WeRelate talk:Watercooler

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 13:41, 24 September 2008 (edit)
Msscarlet1957 (Talk | contribs)
(Watched pages)
← Previous diff
Current revision (21:09, 2 May 2015) (edit)
Neal Gardner (Talk | contribs)
(Sort feature adding children [2 May 2015])
 
Line 1: Line 1:
This page is for discussing anything you want to discuss unless it relates only to a single page. Let people know what you like and don't like about WeRelate. If you don't want to leave comments on this page, you can email them to [mailto:dallan@werelate.org dallan@WeRelate.org]. This page is for discussing anything you want to discuss unless it relates only to a single page. Let people know what you like and don't like about WeRelate. If you don't want to leave comments on this page, you can email them to [mailto:dallan@werelate.org dallan@WeRelate.org].
-Old topics have been archived at [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2007]] and [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2008]].+Are you a '''new user'''? Have a question about '''how to use WeRelate?''' Post it to '''[[WeRelate talk:Support]]'''.
-== Active discussions taking place at other pages ==+Old topics have been archived: [[WeRelate:Watercooler/Archive 2006|2006]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2007|2007]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2008|2008]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2009|2009]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2010|2010]],
- +[[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2011|2011]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2012|2012]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2013|2013]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2014|2014]].
-* [[WeRelate talk:Digital library testing|Digital library testing]]+
-* [[WeRelate talk:Junk Genealogy|Junk genealogy]]+
-* [[WeRelate talk:Merging and downloading trees|Merging and downloading trees]]+
-* [[WeRelate talk:Source Committee|Sources and repositories]]+
-* [[WeRelate talk:Surname Research Pages]]+
- +
-== Places: Redirect and more... [1 August 2008] ==+
- +
-I don't know about others, but I just HATE to see places appearing in RED when I upload a gedcom. Since my database contains thousands of places it just is not reasonable to edit all of them within my software... Thus I have for example: Tiffin, Seneca Co., Ohio. This is how I do all my places. I do not have a country for even one place that is in America. As long as my places are in red, my pedimaps don't work.+
- +
-So all my places are appearing in red, OK, so I thought if I would take for example, Seneca Co., Ohio and put in a redirect to Place:Seneca, Ohio, United States that once I did that all the towns I have listed in that county would then match up and be OK, cause the name of the county and state would be "blue" now. I am not finding that to happen. I just had to redirect the city of Danville to Place:Danville, Knox, Ohio, United States; even though I had previously redirected my Place:Knox Co., Ohio to Place:Knox, Ohio, United States. Is this a bug, or am I doomed to create a whole LOT of redirects?? --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 00:39, 1 February 2008 (EST)+
---- ----
-The place matcher doesn't work very well right now. Improving it is part of re-doing the search function, which is the next thing on the agenda. Once we have the place matcher working better, we'll go through everyone's pages and re-match red places. There are nearly 2 million pages that we need to go through, so the re-match process will take about three weeks. So if you can wait until mid-March, most of your red places should be matched by then. In the meantime you'd need to go through every place and redirect it :-(. (That's why we're working hard to improve the place matcher in the future :-).--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:11, 1 February 2008 (EST) 
----- 
-:How is the place matcher/redirect process coming along now? If/when I do upload my data base, I also have not indicated U.S.A. Also, ALL my counties have Co., after the name. (I hate to see locations and not know if they are talking about the city or the county.) So would my locations get U.S.A added automatically, and would my county locations get directed to your county places dropping the 'Co.'? --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 20:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT) 
-----+== GenWeb Sources [1 January 2015] ==
-:Hi Janie,+
-Go check out Q's talk page. We are working on a new concept for a surname exchange page and we could use your input. I beta tested FTM's latest program and was incensed then as you are now because all of my places created error messages in the new program because I used county and did not use USA. After a year or so I have gotten over it and am now prepared to update to the new version of places. (not FTM) I believe that this is actually a function of Google maps so you need to complain to Google. Google maps does not recognize the county. If I recall correctly there is some method on WeRelate to designate city or county when the same name has been appended to the county and city in the same county. At least I believe it is Google maps but may be some other mapping program; but that is why there is now a new format for entering places and I believe that more programs will start using the new format.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:57, 3 June 2008 (EDT)+
-As Beth suggest to me earlier, perhaps the conversation on my talk page should be more public. It threatens to get too long for this space so I'll create a space for it at [[Talk:Surname Research Pages]]+Would it be best practice to delete GenWeb "Sources" and transfer their links to their respective county Place pages as Resources?--[[User:Khaentlahn|khaentlahn]] 18:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 +:Unless I am missing something, I am not even sure it would be a good practice??? The times I have used Genweb, it usually includes a link to specific set of data found on a specific page of their website which I doubt is anyway linked to by the Place page. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 19:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 +::I should have been more specific. I was referring to the main home page of the respective GenWeb sites, not the various resources that those sites contain. Therefore, the idea is that GenWeb home pages are not actual Sources (which many of them are created as such currently on WeRelate), but the various GenWeb home pages should be linked to 'somewhere' as they can be a viable resource from which to cull specific information, hence the county Place page suggestion. GenWeb pages are more closely related to Repositories, but transferring GenWeb Sources to Repositories has been determined not to be a viable practice and continuing the practice of using them as Sources has been frowned upon. So if giving them a link on respective county Place pages is not viable (so as to start removing the bad Sources), then what should be done with the links to the home pages?--[[User:Khaentlahn|khaentlahn]] 19:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 +:::I still don't understand. Who decided they are bad sources? If they contain transcripts of marriages in some county, which many do, how are you supposed to cite that information, i.e., what to point the source citation at. Perhaps an example would be useful. On my side, an example is [[Family:Henry Kendall and Julia Grogan (1)]]. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 23:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
---- ----
-I'm working on the new place matcher right now as part of the new search functionality. I'm hoping to have the code finished in a few weeks. It's taken ''much'' longer than expected, but I think it will be a big improvement when it's finally ready.+I agree with JRich.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 01:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- +
-Regarding counties vs. cities, the standard at WeRelate is that counties are listed under the state without the word County, and cities of the same name are listed under the county. So Los Angeles city is [[Place:Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States]]. If you see a place "X, State, United States", you can be pretty certain that X is a county. The standard isn't driven so much by Google Maps but by how FamilySearch and some of the other place databases that I reviewed work.+
- +
-Once we get the new place matcher working we'll go through and re-match everyone's places. The new place matcher won't change the text you entered, but will do a better job of linking your places to existing places in the database by dropping "Co." among other things.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:45, 4 June 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Dallan, now two months later, how is is the place matcher working? I am still having to do a lot of redirects to get my places to NOT be red. Another question, when I do a redirect on my "misfit" places do I have to put checkmarks in the boxes beside the trees to add that to? Sometimes I remember to do that and sometimes I don't. What is the reason for the boxes beside the trees when editing places?? --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 22:46, 30 July 2008 (EDT)+According to the conversations [[WeRelate talk:Source review#GenWeb Source Page Titles|here (beginning in 2013)]] and [[WeRelate talk:Source patrol#GenWeb sources|here]], using individual County GenWeb pages as Sources is incorrect, which appears to be what was used on the example you gave with [[Family:Henry Kendall and Julia Grogan (1)]]. Whether I agree with this or not, I do see the logic behind why all of these County GenWeb pages are not Sources as they are closer in definition to Repositories of gathered information. The overarching question of what to do with GenWeb pages does not appear to have been determined (they need to be standardized, converted, or removed), but, in all likelihood, they will disappear over time from what I read. If this is incorrect, a determination of some type would be helpful as there is still confusion over the subject. In any case, I retract my initial question (it was going to be too much work) in place of a determination on County GenWeb pages. Should they be standardized, converted to Repositories, or removed? Am I missing other options? As they stand currently, they are a mess.--[[User:Khaentlahn|khaentlahn]] 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-----+:I am still at a total loss trying to understand the issue here. If you make Genweb a repository, it is allowed to contain multiple sources, say, one for each county. A insignificant organizational issue that in no way requires deleting the individual county genweb source pages. To make each county genweb a Repository implies that it contains several sources, so each subsection now needs a source page. For example, in the above example, now the Marriages section of LaPorte County genweb would be a source page inside the Laporte county Genweb Repository, instead of having one source page for the entire county website.
-Since the new search functionality was installed we've reviewed thousands of places from various GEDCOM files to make sure that the new place searcher standardizes them correctly. As of two days ago, everything finally seems to be standardizing the way you would expect. During this time the GEDCOM uploader has continued to use the old place matcher. We expect to switch it to the new place matcher this weekend. After that, if you find places that aren't being standardized correctly, please let me know. Also, later this Fall we plan to add quite a few additional non-US places.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 01:32, 1 August 2008 (EDT)+:I read the cited discussion, filtering out all but Dallan's comments as just someone's opinion, and I do not see that it says using county Genwebs as source is incorrect. Instead, just the opposite. So saying it says one thing or another is rather selective reading.
- +:As far as I can see, the choice here is to have a Source page for each County genweb (since each are administered differently) or have absolutely no page at all, and do them all as citation-only including explicit links to the page used when you are using the Genweb website as a source of information. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 04:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-== Merge/redirect and FTE [29 July 2008] ==+
- +
-Have just done my first merge, but there is an interesting side effect. Once the merge is complete (and there are still two entities existing, but one has been edited to redirect) '''and''' you have FTE open '''and''' you do a search for the individual in question '''and''' you click on the individual that has been redirected, the following results:+
- +
-the proper page comes up (right side frame), but the FTE (left side) has a blank (shaded) box and it shows the clicked-on individual (the one with the redirect) at the top of that frame. If you mouse over the box, it also shows the clicked-on individual (the one with the redirect) in the mouse-over text. +
- +
-If you want to see, search for ''People and Families'' with the values '''Benjamin''' and '''Knowles''' (my g-grandfather). There are many results. The two for the example are '''Benjamin Knowles (5)''' and '''Benjamin Knowles (6)'''. I have merged these two persons into Benjamin Knowles (6) (which I added to WeRelate). If you click on Benjamin Knowles (5) in the search results, the correct person (Benjamin Knowles (6)) comes up in the right-hand frame, but the behaviour I've described above obtains in the left-side FTE frame.+
- +
-Also, I would like to make a plea that search results are ordered by '''Person''' first, then Family. I get both Benjamin Knowles (6) and Benjamin Knowles (5) on the first page of search results (although they are not at the top). It doesn't seem right that I have to go to the third page of search results to find Benjamin Knowles (2)!+
---[[User:Slknowles|Slknowles]] 14:43, 30 April 2008 (EDT)+::After a little more information which you provided to me in referencing [[WeRelate talk:Source review#County sites?|County Sites?]], which I will admit I hadn't read previously, this line of conversation is no longer valid as it appears that my original question was erroneous based on invalid information.--[[User:Khaentlahn|khaentlahn]] 16:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
---- ----
-Yes, merging pages while the FTE is open "confuses" the FTE - that's a known bug that I need to repair.+== Why is Find A Grave Template not working? [1 January 2015]==
 +On Person Page [[Person:Nancy Baile (1)|Person:Nancy Baile (1)]], the saved result is (i think) a lot of code.
 +I've tried to change it, but . . What can we do?
