Topics

Ancestry trees.

Bill Webster
 

Like many here I am sure, I have trees at Ancestry.  Without them it is difficult to receive records and hints.
I try to add the same information found there into the corresponding people in BK simultaneously but there are inevitable slip ups.
Any tips for addressing this?

Barry P.
 

What do you mean by “slip ups”, Bill?

  What is the effect of a “slip up” for you?

 

Barry P.

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 4:24 PM
To: brotherskeepergenealogy@groups.io
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

Like many here I am sure, I have trees at Ancestry.  Without them it is difficult to receive records and hints.

I try to add the same information found there into the corresponding people in BK simultaneously but there are inevitable slip ups.

Any tips for addressing this?

 

Bill Webster
 

My “slip ups” refer to the intention to add the same information into BK but the omission or forgetting to do so.  Frequently in Ancestry you can get into a run of new information and/or people.  This can go well into the night when you should quit because of exhaustion or information overload.  But we don’t. 

And so, information, sources, connections and even people that are added into Ancestry by the click of a few buttons require manual entry into BK, requiring foolproof methodology, which we (I) can slip up on.

I suppose I could periodically download a gedcom of an Ancestry tree into a new database in BK and then compare the databases.  Would this be the best alternate methodology?

Bill

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 5:54 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

What do you mean by “slip ups”, Bill?

  What is the effect of a “slip up” for you?

 

Barry P.

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 4:24 PM
To: brotherskeepergenealogy@groups.io
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

Like many here I am sure, I have trees at Ancestry.  Without them it is difficult to receive records and hints.

I try to add the same information found there into the corresponding people in BK simultaneously but there are inevitable slip ups.

Any tips for addressing this?

 

Jim Dell
 

Bill

I copy and paste the information from Ancestry.

Jim

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 9:26 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

My “slip ups” refer to the intention to add the same information into BK but the omission or forgetting to do so.  Frequently in Ancestry you can get into a run of new information and/or people.  This can go well into the night when you should quit because of exhaustion or information overload.  But we don’t. 

And so, information, sources, connections and even people that are added into Ancestry by the click of a few buttons require manual entry into BK, requiring foolproof methodology, which we (I) can slip up on.

I suppose I could periodically download a gedcom of an Ancestry tree into a new database in BK and then compare the databases.  Would this be the best alternate methodology?

Bill

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 5:54 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

What do you mean by “slip ups”, Bill?

  What is the effect of a “slip up” for you?

 

Barry P.

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 4:24 PM
To: brotherskeepergenealogy@groups.io
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

Like many here I am sure, I have trees at Ancestry.  Without them it is difficult to receive records and hints.

I try to add the same information found there into the corresponding people in BK simultaneously but there are inevitable slip ups.

Any tips for addressing this?

 

Barry P.
 

You have indicated a very complex process and a multitude of parameters.

Do you really want BK to derive you of doing the “hard yards”?  Where’s the enjoyment of  ensuring you have the data correct for your database?

 There are methods that you are comfortable with as I am with mine.

 

And given that Ancestry offers a lot of garbage,  what could be simply ‘clicked ‘ in to BK.?  FindAGrave is a specific field with well-defined data..

 

I have lots of ‘slip-ups’ that need dealing to.  These are usually retained in MS-Word and / or SnagIt.  Then I have to remember where and when I obtained or accessed that information, so I have to re-visit that site;  If I have not detailed that source at the time.   I am still working on my method discipline, but that is getting harder!

 

               Barry P.

--===--

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Monday, 13 July 2020 1:26 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

My “slip ups” refer to the intention to add the same information into BK but the omission or forgetting to do so.  Frequently in Ancestry you can get into a run of new information and/or people.  This can go well into the night when you should quit because of exhaustion or information overload.  But we don’t. 

And so, information, sources, connections and even people that are added into Ancestry by the click of a few buttons require manual entry into BK, requiring foolproof methodology, which we (I) can slip up on.

I suppose I could periodically download a gedcom of an Ancestry tree into a new database in BK and then compare the databases.  Would this be the best alternate methodology?

Bill

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 5:54 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

What do you mean by “slip ups”, Bill?

  What is the effect of a “slip up” for you?

 

Barry P.

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 4:24 PM
To: brotherskeepergenealogy@groups.io
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

Like many here I am sure, I have trees at Ancestry.  Without them it is difficult to receive records and hints.

I try to add the same information found there into the corresponding people in BK simultaneously but there are inevitable slip ups.

