A question for the group...

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Background:
My great great grandfather was born in 1790. Neither his ancestors not
his siblings can be proven. By irrefutable (so far) logic I can
determibe his siblings and his ancestors for 5 generations - and by
assuming a quite possible link I can get back to mythology.

Discussion:
At the moment I have the proven and the 5 generations plus siblings in
one data base and beyond the 5 in another. I have no plans to publish
this data in any format but (a) I will exchange direct lines on a
one-to-one basis (b) someone will inherit the data at some point

I have the choice whether to (1) list all the people linked in one
data base (2) list all the people in one data base but have separate
trees where people are not provably, but probably, linked (3) create a
separate data base for each unlinked family even though the link is
probable

One problem:
One person's theory, if discovered, becomes another person's facts and
potentially incorrect data is strewn across the Internet without
proper safeguards or disclaimers

Question:
Of the three methods I have listed above, or others that might occur
to you, which is your choice and why?

Hugh

[Joe Pessarra]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Background:
My great great grandfather was born in 1790. Neither his ancestors not
his siblings can be proven. By irrefutable (so far) logic I can
determibe his siblings and his ancestors for 5 generations - and by
assuming a quite possible link I can get back to mythology.

Discussion:
At the moment I have the proven and the 5 generations plus siblings in
one data base and beyond the 5 in another. I have no plans to publish
this data in any format but (a) I will exchange direct lines on a
one-to-one basis (b) someone will inherit the data at some point

I have the choice whether to (1) list all the people linked in one
data base (2) list all the people in one data base but have separate
trees where people are not provably, but probably, linked (3) create a
separate data base for each unlinked family even though the link is
probable

One problem:
One person's theory, if discovered, becomes another person's facts and
potentially incorrect data is strewn across the Internet without
proper safeguards or disclaimers

Question:
Of the three methods I have listed above, or others that might occur
to you, which is your choice and why?

Hugh

Put them into one data base. Use different font type for the proven than
for the unproven.

I am not familiar with any of the programs, so I may be out in left field on
this suggestion.

Joe in Texas

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:53:30 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

Background:
My great great grandfather was born in 1790. Neither his ancestors not
his siblings can be proven. By irrefutable (so far) logic I can
determibe his siblings and his ancestors for 5 generations - and by
assuming a quite possible link I can get back to mythology.

Discussion:
At the moment I have the proven and the 5 generations plus siblings in
one data base and beyond the 5 in another. I have no plans to publish
this data in any format but (a) I will exchange direct lines on a
one-to-one basis (b) someone will inherit the data at some point

I have the choice whether to (1) list all the people linked in one
data base (2) list all the people in one data base but have separate
trees where people are not provably, but probably, linked (3) create a
separate data base for each unlinked family even though the link is
probable

I keep everything in one database. That includes my ancestry, my
wife's ancestry, and the entire Hoffpauir database which I use for the
books on my web site. There's no problem whatever with having "extra"
data. Just document everything.

One problem:
One person's theory, if discovered, becomes another person's facts and
potentially incorrect data is strewn across the Internet without
proper safeguards or disclaimers

not if properly documented. Any future user can "verify" your

conclusions, or choose to make a different conclusion after reviewing
your documentation.

Question:
Of the three methods I have listed above, or others that might occur
to you, which is your choice and why?

Hugh

I strongly believe that everything should go into one database, with
good source information and notes that explain everything, including
the degree of assurance you have on questionable information.


Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[Hugh Watkins]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Question:
Of the three methods I have listed above, or others that might occur
to you, which is your choice and why?

do whatever you like
your damned data base

why do you need this endless hand holding?

Hugh W


--

a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/

Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks

old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:44:45 +0000, Hugh Watkins
<[email protected]> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Question:
Of the three methods I have listed above, or others that might occur
to you, which is your choice and why?

do whatever you like
your damned data base

why do you need this endless hand holding?

Hugh W

I enjoy seeing you make a pompous ass of yourself.

Get someone to explain filters to you and show you the [delete] key.

You really don't want to exchange insults with me, boy.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:57:28 -0600, "Joe Pessarra"
<[email protected]> wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Background:
My great great grandfather was born in 1790. Neither his ancestors not
his siblings can be proven. By irrefutable (so far) logic I can
determibe his siblings and his ancestors for 5 generations - and by
assuming a quite possible link I can get back to mythology.