-The new search will have three sort options: +Thanks, --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 19:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
-* sort pages by how close of a match they are to the search criteria ("best match")+
-* sort pages that match all search criteria by last-modified date+
-* sort pages that match all search criteria by page title+
-The last option should work for what you want to do.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 14:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)+::I took a quick look and found that there was a stray '<refname' at the end of the text for S2 on that page. Removed the offending stray and the template works fine.--[[User:Jaques1724|jaques1724]] 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
-----+:::Thanks, Jaques -- so simple when you know what to look for, but I sure didn't.--[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
-Another merge question: +
-I've found a duplicate family of one I uploaded. My family page is titled 'David Jackson and Jane Carlock'. But the author of the duplicate family has added her married name to the title 'David Jackson and Jane Carlock Jackson'. Looks to me like this author hasn't updated anything for a year. I can't just edit his page to change Jane's name to Jane Carlock. They are both #1. So should I try to redirect his page? This couple has a LOT of children. Do I work from the bottom up or the top down? I'm not sure if I should try to do something with this or just wait until the merge feature is further along. But waiting is my choice! --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 20:46, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+
-:Apparently I'm in a minority on this subject, but I think people should have a reasonable expectation of having their material displayed the way they want them to be displayed. Changes in someone elses lineage should be made collaboratively, not pre-emptively. If you really feel a need to merge, then why not ask the person if its OK with them, ask them to collaborate with you. Ask them in the discussion page, so that there's a public record of having the question put to them. If they are watching, they can respond. If they aren't watching, and don't respond, then I think the presumption is that they don't care, and you'd be free to merge away. If they don't respond you might try contacting them offline, but a public statement that you'd like to change the page, should suffice. No response, change away. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 21:04, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+== Does WeRelate have a naming convention for slaves? [5 February 2015] ==
-----+Wondering how WeRelate handles the surnames of people who became or were born into slavery. I'm thinking specifically about the period of slavery in the U.S. pre Civil War. Thanks.--[[User:Jillaine|Jillaine]] 22:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
-The value in performing a merge is too great to wait. The result is the union of the contents of the contributing pages and a page that explicitly has the watchers of both contributing pages combined. It's a defacto call for input on the subject of that page because everyone is going to be noticed of the modification by e-mail. Since this is a wiki with history, nothing is ever lost anyway, so discussion can evolve as needed subsequently.+
- +
-I've performed several thousand page merges. From time to time someone disagrees with the results, takes an interest, and changes the layout - but the result is a refinement of the merged page, which is precisely as it should be. That is also an extremely rare event - figure less than 1%. The only time that we go back to separate pages is in the really rare event that a merge is found to have been incorrect (which again is as it should be).+
- +
-There's also a practical consideration - who do you wait for and how long? Take a look at the watch lists on any of the Pilgrims - [[Person:Stephen Hopkins (2)]] and [[Person:John Alden (1)]] for example.+
- +
-Merge. Always merge. Merge immediately. If you don't want to do the heavy-lifting of merging pages, at least put a very clear notice on both pages that indicates the other as a merge candidate.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 21:42, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Hopefully I'll have the match and merge functionality for merging Person and Family pages ready in about a week.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+Coincidentally, I have an interest in this question from the other direction: A bunch of my ancestors, sadly, owned slaves, in some cases I have their names. I'd like to document them in case it could be useful to someone else's research. --[[User:Trentf|Trentf]] 01:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- +:This is a good question. Many of my ancestors owned slaves, but I haven't personally traced any of them. I would think that the 'Unknown' naming convention would apply to slaves (ie Sara Unknown); most genealogists who do black genealogy simply call them by their given names "a slave named Sara", etc. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 11:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
-== Discredited Genealogy [29 July 2008] ==+
- +
-I'm starting to see folks critically working over some of the genealogy that I've been (more or less) mindlessly merging over the last couple of months. It's actually gratifying to see results that I merged from several contributors critically reviewed edited by others. I have a minor suggestion though.+
- +
-I've started to think more about the question of how to represent discredited, improbable, and flat out wrong stuff. I've tried to do it up to now using "Note" fields in the appropriate person or family pages, but that may not be sufficient in cases where finding and proving an error is a research effort unto itself. Should we adopt a convention of putting a section, immediately prior to sources, where we'll put such stuff? I'm trying to think of a good name for it, but am not satisfied with anything - "Dubious Genealogy", "Common Errors", "Probable Errors", etc.+
- +
-Am I out in front of the curve on this? Does anyone want to suggest something?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 18:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:JRM, perhaps one should write an article and link it to the main page. There are examples of good articles in the NGS quarterly. Because of lack of time for now I have entered a title on the page regarding the discrepancy. See [[Person:Robert Coker (3)]] and the topic Lenard Coker & Charlotte Coker in the 1850 household of Robert Coker. This error is found in many of the family trees posted on other sites. I plan to write an article; but may never do it. I have approximately 26 more trees to enter and have not finished the ones that I started. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:17, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::I think I prefer the discussion to be on the person or family page. I've been generally dealing with the issue under a heading that's specific to the issue - like one in the beginning called "Origins" (because so often the problem is a faulty line for an immigrant back to England) or I've seen (Ronni I think) have a section on "Possible Children". But a standard section title that calls attention to wrong information is probably useful. I like all JRM's suggested titles, depending on whether the problem is something that's been proven wrong, something that's incompatible with known information but not impossible, or just untrustworthy. I like putting it on the page better because it's more likely to be seen, and because there will often be content to put there (i.e. "Author X disagrees that this man ever sailed on the Mary and John because of X, Y, and Z.") that doesn't really need it's own article (an article which, as Beth points out, may never get written!) --[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 20:24, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:What goal are you attempting to accomplish with such labels? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 20:50, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::They call attention to and acknowledge the bad information, and (hopefully) demonstrate why it is wrong, so that people who don't know better don't get upset at the information being removed and/or try to add it back.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 20:57, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Off topic. Has your blessing arrived yet? --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 22:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
-::Two weeks ago today...and he sometimes sleeps enough for me to read and type again :-) --[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 23:22, 14 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::They are also labels that do not, in my experience, improve the success of a discussion, but different folks have different approaches. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 21:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::In cases where the evidence is unclear and there is room to disagree, you may be right. But there are many cases where information that has been proven to be flat-out wrong is still being circulated, and in that case I think we should call a spade a spade.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 21:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Red hot pokers are rarely an effective argument. You might "win" with one, but you will rarely change anyone's view. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 21:15, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Bill, but you will change someone's view if you have convincing evidence. It should be posted and if a user disagrees they are free to post and document why they disagree. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 22:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::I don't think the issue is making a logical argument for or against something. Its labeling someone else's stuff "Discredited", "junk" or what have you. It may in fact be such, but labeling it so implies "I'm right, your wrong". That's not reasoned argumentation. That's argumentation by fiat. If you have to apply a label to enforce your viewpoint, frankly you're argumentation can't be all that good, or people would change their view. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 22:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:: Bill, that makes sense. Just title the discussion with reference to what you are disputing. For example, John Doe shown not to be the father of Samuel Doe or evidence disproves that John Doe is the father of Samuel or something.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 00:35, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
---- ----
-Perhaps the approach that could be taken here is to include a section in the article entitled "Alternative Interpretations". There different perspectives on the subject could be discussed, coupled with the evidence for and against whatever the issue was, with out applying a divise label. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 02:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+I did a bit more searching and happened upon this category [[:Category:Slavery]], it shows two different conventions being used: The surname of "Unknown" (as Daniel suggested), and a few have the surname "(Enslaved)". I would think the former would be sufficient but I would suggest coupling it with the category, though I might suggest that the Slavery category get two sub-categories: Slaves and Slave Owners. Maybe the general topic of Slavery is worthy of a portal or project of its own? --[[User:Trentf|Trentf]] 17:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
-:I had a situation on WeRelate. There are 2 different wives shown for the same person. I discussed this with the other user. The user had no objection to me changing the name of the wife; I had direct evidence and the user was not certain where that information came from, possibly a vertical file. So sometimes a discussion with the user eliminates the conflict. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 07:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+: I agree that there should be separate sub-categories for 'Slaves' and 'Slave owners'. I went ahead and created them. I also created these templates: [[:Template:Slave]] (and equivalent [[:Template:Enslaved person]]), [[:Template:Slave family]], and [[:Template:Slave owner]]. The templates can be used on a Person or Family page instead of a direct ''Category:'' entry, the intended advantage being that the category placement or category name can then easily be changed. For example, currently [[:Template:Slave family]] causes a page to have [[:Category:Slaves]], but it could later be changed to use a 'Slave families' category or some such.
-----+: I am beginning to go through the pages presently in [[:Category:Slavery]] to update them to use the new categories (via templates). Most pages seem to be part of [[Genealogy of Enslaved Communities on Drayton Family Plantations: A Research Project Sponsored by the Magnolia Plantation Foundation of Charleston, SC|this plantation research project]].
-I had no idea this would be so sensitive! Still, I'm seeing the perspective from both sides. I think most of the information I'm talking about is accepted as discredited, but there's no sense alienating folks either. May I suggest the title "disputed interpretations"--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 07:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+
-:Since we're talking about individual articles, how alternative viewpoints are handle is largely up to the individual authors. If someone else wants to have a different view of some genealogical "fact", that's pretty much their prerogative. I don't need to convert them to some other viewpoint. Arguments really only get in the way of doing the genealogy. I probably go out of my way to avoid "hot buttons", simply because its not an argument that I'm trying to achieve. Now, if someone wants to engage in a reasoned discussion of some viewpoint, that's another matter. I always learn from discussions (such as this one). The only thing I learn from an argument is to avoid the person in the future. +:A number of pages in [[:Category:Slavery]] don't fit either of the new sub-categories. So far I've found pages for never-enslaved descendants of slaves and for overseers of slave plantations. Some people in the category are of unclear status: a son of an owner and his slave who was a minor at the end of U.S. slavery and was later sent to college by the slave owner's sisters. I'm not sure if descendants and overseers should be removed from [[:Category:Slavery]] or put into new sub-categories (of what nature?), or just what. I'm leaving them unchanged at the moment.
-:So, if "Disputed interpretations" floats your boat, that's better than "Rejected Conclusions" or something of that sort. Personally, I try to avoid hot button words as much as possile, as they do not usually advance a discussion, and sometimes hinder it. The advantage of a phrase like "Alternative Viewpoint" is that its about as non-confrontational as you can get, and still convey the message that there is a subject where differences of opinion are held. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:58, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+:--[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 02:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
-----+== Top 100 websites [4 April 2015] ==
-I'm not particular about what we call it. "Plan Nine from Outer Space" works for me. I just think we need a more or less standard place to indicate relationship connections, generally discredited ones anyway, that don't appear as part of the explicitly connected genealogy.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 09:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+
-::JRM; I am not all sure that a standard place and name would work for me. It actually would depend on the context within the applicable page. Just checking a few titles for articles in the NGSQ and the NEHGR that pertain to this subject; I found the following titles:+WeRelate has featured again in Genealogy in Time magazine's 100 top genealogy website based on webtraffic. We've gone [http://www.genealogyintime.com/articles/top-100-genealogy-websites-of-2015-page02.html from 86th to 79th]. Out of interest, do we publish anything ourselves about traffic? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 16:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
-* ''Which Jacob Pence? A Case Study in Documenting Identity'' [NGSQ;Vol. 75, No. 2]+: I would love to see periodic reports of various metrics about the site. It seems like we all spend our days making steady improvements to information on the site, and it would be nice to see some numbers to show where our collective effort is getting us. I have noticed that you, [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]], have made some efforts towards generating metrics in the past. Are you still pursuing that? Could you use a hand? --[[User:Trentf|Trentf]] 14:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
-* ''Two Simeon Nuttings of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, and Their Wives Named Dorothy'' [NEHGR; Vol 157, whole no. 626]+::This is not in answer to your question, but I did add the "101-Best" summary related to the Social Media sites on the [[Portal:Community|Community Portal]] page a few months ago, which is the first primary portal page that comes up when a user hits the "Start Collaborating" link on the main page. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 21:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
-* ''King Philip (Metacom) Redux: Massasoit's Son or Grandson?'' [NEHGR; Vol 157, whole no. 626] --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 09:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+:::FWIW, I recently added Google Analytics to the site. We get between 3,500 and 4,000 users visiting the site each day.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 05:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
-::The nature of a wiki is that folks are pretty much going to do as they want. If someone wants to create a "standard" section entitled "Plan Nine from Outerspace", they are going to do that. You aren't going to stop anyone from doing it the way they want, unless you want to establish a policing system---which ain't going to work. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 09:50, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+Hi Trentf - apologies I can see I've only just seen your comment. Yes I did do some work on stats in the past and have kept this. My main focus has been on "number of person pages" which I still believe is the best metric for the site's size although I did discuss some others [[http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User:AndrewRT/Metrics|here]]. It easy to help out - just click on [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Search?sort=score&ns=Person this link] and add the date & number (in the bottom right hand side) to [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Image:Person_pages_werelate.jpg this page] - if you can help by adding stats every now and then this would be useful!
-:::Precisely my point Q. One can create a "standard" section; but I may choose not to use it. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:06, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+We are currently up to [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Search?sort=score&ns=Person 2.69m] pages, an increase of 6% over the last 16 months. I'm afraid this is not sufficient growth to allow us to ever change our scale and as per the other discussions, Dallan is having to use adverts to pay for much needed technical development now that the tentative Wikimedia discussion led nowhere. As previously discussed, the decision to restrict GEDCOM uploads has severely limited the long term growth potential for the site. Even the claim to be "the world's largest genealogy wiki" is sadly no longer true, having [[User:AndrewRT/Size|been overtaken]] by WikiTree. Having said that, I still prefer it to share my own tree and I can see it still generates top google hits. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 22:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:Yes, WikiTree is much larger than we are now. We really ought to change that tagline. Any suggestions?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 05:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 +::I suggest "It is the world's largest not-for-profit genealogy wiki" [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 08:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:::I don't think FamilySearch Family Tree is a "for profit" wiki, so I'm not sure that works, either. Using all three (for different reasons), I remain convinced that WeRelate is the most flexible, and certainly provides the best arena for story-telling --the kind of thing that makes for a good Featured Page, for example. But what slogan can you make out of something like that? --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 18:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 +::I haven't really used the FamilySearch family tree - is it, strictly speaking, a "wiki"? Also do you know how many people it has now - I'm struggling to find the stats. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:::Yes, it's definitely a wiki, although why they don't want to call it that, I don't know. I'm not sure how you would go about getting stats for the number of users, but the person responsible for it is Ron Tanner. --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 22:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:::In his [https://rootstech.org/video/4054729365001 2015 RootsTech lecture], he said Family Tree had 2.5 million new person pages added each month -- I don't know how reliable this is, but they are being added by a wide range of people. --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 23:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 +::Unless you're referring to their "[https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Main_Page Research Wiki]" - this only has 81,000 articles on it so is smaller than the WeRelate wiki. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:::Please, see these statistics : [https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Special:Statistics 1] and [https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/fr/Sp%C3%A9cial:Statistiques 2] + [https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/de/Spezial:Statistik 3] and [https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/es/Especial:Estad%C3%ADsticas 4] + [https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/it/Speciale:Statistiche 5] and [https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/pt/Especial:Estat%C3%ADsticas 6] + [https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/ru/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:Statistics 7] - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 01:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:::: [[User:Dallan|Dallan]] ... "''WikiTree is much larger than we are now.''" --> Yes, but WikiTree "works" with '''living people''' ! And every day we are removing more as 100 or 200 persons and "orphan records" in our WeRelate. I saw also a WeRelate-member for 6 or 8 weeks removing his tree (about 2000 persons). See these links : [http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/WeRelate.org 1], [http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:WikiTree_notes 2], [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Combined_use_of_WeRelate_and_Wikitree 3]
 +:::: [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ... On your page [[User:AndrewRT/Size]], you give a number for GeneaNet ! This site (which is very <s>appreciated</s> used in France) is really an horror, because its incredible proportion of '''duplicates''' and errors ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 02:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 +::::: The FamilySearch family tree (not the wiki but the [https://familysearch.org/tree tree]) has more people, more page views, and more users than WeRelate and WikiTree combined. Like you say, they don't like to call it a "wiki", but it has a lot of characteristics of a wiki. What if we stayed away from words like "largest"? In the meantime, I'll change the tagline to just "WeRelate.org"--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
-----+== What do other people do when they find their WeRelate pages copied elsewhere without attribution? [4 February 2015] ==
-Ok, where this started was that I've encountered a number of places where I wanted to document connections that are generally not accepted. The rationale here is that others are going to repeatedly stumble over these issues as information from old GEDCOMs and other databases is recycled. Put differently, if a connection between a person and a family - either as a child of that family or a spouse - is not generally accepted, then:+
- A) It should not be part of the ordinary explicit family connections<br>+Just found another page on Ancestry that had a scanned page from WeRelate that I recognized as one I had posted - but with no attribution, and no indication that it came from WeRelate, other than the formatting of the sources. I don't care if my name is not mentioned, but if WeRelate is being mined for data, I really do think the site itself should be credited. And that is also my understanding of what the Open Commons agreement is about -- go ahead and copy, but provide attribution. Am I wrong? (I did leave a comment, thanking the person for circulating my information, and pointing out that it come from WeRelate, with an URL to the page.) What do other people do?
