Or myself, who sent in error bad data to a person, then sent back to them to correct it one month later, and was told it is already on Rootsweb, and I can't fix it because it isn't mine. It has been since used as PROOF for someone joining a heritage society, and accepted. The other parties involved have all died subsequently. Never to be fixed. Never corrected. Rich in LA CA
--- Gary Templeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anne, I think you and I really agree. I was not > trying to suggest you need > to have copies of *every* individual's birth and > death certificates, etc. > Well documented does not necessarily mean > perfection. The reason however > that this issue is such a big deal to a lot of > people is that the advent of > the information superhighway has made it not only > easier to collaborate and > share good information, but also to pass on totally > worthless data. I have > seen genealogies posted on the Internet that > mistakenly incorporate bogus > lines created by Gustav Anjou (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Anjou ). As more > and more people simply > appropriate what they find online and then re-post > it, this junk genealogy > perpetuates like a computer virus. > > Unfortunately, too many seem to think their > genealogy credentials rest on > proclaiming the size of their database or how many > generations back they > have gotten. So we end up with a kind of arms race, > and the junk > proliferates even faster. As you said, you do not > expect your children and > so on to re-cover the same ground, and that is why > discouraging the bad kind > of name harvesting is important. Doing what you do, > including collecting all > the names from a specific locality or record is NOT > the kind of harvesting > that can be potentially damaging. From a > *statistical* standpoint, it is > simply more *likely* that the person who proclaims > having a huge database > will have more junk in it. > > Gary > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Hildrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:06 AM > Subject: [LegacyUG] Huge files was Criteria you use > to add an individual to > Legacy? > > > >I have personally entered everyone into my > database. Never taken in any > > GEDCOMS or other files. Not always because I > didn't trust who I got it > > from, > > but because I wanted to get a feel for everybody > myself and also check if > > there > > were someone I already had in my database.I do > work quite closely with > > several relatives on different sides of the > family, and we do update each > > other. > > > > I do wonder somtimes though when everybody says > they have checked > > everything, > > are we expecting our children to do the same all > over again? The family > > book made by > > different branches of the family that was my start > on it all, back in > > 1979, I took at > > face value. I have found out more than they did, > but so far what they > > found out > > matches mine on what I have looked into. Have I > rechecked every little bit > > of it myself, > > no I haven't. > > > > I was just trying to explain how I came about > having a huge file. I do > > however, wonder > > why it is such a big deal to others how large > other's family files are. > > Personally I > > couldn't care less the size of others files are, > or how well documented > > they are. Whether people > > have 500 or 1.000.000 people in it, what is it to > me. Some people are only > > interrested in > > direct ancestors and descendants, others will may > be add siblings and > > their wifes along the way, > > while others again will enter anybody they are > related to, and me who > > enters all the information from the > > bygdebooks for the many communities in the area I > am interrested in where > > they have those. I > > often find errors or omissions and constantly go > through my file to check > > against churchrecords > > when available, censues and what other material I > can find. Are everybody > > in my file well documented, > > not by a long shot. Quite a few of them are of > little interrest to me > > except they lived in the area, but > > who knows further down the road, they may become > of interrest, but I > > haven't yet discovered the connection. > > > > There are good reasons for people having few > people in their files and > > there are good reasons for having > > many. > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Gary Templeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> > > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:32 AM > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Criteria you use to add an > individual to Legacy? > > > > > >> Ann, > >> > >> The issue for many of us who see people relate > these huge files is in > >> understanding how they came to be. There are > certainly cases where > >> someone who has been consistently working for > many years will have a well > >> documented database of tens of thousands of > names. Hopefully you are one > >> of those. But for everyone like that there are > probably 9 (more likely > >> 99) more who have simply appropriated thousands > and thousands of names > >> from other sources (such as the Ancestral File) > without a shred of > >> independent research to verify anything. Real > research takes time, such > >> as writing for vital records, scrolling through > microfilm pages, > >> traveling to libraries, etc. > >> > >> When you think about it, if someone works at > genealogy like a full-time > >> job, at 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year for 20 > years they have worked a > >> total of 41,600 hours. So to get a 120,000 name > database they had to > >> *average* finding, documenting, and data entry of > 3 names per hour. Now I > >> know that sometimes I stumble upon some large > family groups, but then > >> there are the MANY times I have spent all day > traipsing around a > >> graveyard, or reading microfilms, etc and come up > empty. I certainly have > >> not averaged 3 names per hour over the years. > Then there is the fact that > >> most of us, even those retired, probably are not > actually spending a > >> consistent 8 hours a day on genealogy, so the > "find rate" has to be even > >> higher than 3 NPH to accumulate those kinds of > numbers. > >> > >> So, when people say they have 150,000 or 250,000 > names, our skepticism is > >> not with the *existence* of these large > databases, it is with their > >> quality. Only you can judge the quality of your > research. If you know in > >> your heart of hearts that it is not junk > genealogy then there is no > >> reason to take offence when someone expresses a > *general* scepticism > >> about these huge databases. > >> > >> Gary Templeman > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Anne Hildrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> > >> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:55 PM > >> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Criteria you use to add > an individual to Legacy? > >> > >> > === message truncated === Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