Any tips for addressing this?

 

Bill Webster
 

Thanks Barry, and for the PM.  And see below…

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
Sent: Monday, 13 July 2020 12:41 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

You have indicated a very complex process and a multitude of parameters.

Do you really want BK to derive you of doing the “hard yards”?  Where’s the enjoyment of  ensuring you have the data correct for your database?

 

 There are methods that you are comfortable with as I am with mine.

 

And given that Ancestry offers a lot of garbage,  what could be simply ‘clicked ‘ in to BK.?  FindAGrave is a specific field with well-defined data..  Ancestry has cornered the market in official records, such as census, bdms, directories, etc that are not garbage.  And it is so easy to link/download those records and images to people and families in your online tree there.  You can work at a pace that can outstrip your desire to keep BK in sync with this activity.  You can end up not knowing what you have saved/copied to BK and what not.

 

I have lots of ‘slip-ups’ that need dealing to.  These are usually retained in MS-Word and / or SnagIt.  Then I have to remember where and when I obtained or accessed that information, so I have to re-visit that site;  If I have not detailed that source at the time.   I am still working on my method discipline, but that is getting harder!   Agree.

 

               Barry P.

--===--

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Monday, 13 July 2020 1:26 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

My “slip ups” refer to the intention to add the same information into BK but the omission or forgetting to do so.  Frequently in Ancestry you can get into a run of new information and/or people.  This can go well into the night when you should quit because of exhaustion or information overload.  But we don’t. 

And so, information, sources, connections and even people that are added into Ancestry by the click of a few buttons require manual entry into BK, requiring foolproof methodology, which we (I) can slip up on.

I suppose I could periodically download a gedcom of an Ancestry tree into a new database in BK and then compare the databases.  Would this be the best alternate methodology?

Bill

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 5:54 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

What do you mean by “slip ups”, Bill?

  What is the effect of a “slip up” for you?

 

Barry P.

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 4:24 PM
To: brotherskeepergenealogy@groups.io
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

Like many here I am sure, I have trees at Ancestry.  Without them it is difficult to receive records and hints.

I try to add the same information found there into the corresponding people in BK simultaneously but there are inevitable slip ups.

Any tips for addressing this?

 

Bill Webster
 

That's the ideal Jim

Sent from Blue

On 13 Jul. 2020, at 11:59 am, Jim Dell <jim.dell@...> wrote:

Bill

I copy and paste the information from Ancestry.

Jim

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 9:26 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

My “slip ups” refer to the intention to add the same information into BK but the omission or forgetting to do so.  Frequently in Ancestry you can get into a run of new information and/or people.  This can go well into the night when you should quit because of exhaustion or information overload.  But we don’t. 

And so, information, sources, connections and even people that are added into Ancestry by the click of a few buttons require manual entry into BK, requiring foolproof methodology, which we (I) can slip up on.

I suppose I could periodically download a gedcom of an Ancestry tree into a new database in BK and then compare the databases.  Would this be the best alternate methodology?

Bill

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 5:54 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

What do you mean by “slip ups”, Bill?

  What is the effect of a “slip up” for you?

 

Barry P.

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 4:24 PM
To: brotherskeepergenealogy@groups.io
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

Like many here I am sure, I have trees at Ancestry.  Without them it is difficult to receive records and hints.

I try to add the same information found there into the corresponding people in BK simultaneously but there are inevitable slip ups.

Any tips for addressing this?

 

Anna Enerson
 

I am the first to tell people not to believe what I have in my database on Ancestry. I use it as a post-it note to verify later. I do download all real documents and place them as verification of some information. 

How do I get to bed before 2 am when researching on ancestry?  Place a "post-it" (at least in Windows OS) on your desktop telling yourself where you were, or what you want to pursue when you start back up. Yes, I have a few of them. some are notes that I just can't believe and really need to research further. Sure beats my bunny-tail memory! (short and fuzzy)

On July 13, 2020 at 1:37 AM Bill Webster <wbwebster@...> wrote:

Thanks Barry, and for the PM.  And see below…

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
Sent: Monday, 13 July 2020 12:41 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.


You have indicated a very complex process and a multitude of parameters.

Do you really want BK to derive you of doing the “hard yards”?  Where’s the enjoyment of  ensuring you have the data correct for your database?

 

 There are methods that you are comfortable with as I am with mine.