 +Thanks, Gayel --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 19:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 +: Yup - that's exactly what I do on ancestry, i.e. provide a comment stating where the information is coming from with a link to the WR page.--[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- B) It should be explicitly documented within the body of related person and family pages<br>+:Ditto - I literally just had this dilemma 12 hours ago.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
-The only question I'm asking is whether we can make the documentation of these sorts of situations a little more obvious.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 11:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+:Since Ancestry is a pay to use service, uploading material may be a violation of the Open Commons agreement. I would be interested in what a copyright lawyer has to say about that. People can't go around profiting from Wikipedia for instance. --[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 20:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::This is one of several reasons I dislike Ancestry.com. I think the only thing that can be done is make a copyright violation claim, but there isn't going to be a one size fits all solution. It is going to be a game of whack-a-mole. There are even worse instances of this same problem - several photos I personally scanned from my grandmother's album and put on Findagrave found their way to Ancestry.com like they were just free for the taking. Now I watermark all of my scanned, non-public domain images 'Daniel Maxwell Collection'. I also do not keep a tree on Ancestry.com since I dislike how they handle non-Ancestry approved sources. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 21:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
-----+:::Thanks, all. Very reassuring, and response policy now in place.. And, [[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]], can't you just see a Judy Russel blog on this? I don't think she would pull her punches. But [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel]] 's right -- it would be like playing whack-a-mole to deal with officially. Gayel--[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 01:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
-Jrm, how about a heading of "Disputed Lineages", highlighting the contradictions? Most of the disputed lineages occur because of conflicting secondary sources. Some of the disputed lineages are due simply to "old" disputes that have since been solved by a good primary source but the "old" keeps getting passed around from GEDCOM to GEDCOM. The word "disputed" does not have to have a negative connotation to it. Dispute can also simply mean to seek the truth in argument, discussion or debate. So I see nothing wrong about your suggestion. Collaboration is going to involve disputes, plain and simple. Like Amelia said, let's call a spade a spade (I'm sorry, but a father can not be younger than his biological son - that's ''improbable'' so let's call it what it is). +::::If there's a silver lining to plagiarizing WeRelate, at least they're hopefully spreading good data, for a change. Ancestry enhances people's ability to copy data, good or bad, that bad data often propagates faster than the correct data, until suggesting the right answer is swimming against the current. I have been told that Ancestry owns almost no actual data, mostly just indexes made in India, and as more and more stuff is put online, Ancestry will have less and less to offer. Devil Take the Hindmost: venture capital fund to buy Ancestry, that is. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 04:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::::The Legal Genealogist would do a great blog on this. Wikipedia has a whole apparatus to report copyright violations, I don't understand why a commercial company like Ancestry does not have to have one. I think the willingness of government records agencies to outsource record provision to Ancestry is incredibly stupid as they are giving up a way to show their relevance to the taxpayer and justify their existence and [[User:Jrich|Jrich]] is right about Ancestry's usefulness and relevance decaying as the Internet keeps expanding its offerings. --[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 18:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 +:::::I have to say I disagree about Ancestry's relevance decaying. Ancestry has a long, consistent history of buying out or neutralizing all the potential competitors it can, and doing well at that. Rootsweb was put on ice years ago; census sites, general genealogy sites, even some government data provision pulled in; Billiongraves to counter FindAGrave, deals with FamilySearch for holding original document images and limiting usage outside the Ancestry paywall; the list goes on and on. I'm sure they are continuously figuring on how to acquire or neutralize other emerging or established resources like WikiTree and FindAGrave. Although there are an increasing multitude of smallish, scattered resources on the net, only a few major resources of interest to them, like Archive.org and Google Books, remain out of their reach (or so it seems to me). --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 19:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::::::Most of that is a different issue. I agree that Ancestry has to fight tooth and nail to retain commercial viability, because with a few well placed free sites, they would go out of business tomorrow. To be honest, I don't like the idea of most commercial genealogy sites unless they offer something copyrighted and not under public domain (See NEHGS's site for an example of this, which has a large selection of recent genealogical journals, something Ancestry doesnt offer) but Ancestry mainly has people thinking that they have to pay for access to the census and other non copyrighted government records and I don't like this. Oh sure, they index the pre 1850 censuses but there is no reason Familysearch or someone else could have done this and put it all up for free. Ancestry has other problems too, such as creating 'sources' from people's GEDCOMs. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::I don't think you would have a case against Ancestry unless they refused to remove copyrighted material that was pointed out to them. Since individuals are creating and sharing their personal trees with each other, I think fair use rules would apply similar to here on WeRelate. As far as my work is concerned, I don't care who copies it or whether they attribute, although unattributed anonymous data loses its value. I just assume that anything I put on the Internet could be copied and am not shocked if I see it. And when I see them copy something I put together on this site, I take it as a compliment. It isn't something I would ever bother going to court for. (This is my opinion, and I am not a lawyer.) -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 17:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 +:::While I agree with you in general, the fact is that all material on this site is copyrighted and this is clearly indicated at the bottom of every page (see [[WeRelate:Terms of Use]]). The terms of the copyright ([[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA]]) clearly indicate that any materials can be copied ''provided credit is given'' and that they place ''no restrictions on further copying''. As long as they abide by those terms, then there's no problem (though, I am not a lawyer). But if they take the information behind their paywall and augment or improve it but ''prevent further copying'', then I have a huge problem with that. That would entirely negate the goal of putting information here under CC-BY-SA, which is, as I see it, to improve the quality of genealogical information on the internet. --[[User:Trentf|Trentf]] 14:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::If you post genealogical information on any site with the expectation that it won't be "copied" or "shared", then you likely also believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. First of all, some of what people "think" is copyrighted simply isn't because they don't include any "original thought" or [http://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/ii_what_can_and_can%E2%80%99t_be_copyrighted "originality"]; this includes many transcriptions, etc., also [https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/01/08/5-things-that-cant-be-copyrighted/ "facts" can't be copyrighted]. If the information we add on WeRelate is high quality and source-based, we should be accepting of others copying that information without first asking for permission or using proper citation. Much of what I've added here I've seen on other people's websites, including some of the maps I've done and other narrative that COULD be considered "copyrightable". In the beginning, I got a little irritated, but after I thought about it more, I figured it was good to have "better information" on someone else's site, instead of other questionable information... Remember "a rising tide lifts all boats". ''John F. Kennedy'' --[[User:Delijim|Delijim]], 4 February 2015
 +:::More like a "'''rising tide profits Ancestry'''" and makes suckers out of the novice users there who don't realize how much stuff behind the paywall they are financing is available here and elsewhere for free. --[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 21:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::::I don't believe WeRelate has ever espoused itself to be a "be-all, end-all" in genealogical research like Ancestry has. For better or worse, Ancestry will continue to be the most comprehensive place to research your ancestors. It has more way more sources than probably all of the other sites combined, and in spite of its many flaws (especially the Ancestry Member Trees, many with little or no sources or documentation), it is still the best thing around, and yes, with a fee attached. Until there is a better site to use, I'll continue to be happy to shell out the $25 or bucks a month or so to have access to their vast source of records. Like it or not, it sure beats trudging around the country to visit local courthouses, graveyards, LDS research centers or genealogical libraries... As they say, nothing good in life is FREE. Best regards --[[User:Delijim|Delijim]], 4 February 2015
 +:::::It most certainly is not the best site for research and it is not even remotely comprehensive. The coverage on Ancestry is good for censuses and some vital records (which governments should be providing themselves) and some specialized collections and that is about it. It sucks for pre-19th century sources. FamilySearch and Google are better for church records, without doubt, which is the meat and potatoes of anyone who is not a novice.--[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 22:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
-Perhaps linking these "disputed lineages" to a category as well would be useful. While the highlights can be brought out on the Family or Person page, maybe eventually these disputed lineages can have articles of their own.+== On Wikipedia and inclusion of content therefrom [16 April 2015] ==
-The problem is, as you pointed out, is getting folks to look for something they don't know that they should be looking for. For instance, the family of [[Family:William Spencer and Agnes Harris (1)|William Spencer and Agnes Harris]] *was* a disputed lineage. Agnes was thought to be a Tucker or a Hearne. But Douglas Richardson several years ago found a primary source revealing her name as Harris. The disputed lineage has been solved, but not everyone is aware of it, so GEDCOMs get uploaded with Agnes Tucker and Agnes Hearne. I would assume when Dallan gets the match/merge function that such a case would be flagged as a possible merge, but even still, there needs to be something on the page telling of the dispute or former dispute and why folks should merge their Agnes Tucker into Agnes Harris. +Hello -- I have been active from time to time in adding people, particularly scientists, who have Wikipedia biographies to WeRelate. I created a template over at Wikipedia to be added to a biography talk page indicating that the person has been represented in WeRelate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Werelate). I wanted to express my negative feelings about bringing content from Wikipedia over into WeRelate. There was a time a few years ago when I liberally used the template which would bring content over from Wikipedia to this wiki. However, in recent activities, I've not been using this template, rather focusing on the basic genealogical information. Frankly, I believe it is this basic genealogical information which is the core of what WeRelate is about, not the linkage, for instance, the linkage between [[Person:Amos Alcott (1)]] and [[Person:Ralph Emerson (4)]] via the passage "Alcott became friends with Ralph Waldo Emerson ....". This is an example I stumbled across when adding [[Person:Charles Haskins (6)]], but it pricked me into writing this. Such connections are not along the critical path for WeRelate, and we should be relying on Wikipedia to provide the rich text of a biography, while we here work to systematize that information. There have been inklings/dreams/rumors that WeRelate and Wikipedia might merge via the Wikimedia Foundation. If that happens, I would see WeRelate as a specialized adjunct to WikiData rather than Wikpedia per se, drawing on the organized information in Biography Infoboxes and explicitly not replicating Wikipedia biographical narratives. It is this state, looking at the genealogical systematization of content as oppose to florid narrative, which I see as the true future of WeRelate. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 01:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- +
-Perhaps a category should be set up in the mean time so we can add these disputed lineages to it as we come across them to "hold" them until a solution is found on how best to present them. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 11:35, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-We keep coming up with the scenario of Person and Family pages needing "subpages" as it were. Maybe we should start thinking of just plain ol' articles as a type of subpage. Note the disputed lineage on the person or family page and then link it to an article where more information is presented. The article would link back to the Person/Family page. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 11:44, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+Just created [[Person:H Wells (1)]] (for H. G. Wells), which kind of exemplifies the minimalist approach to representing Wikipedia in WeRelate. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 +:I think the better approach is to use the sources that Wikipedia uses. Citing the page itself would be like citing another WeRelate page as a source on WeRelate. But in practice Wikipedia is cited as a source in itself, despite Wikipedia's infamous inaccuracies, hence one of the several reasons I am not a fan of Wikipedia. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 08:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::In general, yes, use of the sources the WP article cites is to be preferred. They can be directly cited if one actually consults the source and finds the information (and sometimes more, like birthplace Brooklyn for [[ Person:Charles Haskins (6)]]). However, if one is only relying on WP's citation, then I think it best that WeRelate's citation reflect both the (supposed) original source and the fact that it came from Wikipedia. For instance, in Wikipedia, H. G. Wells' death date (and birth date?) cite ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'', so both that and the WP page version doing the citing, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._G._Wells&oldid=646374101#cite_note-Parrinder-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._G._Wells&oldid=646374101#cite_note-Parrinder-3] (available via "Permanent link" in tool menu) should be used. I prefer this to be in the form "''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'', as cited by ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._G._Wells&oldid=646374101#cite_note-Parrinder-3 Wikipedia link]''", but "''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._G._Wells&oldid=646374101#cite_note-Parrinder-3 Wikipedia link]'' citing ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography''" would also be reasonable. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 18:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
-:If the detective work behind a disputed lineage is significant, it could very well belong in an article by itself. I wouldn't suspect that to be the typical case though, where creating an article "sub-page" would be a heavy handed answer that is, never the less, even more obscure than a "note". I prefer that a brief section exist in plain sight, referring to additional articles if needs be, but not as a general rule. --[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]]+Re WR's [[Person:H Wells (1)|H. G Wells page]]. With no parents and no spouse? I thought this was genealogy.
