Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Various Solutions to Family Tree in the Comments
Just a short note, I have gotten a lot of comments about problems with logging in to FamilySearch's Family Tree program. It is apparent that there are some significant issues. But it is also apparent that many users are working through the problems with relatively simple solutions. I would suggest that if you have a problem, go back through the comments for the last week and I would guess that you will find a reasonable solution. Many apparent software bugs have some sort of work around. Some do not. It appears that these issues do have a solution.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Looking elsewhere for content on Ancestry.com
Just as with copies of the U.S. Census records, Ancestry.com, in many cases, does not have unique databases. It is important to know that many of the collections on Ancestry.com are in the public domain and copies, sometimes multiple copies, of the collections are available from a variety of sources. It would be interesting to know how many of the databases are really unique to Ancestry.com (or any of the other large online record repositories). Claiming that you have a huge number of records and therefore worth charging for is an interesting concept especially of some (many, all?) of them are available elsewhere for free.
Before I get into the issue of other record availability, I should note that Ancestry.com and other large online databases serve a valuable function of "one-stop-shopping," they are the large supermarkets and discount box stores of Internet genealogy. For some of the same reasons I shop at Costco, I also use Ancestry.com. Time is money and availability is valuable. This post is not intended to be a criticism of Ancestry.com, but an illustration of alternative availability for some of the records.
One other comment. You might find the exact same documents on Ancestry.com, freely available from other sources, but you should also be aware that there may be even more material than is in Ancestry.com outside of their databases.
Now back to the examples. If you dig down into Ancestry.com you will find a lot of very interesting collections. Ancestry.com has a general category of records called "Stories and Publications". In that category, they have a further category of "Stories, Memories & Histories." If you click on this link, you will get a further category called "Oral Histories & Interviews." A further filter lets you select a geographical area, such as "USA." At this point, you are down to 12 or so collections of records. The first one that came up on my search was 2,370 "U.S. Interviews with Former Slaves, 1936 -1938." If you read the description of this collection, you will see that it has the following description:
In addition to downloadable copies, this particular book is entirely searchable through the Library of Congress. Now, just because I can buy some of the things at Costco elsewhere does not stop me from going there to make purchases. But I may not want to drive all the way to Costco and it is always nice to know that I can buy the same stuff at other stores.
Another important note. The Library of Congress not only has the transcripts of many of the slave narratives, but it also has actual audio recordings of the former slaves. See http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/voices/
Here is another, but opposite, example from the next collection down on the list of the search I made above; Transcriptions of Ellis Island Oral Histories. Is this document available elsewhere? Well, they are available for free at Ellis Island, but I don't think I will be going there any time soon. This is a copyrighted collection (how that works is an interesting issue) and Ancestry.com seems to have a lock on the collection except for Ellis Island.
Is it worth looking elsewhere (or do I just get in my car and drive to Costco?) There are two points here; you should look for the collections' subject matter in other locations on the Internet and you should look for additional material about the subject, not in Ancestry.com.
Before I get into the issue of other record availability, I should note that Ancestry.com and other large online databases serve a valuable function of "one-stop-shopping," they are the large supermarkets and discount box stores of Internet genealogy. For some of the same reasons I shop at Costco, I also use Ancestry.com. Time is money and availability is valuable. This post is not intended to be a criticism of Ancestry.com, but an illustration of alternative availability for some of the records.
One other comment. You might find the exact same documents on Ancestry.com, freely available from other sources, but you should also be aware that there may be even more material than is in Ancestry.com outside of their databases.
Now back to the examples. If you dig down into Ancestry.com you will find a lot of very interesting collections. Ancestry.com has a general category of records called "Stories and Publications". In that category, they have a further category of "Stories, Memories & Histories." If you click on this link, you will get a further category called "Oral Histories & Interviews." A further filter lets you select a geographical area, such as "USA." At this point, you are down to 12 or so collections of records. The first one that came up on my search was 2,370 "U.S. Interviews with Former Slaves, 1936 -1938." If you read the description of this collection, you will see that it has the following description:
Ancestry.com. U.S., Interviews with Former Slaves, 1936-1938 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. This collection was indexed by Ancestry World Archives Project contributors.