Discussion:
At the moment I have the proven and the 5 generations plus siblings in
one data base and beyond the 5 in another. I have no plans to publish
this data in any format but (a) I will exchange direct lines on a
one-to-one basis (b) someone will inherit the data at some point

I have the choice whether to (1) list all the people linked in one
data base (2) list all the people in one data base but have separate
trees where people are not provably, but probably, linked (3) create a
separate data base for each unlinked family even though the link is
probable

One problem:
One person's theory, if discovered, becomes another person's facts and
potentially incorrect data is strewn across the Internet without
proper safeguards or disclaimers

Question:
Of the three methods I have listed above, or others that might occur
to you, which is your choice and why?

Hugh

Put them into one data base. Use different font type for the proven than
for the unproven.

I am not familiar with any of the programs, so I may be out in left field on
this suggestion.

Joe in Texas

I'm not sure different fonts can be used - or even that they would be
beneficial. See the next response for some good comments.

Thanks,

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:34:27 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:53:30 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

Background:
My great great grandfather was born in 1790. Neither his ancestors not
his siblings can be proven. By irrefutable (so far) logic I can
determibe his siblings and his ancestors for 5 generations - and by
assuming a quite possible link I can get back to mythology.

Discussion:
At the moment I have the proven and the 5 generations plus siblings in
one data base and beyond the 5 in another. I have no plans to publish
this data in any format but (a) I will exchange direct lines on a
one-to-one basis (b) someone will inherit the data at some point

I have the choice whether to (1) list all the people linked in one
data base (2) list all the people in one data base but have separate
trees where people are not provably, but probably, linked (3) create a
separate data base for each unlinked family even though the link is
probable


I keep everything in one database. That includes my ancestry, my
wife's ancestry, and the entire Hoffpauir database which I use for the
books on my web site. There's no problem whatever with having "extra"
data. Just document everything.

I'm close to that conclusion. I have 1 db with the 5 generations but
about 8 others that may be connected. I do include my wife's data.
Early on I didn't document too well and I'm trying to catch up. Maybe
the point is to warn where linking is based on preponderance of
evidence but not proof.

One problem:
One person's theory, if discovered, becomes another person's facts and
potentially incorrect data is strewn across the Internet without
proper safeguards or disclaimers

not if properly documented. Any future user can "verify" your
conclusions, or choose to make a different conclusion after reviewing
your documentation.

I communicate frequently with responsible researchers of my line and I
suppose I can do nothing about the people just looking for a quick
answer.

Question:
Of the three methods I have listed above, or others that might occur
to you, which is your choice and why?

Hugh

I strongly believe that everything should go into one database, with
good source information and notes that explain everything, including
the degree of assurance you have on questionable information.

The problem I see is if a theory doesm't hold. Then you have to
unlink. But I guess that's just one more tree in a single db. But you
don't have all the GEDs.

Hugh

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Charlie Hoffpauir <[email protected]> writes:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:53:30 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

Background:
My great great grandfather was born in 1790. Neither his ancestors not
his siblings can be proven. By irrefutable (so far) logic I can
determibe his siblings and his ancestors for 5 generations - and by
assuming a quite possible link I can get back to mythology.

Discussion:
At the moment I have the proven and the 5 generations plus siblings in
one data base and beyond the 5 in another. I have no plans to publish
this data in any format but (a) I will exchange direct lines on a
one-to-one basis (b) someone will inherit the data at some point

I have the choice whether to (1) list all the people linked in one
data base (2) list all the people in one data base but have separate
trees where people are not provably, but probably, linked (3) create a
separate data base for each unlinked family even though the link is
probable


I keep everything in one database. That includes my ancestry, my
wife's ancestry, and the entire Hoffpauir database which I use for the
books on my web site. There's no problem whatever with having "extra"
data. Just document everything.
One problem:
One person's theory, if discovered, becomes another person's facts and
potentially incorrect data is strewn across the Internet without
proper safeguards or disclaimers

not if properly documented. Any future user can "verify" your
conclusions, or choose to make a different conclusion after reviewing
your documentation.
Question:
Of the three methods I have listed above, or others that might occur
to you, which is your choice and why?