-----+I just came over to Watercooler to take a break after working on the village of [[Place:Bredon, Worcestershire, England|Bredon]] in Worcestershire, England. The Wikipedia page mentions a William Hancock with a date of 1718. WR has another [[Person:William Hancock (44)|William Hancock]] who died in Bredon in 1676, no descendants listed. Anyone want to tie up some loose ends? --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 11:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
-A "Disputed Lineages" section would be fine, I just want to follow a convention that at least a few other folks think is reasonable. In my colonial merging adventures I hit these sorts of things from time to time. I want to leave things in the most probably "correct" state, but I don't want to lose the information on what may or might have been a connection either. I had been adding this material as a "note" entry, but I decided that was a little too obscure. I saw some of Amelia's entries and liked having the material in the body of the person page, but perhaps not as the initial item! I figured a section at the end of the page is a nice compromise and, if a convention could be adopted on the title, there would be a better chance people would see the information when they needed to.+:::''"With no parents and no spouse?"'' - It's still useful, because it gives birth and death dates and places. It's just one person, but still a contribution. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 18:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 +:Re: Your comment on [[Person:H Wells (1)]]. It also the practice at WR to use full birth names, not initials in person pages. So H Wells needs to be Herbert Wells. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 12:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::I agree, sort of. I've renamed the H Wells page to be [[Person:Herbert Wells (9)]], but have left the primary Name as "H. G. Wells". I think this is the right thing to do because when a person has many names, if one stands out as the well known name that should generally be used. Certainly "H. G. Wells" is much more recognizable than "Herbert George Wells". This helps, for instance, when doing a search for "Herbert Wells" -- one can immediately go to it, if that's who you're after, or skip it if you're after someone who is not the famous H. G. Wells. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 18:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
-So, as a convention (__NOT__ a requirement), could a few folks chime in on whether "Disputed Lineages" is a catch phrase they would recognize for this purpose?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 11:50, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+:::I agree with both of Robert's points above relating to the famous [[Person:Herbert Wells (9)|Mr. Wells]]. And to Ceyockey's ''minimalist approach'', Bravo! That's what the community approach to genealogy here at WR is all about: plant the seed, let the community water it, and we can all benefit by it's growth, maturity and propagation. You can look at it now and see it is nothing like it's [[wp:H. G. Wells|Wikipedia cousin page]], not to mention the related pages created and linked from page on Mr. Wells. Isn't that what the now-dormant [[Genealogy Contest|Genealogy Contest]] here at WR was all about? Planting the seed and letting it grow... --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 15:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-I suspect that every problem will have its own specific needs. There's not going to be a one-size fits all solution. In some cases placeing a discussion of the issues directly into the article is going to work, in other cases, the matters involved are going to be too complex for detailed inclusion in a person article. [[Person:Dale Carter (2)|Here's an example]] of one approach I've taken for a relatively innocuous issue. Go to the Personal data section and read the very brief blurb in the comments section about Dale Carter's Spouse. Relatively straightforward, simply identifying the fact that others have a different interpretation, and pointing to a location that contains a more complete discussion of the issue. I don't think there's much controversy here, as knowledgable researchers have identified the problems; the purpose of the point is simply to provide a more complete explanation of the issues here. If it were a bit less complex I'd have included it directly in the Dale Carter article. +Following the discussion, I think you will find this person record more along the lines of what most people would find useful and acceptable (?): [[Person:Louis Mordell (2)]] . --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 18:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 +:The basic problem is that some of us actually like the "florid narrative" that you think should be restricted to Wikipedia. I don't think you can say that narrative belongs to one place and "facts" belong somewhere else. And it's worth pointing out that there are multiple ways to reference/link to Wikipedia, including the one you have just used. --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 18:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::You think it is a problem? I am not stopping anyone from adding narrative, nor have I said I would remove it if it was there. I'm saying I prefer not to have it and, therefore, will not be adding it myself. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 19:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
-An example of a more complex treate is found [[Rutherfordiana| Here]]. This series of articles, still being built, addresses a very contentious problem in the genealogy of the descendants of John Walker I of Wigton Scotland. This is a very complex problem, and ultimately it is probably unresolvable. I have my opinions, others have theirs. the problem is complex and deserves a more complex treatement. It would not be easy to capture something like this within the framework of a simple person article. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+::I think Louis is a great example of a page that benefits from the WP extract, given that I have no idea who he is unless I go to WP. The flipside of that is that writing a good, well-sourced summary of someone truly high profile like, say, George Washington is hard to do correctly and takes a lot of time, whereas we can leverage a crowd-sourced, cross-linked version from WP unless and until someone feels they can improve it. (And, on that vein, I love it that we get the cross-linked content to other WP pages. I think it's fun to be able to instantly see other people and where they came from to end up in the same place.)
-----+::Now that I've been moved to comment, however, I'm not sure what the original issue was. People add narrative if they want, and don't if they don't want to, right? As long as the people that don't want to add it, don't object to other people coming along and doing so, then we don't have a problem.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 23:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
-Something else to keep in mind: One of the BCG's Standards of Proof, is that any contrary views must be adequately addressed. That means including an objective discussion of what others think, coupled with a well reasoned discussion of your own interpretation. Usually, there's an advantage to being objective in such treatments. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 20:36, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+== Married surnames for women [21 February 2015] ==
-----+Hi Markus3. Recently you have moved the married surname from the married surname field to the married given name field, leaving the married surname field blank, on several of the pages I watch. Can you explain why you are doing this and how you decide which pages to do it to? It doesn't make sense to me, and it removes a data point from the page which affects searches. Regards, --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 13:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
-Just to throw out some different wording for consideration; I have used "Conflicting Data" on my Jackson web site. I figured if I told about the conflicting info and explained how I came to my conclusions, it would give others an insight into how I came to a resolution. I didn't want folks wondering why my data differed from data they found on other sites. Some conflicting data can be explained in a couple of paragraphs, but I have one that took 3 pages. It will need some polishing before I can put that one on WeRelate!+:Hello, [[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] ! Please, at first excuse my very bad english. You seem to be not the only contributor who has a different opinion and experience with this use. See the "revert" of [[User:Jaques1724|Jaques1724]] ---> http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person%3AAbiah_Hitchcock_%281%29&diff=21602835&oldid=21602718
 +:I really don't understand why what I changed ... "''affects searches''". Can you explain and give examples ? I believe instead that my changes are absolutely necessary because otherwise the "count tool" always give an exaggerated number of persons (it's the same problem with Geni and WikiTree) ---> see '''[http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User:Markus3/%C3%89l%C3%A9ments_temporaires_de_comparaison this page]''' - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 14:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
-I'd expect to put a couple of paragraphs on the person or family page near the bottom, but maybe with bright color text near the top saying 'See Conflict Resolution Below' or something like that that at the top to catch attention. Anything that takes more than a couple of paragraphs perhaps could be a linked article. --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 23:28, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+I agree with Jaques1724. When you remove data from a page, you remove the ability to search on it. You may have noticed that the "Surname in place" search no longer appears on the left side of the page for the married surname of these women. Regarding your analysis program - if your "count tool" is not working properly, then you should fix the "count tool" itself, not change the data until you get the results to come out the way you want them to. I can not analyze your code from the link you provided. Does your program know to exclude data from the Married Surname Field if you do not want to count married women? --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 22:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 +:Hello [[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] ! Please, be more attentive ! It's not '''my'''... "analysis program" ! My "count tool" works perfectly ... it's nothing particulous but just a basic MediaWiki table with rows and columns. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 08:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
-----+Markus3: I too came here to ask why you were moving the last name of women's married names from the surname field into the given name field. A page I was watching had this change, and I saw that you had done this kind of change for a bunch of women on 16 Feb. I don't see any point in doing this, and it will have serious consequences for the search mechanism. I think most English-speakers, at least, expect the married last name to be in the surname field, and will search for it in that position. That convention is the one that is used on major genealogy sites like FamilySearch. I don't think you should continue doing such changes unless and until some consensus to do so is reached (say, on the Watercooler page). Please let Cos1776 and I know your thoughts about this. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 04:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
-Others may take the view that a generally common or conventional approach will never help, but that is not my experience. I have already tried such an approach and found it convenient to have, and I now want to improve it.+:Hello, Robert ! It's for me not so easy, my english is very poor. It's difficult to explain all the details of my "position". And I saw very often since my activity on WeRelate that a lot of contributors write on several points/topics in terms I am unable to really understand (and GoogleTranslate is "diabolic"). About your opinion and argumentation, it's for me exactly as the argumentation of Cos1776. You are staying on generalities and explaining nothing. You wrote for example : "''it will have serious consequences for the search mechanism''". What do you mean ? Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 07:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
-Of the ideas put forth, I think "Disputed Lineages" as a final section before "Sources" is least offensive and most on point. I encourage others to adopt the approach if they find it useful (or at least, can think of nothing better).--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+::Yes, [[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] and [[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] ! it's obvious . I "''have noticed that the "Surname in place" search no longer appears on the left side of the page for the married surname of these women.''". But 1) this possibility has very serious consequences on the general number of persons with a particular surname. 2) the "search mechanism" is really not destroyed ... it's only not so direct. 3) I have noticed since 2 years that the very vast majority of records on WeRelate don't use this heavy problematic search method. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL. --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 08:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- +
-:Generally, what is being suggested IS the conventional approach. You don't get much more conventional then BCG. Their guidance on this particular point is to include:+
-*Resolution of conflicting evidence. +
-:Because it:+
-*Substantiates the conclusion's credibility. (If conflicting evidence is not resolved, a credible conclusion is not possible.)+
- +
-:How you go about doing that is pretty much up to you, but it's their recommendation to resolve such conflicts. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I hadn't considered this situation; I'm very grateful for the discussion. I'm going to throw another wrench into the works. For the upcoming merge function, I've been thinking the system would take the events/facts from the newer page and add them to the older page if they don't already appear on the older page. For events like Birth, Christening, Death, Burial, and Marriage that we can have only one of, if different values for those events already appear on the older page, the system would add the events from the newer page as "Alt Birth", "Alt Death", etc. events on the older page. This means that in addition to a text section explaining why a certain event/fact is disputed, it still needs to be stored as an "Alt ..." event/fact. If not, it will be added as an "Alt ..." event/fact every time a page with the disputed event/fact is merged into this page anyway.+Regardless of why it is being done, if the information being entered in the "given surname" field is the married name, not the name they were born with, then it is incorrect.
-We currently don't have anything like "Alt Parent Family", "Alt Spouse Family", "Alt Husband", "Alt Wife" and "Alt Child" to record that certain family relationships are disputed. And we'll need to record the disputed relationships on the page, or every time a page with a disputed relationship is merged into the page, the disputed relationship will be added to the page anyway. I'm thinking that the system can assume that if a Person page is linked to two or more "Parent Families", then the second and later parent family links are disputed. And it can assume that if a Family page links to two or more Husbands or Wives, then the second and later links are disputed. But we'll need to have the user explicitly check a checkbox on the "Spouse Family" link to specify whether this spouse family is a second marriage or is known to be disputed. We'll also want to display a "Disputed" checkbox next to the child links, but we can derive the value for this checkbox based upon whether this family is the second or later "Parent family" on the child's Person page. +I think that is the point being made.--[[User:Jonmcrawford|Jonmcrawford]] 12:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
-By the way, if the resolution of conflicting evidence gets really long, I'd rather have it moved onto an article than to create a subpage. Subpages aren't automatically renamed when you rename a page, and they aren't automatically redirected when you redirect a page. Creating separate articles if necessary just keeps things simpler.+: No, what is being discussed is not the primary name for an individual (which all agree should use the maiden surname), but rather an additional name for a woman, which can be labeled as "alternate name" or "married name". The question is whether to have the surname (taken from husband at marriage) in the "surname" field, or in the "given name" field. To make this clear, here are two screenshots of how it looks while editing:
 +::[[Image:MarriedSurname.PNG]]
 +:versus
 +::[[Image:MarriedSurnameInGiven.PNG]]
 +:--[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 +:::Yes, Robert ! And the field where this "married name" is tipped is bringing consequences (advantages and disadvantages). The problem is : "Which of these two methods brings more benefits and fewer drawbacks ?"
