Date
1 - 6 of 6
Reducing infomation in Charts
James Pam
I want to send a chart to someone I don't know but have linked up with through Ancestry. They share my DNA.
In order to protect the identity of living relatives I have hidden them. But that removes all information about the family structure. What I would like to do is retain the box's but limit the information provided. Perhaps simply stating 'Partner' or 'Child' or 'Cousin'. I am happy to provide full information about dead relatives.
What do others do in such circumstances?
In order to protect the identity of living relatives I have hidden them. But that removes all information about the family structure. What I would like to do is retain the box's but limit the information provided. Perhaps simply stating 'Partner' or 'Child' or 'Cousin'. I am happy to provide full information about dead relatives.
What do others do in such circumstances?
The first idea that springs to mind is to adapt the Diagram Text Scheme to exclude data for Living people, i.e. those that have the Living Flag set.
In the Diagram > Options > Text tab, Clone… your current Text Scheme and Edit Text Scheme…
Each of the Used Items can be edited, Flag Condition ticked and Record Flag: Living selected that must be not set.
There are custom Queries available that help to identify and set the Living Flag on appropriate Individuals.
Mike Tate
Adrian Bruce
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022, 15:35 James Pam, <jamespam1@...> wrote:
... What I would like to do is retain the box's but limit the information provided. Perhaps simply stating 'Partner' or 'Child' or 'Cousin'. ...
Effectively, this sounds like what Ancestry do with their charts. The problem with that approach is that it becomes all too easy to identify exactly who the boxes belong to because you start by looking for all birth registrations to named, deceased parents, etc. Your chart gives the starting points and the number of people in each family, etc.
You may think that this is a reasonable approach as your chart is only a small advance on a blank sheet of paper. It's entirely up to you, but having easily broken Ancestry's lack of names - and been somewhat embarrassed by the ease of it and what I found out about the people - I wouldn't want anyone to think that no names is any sort of a privacy solution.
Adrian
uhkh3tsccmz9@beconfidential.com
When trying to "reduce information for privacy reasons", I think you need to think about the degree of privacy you are trying to protect and why.
Birth records are (in England) open to inspection - you can do an online lookup of birth details on the GRO website (there is a break in records between 1934 and 1984 - but that gap is covered by FreeBMD), so you can dig out a lot of "public" information for free. A surname that is moderately rare (e.g. "Bruce - outside Scotland?), a mother's maiden name, a rough idea of place and date and you can narrow the field pretty quickly. Give out initials and you might be home and dry!
So handing out a name and a quarter of birth and a registration district is arguably not really breaching someone's privacy - particularly if you are corresponding online with another genealogist! If you are concerned about that you should not give out the names of dead relatives. Know a pair of deceased great-grandparents? There's a reasonable chance that you can quickly find their children and their children's children (only buying certificates when you cannot resolve an identity between a number of individuals).
But if you share DNA, aren't you trying to also share identity? You can probably purge records of things like prison sentences, but even if you purge records of bigamy, in the end that might be the very record that allows you to establish the relationship!
Birth records are (in England) open to inspection - you can do an online lookup of birth details on the GRO website (there is a break in records between 1934 and 1984 - but that gap is covered by FreeBMD), so you can dig out a lot of "public" information for free. A surname that is moderately rare (e.g. "Bruce - outside Scotland?), a mother's maiden name, a rough idea of place and date and you can narrow the field pretty quickly. Give out initials and you might be home and dry!
So handing out a name and a quarter of birth and a registration district is arguably not really breaching someone's privacy - particularly if you are corresponding online with another genealogist! If you are concerned about that you should not give out the names of dead relatives. Know a pair of deceased great-grandparents? There's a reasonable chance that you can quickly find their children and their children's children (only buying certificates when you cannot resolve an identity between a number of individuals).
But if you share DNA, aren't you trying to also share identity? You can probably purge records of things like prison sentences, but even if you purge records of bigamy, in the end that might be the very record that allows you to establish the relationship!
Victor Markham
You can also check ukbmd. Here the local registration office BMD details are transcribed. For marriages these give the location of the marriage..register office or name of church. One can order a certificate from the local register office. These are copies of the original certificate and do not have coloured frames like the GRO. Not all register office BMD have been transcribed as it is up to the local register to allow this
Victor
Get BlueMail for Android
On 26 Nov 2022, at 20:37, "uhkh3tsccmz9@..." <uhkh3tsccmz9@...> wrote:
When trying to "reduce information for privacy reasons", I think you need to think about the degree of privacy you are trying to protect and why.
Birth records are (in England) open to inspection - you can do an online lookup of birth details on the GRO website (there is a break in records between 1934 and 1984 - but that gap is covered by FreeBMD), so you can dig out a lot of "public" information for free. A surname that is moderately rare (e.g. "Bruce - outside Scotland?), a mother's maiden name, a rough idea of place and date and you can narrow the field pretty quickly. Give out initials and you might be home and dry!
So handing out a name and a quarter of birth and a registration district is arguably not really breaching someone's privacy - particularly if you are corresponding online with another genealogist! If you are concerned about that you should not give out the names of dead relatives. Know a pair of deceased great-grandparents? There's a reasonable chance that you can quickly find their children and their children's children (only buying certificates when you cannot resolve an identity between a number of individuals).
But if you share DNA, aren't you trying to also share identity? You can probably purge records of things like prison sentences, but even if you purge records of bigamy, in the end that might be the very record that allows you to establish the relationship!
James Pam
Many thank Mike for that suggestion which I will explore.
And thank you Adrian and uhkh3tsccmz9 for your wise counsel. I do take your point!
James