Original data:
A Folk History of Slavery in the United States From Interviews with Former Slaves, 1936–1938. Vol. 1-17. Federal Writers’ Project of the Works Progress Administration microfilm publication SCM 000 320, SCM 000 321, SCM 000 322, SCM 000 323, SCM 000 325, 5 rolls. Library of Congress, Washington D.C.First of all, this is a document in the public domain as a U.S Federal Government publication. So does this document exist outside of Ancestry.com? A quick Google search on the name of the so-called collection shows that you can download a searchable copy of this publication in PDF format for free from many locations on the Web. See one example, http://manybooks.net/titles/wpa1944619446-8.html
In addition to downloadable copies, this particular book is entirely searchable through the Library of Congress. Now, just because I can buy some of the things at Costco elsewhere does not stop me from going there to make purchases. But I may not want to drive all the way to Costco and it is always nice to know that I can buy the same stuff at other stores.
Another important note. The Library of Congress not only has the transcripts of many of the slave narratives, but it also has actual audio recordings of the former slaves. See http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/voices/
Here is another, but opposite, example from the next collection down on the list of the search I made above; Transcriptions of Ellis Island Oral Histories. Is this document available elsewhere? Well, they are available for free at Ellis Island, but I don't think I will be going there any time soon. This is a copyrighted collection (how that works is an interesting issue) and Ancestry.com seems to have a lock on the collection except for Ellis Island.
Is it worth looking elsewhere (or do I just get in my car and drive to Costco?) There are two points here; you should look for the collections' subject matter in other locations on the Internet and you should look for additional material about the subject, not in Ancestry.com.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
How do you subscribe to this blog? And any other blog?
Subscribing to a blog or other website is relatively simple but the number of programs you can use to subscribe is really confusing. You may have a favorite blog authored by someone in your family or a genealogy blog such as this one that you enjoy reading from time to time. The trick is knowing when a new post is made to the blog. Enter programs variously called readers or aggregators. These are programs that will help you subscribe to blog post or new content in any other website and then present the new posts to you in the form of a list. There are dozens and dozens of programs that will do essentially the same thing; make a list of changes to any of blogs you are interested in reading.
Perhaps some definitions are in order. A blog is a usually small website put online by a single individual or entity. An entry on the blog is referred to as a "post" or article. Making a blog article available on the Internet is usually called "posting."Two of the most popular programs for posting articles to the Internet are Google's Blogger and WordPress.
When you subscribe to a blog or website, you are then "following" that site and become a follower. For example, at the moment I happen to be following 225 blogs and websites. My blog has two different sets of "followers" and the present total is 308 and 50. The number of followers is a rough indication of the blog or website's popularity. I say rough, because a lot of people read blogs without subscribing.
So how do I follow this or any other blog? The first step is deciding how you want to receive notices of new posts. Some programs will simply make a list of the new posts, others will send you a notification, either by email or on your computer screen, when a new post is made to one of the sites you are following. The next step involves choosing a reader or aggregator. One of the most popular is Google Reader. As I previously indicated, there are many, many others. Here is a Wikipedia articles listing a significant number. As you can see from the Wikipedia article, readers fall into various categories depending on the way they work and how they are supported. In fact, the reader I use now is not listed. I use Feedly. Which one you use is almost entirely up to personal preference. I was using Google Reader for a long time, but Google has discontinued their iGoogle page (or will in the future) and I thought it would be a good idea to switch now instead of waiting to change.
Once you have chosen a reader, it is time to subscribe. Most readers allow you to enter subscriptions right from the reading page. You can copy the addresses of posts or pages you want to subscribe to and paste them into the list. When you are on a website or blog of interest, you need to look for this symbol:
Clicking on this symbol usually takes you to a dialogue box allowing you to subscribe to posts in a variety of programs. This is the symbol for an RSS (or really simple syndication) feed. There is another common subscription utility called Atom or Atom Syndication Format. The Atom link may say something like subscribe with Atom or "Atom posts" or "Atom comments." Obviously, Atom comments means you are subscribing to comments and not the posts.