 +:::Yes, [[User:Jonmcrawford|Jonmcrawford]]. The option labeled "married name" also divides the input between given name and husband's surname. It's also theoretically "'''incorrect'''" to put a surname in the entry field that is dedicated to the first name. But ... Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 07:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::::This dialogue reminds me of how i am struggling with family names in the part of Holland where i grew up. When a man married into the farm of his wife, he would - at any given time, perhaps when their third child is born - take on the name of his wife, or - to be more precise - the name of the farm where she came from and where they live. The first and second child may be named after their father, but then the father changes surnames, and the children get their lastname from the place where they were born. My solution to this is to have the surname field follow the father's name, and in the alt_name i enter the farm name. Example see [[Family:Eimert ten Holkenborg and Janna Goormans (1)|Eimert and Janna]]. Note Janna Goormans is also called Janna te Roller, while some of her children have "ten Brundel" as their surname.
 +[[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 22:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
-What do people think?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:18, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+Markus3 - When I say that it is "your" counting tool, it means that "you" are the one using it to count something that "you" personally wish to count. Obviously, it is ''not'' working perfectly for your needs, because you have to edit pages by hand, one at a time, to eliminate the married surname field in order to get the counter to return the answer that you want. Instead of getting into a back and forth argument about this - why don't you explain exactly what you are trying to count (I think I know, but you seem to think I am missing something). Then we can help you with a solution to your problem that doesn't negatively impact everyone else. --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 13:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
-----+: [[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] ... 1) I especially do not want to ..."''negatively impact everyone else''" ! 2) I think, my goal/project it very clear and very simple --> to obtain (when possible without writing an other/new (light or heavy ?) part of programm) an exact number of persons who have a particular surname and precisely excluding surnames obtained by marriage. I don't want to remove any information on person pages and family pages, making poorer the records and obstructing the work of others. 3) No and no ... I am not the (only) "''one using to count''". There is a big competition between genealogical sites and the vast majority of them are using this "total number of persons" as advertising, propaganda and recruitment. Many give false statistics, with duplications and confusions (intended or not). I can cite several sites and genealogical associations in France. I have had several debates and (sometimes heavy) conflicts about it, including Wikipedia ... When WeRelate wants to be better than its rivals (that use comparisons on the number of records), we are needing undisputed and indisputable arguments and numbers of records. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 09:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- +
-:This is just going to be messy regardless of what we do. The first issue I have is that I object to having information that is just plain wrong continued to be listed as if it's a legitimate possibility - i.e. labeled "disputed" or "alt." I know that's a line that humans are going to have to discuss, and many times there are good faith alternatives, but there really are many situations where information is just plain wrong. If we continue to present it as a viable alternative, we're doing a disservice and spreading the wrong info - particularly if this "alt" info makes its way into gedcoms downloaded from WeRelate. I would rather have people who get the notification emails generated by the merge keep deleting nonsense than keep the bad information on the page - it's work, but it's the wiki way. It also preserves "alt" as alternatives that could actually be possible. I do feel more strongly about this with regard to relationships (which are harder to clearly label as wrong) than with dates, where we can at least use the note field to explain why something is wrong or disputed.+
- +
-:Another issue - I don't think it makes sense to assume that "later" parent families are the "disputed" ones. The parents are listed in order that they are added to WeRelate, and although in many cases the older page will have been "cleaned" and have the most reliable data (we hope), that won't be true everywhere, and it's not intuitive to change the order to reflect what's the best data. Plus, elevating one set of parents and calling the rest disputed it doesn't cover two common situations 1) the dispute is whether the parents are known or unknown or 2) the dispute is which of two couples is the parents, with both being equally likely.+
- +
-:I would love a way to indicate that parents, spouses or children are disputed, but given the discussion above, that's apparently excessively judgmental of me. A nice alternative would be a way to add a note to a relationship like we can do with events. --[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 18:43, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::From past experience I have had in informing someone that their information is wrong; unless they are a professional genealogist, some do not take it very well. My recommendation is to obtain all of the useful information a person probably has before saying outright that they are incorrect. I guess that does not sound very nice but unfortunately sometimes it is necessary. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:12, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::Beth, a very good observation. <BR>+
-::::Almost everyone thinks they are "right" about whatever position they take, <br>+
-::::most do not take kindly to being told that they are "wrong", <br>+
-::::and some seem mistake honest discussion for personal attack. <BR>+
-:::Objectivity is rare. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 20:40, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Let's don't forget - this is a shared space. The caveats that are expressed on wikipedia apply - if you don't want to see your contribution edited, re-edited, changed around, etc., you should probably find a different place for your work. We're after the community sense of what's correct. We can't be afraid to "fix" things that are broken because we might offend.+
- +
-::I take the view that the person currently working any page has the information that's present there and whatever the best additional information is at that moment. They should make any and all corrections and changes that they believe are appropriate. Nothing is ever really lost, because this is a wiki. Even so, anything that I change because it was incorrect gets a note or (from here on) added to a disputed lineages section. Within that, I place information on the relationship/linkage that I found to be incorrect, along with links to the family and person pages involved (this sort of gives the feature that Amelia wanted, without actually placing such links in the left-hand column).+
- +
-::I avoid situations of A says X and I say Y by adding whatever source information I have. If the discussion is focused on the relative merits of sources, the discussion will probably remain constructive. If two parties reach an impasse, I think the community can be called upon for assistance and the generally accepted/majority view will prevail. If the other side remains unconvinced they can and should write an extensive minority opinion. After all, new information comes to light from time to time, and perspectives change.+
- +
-:::Really I am okay with whatever we decide. This is a dynamic site so what we decide now may be changed in the future. The dynamics is one of the many things that I love about this site and a new and updated version of the Think Tank. Although, I '''am''' having fun imagining a court of 3 Wiki Judges deciding the outcome of a genealogy impasse. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 21:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-It seems that we have two distinct situations here:+On the fringes there may be some value to external search engines in having married names entered, though the exact value is far from clear as the names exist in very close proximity in Family page titles already. As it has largely not been done in any systematic way, it seems pointless to have it exist on, say, 0.5% of the pages. Further, I believe it is pointless until the feature is supported by software that keeps it up to date, so that when somebody changes the spelling of a husband's name from, say Curtiss to Curtis or Curtice, or vice versa, the married names of all five of his wives is correctly updated as well. Up until recently, believing it to be an annoyance brought in with people's GEDCOM uploads, because it is something they do on their own system, or their software does, I have been deleting it. I have put that on hold hoping this conversation would establish whether WeRelate values it and is going to add software to maintain it, or it is realized it is a maintenance headache, because it duplicates data on the woman's page to data whose natural place is on her husband's page, creating a non-normalized data model, which suggests it should not be done at all if not by software. The simplest arrangement is, of course, to simply know people by their birth name, and much like the system for place names, some people may not like that system, but it allows us to have a common understanding and work together.
-# There are two dates or relationships, and the contributors are not yet sure which is preferred, or there is some evidence to support both (or more likely, there is no good evidence to support either).+
-# There are two dates or relationships, and the contributors can generally agree that one of them is wrong.+
-I know that we could remove the wrong date/relationship from the page, but having to re-remove it every time someone uploads a new GEDCOM with the incorrect information would be a pain and violates the idea that newly-uploaded GEDCOM's shouldn't be too burdensome to the community. Also, even though they'd be useful, I'd rather not add notes to relationships because most desktop genealogy programs don't support notes on relationships and it would cause problems when we implement GEDCOM re-upload. Having a specific "disputed" flag on the event/fact or relationship, with the reasoning recorded in the big text box, would make it easier for the system to treat disputed information differently from non-disputed information. +Whatever this counting tool is, is a separate issue that needs explaining. I would hazard a guess that somebody needs to figure out a different way to count surnames as it appears to be concerned with one person's project, which does not make a good justification for changing how things are done. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
-How about the following?+: Re: a common understanding - I would put forth that we already do have a common agreement for at least one part of a woman's page - the wiki Page Title - which could technically be anything, but we have agreed to use a person's birth name (first and last) to provide the unique identifier for their page. It would seem to me that Markus3 should probably use the Page Title to count people born with a specific surname for his project. Depending on what exactly it is that he is trying to count, he should probably also incorporate the name variant database, which brings me to ...
-* The system doesn't automatically mark anything as disputed. So for example a person could belong to multiple parent families (which they can now) while people figure out which one is correct, or if nobody can definitely say which one is correct.+: Re: maintenance issues with using different names - It is true that name variants used to cause problems in genealogical databases, but remember that WR now handles name variants very well (recall [http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/insider/2012/01/30/ProjectBuildsDatabaseOfVariantNameSpellings.aspx this project]), so I do not agree that including married surnames introduces the potential for a maintenance headache. It is not necessary to use the same spelling for every member of a family. They rarely all appeared in the records with the same spelling anyhow.
-* When merging, if the to-be-merged page contains an event/fact or relationship that does not already appear on the merged-into page (either undisputed or disputed), it is added to the merged-into page as undisputed.+: Re: should we even include married surnames on pages for women - I say YES, mostly because a woman was usually known for more years of her life by her married name(s) than by her maiden name. She therefore would appear in official records more often under her married name(s), which means that it is often beneficial to be able to search for her that way. That data point is very relevant to who she was. I would be interested in exploring the concerns surrounding this issue further, however. --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 19:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
-* People can mark any event/fact or relationship as disputed by checking a "Disputed" box. If you do this, you should enter your reasoning into the big text box.+
-* Disputed events/facts and relationships don't appear in the left-hand infobox. Instead, they are displayed in the body of the page above sources, images, and notes.+
-* Disputed events/facts and relationships don't appear in GEDCOM exports (when we get that working).+
---[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 12:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+
-----+::You can search for Family pages with wife's given name and husband's surname filled in. You can search for Person pages using the given name and fill in the spouse's surname. Since the married name has a given name and surname separate (and half the cases I see only fill in the surname part of it anyway), it does not create a contiguous string you can search for anyway. So I see little actual searching value. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 20:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
-Dallan, I am not sure of your approach to match/merge, but the way he PAF utility works, the two pages proposed for merging are displayed side by side. Each data field on the right hand page has a check box beside it. If a field is blank on either page the data from the filled in field is incorporated. If both pages have conflicting data, the values from the left hand page are incorporated unless the box on the right is checked. Then the value is overridden. Any changes made should trigger a dispute flag requiring an explanation, probably on the Talk Page rather than in the big text box. The main issue then becomes source quality.--[[User:Scot|Scot]] 15:33, 16 July 2008 (EDT)+
-:::Yes, the Talk page is a better spot. Since we can store multiple occurrences of relationships and events, if both slots are filled we can by default add the other relationship/event as a second opinion rather than overriding it, but I do want to display both pages side-by-side, and there should be a way for the user to say which of the two conflicting relationships/events should be listed first.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+:I think it's important to remember that someone's married name may change in unpredictable ways, such as combining both spouses' surnames, etc. This field seems to serve a purpose in disambiguating what the actual married name of a person was. IMO, I think that if the field is given as "Married name", with a first name and surname, then people will fill it out with the married name in the surname field. Moving this to the first name is confusing. --[[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 20:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- +
-:I love it.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 13:37, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Interesting comments Dallan, and I think you're on to something. My concern was that human users would need to see something on the body of the page explaining about known issues/errors that are "out there" in the world knowledge base. I hadn't considered that there might be a way to automatically recognize discredited information on the way in, which is better still (and even if you can only do a few special cases).+Marc asked for an explicit example of how his preferred data entry causes searching problems, so: Suppose you want to find out if WeRelate has anything on a person you know as "Amanda Boyer". Perhaps you know or suspect that was a married name, but perhaps you think she may have been single at the time you know about her. One natural way to search for her is to go to the "Search" dropdown and select "People" search. On the search Person page, you naturally would fill in "Amanda" in the Given Name field and "Boyer" in the Surname field. Doing this search will not find one of the candidates (as the WeRelate database exists right now) ''because'' the candidate, [[Person:Mariah Frost (1)]], who was known as "Amanda Boyer" during her first marriage, does not have the name "Boyer" in the surname field of her alternative Married name (or any other alternative name). This is because "Boyer" was moved out of the Surname field and into the Given Name field of the Married name. The correct name was actually given on her page, but was modified so that the person can no longer be found through using this straightforward, natural form of search. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- +
-My question then, is what of the "alternate birth", "alternate death", etc. events. To my mind, those are by definition disputed or less probable facts. The primary birth/death dates being the generally accepted and/or most likly values, the alternates being other values that have been seen but are probably incorrect. What does it mean then, for an alternate birth to be "disputed"? Does this mean we should drop the "alternate" tag from the various event types and simply allow zero or more births, deaths, or whatevers? The first non-disputed value for birth/death/christening is the value that the page goes by...?+
- +
-I suppose it would be a drag to change the database so that every "alternate <whatever>" event became simply "<whatever>" with the disputed flag set. On the other hand, ambiguity about the fact items probably isn't a good thing.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I've been thinking about the "alternate" events as well. It would be pretty easy to change if we displayed them without the "Alternate" word (so just "Birth" for example), but kept using the "Alt birth" tag in the database (which you'd see only when you view a page difference).--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 14:44, 25 June 2008 (EDT)+It sounds like the solution to the use case presented by Markus3 is to provide direct access to the underlying WeRelate data rather than via the user interface. With direct access, he could query the surname field and exclude all but the primary name from the results. How might such direct access be granted? --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 13:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 +: [[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]], perhaps a solution ? Would it be possible to bring together in a single field (without heavy modification of the source program) for the option labeled "married name" ! But actually, the vast majority of this information about the "married name" is labeled "alt name". With this modification (only one field for this only line) the search can perhaps work as hoped/wished by other contributors ? Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 14:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::Marc, It looks like your counting is done with simple searches. If this isn't yielding proper results, then the search functions need to be modified. Reporting tools should be made to conform to the data in the database, and the data should ''never'' be modified to accommodate the reporting tools. You may not like hearing this, but you may just be stuck with what you've got until a developer can improve the search functions for you. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 17:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::: Agreed. I said the same thing (using Marc's terminology) on 14 Feb and was told to "be more attentive", after I had taken the time to review his project page and tried to offer solutions. It does seem like it is more about arguing than it is about finding an agreeable solution. In this case, I still vote for searching the Page Title, instead of any Surname fields, since it is the most consistent place where you will find a woman's maiden name. (I will refrain from opening the Name Fields can of worms again at this time.) --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 17:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 +:::: [[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] ..."''searching the Page Title, instead of any Surname fields''" ? ---> May I have a real example, with a link and/or a screenshot ? I have tried often since weeks ! The result is not as expected, because the "married name" always appears ! What works wrong ? What I did not understand ? Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 19:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 +:::::Marc, [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Search?sort=title&ns=Person&a=&st=&g=&s=Carrier&p=&bd=&br=0&bp=&dd=&dr=0&dp=&fg=&fs=&mg=&ms=&sg=&ss=&hg=&hs=&wg=&ws=&md=&mr=0&mp=&pn=&li=&su=&sa=&t=&k=Title%3ACarrier&rows=100&cv=on&ecp=e HERE is a link to such a search]. It returns Person pages which have the surname "Carrier" and which have "Carrier" in the page title (note that 2 fields have entries: Surname, and Keywords, which has "Title:Carrier" in it. The search returns 53 person pages. If one removes the "Title:Carrier" specification, it returns 55 pages. The 2 additional returned pages are: [[Person:Martha Allen (69)]], returned because she has a "Married name" entry with "Carrier", and [[Person:William Caryer (1)]], returned because he has an "Alt Name" entry containing his surname with the spelling "Carrier". Note that it is important to put the name in both the "Title:" field and the "Surname" field because some names, such as "George", can be used as either a given name or a surname. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::::::It's fine, Robert ! Thank you ! Here is the reason why I did not understand !. I had read many times yet this [[Help:Search|help page]]. Is there somewhere other informations and tips about all search possibilities ?