 

And given that Ancestry offers a lot of garbage,  what could be simply ‘clicked ‘ in to BK.?  FindAGrave is a specific field with well-defined data..  Ancestry has cornered the market in official records, such as census, bdms, directories, etc that are not garbage.  And it is so easy to link/download those records and images to people and families in your online tree there.  You can work at a pace that can outstrip your desire to keep BK in sync with this activity.  You can end up not knowing what you have saved/copied to BK and what not.

 

I have lots of ‘slip-ups’ that need dealing to.  These are usually retained in MS-Word and / or SnagIt.  Then I have to remember where and when I obtained or accessed that information, so I have to re-visit that site;  If I have not detailed that source at the time.   I am still working on my method discipline, but that is getting harder!   Agree.

 

               Barry P.

--===--

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Monday, 13 July 2020 1:26 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.


My “slip ups” refer to the intention to add the same information into BK but the omission or forgetting to do so.  Frequently in Ancestry you can get into a run of new information and/or people.  This can go well into the night when you should quit because of exhaustion or information overload.  But we don’t. 

And so, information, sources, connections and even people that are added into Ancestry by the click of a few buttons require manual entry into BK, requiring foolproof methodology, which we (I) can slip up on.

I suppose I could periodically download a gedcom of an Ancestry tree into a new database in BK and then compare the databases.  Would this be the best alternate methodology?

Bill

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 5:54 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.


What do you mean by “slip ups”, Bill?

  What is the effect of a “slip up” for you?

 

Barry P.

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2020 4:24 PM
To: brotherskeepergenealogy@groups.io
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.


Like many here I am sure, I have trees at Ancestry.  Without them it is difficult to receive records and hints.

I try to add the same information found there into the corresponding people in BK simultaneously but there are inevitable slip ups.

Any tips for addressing this?




 

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 09:47:46, Anna Enerson <@AnnaEnerson> wrote:
I am the first to tell people not to believe what I have in my database
on Ancestry. I use it as a post-it note to verify later. I do download
all real documents and place them as verification of some information. 
Yes; one of my trees thereon is _called_ "G6JPG 2018-11-11 *WILL NOT BE AMENDED*". (I called it that after uploading a new GeDCom, only to discover there was no way of transferring all the data - photos, links to records, links to other people's trees, etc. - over from one Ancestry tree to another. [Even though both from the same source, so anyone common to both would have the same reference number.])

Of course, my master data is here, in BK (backed up, even "off-site" [i. e. with my brother!]); no way I'd trust a cloud to store it, especially Ancestry. I think the only way to avoid having to manually save copies of documents etc. is to use _their_ software (FTM is it?), which has some syncing function. (And from how they treated users of that - it came close to being both unsupported and not-work-with-their-system - I wouldn't want to do that.)

How do I get to bed before 2 am when researching on ancestry?  Place a
That's early for me (-:.

"post-it" (at least in Windows OS) on your desktop telling yourself
[We'll mostly be on Windows here, I reckon (-:!] I don't know of this "post-it" feature (though I'm sure it's there).

Doesn't BK's Japanese tag ("Todo") work just as well?

where you were, or what you want to pursue when you start back up. Yes,
I find the non-volatility of the "<"/">" trail, that JS added within (I think) the last year or so, very useful in that respect: BK comes up how I left it, and back/forward still works (though only up to a limited number of steps of course).

I have a few of them. some are notes that I just can't believe and
really need to research further. Sure beats my bunny-tail memory!
(short and fuzzy)
I like it!
[]
<BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
[]
Do you really want BK to derive you of doing the “hard yards”? 
Where’s the enjoyment of  ensuring you have the data correct for
your database?
There's enjoyment, and then there's enjoyment ... (-:
 
 There are methods that you are comfortable with as I am with mine.
I doubt any two - even BK users - do things in exactly the same way.
 


And given that Ancestry offers a lot of garbage,  what could be
Boy does it!

simply ‘clicked ‘ in to BK.?  FindAGrave is a specific field with
Even if there were clear APIs for JS to use, Ancestry could change them at any time. Plus they'd probably not be the same as FindMyPast, MyHeritage, the (UK) GRO, all the US states, let alone other countries ... (FreeBMD don't seem to have changed their interface for ages, but even there, it'd be just JS's luck if he programmed to make using it easier and then they did. Besides, BK doesn't have a way of handling quarters.)

well-defined data..  Ancestry has cornered the market in official
records, such as census, bdms, directories, etc that are not
garbage.  And it is so easy to link/download those records and
images to people and families in your online tree there.  You can
work at a pace that can outstrip your desire to keep BK in sync with
this activity.  You can end up not knowing what you have
saved/copied to BK and what not.
I don't maintain my Ancestry tree; I upload a new GeDCom for the benefit of others every few years, and that's it. (Not _completely_ true: I confirm some of the links in the DNA part when examining my matches [it just bugs me to see dotted outlines when I know they're correct], but that's only for that specific purpose. I'm not _sure_ the DNA tree is the same as the main one[s], anyway.)
 