Hugh

I strongly believe that everything should go into one database, with
good source information and notes that explain everything, including
the degree of assurance you have on questionable information.


Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

I tend to agree with Charlie here - put everything on one database
but be certain it's all clearly annotated or otherwise marked to
indicate the degree of certainty/trust.

If you make the data available on the 'net, however, resign yourself to
the fact that you cannot control what use people make of the data you
provide - they'll ignore your annotations, your disclaimers, and accept
as fact what you've clearly indicated is speculation. Ain't no way
you can keep'em from doing that, barring not publishing at all - which
strikes me as contrary to the spirit of things.

Bob Melson

--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
"People unfit for freedom---who cannot do much with it---are
hungry for power." ---Eric Hoffer

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:02:05 GMT, [email protected] (Robert
Melson) wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
Charlie Hoffpauir <[email protected]> writes:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:53:30 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

Background:
My great great grandfather was born in 1790. Neither his ancestors not
his siblings can be proven. By irrefutable (so far) logic I can
determibe his siblings and his ancestors for 5 generations - and by
assuming a quite possible link I can get back to mythology.

Discussion:
At the moment I have the proven and the 5 generations plus siblings in
one data base and beyond the 5 in another. I have no plans to publish
this data in any format but (a) I will exchange direct lines on a
one-to-one basis (b) someone will inherit the data at some point

I have the choice whether to (1) list all the people linked in one
data base (2) list all the people in one data base but have separate
trees where people are not provably, but probably, linked (3) create a
separate data base for each unlinked family even though the link is
probable


I keep everything in one database. That includes my ancestry, my
wife's ancestry, and the entire Hoffpauir database which I use for the
books on my web site. There's no problem whatever with having "extra"
data. Just document everything.
One problem:
One person's theory, if discovered, becomes another person's facts and
potentially incorrect data is strewn across the Internet without
proper safeguards or disclaimers

not if properly documented. Any future user can "verify" your
conclusions, or choose to make a different conclusion after reviewing
your documentation.
Question:
Of the three methods I have listed above, or others that might occur
to you, which is your choice and why?

Hugh

I strongly believe that everything should go into one database, with
good source information and notes that explain everything, including
the degree of assurance you have on questionable information.


Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

I tend to agree with Charlie here - put everything on one database
but be certain it's all clearly annotated or otherwise marked to
indicate the degree of certainty/trust.

If you make the data available on the 'net, however, resign yourself to
the fact that you cannot control what use people make of the data you
provide - they'll ignore your annotations, your disclaimers, and accept
as fact what you've clearly indicated is speculation. Ain't no way
you can keep'em from doing that, barring not publishing at all - which
strikes me as contrary to the spirit of things.

Bob Melson

Thank you. You mentioned one reason I plan to never publish. I don't
know if it's is ignorance or the desire to be considered proficient in
genealogy.

It slows them down if you do it in .pdf however.

Also, if the info is available people don't tend to communcate. I want
to discuss with individuals researching my line. That happens now
since I have not published.

Hugh

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:14:09 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

<snip>

I tend to agree with Charlie here - put everything on one database
but be certain it's all clearly annotated or otherwise marked to
indicate the degree of certainty/trust.

If you make the data available on the 'net, however, resign yourself to
the fact that you cannot control what use people make of the data you
provide - they'll ignore your annotations, your disclaimers, and accept
as fact what you've clearly indicated is speculation. Ain't no way
you can keep'em from doing that, barring not publishing at all - which
strikes me as contrary to the spirit of things.

Bob Melson

Thank you. You mentioned one reason I plan to never publish. I don't
know if it's is ignorance or the desire to be considered proficient in
genealogy.

It slows them down if you do it in .pdf however.

Also, if the info is available people don't tend to communcate. I want
to discuss with individuals researching my line. That happens now
since I have not published.

Hugh

Hugh,

You make some points that I've seen mentioned here before. In my
experience, however, since I put my data on the web, I've heard from
many distant relatives that I'd never known about unless they happened
on my information. I'm sure there are also probably just as many that
have found the information, taken what they wanted from it, and never
contacted me at all. But the way I look at it, I'd never had heard
from that group in any case, so I'm far ahead by the number that "did"
contact me.