 +::::::I only chose one time "page title" in the first field on the top which offers 3 options. I did not know I had also to add "Title:...." in the last field "Keywords". It's very interessant to have this (new for me) possibility, but what is returned is not perfect. I wish I could obtain real alternatives but do not take into account the "married names". No luck ! And I know, the very vast majority of contributors are using "alt name" instead of "married name". One more time thanks for your "patience" and the quality of your explanation and clarification ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL ---[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 15:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 +::::::: I found out about "Title:" and other options from the [[Help:Search]] page, but I had to think about it awhile and try some test searches before I decided it was best to use Title: and Surname. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 18:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 +:::::::: Yes! Thank you for the example, Robert. I think this is going in the right direction and will work just fine for one specific spelling of a Surname. If Marc also wishes to include [[WeRelate:Variant names project|Surname variants]] in his final count, the Search will have to be adjusted. I've been working on it, but haven't figured out how to get variants (for Surname only) returned when searching on Page Titles. Any ideas? --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 20:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-I don't think we can assume that "alternate" means less likely or disputed. Going back to the first scenario Dallan identified above - there are cases where there's evidence/sources for two different dates and researchers (or at least the page editor) don't know which is the more reliable. That's different than disputed, which means that there ''is'' one date that's more likely than others, either because it's the one favored by more careful/better source or because it comports better with other information (including, for example, not belonging to someone else). So whether or not the different fields in the left hand box are marked "alt" or not, I wouldn't want to see all the alt dates/relationships marked disputed or to lose the ability to show more than one piece of information for a field.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 17:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)+Markus3, I suggest you end this silly [[WeRelate_talk:Watercooler#Married_surnames_for_women|Watercooler controversy]] about a married woman's given name (i.e. personal name) versus surname (i.e. family name), and just chalk it up to language or procedural misinterpretation. This seems to me to be an almost embarrassing argument you can't win and has no basis in commonly accepted genealogical recordkeeping. Please review the [[Help:Person_pages_tutorial|Person Page Tutorial]] for further rules for designating names here at WeRelate. Hopefully that will clarify the rules and format for data entry of names and end this fruitlessly trivial argument. I also invite you to review the definitions and historical use of "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Given_name Given Names]" and "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surname Surnames]" at Wikipedia. No response to me is necessary, because I don't want to share any further in this senseless discussion, and that is why I write this here on your Talk Page rather than add to the Watercooler Page. Take care. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 15:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 +: [[User:BobC|BobC]] ... it's very funny, ... courteous and friendly ! --> "'''silly controversy'''" + "'''fruitlessly trivial argument'''" + "'''this senseless discussion'''" + "'''you can't win'''". Where do you read I search and hope to "win" ? This is the "watercooler page" where ideas are discuted ... Why do you think it's a "controverse" full of violence and intolerance in the arguments ? WeRelate is a collective "tool" and site ! I do not try to always have the last word ! Genealogy is not "war" ! Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 16:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
-----+== Open external links in new window (tab)? [26 March 2015] ==
-I think we'd still allow alternate events. Some of those events might be marked as disputed, but they wouldn't have to be. And on the left-hand box we could possibly display them under just the event name rather than the "Alt event" name (e.g., display alternate birth events under "Birth" rather than "Alt birth").--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:21, 3 July 2008 (EDT)+
-----+One of the things I find quite useful about Wikipedia is that when I click on an external link it does not open in the same tab/window as the article I am viewing. Is this something which could reasonably be implemented here, either as a default or as a personalization (selectable behavior parameter)? Thanks for considering this. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 01:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
-So are we saying that an event can be plain, alternative, or disputed? Or are we saying that events can be a combination of alternative and disputed? I suppose you could also add "disproved" as a more definitive form of the negative, but I'm already confused by alternative and disputed, without adding anything else.+:Well, I think most browsers that support tabs allow you to right-click on a link and choose to open a new tab instead of in place. So you already more or less have control of what you want to happen. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 02:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
-We need a couple of variants here, but not so many that folks don't understand what the intention is.+== Unwanted Ads [7 April 2015] ==
-As someone once said, "it's such a fine line between clever and stupid."--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 16:37, 3 July 2008 (EDT)+Over the last couple of hours I am getting bombarded with a wide variety of advertising in various locations on werelate pages. Is anyone else experiencing this or is it my computer? I know I won't be working on werelate much longer if I can't figure out how to stop these. --[[User:Susan Irish|Susan Irish]] 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 +:I agree that in the last couple of days, the ads have gotten really intrusive. Now we have them below the name box on person pages. I don't mind them on the left bar, but having 3 areas of ads is too much. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 02:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 +:::Agreed -- these are gross! Not only to work with, but they sure don't present the kind of image that is likely to attract new users. You can get rid of them, one at a time, by clicking the very small grey x in the top right corner of the ad, but you have to do it for every page. --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 04:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
-----+::::Ditto. They make the pages look awful and junky. The bigger ads on the right and left are pretty bad, but the one at the top is a dealbreaker, as it makes the page impossible to read and is the type that would only appear on a site whose primary purpose is advertising. Do ad blockers kill them? If not, I think I'm out until they're fixed.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 05:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
-I've been worried about this too. I think we could generally remove the distinction between plain and alternate events, which is why I've suggested that we remove the "Alt" part of the event title, although there will be some places where we have room to display only the first event (the first birth event and the first death event for example). So then we'd just have two types of events: plain and disputed. Coincidentally, New Family Search has a similar structure: plain events and disputed events. They also allow multiple events, although just one of each type of event can be displayed on the summary page.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:35, 3 July 2008 (EDT)+::::: Yes, ad blockers kill them. I've been blissfully unharassed by ads. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 06:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- +::::::For the sake of getting revenue for this site, I urge you not to use Adblocker on WR. We could use the income, though I can understand doing it under these circumstances - I myself have it on until this is sorted. Dallan has assured me that this is a WIP measure, and we will be experimenting with different placements/ad types over the next couple of weeks. I find the placement of the ad on the left side very non-intrusive, and actually an improvement compared to the old placement on the right side, where it caused the person columns to shift over.[[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 07:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
-----+
-Sorry, I havn't been aware of this discussion before, as I have been busy preparing a presentation for an upcoming convention. To me, the biggest problem with public or commercial sites is that they don't get corrected and/or consolidated. As a result, the discredited stuff is all there uncorrected. The other day, I checked the IGI looking for a particular person born in 1639 +- 10yrs and found 92 separate entries, all of them submitted, none with spouses or parents mentioned and no extracted entries. I suspect that nFS will become the same type of mess in that nothing submitted will ever be deleted so searching for good information will become another case of trying to find a needle in a haystack. There are many lineages that have been discredited through scholarly research. Many people cling to them because they may have once been, but no longer are, accepted by DAR, Mayflower Society, Dames of the Magna Carta, etc. Dozens of colonists have been endowed with royal ancestry by the many genealogical charletons of the 19th century, Gustav Anjou, eg, one of the most notorious, but certainly not the only one, or by just plain wishful thinking. Case in point; JRM and I both worked on a page for Sargent Francis Nichols of Stratford, CT the other day. A persistant myth is that he was the brother of Richard Nichols, the first English governor of New York. Richard's mother was Margaret Bruce, a descendant of Robert the Bruce, King of Scots. This has been the subject of several articles in publications such as TAG by several noted genealogists which have proved it wrong. I noted this on Francis' talk page with the articles cited and deleted the alternate parent as well as a note stating "it is clear there is a close relationship between Francis and Richard." To me, the goal of WeRelate is to reach consensus upon which is the most reliable source and present the single best choice as to what is correct along with documentatin. My understanding was that the talk page was where the dicussions to resolve the conflicts take place. Anyone wishing to reverse an edit must justify it first, not just change it back.--[[User:Scot|Scot]] 15:04, 16 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-By the way, I've edited the [[Help:Wiki etiquette]] page with a goal to include a link to this page from the [[Template:Welcome2|welcome message]] that everyone receives. The comments in this discussion are relevant, so I'd appreciate thoughts/edits that anyone has to offer on that page.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== GEDCOM size limits for rookies [29 July 2008] ==+
- +
-It's been a few days since I've been scorched in this forum, so I'm going to offer a suggestion that's bound to be controversial. For "rookie" users of werelate, the total number of pages they can create via GEDCOM upload (a cumulative total over any number of GEDCOM uploads) is limited to some modest number - say, 100 or 200. I would define a rookie as someone who has fewer than some limiting number of contributions made by hand - perhaps a 100 or even 500.+
- +
-The problem I'm regularly encountering, when searching out stuff to merge, is that it is very easy for a total newbie to upload a very large GEDCOM and then walk away. There has been discussion of the idea of purging unused GEDCOMs after a time, but that approach is not entirely free of disruption, especially if the community has begun to integrate the data. I've suggested writting a warning to encourage users to start small or use the digital library, but warnings like that are typically ignored. There have also been discussions of ideas that try to identify dubious GEDCOMs at or before upload, as well as to merge on the fly. Those are good ideas too, but I'm thinking they may be missing the point. A dedicated user can clean up even an awful GEDCOM. A decent GEDCOM that is abandoned - even if good quality - imposes a real burden on the community.+
-An initial size limitation would also, I think, discourage upload of materials that are apt to be duplicated (vast harvestings from ancestral file and the like).--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 17:04, 18 June 2008 (EDT)+:::::::I'm happy to donate, or use affiliate links, but I won't use the site with the giant ads, and may stop even with an ad blocker. They look so unprofessional (and I say that with the middle text ad in place) that I think they undermine the entire purpose of the site in promoting serious genealogy and discussion, in which case there's really no point in my spending my efforts here. I spend a lot of time online looking at the spammy, scraped, semi-illegal marketing side of the internet for work, and that's where I think I am with these. I get the need for money, but please look at other options.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
-:Hi Jrm, I am sorry that you felt scorched in the forum. There is a size limit for gedcoms in place now. I recommended no gedcoms; but one of the attractions of WeRelate is the gedcom feature. It seems we have to take the good with the bad. After the match/merge features is added, perhaps we can reevaluate WeRelate and make a more informed decision.+:::::::: Don't like the ads on the pages at all, but the nature of the ads (drugged out mug shots, cheezy medical ads, questionable businesses, etc.) will push me out as well. They drown out the serious and respectable work on the pages and give WR the appearance of just another junky name-scraping site. This is a horrible idea, and I hope that we can come up with a different answer. Wondering if this is happening as a result of the relatively minor, yet very vocal, opposition to joining forces with, dare I say it, the blissfully ad-free world of the Wikimedia Foundation? - here it comes :) --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
-There is an interesting, well I don't know what you call it and I can not find it again; but it is a large colored box with text placed on articles in the Wikia that are unsourced. It says something to the effect that this section has no sources and is subject to deletion. If someone can find this, perhaps we could use the banner on our pages.+
-Also once a user uploads a gedcom or creates a new page; those pages are now part of the community of WeRelate and not really owned by the user. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