I have lots of ‘slip-ups’ that need dealing to.  These are usually
retained in MS-Word and / or SnagIt.  Then I have to remember where
and when I obtained or accessed that information, so I have to
Yes, recording sources in BK (or, presumably, any other) about doubles the time needed; worth doing though! [It'd be handy if a person already in the tree could be added as a source as easily as they can be added as a witness, though; I don't know about you, but a lot of my information comes from cousins. At present I just create a new source "#1000 Joe Bloggs", and put "email 2020-7-13" as the "page", but that does make my list of sources have a lot of people-in-the-tree in it.]

re-visit that site;  If I have not detailed that source at the time.    I am still working on my method discipline, but that is getting
harder!   Agree.
A few years ago, I discovered there was no point in logging Ancestry's long URL for a picture in someone's gallery, as they change - I think when someone adds a new picture, all the URLs shift along, or something like that. (May not still be the case.) They must have had a way round it for their internal use, as when someone had a picture linked to someone in their [Ancestry] tree, that link remained.
[]
From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [ mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
[]
I suppose I could periodically download a gedcom of an Ancestry tree
into a new database in BK and then compare the databases.  Would
this be the best alternate methodology?
Bill
If you really are maintaining trees both on Ancestry and in BK, it might - I've never really got to grips with the compare function. But downloading a GeDCom will lose so much - links to records and photos, for example. (Not really Ancestry's fault - more a limitation of the GeDCom format.)
[]
From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [ mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bill Webster
[]
Like many here I am sure, I have trees at Ancestry.  Without them it
is difficult to receive records and hints.
I try to add the same information found there into the corresponding
people in BK simultaneously but there are inevitable slip ups.
Any tips for addressing this?
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you're worried that your house is haunted by a ghost and might need
exorcising, there's an easy way of working out if it is or it isn't: it isn't.
- Victoria Coren Mitchell, quoted in RT 2017/10/7-13

Robert Moss
 

I've been around computers since before DOS and have used BK since ver 4.5 (I think). My main database is BK because it works well for my needs. However, as I get older and feel the need to make arrangements for preserving/sharing my research, I'm not fond of giving Ancestry my data and letting them charge other folks for what they got free.

I've begun to use WikiTree for sharing. WikiTree is free to post and search. Yes, I've heard there are problems with uploading GEDCOMs to it. But I don't want to do that anyway.  I'm only entering data that I am willing to share and 90+% sure is accurate.  Some of my BK data is unproven. In spite of BK's abilities to filter stuff down, it is simply easier for me to manually post info as I re-verify it. And I've made a few connections along the way as WikiTree automatically searches for potential matches as I enter people.

fixit9660
 

I've been around computers since before DOS and have used BK since ver 4.5 (I think)” ditto J

as I get older and feel the need to make arrangements for preserving/sharing my research, I'm not fond of giving Ancestry my data and letting them charge other folks for what they got free” ditto again J

WikiTree??? I haven’t heard of it up to now, I’ll give it a try. Thank you for sharing.

Best regards

Andy.

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

This e-mail (including all attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) only, and must not be re-transmitted in an amended form without my consent. If you are not the named recipient, please notify me immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person or make any copies. Please then delete it and do not disclose its contents to any other person.

Security and reliability of e-mails are not guaranteed. I operate anti-virus programs but you must take full responsibility for virus checking this e-mail (including all attachments). I do not accept any liability in respect of any damage caused by any virus which is not detected.

All e-mails to and from anyone @kendallnet.co.uk may be examined for breaches of employee policies and the law. I record all phone calls.

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Robert Moss
Sent: 14 July 2020 04:46
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

I've been around computers since before DOS and have used BK since ver 4.5 (I think). My main database is BK because it works well for my needs. However, as I get older and feel the need to make arrangements for preserving/sharing my research, I'm not fond of giving Ancestry my data and letting them charge other folks for what they got free.

