After a hiatus of almost four months, I’m contemplating writing here again. Maybe a couple more months of break? Hmmm.
In the meantime I’ve been working on an off-line project called GenealogicNG, a replacement for my current genealogy program. It is being written in Java so will work on all the major platforms (Windows, Macintosh, Linux). It’s an interesting exercise for someone who isn’t really a programmer. 🙂
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 2,800 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 5 years to get that many views.
One of the points the National Genealogical Society makes in its “Standards for Sound Genealogical Research” publication is to:
“seek original records, or reproduced images of them when there is reasonable assurance they have not been altered, as the basis for their research conclusions”.
is a good one. One of the major sources of genealogical information is Ancestry.com. They offer a huge amount “reproduced images” of “original records.” The images however, have sometimes been altered to show ownership of that record. This is an improper practice given that the original has been modified in ways that sometimes cut their validity and use as primary sources of information.
Notwithstanding the policy of Ancestry, Inc. to give accurate records, they are claiming ownership of materials that are in the public domain and/or not eligible for copyright protection. These records have become compilations, according to the NGS’s standards.
“use compilations, communications and published works, whether paper or electronic, primarily for their value as guides to locating the original records … ”.
By citing directly to the record compilation as provided by Ancestry.com, one is effectively using a secondary source. Even though Ancestry does offer a clue about the original source, it remains a fact that their records are only “guides to locating the original records”.
Many genealogists find that the records provided by Ancestry.com to be enough for their purposes. This is unfortunate, however, as using this record group is only one step in the research process. Finding the record closest to the original is the next step.
Using the census as an example, one would best go to the nearest National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) facility to view the record on microfilm. This is what I do for my research and I cite the record as such. I also do this research professionally for those researchers who prefer the best sources available.
The records from Ancestry.com are useful only as “contributions to the critical analysis of the evidence discussed in them”. This analysis aspect is good for all records found online as the majority of records we use as genealogists are not found online. The originals are found in repositories such as the NARA facility in Seattle, Washington where I do my research.
As a genealogist for hire, I find an obligation to do this type of research not only for myself, but also for others. It is one way to give back to the community. Although I do ask that my expenses be covered, as a professional ought to, it is a business transaction of the simplest sort. You can contact me and arrange for lookups in a number of primary records available through NARA or another repository in the Pacific Northwest region.
© 2012 N. P. Maling — Sea Genes Family History & Genealogy Research
Here’s a link for the Alaska State Library’s genealogy resources. They even have a WorldCat link so you can search for other libraries with the same materials. Some of these materials are also available at Seattle area archives where I’m a researcher available for hire.
A while ago, someone posted on Fb an infographic, part of which read ‘comparisons are cliché’. It should have read ‘comparisons are passé’. The writer, reader, and re-poster got it wrong as far as genealogy goes.
Comparisons are not passé as far as genealogy goes. We do comparisons as part of our basic research. We compare others’ recollections to known facts to prove or disprove what is the truth of a matter about our ancestors. The only thing that is passé about comparison in this way is that it becomes old hat after a while and we don’t bother thinking such things.
As far as writing clichés, that’s a different thing. There are only so many ways to write a birth, death, marriage sequence of sentences in a well-defined format. Indeed, all genealogists use clichéd formulas because they work. Most genealogy programs use hackneyed phrases (The Master Genealogist is an exception) to pass off their data and genealogists need to change them to something unique.
These hackneyed phrases, however, are usually the best way to portray compared data. Yes, they are passé but only in the sense that they work. The writer and reader have only to let their eyes see beyond these phrases to get to the real meaning and the underlying data. Doing this allows one to create a better proof statement and research report.
The writer is responsible for not making the reader’s eyes glaze over with too many redundant statements of the same form.