Incidentally, I'd say just about half of the contacts were because the
person wanted to make some correction to my data. Those contacts are
certainly appreciated.

As far as publishing in PDF.... that decision was made back when I was
using FTM, and there was no alternative to using PDF. In fact, it was
before FTM had the ability to create a PDF, so I had to get Acrobat
and use it to generate the PDF. Now that I'm using RM, I can easily
generate a Word file of the book, so I'll probably include a Word file
for download eventually. I've already included the Word file option on
the Family CD our Family Association produces.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:08:44 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:14:09 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

snip
I tend to agree with Charlie here - put everything on one database
but be certain it's all clearly annotated or otherwise marked to
indicate the degree of certainty/trust.

If you make the data available on the 'net, however, resign yourself to
the fact that you cannot control what use people make of the data you
provide - they'll ignore your annotations, your disclaimers, and accept
as fact what you've clearly indicated is speculation. Ain't no way
you can keep'em from doing that, barring not publishing at all - which
strikes me as contrary to the spirit of things.

Bob Melson

Thank you. You mentioned one reason I plan to never publish. I don't
know if it's is ignorance or the desire to be considered proficient in
genealogy.

It slows them down if you do it in .pdf however.

Also, if the info is available people don't tend to communcate. I want
to discuss with individuals researching my line. That happens now
since I have not published.

Hugh

Hugh,

You make some points that I've seen mentioned here before. In my
experience, however, since I put my data on the web, I've heard from
many distant relatives that I'd never known about unless they happened
on my information. I'm sure there are also probably just as many that
have found the information, taken what they wanted from it, and never
contacted me at all. But the way I look at it, I'd never had heard
from that group in any case, so I'm far ahead by the number that "did"
contact me.

Incidentally, I'd say just about half of the contacts were because the
person wanted to make some correction to my data. Those contacts are
certainly appreciated.

As far as publishing in PDF.... that decision was made back when I was
using FTM, and there was no alternative to using PDF. In fact, it was
before FTM had the ability to create a PDF, so I had to get Acrobat
and use it to generate the PDF. Now that I'm using RM, I can easily
generate a Word file of the book, so I'll probably include a Word file
for download eventually. I've already included the Word file option on
the Family CD our Family Association produces.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Most of my contacts have posted on a user or news group somewhere and
have been referred to me. I did post my theory of the 5 logical
generations of ancestors on a friend's web site a few years ago but no
one has differed or questioned. The theory needs to be questioned and
people need to try to blow it out of the water. If they can't it
resembles truth and fact.

I know I can't change people but it's irritating to see something on
the Internet, without sources, that fills some gaps BUT when I run it
down find that the info is worthless. Or, I find three different
versions of the same story but with different dates and I wind up
having to do the research.

I have several GEDs of lines that are probably, but not provably,
related. I'm leaning to combining those into 1 db and maintaining
separate trees. I don't incorporate GEDs of others intact

Hugh

[Dale DePriest]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:08:44 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir
[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:14:09 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

snip
I tend to agree with Charlie here - put everything on one database
but be certain it's all clearly annotated or otherwise marked to
indicate the degree of certainty/trust.

If you make the data available on the 'net, however, resign yourself to
the fact that you cannot control what use people make of the data you
provide - they'll ignore your annotations, your disclaimers, and accept
as fact what you've clearly indicated is speculation. Ain't no way
you can keep'em from doing that, barring not publishing at all - which
strikes me as contrary to the spirit of things.

Bob Melson
Thank you. You mentioned one reason I plan to never publish. I don't
know if it's is ignorance or the desire to be considered proficient in
genealogy.

It slows them down if you do it in .pdf however.

Also, if the info is available people don't tend to communcate. I want
to discuss with individuals researching my line. That happens now
since I have not published.

Hugh
Hugh,

You make some points that I've seen mentioned here before. In my
experience, however, since I put my data on the web, I've heard from
many distant relatives that I'd never known about unless they happened
on my information. I'm sure there are also probably just as many that
have found the information, taken what they wanted from it, and never
contacted me at all. But the way I look at it, I'd never had heard
from that group in any case, so I'm far ahead by the number that "did"
contact me.

