tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post1202627080373017489..comments2021-12-09T01:51:39.543-08:00Comments on Taking Genealogy to the Common Person: The Popularity of Genealogy: Why Dick Eastman is WrongDan Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16347716558962775435noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-38786847224775908012010-07-26T14:39:22.691-07:002010-07-26T14:39:22.691-07:00Dan --
Sounds like the dream of a driver-proof ca...Dan --<br /><br />Sounds like the dream of a driver-proof car -- not going to happen. Some level of knowledge and determination has to exist for both safe driving and for accurate genealogy.<br /><br />Many people (some of them my clients) do not make use of even the easy things available now. They have other priorities for their time, but are willing to spend their money on some help. More on-line images and better search engines have a learning curve too.<br /><br />You worry in a comment reply that existing equipment doesn't distinguish between "evidentiary information and conclusionary information that is not well-supported. Another major weakness is the failure to model the progression from a theory or hypothesis to a conclusion substantiated by explanation and evidence."<br /><br />Sounds like something Mills would say. If consumers don't appreciate this difference, and aren't willing to learn enough to appreciate it, why will they bother with your improved software? They will always have half-baked software that doesn't make demands on them, and venues where their confusion of different John Smiths will not be corrected.<br /><br />There are short-cuts to records, and I look forward to more. (But don't hold your breath for every courthouse to be fully digitized and indexed). There aren't short cuts to reliable knowledge.<br /><br />HaroldHarold Hendersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12217640113047709249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-13119176512125947892010-05-01T21:15:39.535-07:002010-05-01T21:15:39.535-07:00I've been thinking quite a bit about the growi...I've been thinking quite a bit about the growing "non-evidentiary" data problem. In fact, doing more than thinking about it.<br /><br />It seems to me that there haven't been tools that support conducting evidence-based genealogy research nor sharing solidly researched conclusions. I think we are approaching a tipping point. I have a different idea of why; it's because of my vision for helping people do good genealogy, one search at a time.<br /><br />That vision has been the catalyst in creating Lineascope.com. I'm working with genealogists to create <a href="http://www.lineascope.com" rel="nofollow">online, evidence-based genealogy software</a> with their input. It breaks the mold and I hope will be a game changer.Ben Sayerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03845377175926368567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-90377295482440865032009-03-12T10:16:00.000-07:002009-03-12T10:16:00.000-07:00EOGN initially was asked for a citation and he adm...EOGN initially was asked for a citation and he admitted that there was not a current citation citing the popularity of genealogy in a genealogical journal, however, there is a citation from another genealogist: <BR/><BR/>http://globalgenealogy.com/globalgazette/gazsh/gazsh-0024.htm<BR/><BR/>Genealogy has become the number one hobby in recent times<BR/>Column published: 25 April 2007<BR/>By: Shirley Gage Hodges Biography & Archived ArticlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-77310171655326412902009-02-25T10:04:00.000-08:002009-02-25T10:04:00.000-08:00Geolover,Thanks for pointing this out. I agree tha...Geolover,<BR/>Thanks for pointing this out. I agree that the industry needs to move to systems that are 'genealogically sound'. This has been a point of extended research for me - comparing genealogy to the models used by systems like TGN, new FamilySearch, PAF, etc. In each case, the models used do not accurately reflect the realities of genealogical research. Sometimes the mismatch is alarming. I think as I wrote this I was assuming that we (the industry) must get the genealogical soundness accuracy correct. I can see that this shouldn't be an assumption but should probably be in the running for number one or two on the list.<BR/><BR/>There are very subtle yet crucial things which you've pointed out like the difference between evidentiary information and conclusionary information that is not well-supported. Another major weakness is the failure to model the progression from a theory or hypothesis to a conclusion substantiated by explanation and evidence. I could go on and I agree whole-heartedly with your sentiment.Dan Lawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347716558962775435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-68644035608503380422009-02-24T07:01:00.000-08:002009-02-24T07:01:00.000-08:00Dan,You say you think the 'tipping point' will be ...Dan,<BR/><BR/>You say you think the 'tipping point' will be about 5 years hence.<BR/><BR/>However, I believe the most key component that is not well embedded in your 4-parameter list is what you specified in the introductory paragraph to it: "help them discover their ancestors in a genealogically sound manner."<BR/><BR/>The "genealogically sound" element is what is missing from the TGN searchable databases that includes the Trees, myriad no-evidence books, etc. And LDS' new Tree concept regrettably incorporates the IGI mess (thus recreating TGN's OneWorldTree miasma using a somewhat different source-database) (although much of TGN's OWT is based on what folks have lifted from IGI and LDS' 'ancestral files' which also are not much evidence-based).<BR/><BR/>The element missing from both efforts is a requirement that there be evidence for the assertions. You think it is possible to incorporate an evidentiary component into a computer search program? Where is Turing when we really need him . . .<BR/><BR/>I believe we have reached another sort of tipping point already. With both LDS and TGN promoting the 'Tree' as research basis, there are increasing numbers of complaints on various message boards about discovered inaccuracies - or at least differences between gedcom-file routines supposedly about same families. Or, like one just posted on a DAR lookup board, asking why the organization rejected an application whose key component was something "from LDS," given that the applicant could not find vital records proving that her ancestor was son of the Revolutionary War veteran.<BR/><BR/>In this latter case, the person finding the item somewhere in the familysearch.org site was not aware of the nature of evidence and of its absence from most assertions on that site.<BR/><BR/>In another case, a person recently inquired how to enter B. C. E. dates in a genealogical program.<BR/><BR/>The record so far is that searching programs do not incorporate any evidentiary requirement.<BR/><BR/>And the organizations with the most-used searchable databases have not filtered the databases by an evidentiary requirement.<BR/><BR/>Should LDS and TGN just dump the non-evidentiary parts of the databases? Spend 10 years reviewing and culling the dBs? Should they erect firewalls to make that non-evidentiary sectors non-searchable (oh, the howls and screams)? Should they clearly delineate database-sectors such that a selector for searching "evidence-based" material will not turn up the 99% of the dBs that are <BR/>genealogically unproven?<BR/><BR/>So how would you modify the 4-point scheme to deal with this elephant in the ointment?Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-65704409121586596902009-02-23T10:27:00.000-08:002009-02-23T10:27:00.000-08:00Geolover,There certainly is a logical order to thi...Geolover,<BR/><BR/>There certainly is a logical order to this high-level list. I wish I was permitted to share some dates. I really believe the tipping point is within 5 years. That's not to say we'll be through the list in 5 years but that we'll be sufficiently far along that most people with an interest will be able to satisfy that interest with ordinary effort.Dan Lawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347716558962775435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-69153883521215129522009-02-23T10:23:00.000-08:002009-02-23T10:23:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dan Lawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347716558962775435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-82260582490004946002009-02-23T09:11:00.000-08:002009-02-23T09:11:00.000-08:00Enjoyed reading your perspective.Unfortunately, wi...Enjoyed reading your perspective.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, without #1 (local and country-wide court, estate, land, tax and vital records, accurately indexed with accurate and intuitive search engine interface), #3 (logical adaptable research plan embedded in search-engine interface) is useless or impossible.<BR/><BR/>E. g., the 1850 US Census is useless for determining when an ancestor first owned land on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. TGN's search engine hardly ever returns census enumeration items before 1850 and routinely disregards date-bracketing, locations, etc.<BR/><BR/>E. g., in TGN the repeatedly uploaded baseless gedcom items are treated by the new search engine interface as having fact-worthiness, even to presenting items from the OneWorldTree horrorshow as 'records'. Well, they are records of someone's opinion, or of an error-riddled computer-generated compilation of such opinions.<BR/><BR/>So give us a time-frame estimate for a workable programme such as you propose, and a date estimate as to when all microfilmed County records for the US will be available. Not to mention English parish and court records.<BR/><BR/>Heheheheh.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-48749627581538296482009-02-23T07:37:00.000-08:002009-02-23T07:37:00.000-08:00Becky,I certainly don't feel an anti-Ancestry bias...Becky,<BR/>I certainly don't feel an anti-Ancestry bias. If anything I'm a fan (as well as a paying customer). They've made great progress in making genealogy accessible to the masses. We just haven't reached the tipping point yet.Dan Lawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347716558962775435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-31409920889315684592009-02-22T17:20:00.000-08:002009-02-22T17:20:00.000-08:00Great article! You definitely made your case. Bu...Great article! You definitely made your case. But I think that it also might be something else: Genealogists are willing to stay up late, willing to let their eyes burn while looking at the handwriting on old documents, willing to spend hours seated in front of a computer (or microfilm machine) searching for that record, and willing to educate themselves about what is out there and available, etc - but a person just interested in genealogy? That person has bigger priorities, and will put off genealogy because of the work or just that they have other things to do.<BR/>This example explains my aunt (who got me into genealogy in the first place). She got interested in genealogy, bought a subscription to Ancestry and tried it out. She mingled on FamilySearch and did get somewhere - but at the end of the day, she wasn't willing to put the time and effort into it to really go very far. And to be honest, while you can do some advances like making searches easier to do and understand and to help people network, I think it is impossible to make it so simple for people to find their trees with ease - and don't get me wrong I would love to make things easier, but I think that there will still have to be work involved....maybe it is just my limited imagination.<BR/>Nonetheless - great article!Elysehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15483136317329166274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-63175997927904247732009-02-22T09:29:00.000-08:002009-02-22T09:29:00.000-08:00I agree with you for the most part. When I tell m...I agree with you for the most part. When I tell most people I am interested in genealogy, they say they are too. Some even ask me how much I would charge to do their family tree. <BR/>The other reason conferences, books, etc. aren't as popular is that with limited financial resources, I'd rather spend money on targeted records and sources that will actually help me advance my genealogy. The end all of sports is the entertainment factor, and a genealogy conference isn't quite as entertaining.<BR/>Geni is great, but you have to deal with differing opinions with the relatives about privacy issues.Shelina (formerly known as Shasta)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03290945204269323129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-74645357494321469672009-02-21T11:30:00.000-08:002009-02-21T11:30:00.000-08:00Isn't Ancestry enough proof that genealogy is popu...Isn't Ancestry enough proof that genealogy is popular and becoming more so? why do people spend so much time talking about start-ups like geni and we're related when we already have a giant company that has succeeded in talking genealogy to "common person"? I think we sometimes take Ancestry for granted. Is there an anti-Ancestry bias?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-43360411840164108532009-02-20T14:05:00.000-08:002009-02-20T14:05:00.000-08:00Very well said!Very well said!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-46395241060549928792009-02-20T13:19:00.000-08:002009-02-20T13:19:00.000-08:00I anticipate that it will still require effort for...I anticipate that it will still require effort for a long time to come. The level of effort will just come down to where ordinary people can accomplish it. I also believe that the nature of the work will change and higher value work will be accomplished.Dan Lawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347716558962775435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23316500.post-78982316103485709242009-02-20T12:43:00.000-08:002009-02-20T12:43:00.000-08:00If your goal is simply to provide a family tree to...If your goal is simply to provide a family tree to someone, fine, but it does nothing at all toward advancing genealogy as a hobby.<BR/> If you make it so easy, or automatic, to find one's ancestors, finding them won't be worth very much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com