Once you have subscribed, the website or blog address and/or name should appear in your reader. You check your reader periodically and voila! there is a list of any updates to the sites you subscribe to.
Some of the readers, work off of Google Reader and are merely browser add-ons, others are stand-alone programs that work independently. Good luck and good reading.
Perhaps some definitions are in order. A blog is a usually small website put online by a single individual or entity. An entry on the blog is referred to as a "post" or article. Making a blog article available on the Internet is usually called "posting."Two of the most popular programs for posting articles to the Internet are Google's Blogger and WordPress.
When you subscribe to a blog or website, you are then "following" that site and become a follower. For example, at the moment I happen to be following 225 blogs and websites. My blog has two different sets of "followers" and the present total is 308 and 50. The number of followers is a rough indication of the blog or website's popularity. I say rough, because a lot of people read blogs without subscribing.
So how do I follow this or any other blog? The first step is deciding how you want to receive notices of new posts. Some programs will simply make a list of the new posts, others will send you a notification, either by email or on your computer screen, when a new post is made to one of the sites you are following. The next step involves choosing a reader or aggregator. One of the most popular is Google Reader. As I previously indicated, there are many, many others. Here is a Wikipedia articles listing a significant number. As you can see from the Wikipedia article, readers fall into various categories depending on the way they work and how they are supported. In fact, the reader I use now is not listed. I use Feedly. Which one you use is almost entirely up to personal preference. I was using Google Reader for a long time, but Google has discontinued their iGoogle page (or will in the future) and I thought it would be a good idea to switch now instead of waiting to change.
Once you have chosen a reader, it is time to subscribe. Most readers allow you to enter subscriptions right from the reading page. You can copy the addresses of posts or pages you want to subscribe to and paste them into the list. When you are on a website or blog of interest, you need to look for this symbol:
Clicking on this symbol usually takes you to a dialogue box allowing you to subscribe to posts in a variety of programs. This is the symbol for an RSS (or really simple syndication) feed. There is another common subscription utility called Atom or Atom Syndication Format. The Atom link may say something like subscribe with Atom or "Atom posts" or "Atom comments." Obviously, Atom comments means you are subscribing to comments and not the posts.
Once you have subscribed, the website or blog address and/or name should appear in your reader. You check your reader periodically and voila! there is a list of any updates to the sites you subscribe to.
Some of the readers, work off of Google Reader and are merely browser add-ons, others are stand-alone programs that work independently. Good luck and good reading.
Who can register for FamilySearch Family Tree? A definitive answer?
Both of the questions in the title to this post have been answered many times in this blog, but there still seems to be a controversy arising as a result of some technical difficulties with the process. To start, I will refer you again to the introduction of Family Tree by Ron Tanner at RootsTech 2012. Here is a link to the video http://bcove.me/dc9kdj6o. It is about an hour long, but worth the time to watch. At RootsTech 2012, Ron invited all of the participants, which I estimate at over 2000, to send him an email to receive an invitation to gain access to Family Tree. The return email from Ron Tanner linked recipients to this PDF file Gaining Access to FamilySearch Family Tree. The document is at the bottom of the page.
You will note two qualifications for using Family Tree from the document:
I have heard several statements, both official and unofficial, sent out by FamilySearch that Family Tree will entirely replace New.FamilySearch.org by the "end of the year" 2012. If this is true, then there are many good reasons for getting as many people transitioned to Family Tree before that time as possible.
Using that invitation, I have added a number of people to Family Tree. To this point in time, I have seen nothing in print or otherwise indicating that FamilySearch does not want people to use Family Tree. EXCEPT comments from users with problems gaining access to the program. Some potential users have evidently been told by FamilySearch support personnel that "You can't get onto Family Tree unless you have been authorized for New.FamilySearch.org." This is either totally untrue, given my personal experience and that of hundreds of other users, or it is something that has been recently implemented. Why would FamilySearch do this? It makes no sense. If as Ron Tanner announced, Family Tree is open to anyone who registers, either for a FamilySearch Account or LDS Account, then why, all of a sudden tie the registration into access to New.FamilySearch.org?