I agree.

Incidentally, I'd say just about half of the contacts were because the
person wanted to make some correction to my data. Those contacts are
certainly appreciated.

Agree again.

As far as publishing in PDF.... that decision was made back when I was
using FTM, and there was no alternative to using PDF. In fact, it was
before FTM had the ability to create a PDF, so I had to get Acrobat
and use it to generate the PDF. Now that I'm using RM, I can easily
generate a Word file of the book, so I'll probably include a Word file
for download eventually. I've already included the Word file option on
the Family CD our Family Association produces.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Most of my contacts have posted on a user or news group somewhere and
have been referred to me. I did post my theory of the 5 logical
generations of ancestors on a friend's web site a few years ago but no
one has differed or questioned. The theory needs to be questioned and
people need to try to blow it out of the water. If they can't it
resembles truth and fact.

I know I can't change people but it's irritating to see something on
the Internet, without sources, that fills some gaps BUT when I run it
down find that the info is worthless. Or, I find three different
versions of the same story but with different dates and I wind up
having to do the research.

GED files should have sources and anything posted should have sources
even if the source is a location on the web. You may be irritated but I
suggest having some data to research, even if it takes a lot of work, is
better than having no data at all and not a clue where to start. Be
thankful, not irritated.

I have several GEDs of lines that are probably, but not provably,
related. I'm leaning to combining those into 1 db and maintaining
separate trees. I don't incorporate GEDs of others intact

Hugh

Other folks GED's should be separate and then merge the stuff you trust.
But a good story (or maybe a good fiction) may be better than no story
at all. YMMV.

Dale
--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:13:50 -0800, Dale DePriest
<[email protected]> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:08:44 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir
[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:14:09 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

snip
I tend to agree with Charlie here - put everything on one database
but be certain it's all clearly annotated or otherwise marked to
indicate the degree of certainty/trust.

If you make the data available on the 'net, however, resign yourself to
the fact that you cannot control what use people make of the data you
provide - they'll ignore your annotations, your disclaimers, and accept
as fact what you've clearly indicated is speculation. Ain't no way
you can keep'em from doing that, barring not publishing at all - which
strikes me as contrary to the spirit of things.

Bob Melson
Thank you. You mentioned one reason I plan to never publish. I don't
know if it's is ignorance or the desire to be considered proficient in
genealogy.

It slows them down if you do it in .pdf however.

Also, if the info is available people don't tend to communcate. I want
to discuss with individuals researching my line. That happens now
since I have not published.

Hugh
Hugh,

You make some points that I've seen mentioned here before. In my
experience, however, since I put my data on the web, I've heard from
many distant relatives that I'd never known about unless they happened
on my information. I'm sure there are also probably just as many that
have found the information, taken what they wanted from it, and never
contacted me at all. But the way I look at it, I'd never had heard
from that group in any case, so I'm far ahead by the number that "did"
contact me.

I agree.


Incidentally, I'd say just about half of the contacts were because the
person wanted to make some correction to my data. Those contacts are
certainly appreciated.

Agree again.

As far as publishing in PDF.... that decision was made back when I was
using FTM, and there was no alternative to using PDF. In fact, it was
before FTM had the ability to create a PDF, so I had to get Acrobat
and use it to generate the PDF. Now that I'm using RM, I can easily
generate a Word file of the book, so I'll probably include a Word file
for download eventually. I've already included the Word file option on
the Family CD our Family Association produces.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Most of my contacts have posted on a user or news group somewhere and
have been referred to me. I did post my theory of the 5 logical
generations of ancestors on a friend's web site a few years ago but no
one has differed or questioned. The theory needs to be questioned and
people need to try to blow it out of the water. If they can't it
resembles truth and fact.

I know I can't change people but it's irritating to see something on
the Internet, without sources, that fills some gaps BUT when I run it
down find that the info is worthless. Or, I find three different
versions of the same story but with different dates and I wind up
having to do the research.

GED files should have sources and anything posted should have sources
even if the source is a location on the web. You may be irritated but I
suggest having some data to research, even if it takes a lot of work, is
better than having no data at all and not a clue where to start. Be
thankful, not irritated.