I've begun to use WikiTree for sharing. WikiTree is free to post and search. Yes, I've heard there are problems with uploading GEDCOMs to it. But I don't want to do that anyway.  I'm only entering data that I am willing to share and 90+% sure is accurate.  Some of my BK data is unproven. In spite of BK's abilities to filter stuff down, it is simply easier for me to manually post info as I re-verify it. And I've made a few connections along the way as WikiTree automatically searches for potential matches as I enter people.

friesianconnection@...
 

I am putting my data base on wiki tree. I do no use gedcom. I do each individually, so I can add all the proof and sources to it. I probably won't live long enough to enter them all, but I keep plugging away at it. The good thing about doing it individually, you see errors that I have made along the way, so I can correct it in BK and in Wiki tree.  I have been with BK for a long time also. Registration # BK is 783 and I don't remember when I started BK.  It does everything I need to do. I am getting older also and I hate to think of it all going to waste after I am gone.

 

Arlene

-----Original Message-----
From: "fixit9660" <andy@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 5:20am
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

I've been around computers since before DOS and have used BK since ver 4.5 (I think)” ditto J

as I get older and feel the need to make arrangements for preserving/sharing my research, I'm not fond of giving Ancestry my data and letting them charge other folks for what they got free” ditto again J

WikiTree??? I haven’t heard of it up to now, I’ll give it a try. Thank you for sharing.

Best regards

Andy.

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

This e-mail (including all attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) only, and must not be re-transmitted in an amended form without my consent. If you are not the named recipient, please notify me immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person or make any copies. Please then delete it and do not disclose its contents to any other person.

Security and reliability of e-mails are not guaranteed. I operate anti-virus programs but you must take full responsibility for virus checking this e-mail (including all attachments). I do not accept any liability in respect of any damage caused by any virus which is not detected.

All e-mails to and from anyone @kendallnet.co.uk may be examined for breaches of employee policies and the law. I record all phone calls.

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Robert Moss
Sent: 14 July 2020 04:46
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

I've been around computers since before DOS and have used BK since ver 4.5 (I think). My main database is BK because it works well for my needs. However, as I get older and feel the need to make arrangements for preserving/sharing my research, I'm not fond of giving Ancestry my data and letting them charge other folks for what they got free.

I've begun to use WikiTree for sharing. WikiTree is free to post and search. Yes, I've heard there are problems with uploading GEDCOMs to it. But I don't want to do that anyway.  I'm only entering data that I am willing to share and 90+% sure is accurate.  Some of my BK data is unproven. In spite of BK's abilities to filter stuff down, it is simply easier for me to manually post info as I re-verify it. And I've made a few connections along the way as WikiTree automatically searches for potential matches as I enter people.

 



 

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 22:46:01, Robert Moss <robertmoss99@...> wrote:

I've been around computers since before DOS and have used BK since ver
4.5 (I think). My main database is BK because it works well for my
needs. However, as I get older and feel the need to make arrangements
for preserving/sharing my research, I'm not fond of giving Ancestry my
data and letting them charge other folks for what they got free.
I _sort of_ feel that way, but given _all_ the places I could put it charge _something_ - either money, time, or religion - I have had to accept that, if I want to make my work accessible. (I'll have to look into this WikiTree. But it must pay for its hosting _some_how.) Of those available, Ancestry are the biggest; they may also be the baddest (though I actually think one of the smaller ones is that), but that may be the "price" to pay.

I've begun to use WikiTree for sharing. WikiTree is free to post and
search. Yes, I've heard there are problems with uploading GEDCOMs to
it. But I don't want to do that anyway.  I'm only entering data that I
am willing to share and 90+% sure is accurate.  Some of my BK data is
unproven. In spite of BK's abilities to filter stuff down, it is simply
What do you mean by "filter stuff down" - the "never print" type of thing, not giving details of living people, that sort of thing? (The trouble with "never print" is that when I first started using BK, it was just for my own use, so I never bothered setting that sort of thing; now that I want to share my data, I don't remember which data I received with "don't share it" caveats.