In addition, I doubt that that is possible to do, after the fact, from a programming standpoint. If you have a FamilySearch account and are already on Family Tree, AND never have used New.FamilySearch.org, did you suddenly lose access?
Why would FamilySearch support staff say such a thing? Lack of training and lack of use and understanding of both programs. Simple. By the way, I have reviewed every single support note in the Help Center for FamilySearch dealing with Family Tree and find nothing even vaguely related to the issue of access.
What is wrong with Family Tree? Why are some potential users experiencing ongoing access problems? I have yet to find anyone personally that has the problem. If you are having the problem. Contact me personally in Facebook and give me an email address. I will then contact you and make arrangements to get on the phone with you and see if I can get to the bottom of the problem with access to the program.
If on the other hand, there is a real issue and you must have previously been on New.FamilySearch.org in order to gain access to Family Tree. Why not put that in the official documentation? But that would essentially limit access to Family Tree to members of the Church.
You will note two qualifications for using Family Tree from the document:
To use the FamilySearch Family Tree, your FamilySearch Account or LDS FamilySearch Account must be authorized. Even if you already use new.familysearch.org, your account must be authorized to use the FamilySearch Family Tree.and
The FamilySearch Family Tree is currently being tested and is not yet available to everyone who currently uses new.familysearch.org. If you do not see the FamilySearch Family Tree link, it means either that you are not authorized to use the FamilySearch Family Tree or that you have not signed in.There is nothing in this document that even alludes to a need to have access to New.FamilySearch.org as a prerequisite to using or viewing Family Tree. Subsequently, invitations to register have been sent out Family History Consultants and the unqualified document, cited above, is available to anyone registered or unresgistered, signed on or not signed on to FamilySearch.org.
I have heard several statements, both official and unofficial, sent out by FamilySearch that Family Tree will entirely replace New.FamilySearch.org by the "end of the year" 2012. If this is true, then there are many good reasons for getting as many people transitioned to Family Tree before that time as possible.
Using that invitation, I have added a number of people to Family Tree. To this point in time, I have seen nothing in print or otherwise indicating that FamilySearch does not want people to use Family Tree. EXCEPT comments from users with problems gaining access to the program. Some potential users have evidently been told by FamilySearch support personnel that "You can't get onto Family Tree unless you have been authorized for New.FamilySearch.org." This is either totally untrue, given my personal experience and that of hundreds of other users, or it is something that has been recently implemented. Why would FamilySearch do this? It makes no sense. If as Ron Tanner announced, Family Tree is open to anyone who registers, either for a FamilySearch Account or LDS Account, then why, all of a sudden tie the registration into access to New.FamilySearch.org?
In addition, I doubt that that is possible to do, after the fact, from a programming standpoint. If you have a FamilySearch account and are already on Family Tree, AND never have used New.FamilySearch.org, did you suddenly lose access?
Why would FamilySearch support staff say such a thing? Lack of training and lack of use and understanding of both programs. Simple. By the way, I have reviewed every single support note in the Help Center for FamilySearch dealing with Family Tree and find nothing even vaguely related to the issue of access.
What is wrong with Family Tree? Why are some potential users experiencing ongoing access problems? I have yet to find anyone personally that has the problem. If you are having the problem. Contact me personally in Facebook and give me an email address. I will then contact you and make arrangements to get on the phone with you and see if I can get to the bottom of the problem with access to the program.
If on the other hand, there is a real issue and you must have previously been on New.FamilySearch.org in order to gain access to Family Tree. Why not put that in the official documentation? But that would essentially limit access to Family Tree to members of the Church.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Major online issues with FamilySearch 15 July 2012
For the last few days, I have been receiving reports of malfunctions with FamilySearch.org and today is no exception. I am seeing problems loading files and information and connecting to FamilySearch.org and other LDS servers, such as LDS.org. I don't seem to find any particular problems generally on the Internet, but there have certainly been a menu of problems with FamilySearch. All I can say is keep trying. They are likely working hard and furiously to resolve any difficulties.
Learning from our mistakes
I may have mentioned previously that I made my first submission, to what is now known as the Pedigree Resource File, back in 2000. Little did I know back then that this supposedly innocent submission of a GEDCOM file to FamilySearch would come back to haunt me in a really big way. Back in 2000, the file was submitted under the impression that it was for "backup" purposes. Now, many years later, the Pedigree Resource File has become an integral part of New.FamilySearch.org's database and has now carried over to FamilySearch.org's Family Tree program.
The problem is and was, that the file was inaccurate and incomplete. In short, it was a work in progress. Today, I can go onto FamilySearch Family Tree and see some of my own incomplete and inaccurate work. It does me no good, some of the time, to rail against sloppy research and lack of sources, because when I look at where the file came from, I find out it is my submission.
If I had the chance, would I now go back and keep my work to myself until it was ready for public consumption? Does this mean we all have to be perfectionists and never let anybody see our files until we are sure they are perfect? (I know a few people who live like that, but I certainly don't). Or does it mean that we should never share anything online because it might be less than perfect? No. As Randy Seavers pointed out in a recent comment to one of my posts:
But Randy has a point. I could wait forever to publish my files and thereby lose even the possibility of a comment. Sometimes we have to "put it out there" and let the critiques fall where they may. If we are wrong. We are wrong. Correct the information and move on. (The tragedy of online user submitted family trees in the case of my extended family is that the correct information is right there in another tree with the sources and documentation, while many submissions lack even the ability to copy the records properly). As I have said many times before, I don't deal with stupidity or crazy.
All genealogical research is a work in progress. Except for very near relatives, all dates and places and incidents are open to modification based on newly discovered evidence. Repetition does not prove accuracy. Even the most repeated dates and locations may be totally wrong.
Humility is a good trait for genealogists. Many of us, including me, need to learn to accept criticism, not only graciously, but constructively. Learn and grow.
The problem is and was, that the file was inaccurate and incomplete. In short, it was a work in progress. Today, I can go onto FamilySearch Family Tree and see some of my own incomplete and inaccurate work. It does me no good, some of the time, to rail against sloppy research and lack of sources, because when I look at where the file came from, I find out it is my submission.
If I had the chance, would I now go back and keep my work to myself until it was ready for public consumption? Does this mean we all have to be perfectionists and never let anybody see our files until we are sure they are perfect? (I know a few people who live like that, but I certainly don't). Or does it mean that we should never share anything online because it might be less than perfect? No. As Randy Seavers pointed out in a recent comment to one of my posts:
James, I see nothing wrong with an entry for Mary, born about 1850 if that is the information available to the researcher.In an ideal genealogical community, some interested researcher would have contacted me and challenged many of my conclusions. Unfortunately, this never happened. In all the years since 2000 when I posted the information, not one person has ever challenged one of my conclusions or complained about the lack of source citations. Except for a few random emails from peoples searching for family members and asking for additional information, I do not recall even one constructive comment about the bad information. (This is really a sad commentary on the state of genealogy in my huge extended family. Not one person has come back to me and challenged any of my information).
In all likelihood, it came from a census record, and the source of the name and information would be the census record (or whatever record it came from).
I much prefer to estimate a birth year, and/or a birth place, than leave it blank. It's a small piece of the puzzle, and usually the first piece, about the identity of Mary the wife of John Doe. Hopefully, other researchers will know her last name, and her birthplace and parents names, and you and they can go on from there giving Mary an ancestry.
I'm still very much a "conclusion-based" researcher and really want something in the "Birth" field to help me with further research. Of course, it helps if the wife's name was Henrietta or Sylvia rather than Mary!
But Randy has a point. I could wait forever to publish my files and thereby lose even the possibility of a comment. Sometimes we have to "put it out there" and let the critiques fall where they may. If we are wrong. We are wrong. Correct the information and move on. (The tragedy of online user submitted family trees in the case of my extended family is that the correct information is right there in another tree with the sources and documentation, while many submissions lack even the ability to copy the records properly). As I have said many times before, I don't deal with stupidity or crazy.
All genealogical research is a work in progress. Except for very near relatives, all dates and places and incidents are open to modification based on newly discovered evidence. Repetition does not prove accuracy. Even the most repeated dates and locations may be totally wrong.