I have several GEDs of lines that are probably, but not provably,
related. I'm leaning to combining those into 1 db and maintaining
separate trees. I don't incorporate GEDs of others intact

Hugh

Other folks GED's should be separate and then merge the stuff you trust.
But a good story (or maybe a good fiction) may be better than no story
at all. YMMV.

Dale

All my GEDs are my own research with some items and additions by
others. I never merge another's GEDs. I pick and choose what to add if
there is anything I don't have. Mostly they have current families or
in-law lines that I don't track very far. A data base can balloon fast
if you track everyone.

Thanks, Dale,

Hugh

[Hugh Watkins]

Dale DePriest wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:08:44 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir
[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:14:09 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

snip

I tend to agree with Charlie here - put everything on one database
but be certain it's all clearly annotated or otherwise marked to
indicate the degree of certainty/trust.
If you make the data available on the 'net, however, resign
yourself to
the fact that you cannot control what use people make of the data you
provide - they'll ignore your annotations, your disclaimers, and
accept
as fact what you've clearly indicated is speculation. Ain't no way
you can keep'em from doing that, barring not publishing at all - which
strikes me as contrary to the spirit of things.

Bob Melson

Thank you. You mentioned one reason I plan to never publish. I don't
know if it's is ignorance or the desire to be considered proficient in
genealogy.

It slows them down if you do it in .pdf however.

Also, if the info is available people don't tend to communcate. I want
to discuss with individuals researching my line. That happens now
since I have not published.

Hugh

Hugh,

You make some points that I've seen mentioned here before. In my
experience, however, since I put my data on the web, I've heard from
many distant relatives that I'd never known about unless they happened
on my information. I'm sure there are also probably just as many that
have found the information, taken what they wanted from it, and never
contacted me at all. But the way I look at it, I'd never had heard
from that group in any case, so I'm far ahead by the number that "did"
contact me.


I agree.


Incidentally, I'd say just about half of the contacts were because the
person wanted to make some correction to my data. Those contacts are
certainly appreciated.


Agree again.


As far as publishing in PDF.... that decision was made back when I was
using FTM, and there was no alternative to using PDF. In fact, it was
before FTM had the ability to create a PDF, so I had to get Acrobat
and use it to generate the PDF. Now that I'm using RM, I can easily
generate a Word file of the book, so I'll probably include a Word file
for download eventually. I've already included the Word file option on
the Family CD our Family Association produces.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/


Most of my contacts have posted on a user or news group somewhere and
have been referred to me. I did post my theory of the 5 logical
generations of ancestors on a friend's web site a few years ago but no
one has differed or questioned. The theory needs to be questioned and
people need to try to blow it out of the water. If they can't it
resembles truth and fact.

I know I can't change people but it's irritating to see something on
the Internet, without sources, that fills some gaps BUT when I run it
down find that the info is worthless. Or, I find three different
versions of the same story but with different dates and I wind up
having to do the research.


GED files should have sources and anything posted should have sources
even if the source is a location on the web. You may be irritated but I
suggest having some data to research, even if it takes a lot of work, is
better than having no data at all and not a clue where to start. Be
thankful, not irritated.


I have several GEDs of lines that are probably, but not provably,
related. I'm leaning to combining those into 1 db and maintaining
separate trees. I don't incorporate GEDs of others intact

Hugh


Other folks GED's should be separate and then merge the stuff you trust.
But a good story (or maybe a good fiction) may be better than no story
at all. YMMV.

I have 6 gedcom on Rootsweb world connect all created for different
purposes (links in side bar of my blogs)

typically I just updated the Lapham One-Name study and got 4 serious
enquiries) contributions in the next day on two rootsweb mailing lists

I persuaded a danish lady to put hers on and she gets amazing enquiries
from many different countries - including returning a victorian family
album to Germany via Denmark from Australia from the neighbour of a
deceased relative.
We are both in our seventies, met via usenet and are really enjoying
life, in spite of the usual increasing infirmity and ache and pains,
with such strong hobbies.

By being a volunteer and sharing we make certain every day is still fun

Hugh W

--

a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/

Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks

old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG