indicates that his keynote will be very special. Again quoting:

Almost everyone in Hawaii has strummed a ukulele at one time or another. But at the age of 14, Jake Shimabukuro realized that he was doing something a little different with the 4-stringed instrument—OK, a lot different. Shimabukuro’s wholly unique approach to the ukulele started early. As a youngster growing up in Honolulu, Hawaii, Shimabukuro started playing the instrument after learning the basics from his mother, and then developing his craft. 

Shimabukuro’s records have topped the Billboard World Music Charts on numerous occasions, and as a live performer, he has become one of the hottest tickets around. He’s played with renowned orchestras and at prestigious venues such as the Hollywood Bowl, the Lincoln Center, and the Sydney Opera House. 

Shimabukuro is also a proud father of two boys. While balancing his career with family, he also remains firmly rooted in his commitment to community, frequently performing at schools in Hawaii and overseas, urging youngsters to find their passion and live drug-free.

Comments on The Future of Online Family Trees

My friend Tony Proctor wrote a thought-provoking post on his Parallax View blog entitled, "The Future of Online Family Trees." I suggest that you read the entire blog post. Although it takes a somewhat dystopian view of the future of online family trees, I think there are several issues raised that should be carefully considered by those who develop online genealogical family tree websites and those who use their services. However, my views do depart from those in the post in certain respects, especially with regard to the possible very positive future of online family trees.

As Tony points out, there have been many people who have written about the ills of online family trees, including my own efforts, but even considering past comments, this is a topic that has not really been thoroughly discussed or considered. My views on the subject diverge from those propounded by Tony, but it is only through exploring a diversity of views and then deciding a course of action that we can possibly alter the inevitability of a dismal future.

I would begin my own comments by noting that Tony's conclusions about online family trees fail to reflect the reality of the paper-based origin of those trees. The extant condition of online family trees is merely an extension of the pre-existing condition of the multitude of individually created genealogies. In fact, most of the original information on these family trees originated from the incorporation of the information from millions of paper family group sheets and pedigree charts. The failings of the online trees are merely the reflection of and a continuation of the condition of genealogical research since its inception. The main differences between the paper version and the digital versions now online are the visibility of the digital versions vs. the obscurity and privacy of the paper versions. All of the problems and challenges of the individual genealogies that Tony vocalizes have been present for more than a hundred years. If we looked at the issues he raises with the assumption that his observations were being made about paper genealogies, almost all the issues would still be evident.

Genealogical activity, in general, has a checkered past and truthfully, online family trees have not done much at all to improve the general situation. More genealogists should become familiar with the history of genealogy as a pursuit. I have only found one good book on the subject at least in English and it is not as well read or well known as it could be. See

Weil, François. Family Trees: A History of Genealogy in America. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674076341.

If you do some superficial research and tell someone they are related to royalty, they will believe it without any substantial proof. That fact is at the heart of most of the ills of genealogy.

So what do electronic, digital, online family trees add to the issues of varying degrees of accuracy, historicity, and completeness? Not much really as it pertains to accuracy, historicity, and completeness. The problem of multiple copies of inaccurate information is not unique to digital copies. Long before the internet, for example, my relatives were copying verbatim errors made over 100 years ago in a published genealogy about the predecessors of the Tanner family. Those errors did migrate to the digital venue but now that there exists such a venue, there is a way to communicate to a greater number of people and in many cases, at least for those who are willing to look online, correct the errors of the past. Before online family trees existed, there was no way for me or anyone else to even know about the contents of those paper-based documents. If my cousin had an incorrect entry on his own family group record, how would I even know that fact and further, how could I communicate with him and help him correct the information? In most cases, I did not even know the cousin existed.

Tony does not seem to think that by having a collaborative environment that the product of the interaction between individuals can result in a greater degree of accuracy and completeness. Here is where our opinions diverge. After years of working on the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, for example, I have seen tremendous strides in the correction of vast amounts of data and the addition of blog post information and narratives and serious evaluations. All of these include write-ups of research and analysis of the problems. Granted, there is a long way to go, but what I am seeing is that the collaborative nature of the Family Tree has provided both a venue and a forum for the possible solution of the very problems so well pointed out and discussed in the blog post.

The comments made in the post seem to include wiki-based family trees in the general category of incomplete and inaccurate collaborative family trees. In the past, I have written a lot about the nature of wikis and whether or not they can produce accurate and complete information. To some extent, because of the success of Wikipedia and other wikis, I think this is a dead issue. There is still some considerable resistance to the use of wikis as a source in academic circles, but time has shown that the information contained in wikis does become more accurate and complete over time. So why should wiki-based online family trees be categorized as a "dead end" to incorporating accurate genealogical information? Granted, there needs to be a certain amount of review and moderation, but that comes with time and the whole genus of online family trees is only in its infancy.

In my opinion, Tony is correct in his assessment of the impact of DNA testing on genealogy. It is certain that DNA tests can assist in reinforcing accurate research but it is also true that absent accurate research, DNA testing a far more limited than it is portrayed in the advertisements and claims made by those who benefit monetarily from those same tests.

Right now, one of the greatest challenges is to enhance the ability of good data to be transferred between family trees and restrict the transmission of garbage. In effect, except for their visibility, I cannot really see any way to improve in the myriad of individual family trees online. In fact, I uniformly ignore them. But were there efficient ways to capture well-developed information, it would help to augment the need for extensive personal research.

One point made by the blog post that most heartedly agrees with is the need for a ranking function for all of the family trees. I have advocated for this for many years. It could be stars or numbers or whatever, but all of the entries in all of the online need some sort of ranking that indicates the degree of accuracy. Some websites do rank their opinion of the usefulness of data sources, but what is needed is a ranking system for individual entries. We have online ranking systems for almost everything from soup to nuts, so why not extend that to genealogical entries. For example, if we had something like the following:

Ranked this entry for
Completeness [up to five stars with one star being low]
Reliability [up to five stars with one star being low]
Accuracy [up to five stars with one star being low]
etc.

This would go a long way towards making family trees more reliable and at least give us a consensus of the reliability and completeness of the entries. We could also add a "review" such as "Tell us why you marked this entry with one star" etc. If we can use this system to evaluate purchases online, why not genealogical "purchases" from family trees also?

I am sure that the ranking system would make some people discouraged and hurt feelings and some commercial genealogy websites would probably not want their customers to find out that what they had online was junk and this might be a reason why it will never be implemented, but we can all use our own star system of evaluating what is and what is not a good online family tree. Maybe we could extend our star system to blog posts. In that case, I would be able to give Tony five stars and a good review and if I got enough one-star posts myself, I could finally justify quitting and stop compulsively writing almost every day of my life.

The national and international news has had a lot of references lately to "false news." Isn't the issue of copying false or inaccurate family tree information the same issue? Solve false news and you might be able to solve false family trees.

Tony writes as a part of The Family History Information Standards Organisation (FHISO). I have long been in favor of the goals of this organization. Family History, in general, certainly needs some standards and as applied to online and desktop family history websites and programs, the need is even greater. However, given the recent past, it is unlikely that such standards will be adopted anytime soon. Part of the original discussion involved the use of GEDCOM as a standard method for transferring data between genealogy programs, but the with the advent of the internet and online trees, that problem has escalated to unimaginable proportions. I currently find little, if any, interest in the issues and problems.

Thanks to Tony for bringing up the issue once again.