Humility is a good trait for genealogists. Many of us, including me, need to learn to accept criticism, not only graciously, but constructively. Learn and grow.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Technical Difficulties with FamilySearch Family Tree?
In comments to my last few posts, I have had people express frustration with technical difficulties in either registering for FamilySearch.org or getting into Family Tree. Hmm. It would help if I could see some of these problems. I have been on Family Tree since February, 2012 and have helped maybe 50 or so people to get onto the program without one instance of the types of difficulties being described by the commentators. That being said, I have had numerous problems with FamilySearch.org during that same time period. The Research Wiki has been up and down, working and not working, the whole program has stopped working at times and we have seen some really strange error messages.
How would you like to manage a website with billions of names and complex search engines and try to keep the whole thing going? I am not acting as an apologist for FamilySearch, but I am familiar enough with programming and maintaining websites online to realize that the problems they are experiencing are far from unique to FamilySearch. During the same time period, for example, Ancestry.com has been down several times also. Sometimes it is impossible to tell whether the problem is with your computer, your operating system, your browser, your Internet connection, the online program or just random molecules in the Universe.
Given enough time and the opportunity to see the problem, I can usually tell where in the chain the problem originates. My frustration with the comments I am getting is that I don't have the opportunity to see the problem in action. Like I said, I have been in and out of Family Tree dozens of times in the last week or so on many different computers and have yet to see the types of problems reported.
One of the most common problem areas is browser issues. We have Firefox, Internet Explorer and Chrome. Right at the moment, I am using Firefox 13.0.1. I also have Chrome 20.0.1132.57 which shows as up to date. I do not use Internet Explorer on my Mac unless I am running Windows 7. There is a whole lot of confusion out there in the world about browsers, search engines and online programs. People have a difficult time distinguishing between all three and sometimes can't tell what they are using. Mostly, I see confusion between Google (as a search engine) and Google Chrome (as a browser running on your computer). Some of the issues is hear in the comments sound to me like browser issues.
If you experience any difficulties with a FamilySearch product, by all means report the problem in the Feedback area of the program, or click on the Help link and use any one of the several ways to get help. I can't possibly provide support of help all over the world but please let others know by posting comments if you are able to solve any of the problems.
One good place to go is relatively new. It is the Technology in Genealogy group on Facebook. This new group has some really knowledgeable people and already has 271 members. You are likely to get a whole lot of response either there or on Google+ if you have a Genealogy circle.
How would you like to manage a website with billions of names and complex search engines and try to keep the whole thing going? I am not acting as an apologist for FamilySearch, but I am familiar enough with programming and maintaining websites online to realize that the problems they are experiencing are far from unique to FamilySearch. During the same time period, for example, Ancestry.com has been down several times also. Sometimes it is impossible to tell whether the problem is with your computer, your operating system, your browser, your Internet connection, the online program or just random molecules in the Universe.
Given enough time and the opportunity to see the problem, I can usually tell where in the chain the problem originates. My frustration with the comments I am getting is that I don't have the opportunity to see the problem in action. Like I said, I have been in and out of Family Tree dozens of times in the last week or so on many different computers and have yet to see the types of problems reported.
One of the most common problem areas is browser issues. We have Firefox, Internet Explorer and Chrome. Right at the moment, I am using Firefox 13.0.1. I also have Chrome 20.0.1132.57 which shows as up to date. I do not use Internet Explorer on my Mac unless I am running Windows 7. There is a whole lot of confusion out there in the world about browsers, search engines and online programs. People have a difficult time distinguishing between all three and sometimes can't tell what they are using. Mostly, I see confusion between Google (as a search engine) and Google Chrome (as a browser running on your computer). Some of the issues is hear in the comments sound to me like browser issues.
If you experience any difficulties with a FamilySearch product, by all means report the problem in the Feedback area of the program, or click on the Help link and use any one of the several ways to get help. I can't possibly provide support of help all over the world but please let others know by posting comments if you are able to solve any of the problems.
One good place to go is relatively new. It is the Technology in Genealogy group on Facebook. This new group has some really knowledgeable people and already has 271 members. You are likely to get a whole lot of response either there or on Google+ if you have a Genealogy circle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)