(Come to think of it, that _could_ be a useful addition to BK: the ability to mark certain _sources_ as "never print" etcetera.)

easier for me to manually post info as I re-verify it. And I've made a
few connections along the way as WikiTree automatically searches for
potential matches as I enter people.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it jams - force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 06:50:25, friesianconnection via groups.io <friesianconnection=reagan.com@groups.io> wrote:

I am putting my data base on wiki tree. I do no use gedcom. I do each
individually, so I can add all the proof and sources to it. I probably
won't live long enough to enter them all, but I keep plugging away at
it. The good thing about doing it individually, you see errors that I
have made along the way, so I can correct it in BK and in Wiki tree.  I
have been with BK for a long time also. Registration # BK is 783 and I
don't remember when I started BK.  It does everything I need to do. I
am getting older also and I hate to think of it all going to waste
after I am gone.
[]
That's my thinking too. I share as much as I can with cousins, but understandably, they're mostly only interested in certain branches. Not having offspring of my own, I _do_ want my "work" to not be wasted. I make my trees "public" on Ancestry, rootsweb, MyHeritage, and so on. Yes, I am aware of the arguments against - mainly that errors propagate like wildfire; I like to think I'm doing my little bit to counter that, but who knows.

I _will_ have to look into this wikitree. However, it's one of so many things I have to look into in genealogy - let alone the rest of life(-:!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it jams - force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.

Nick Higton
 

If you want to "make arrangements for preserving/sharing my research", you could try the Guild of One-Name Studies.  I upload my GEDCOM from BK to their TNG website platform regularly, and they undertake to preserve it in perpetuity.
 
They don't own your data, and will put it into "Legacy" mode if you leave the Guild (whether of your own choosing, or not).
https://one-name.org/about-members-websites/

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 09:20:02, Nick Higton <nick@...> wrote:
If you want to "make arrangements for preserving/sharing my research",
you could try the Guild of One-Name Studies.  I upload my GEDCOM from
Hmm, interesting; as I have no one-name interest, I'd always assumed that GONS and I would be of little benefit to each other. (Also there's something I can't quite put my finger on - maybe the word "Guild"? [And yes, I know what it originally meant.])

BK to their TNG website platform regularly, and they undertake to
preserve it in perpetuity.
Though presumably deleting it if _I_ asked them to?
 
They don't own your data, and will put it into "Legacy" mode if you
leave the Guild (whether of your own choosing, or not).
(-:
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By most scientific estimates sustained, useful fusion is ten years in
the future - and will be ten years in the future for the next fifty
years or more. - "Hamadryad", ~2016-4-4

Robert Moss
 

I checked into their site, but it appears to be heavily focused on the UK and I'm not really interested in one-name. I'm more of a traditional tree approach.


On 7/14/2020 11:20 AM, Nick Higton wrote:
If you want to "make arrangements for preserving/sharing my research", you could try the Guild of One-Name Studies.  I upload my GEDCOM from BK to their TNG website platform regularly, and they undertake to preserve it in perpetuity.
 
They don't own your data, and will put it into "Legacy" mode if you leave the Guild (whether of your own choosing, or not).
https://one-name.org/about-members-websites/

Barry P.
 

GOONS is a  UK Enterprise, but  as with many other opportunities, Ancestry, MyHeritage, etc,  the place where the company and the Computer resides does not  make it exclusive.

What makes it exclusive or focussed is those  who think it is.

 

GOONS is so far as I have been able to determine, the only  genealogical site that  offers  web space for personal data in perpetuity.

It sounds like an opportunity worth  inspecting. 

 

Companies come and go, become new and  absorbed into larger corporations which might in turn  change their vision, or charter or business model. We know this from the origins of RootsWeb and Ancestry over the past 30 years, Origins.UK and FindMyPast and other enterprises.  Even FamilySearch has changed it  model to align with popular usage and thus searching the succinctness of IGI data is lost  and are indulging in error-ridden trees edited by public opportunity.

Maintaining a computer, and the data on it  over many years or decades is a costly exercise and finding one with perpetuity in mind is likely to be scarce.

 

Ooh Oh, how about the Internet Archive??   I know I have my 1996 web –space sitting in there somewhere.

 

  Barry P.

Christchurch.

--==--

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of Robert Moss
Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2020 4:26 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Ancestry trees.

 

I checked into their site, but it appears to be heavily focused on the UK and I'm not really interested in one-name. I'm more of a traditional tree approach.

 

On 7/14/2020 11:20 AM, Nick Higton wrote:

If you want to "make arrangements for preserving/sharing my research", you could try the Guild of One-Name Studies.  I upload my GEDCOM from BK to their TNG website platform regularly, and they undertake to preserve it in perpetuity.

 

They don't own your data, and will put it into "Legacy" mode if you leave the Guild (whether of your own choosing, or not).
https://one-name.org/about-members-websites/