 +:::::::: The new plethora of ads substantially detracts from the site. It really makes it seem like a trashy commercial site (of which genealogy has way too many of these days). The banner under the header block on Person and other pages is the most problematic (disruptive and misleading), although some of the ads in other locations are pretty bad too (mug shots, arrest records, find anyone...). The site would do best (IMO) by emulating Wikipedia -- the ad-free nature is welcoming and helps invite new content contributions. Maybe there need to be higher profile ways of soliciting donations, but the heavy ads really are alienating. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 18:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-I am aware that there is a size limitation, but it's far too big for people who have not determined that they are really going to stick with werelate. I also know that Dallan is working on tools that merge on the fly, but that's never going to be a perfect solution. The real problem is abandoned material - and deleting after the fact isn't a solution, because the rest of us don't stop working while waiting to see if a new user is going to stick around. By the time we realize that someone is gone, it's often (for me anyway) more trouble to get rid of their upload than to just carry on, finish the job, and hope that doesn't happen again too soon.+Experiencing the same in the middle of the pages I'm working on ! I have enough trouble with new bifocals. Can't the ads stay on the side ?--[[User:Neal Gardner|SkippyG]] 02:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 +:I am going to contact Dallan about this. Ad placement is something I have wanted to talk to him about for awhile now anyway. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 02:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 +:Notice that the way the logo on the top left of the page is now out of alignment because of the width of the ads on the left. Pages are displaying strangly now. If Dallan doesn't respond here, I will keep trying to get ahold of him behind the scenes. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 03:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 +::The ads are an attempt to get the site to make some additional money so I can afford to hire a developer every once in awhile to improve the site. I'm planning to try different ad placements over the next few weeks to find out which set of placements have the highest $/annoyance ratio. I'm not particularly wild about the middle ad, though google recommends that's the best place to put an ad. But I agree that annoyance factor is pretty high. I just switched the middle ad to text-only. That makes it less annoying I think. Another possibility is to remove it entirely. Other possibilities to experiment with are whether the left and/or right ads should be switched to text-only or removed entirely. I'll be trying these variations over the next few weeks.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 05:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 +:::Thanks for the explanation -- I was afraid it was about money. So, what happens if I click the x to get rid of the ones in the middle of the page every time I change a page -- a nuisance, but sending a message. Who gets the message and what does that do to agreement with Google?--[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 06:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
-I don't blame the new users particularly. This is a very different paradigm then traditional genealogy, and there is no reason folks would fundamentally realize they are working in a shared space. Their previous experience with genealogy software is you toss in your GEDCOM and see how you like it. If you don't, you just walk away.+::: Dallan, you might want to consider setting up an affiliate link arrangement to Amazon for Source pages which are for books sold there. It might be more remunerative than ads, less intrusive, and occasionally actually helpful to the reader. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 06:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- +
-Really, is there any reason that a new user to werelate needs to upload a GEDCOM of more than a couple hundred people? If they are really going to use werelate, they can start small and upload the rest later. If they aren't, let's restrict the damage they can do.+
-Adding "good" information really isn't helpful unless someone is prepared to take responsibility for getting it merged and cleaned up as far as place names so forth.+
- +
-I would also add that I've done a lot of merging, well over 2500 families and their associated members. It's real work, and it's just not fair to hope/assume that such things are going to magically happen even if voluminous trash is routinely uploaded. I would rather be adding real source material or merging families that wind up increasing the knowledge of the different contributors - not just merging and re-merging, and re-re-merging the same ancestral file content that I've merged numerous times before - and worse - for users who have already given up on werelate. Dallan, please help...--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 11:43, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:I do agree (surprise), but I also wonder if we could accomplish (most of) the goal in other ways. Right now, the upload page has no information on the consequences of one's actions aside from licensing information. It could be a lot clearer that uploading a small file is a much easier way to start. The page could even state it as an official policy that no users should import information from before 1700 (or whenever) without checking if it already exists (although we new search would make this vastly easier) -- the chances of pages already existing go up exponentially for earlier people, and more recent data also tends to be better researched and more reliable.) +
-:Or instead of limiting the upload by number of people, I imagine it could also be limited by date, permitting only pages of people born after 1700, which would get us similar benefits while encouraging more recent info. The problem with any gedcom limit is going to be that many newbies don't know how to create limited gedcoms - it's either everything in their program or nothing. So a simple warning may not work, and a programming limit means some people just won't upload. I can live with that, personally, but it's worth thinking about. --[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 16:40, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I took a swing at a warning page in my personal pages area. I'm all for it, but I didn't think it would get the job done. Maybe I don't know how to say what's needed without going on too long, but I was struck that what folks need to know is more than most will take the time to read. I agree that any burden we place on uploads - size, quality, etc. - will result in some uploads not being done.+Even though I accept the money implications, I've added an ad-blocker. Even with text-only the text of the ads is too large. A margin around them might help. BUT even with an ad-blocker the empty space follows on into edit-mode increasing the time of the editing process. This is important when trying to do a series of similar edits. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 08:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- +
-But I go back to an idea that I mentioned above - what good is a GEDCOM, of whatever quality, if no one is around to take care of the data? We could harvest GEDCOMs if that's what we wanted to do, and toss them all in, but the problem is having folks who will take care of that data. If carving a large GEDCOM into a smaller piece to try out werelate is beyond someone, what are the chances they're going to stick with this learning curve?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 17:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, let me throw this in. I suspect that a fair number of people will upload their GEDCOMs with no intention of sticking with the learning curve. They want to publish their tree in the hope that someone researching some of the same people will contact them. They don't necessarily want to go in "whole hog," so to speak. But does that invalidate their contribution? And would we be doing a disservice to the rest of the WR users who might want (or need) the info in that person's GEDCOM if we discourage that upload? --[[User:Ajcrow|Ajcrow]] 17:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::That's a legitimate purpose, but this is a place for actively working your data in cooperation with others - at least to a basic level of correctness and completeness. Of course nothing is ever really "done", but walking away without a basic pass through your data after upload - no attempt to clean up your own duplicates, merge with other werelate data as appropriate, standardize and correct place names - amounts to burdening the active members of the community without their agreement. We could provide a help page that instructs people on where to get GEDCOM split utilities so they can readily break their stuff up into a piece for upload now and another for upload later, if they remain interested.+
- +
---- ----
-In looking at the GEDCOM's that have been uploaded in the past year, I'm going to drop the size limit to 5MB. Only a few (44) GEDCOM's are larger than that. That amounts to roughly one user per week to have an email conversation with and ask them to consider uploading a smaller GEDCOM, or to evaluate whether they're committed enough to get permission to upload the larger GEDCOM.+We should support Dallan on this. I also found the ads fairly intrusive, but also understand the financial implications of hosting a "Free Website", where one of the only sources of revenue is selling ad space....
 +-[[User:Delijim|Delijim]] 10:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
-I am reluctant to make it smaller than that right now, because I think the main issue we're dealing with is that it's difficult for most people to know up-front whether they will stick around until they see some benefits. They start out by uploading a GEDCOM to see what happens. If nothing happens, they don't come back and their tree is abandoned. But if others start adding onto their tree by merging their trees into it, and they receive a periodic email telling them that "you now share common ancestors with N new users", or "N new people are now reachable from your tree" or something to that effect, then chances are greater that they'll return. And since we don't currently issue these periodic emails because basic functionality that these uploaders would want, like gedcom re-upload without needing to delete their tree first isn't finished yet, most users at present are fairly inactive.+Well all, Dallan removed the one on the top. I think the ones on the side need to be adjusted a little bit in width, but it is much more tolerable now. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 07:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- +:Agreed. Actually, only the one on the right really needs to be made a bit smaller, perhaps allowing more white space on the page (a la Find A Grave). And a third ad at the bottom of the page might work, as well. --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 08:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
-Rather than put things in place up-front to discourage people, I'd prefer to talk about ideas for making uploaded GEDCOM's:+
-# not burdensome to the community, and+
-# not disruptive if we decide later to remove them.+
- +
-For example, a possible solution to #1 might be to ask people to do their own merging, especially for duplicates within their own GEDCOM. We don't have tree match-merge working yet, but until we do we could do a "poor-man's" matching by reporting the family pages in their upload that have the same husband and wife names as existing family pages and asking them to review and merge them (we'd need to create a simple "Merge" function and write an instruction page). If they don't respond to this request after a week say, then we remove the GEDCOM.+
- +
-Another thing we could do, and in fact is high on the ToDo list, is to detect when uploaded GEDCOM's are going to cause problems due to a lot of internal duplication or obvious errors (e.g., people being born after they die), and to report the errors prohibit the upload until the errors have been corrected.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 12:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I'm not clear on how far this goes:+Here are some statistics that may be useful:
-"Also once a user uploads a gedcom or creates a new page; those pages are now part of the community of WeRelate and not really owned by the user.[Beth]"+* WeRelate currently makes enough money on ads to pay for the servers, but not for any development costs.
-I think that should be made clearer, and available to all who join if that is the current belief.+* With the new ads, WeRelate made enough money today that if it were to continue like this for a full month, we would have $600 extra - enough to hire a junior developer for 20-30 hours a month or a senior developer for 5-10 hours a month.
-I tried to rejoin and ask on the wiki list, but was unable to join, twice. I would not have commented here if I had been able to put it on Beths list.+* 40% of the ad revenue today came from the middle ad; 35% from the left-hand ad, and 25% from the right-hand ad. These percentages agree with Google's recommendation for ad placement: middle is best, followed by left-hand side, followed by right-hand side.
-::Hi, I have subscribed you to my mailing list; sorry but I don't know what caused the problem. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 13:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+* I would prefer not to end this experiment after only one day, but since so many people dislike the middle ad I have removed it. Next we'll find out how much can be made with just left and right-hand ads. After that we'll find out how much can be made if we require the left and right-hand ads to be text-only ads instead of text+picture ads, then with left-hand-only ads, then with right-hand-only ads, then with right-hand-only ads that are 160 pixels side instead of 300 pixels wide. I'd like to run these experiments for several days each so we get more-accurate results than we got from the experiment with all three ads today.
- +* FindAGrave has ads at the top-middle of the page, on the left-hand side, and at the bottom.
-Jrm03063, I looked at the warning page you have created. The need is for a warning that a person must click through to add anything here. When I joined and added my gedcoms, I saw nothing here that was alarming at all, anywhere. Now I do wish I had not added my gedcoms, and I am not sure if I can completely remove them. The best solution is to remove the ability to add gedcoms. That way the 'junk' is easily taken care of and with warnings people will not add their information without careful thought, and then, one family at a time. Need for this conversation would be eliminated completely.+* We can't put an ad at the top-middle of the page like FindAGrave does because our drop-down menus would cover it, and google doesn't allow anything to cover their ads, including drop-down menus. We could put an ad in the middle if it were ''above'' the drop-down menus. That might look strange though.
-I have been burned in a major way by a researcher and I am careful to retain rights on my research everywhere, so I have been finding the whole discussions on this matter disturbing. I certainly want this made clear soon. +* Over the years WeRelate has typically gotten $100/year in donations, generally from a single person. You know who you are; thank you.
- +* Since the beginning of the year, roughly 300 people have made 10 or more edits to WeRelate pages, another 300 have made 1-9 edits, and another 4,000 people have visited the site at least once as a signed-in user but have not made any edits. (If we were to run a donation campaign, my guess is the majority of donations would need to come from the 300 active users.)
-I really liked the wiki format and was more trustful perhaps because of the connection to Allen County Library. I thought the only problem would be someone coming in and putting up false information over my own research. FamilyTwigs- [[User:Familytwigs|Twigs]] 12:55, 20 June 2008 (EDT) -+* The majority of site visits: 80-90%, are made by people who have either not registered or who have not signed in. They tend to come to the site from a google search, look at one page, and then leave.
- +* I've tried affiliate marketing with Amazon in the past; it wasn't worth the effort when I tried it, though I can provide a special link that you can put on source pages pointing people to Amazon if you want to try that approach.
-::FamilyTwigs -- could you explain more particularly what it is that you're finding alarming that you didn't understand before? The one thing that is repeated often here is the terms of the license that permit "your" work to be edited, downloaded, and redistributed, so if that's what's concerning you and didn't get through, that's an additional problem.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 13:35, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+* I have ''not'' tried becoming an Ancestry affiliate and pointing people to Ancestry (i.e., like the ads like found at the bottom of FindAGrave pages). I believe that most people visiting WeRelate have already heard of Ancestry, though I can try adding the Ancestry affiliate ads if you think these ads would not be more annoying than they are worth.
- +--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 07:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
-::FamilyTwigs -- something else to keep in mind is that whenever someone makes a change to a page, you can always change it back. In fact, each page has a link to "History," which shows all of the revisions made. --[[User:Ajcrow|Ajcrow]] 13:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::One good indication of whether a new user intends to work their data, is whether or not they create a user page. If they don't even bother to do that, then we can assume they won't do more. I am not so sure about removing unsourced data, as over the years, I have collected a lot of such data which has later been validated by source information I have found, although it should not be allowed to supercede sourced data. BTW any data that claims AF, IGI, Ancestry.com, wfT and such as a source should be considered unsourced.--[[User:Scot|Scot]] 18:39, 16 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I want to re-ask the question about GEDCOM size limits for rookies in a different way. What is the largest database that any of us can imagine doing a responsible job maintaining? While I'm watching 22K pages, that's only as a side effect of merging - there is no chance I could do quality research on a space that big. My own tree is only slightly over 3000, and I can't see it growing all that much. Doubling perhaps at the outside, but not much more.+:Thanks for those details, Dallan; it helps to know the facts. I'm stunned by the lack of personal donations. Yes, as Ron below says, people donate time, but if you could make it easier / more visible to encourage people to donate $, that could help you. "Want to keep WeRelate.org from being overtaken by ads? Please donate..." "If you donate at least $___ you (personally) won't see ads" (Don't know if that's technically possible.) Perhaps consider something along the lines that wikipedia or public radio does-- periodic fundraising campaigns where, for a specific period of time, viewers are encouraged to donate money. Set a goal: "We need to raise $nnnn in order to hire a developer to make the improvements you've been requesting; please help us reach that goal..." (and have one of those thermometer things that reports progress against the goal. Off to the donate page now, [[User:Jillaine|Jillaine]] 13:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
-When a GEDCOM comes in with over 5000, or even 10000, from someone who isn't a comitted user - why are we allowing that to be uploaded? It's so unlikly that GEDCOMs of that size will be anything more than large dumps of unproofed commercial data bases. Essentially oceans of unsourced names and dates that create a merging burden without adding real information. A dilligtent researcher will still have to go back through any such lineage and try to document it with appropriate reference material before it really becomes useful.+:Suggest that a copyedited version of the bulleted list provided by Dallan be put on a page and placed into the new category [[:Category:Financial support]] (or a replacement category with more consensus support). --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 15:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- +
-I also think that a file size limit, while convenient to implement, isn't the right answer. It needs to be a content size limit (number of people/families).+
- +
-I understand not wanting to discourage contributions, but no one should be uploading data they aren't willing or ready to maintain, and it is just beyond reasonable to expect that GEDCOMs with over 10K people are going to be dominated by really useful information. At the same time, it's hugely unfair to expect that a shared-space community is just going to clean up someone else's thinly sourced yet bloated database. In a few minutes a rookie can create months of work for others. Mind you I'm not holding such folks personally responsible - they don't know the implications of what they're doing - so they just have to be reined in.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 15:49, 17 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-: I may easily be one of those who could/would upload a large GEDCOM without realizing the implications of the work involved. We are used to uploading to sites that don't require further input; so perhaps it needs to be spelled out in more detail up front just what would be expected of someone who wants to upload a GEDCOM. I've been holding back my main data base until match/merge but maybe I need to learn more of what's expected. --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 16:16, 17 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:: I would think that if you upload XYZ pages, that you'll go through each of them sanitizing place names to make sure they point to something in the place database. Further, when you find family names that have an index greater than 1, you'll check to see if there's a duplicate of the family already here. When you find duplicates (and you will, especially if you have any colonial genealogy), merge them or get help merging them with the pages that are already here. There's been talk that Dallan may be able to automate some aspects of that process on the upload side, but I don't see how that would ever be a perfect/complete solution. You'll still need to visit your own pages and tidy them up. Maybe others disagree, but that's how I see it. --[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]]+
---- ----
-I've set the GEDCOM upload threshold to 5,000 people. People can request to upload larger GEDCOM's, in which case I'll review their previous contributions to decide whether to allow it. Less than 10% of our current GEDCOM's are over 5,000 people, so this shouldn't cause difficulty for most uploaders. I've also added some intructions to [[Special:ImportGedcom]] based upon instructions [[User:Jrm03063]] has written. Hopefully this will help.+I am one of those 300 active users.
-Just a quick note: I'm not sure I would recommend that people go through their pages and make sure that the place names point to Place pages, especially not yet. I've spent some time this week improving the place matcher used for GEDCOM uploads so it's better than before, but we have a list of what looks to be about a million non-US places that need to be added to the place wiki later this year.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+I would like to see these 300 active users as contributors. So my question is: what is the match between me editing a page, or adding a page, and an ad on that same page? Am i expected, when i am looking for the edit button, to see "oh, an ad! let me just click on it", instead of doing my work and edit or add the page?
-== Color-Coded State Maps [7 July 2008] ==+It does make sense that when i use other people's work, i see ads. It doesn't make sense to want money from me since i already invest my time.
- +
-Hello WeRelaters,+
- +
-Look at this fantastic site: [http://monarch.tamu.edu/~maps2/]. Select a state and then you can color code the counties and export the whole shebang as an image.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 09:46, 22 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-Nice find. It certainly is easy to use---much easier than creating such maps manually, or extracting them from the Wikipedia, which is what I've been doing. However, doing a test on this I'm not sure how easy it will be to import these images into WeRelate. The image backgrounds use "transparancies", which either may not import well, or would require some manipulation to import. Will check on it and see. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:08, 22 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-OK, did a check. The program creates gif images and seems to give a decent display. Not sure about the license restrictions on this, if there are any. Need to check terms of use. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:45, 22 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-[[Image:TestImage.gif]]+
 +I hope that i can be on a list of 300 active users who - while signed in - are freed from any ads, so that we can do our work.
 +Thank you, Ron--[[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 09:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
 +I like wikipedia's practice of periodic requests for donations and I always give. If this would get WeRelate suggestions worked on, I'm for it because I've given up on WeRelate because of lack of improvement. I don't want those suggestions to just disappear; I want to see them lined thru as completed - so we can know what has been done! So lets give Dallan some help and get this train moving again. Perhaps after an initial push for donations, WeRelate could revert to periodic requests for donations. These ads will ruin us! If wikipedia can support themselves with periodic requests we should be able to do so too - after we get over this 'inactive suggestion list' problem. At least I hope that's what additional funds will be used for! --[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 15:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
-Bill, I did not find any license or terms of use on the site. Wes Coleman used maps on his pages on Rootsweb and added a note that the maps were available from Texas A&M and gave the link. See Wes' page here [http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nansemondcolemans/uscensus/]. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:24, 22 June 2008 (EDT) +:I will add a "Donate" link to the upper-right corner of every page (between Settings and Volunteer) tomorrow. I'm open to other suggestions for emphasizing donations as well. I'm also open to the idea of a donation of say $19/year making it so you don't see any ads.
- +:The argument that "I contribute my time so I shouldn't have to contribute money as well" makes sense, but it means that we're back to ads being the primary source of funding. People who don't spend a lot of time on the site probably aren't going to donate a lot of money to it. And unobtrusive ads make less money than obtrusive ads, so if we want to raise more money, we need to have more ads. On the other hand, perhaps we're generally happy with the site as it is. I'm ok if that's the concensus as well.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
-:Beth, I also checked, and no terms of use. So I sent an email to determine if there's a problem in using the images. I'm sure there's not, otherwise they'd not have the thing out there for people to use. But its always good to check.+
- +
-::Bill, did you receive an answer regarding the usage of the map images? --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 12:26, 7 July 2008 (EDT) +
-:::Nope! But its a collegiate site, and the responsible party may not be around during the summer. I'll ask again in the fall.+
- +
-Also, on a related matter. Note the modifications to the DIV on the Exchange page. I adjusted this so that it wouldn't overlap the advertising sidebar on the right. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:45, 22 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Data Consistency in Werelate [2 July 2008] ==+
- +
-I've been working on [[WeRelate:Functional Specification for Data Consistency Verification|a functional specification document]] that describes data consistency testing we could perform in the framework of werelate. While I'm calling it a specification, it's pretty informal. If you are interested in this sort of thing, or have some experience with tools of this sort elsewhere, I would like to hear your thoughts and comments. I think it would give [[User:Dallan|Dallan]] and others something to work from when they get around to adding features like this to werelate.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 14:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Consistency checks are something that I'd like to implement in the future, so I encourage anyone who is interested to get involved. [[User:Jrm03063]], could you perhaps create a "WeRelate:" page from the contents of this page? You have to be an administrator to edit someone else's user page, so making this a "WeRelate:" page would allow others to edit it. Thanks!--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:30, 1 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Done, find it at [[WeRelate:Functional Specification for Data Consistency Verification]] --[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 20:07, 1 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Image Markup [1 July 2008] ==+
- +
-I may have asked this question before, but if so, I don't remember seeing an answer.+
-The article article [[Settlers of Thompsons Creek, Washington County, VA]] includes a markup of a map with annotations identifying various reference points in the area.+
-The annotations do not show up on the version of the image in the article, but if you click the image, it takes you to the stored version, and there the annotations do show up.+
-Why do they not show up on the image accompanying the article? or in the version displayed below? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 19:40, 29 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-[[Image:Thompson's Creek Settlers Markup.jpg]]+
- +
-:It's a known deficiency that's on my todo list. The technical reason is that the annotations aren't part of the image itself; they're actually stored in the text of the Image page. When you include the image on another page you're including just the picture. What needs to be done is I have to read the annotations from the text of the Image page and add them to the image when the image is included on another page.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]]+
- +
-== Trees as a notepad or checklist [3 July 2008] ==+
- +
-A werelate "tree" is really nothing more than a list of pages. Usually they represent a tree of some kind, but this is not a requirement.+
- +
-Lately, I've started using a tree as a general purpose list of families and people that I need to do further work on, because they represent duplication or are obviously in error. So, I just created a new tree called Errors and Duplicates. If I find an error or duplication that I don't want to resolve at that moment (say I'm in the middle of working on a different family), then I just add the page to my Errors and Duplicates tree.+
- +
-I used to do this with a personal page, which had the advantage of allowing me to make notes on what the issues were, but this is a lot quicker.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 09:58, 2 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-That's a great idea. Another thing you could consider (if you wanted to edit the pages) is to add them to a category. The long-delayed but upcoming search function will let you search based upon category.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:21, 3 July 2008 (EDT)+I consider this a wake-up call, as should all users and supporters of this WeRelate service. To everyone who reads on the bottom of the home page the words, “<i>WeRelate is a free public-service wiki for genealogy sponsored by the Foundation for On-Line Genealogy,</i>” and thinks that the word “<b>free</b>” means “<b>no cost</b>” is either very naïve, oblivious to reality, or an ardent supporter of liberal politicians. Nothing is free! <u>Someone</u> pays the cost: either Dallan out of his own pocket or out of the FOLG organization, generous corporate or personal donators who have no ulterior motive or anything to sell, advertisers who get visibility and a portion of the page space in return for revenue to the site, or the users and subscribers to the service.
-== How is a Family Page named before the wife is added? [2 July 2008] ==+Roughly 10-15 years ago I saw the same dilemma faced at [http://www.rootsweb.com RootsWeb], a totally “free” community-based genealogy website, at the time a viable alternative to Ancestry.com. If I remember correctly, as their vision outpaced their capability, as genealogy data contributions increased, and as the need for greater media storage and higher speed access compounded, they asked politely at first for donations, then went to the ad-revenue route, then eventually sold out and fell under the Ancestry corporate umbrella, where they now reside. Whether that is considered a good or bad path to follow, they do still survive and still provide a subscription-free resource to a small slice of the genealogy community.
-Hi, I am trying to help [[User:Susyq|Carol]] fix her pages. Before I fix this page, just wondering how the page was named before the wife was entered? The page is [[Family:Dorcas Jones and Issac Standifer (1)]]. Also there are 2 pages for Issac. One under Isaac Standifer and one under Issac Standifer. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)+While I don’t really consider myself an active user here, I guess if based on making 10 or more edits to WeRelate pages since the beginning of the year alone, then yes, I am an active user. I’ve been here off and on since 2008 and have not yet chosen to donate money. So if Dallan feels the only way to fund my use of the service is ad-space, then so be it. As a matter of fact, I think it’s fair I should be provided the choice to either donate to the service or put up with the ads if I choose not to donate. To me it’s worth the “price” of a “free” service. (BTW, a user's "contribution" is not interchangeable with "donation." Really? Quite the opposite, I believe.)
- +
-----+
-Well, from the history of the page it looks like she has entered the wife's name in the title first and then the husband's, which of course is reversed. Then when WeRelate created the page, it would have had "Dorcas Jones (new)" as the husband's name and "Isaac Standifer (new)" as the wife. It looks like she has taken out "Dorcas Jones (new)" and replaced it with "Isaac Standifer (1)" and then tried an "Isaac Standifer (3)" as the wife, but later took it out and didn't replace it with anything. Thus it looks like a family was created without a wife. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 11:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)+
-== Family page and named spouse and unknown spouse [3 July 2008] ==+While some may object to the “fat-lady weight-loss ad” showing up on the right side of your grandmother’s person page, either consider that your share of the price for having this service available to you, or consider it an incentive to donate to FOLG and not see that ad again. Those ads will pay for getting that “suggestion list” its much needed attention and should improve the capabilities and use of this site.
-This is not addressed in the family pages tutorial, or if it is I missed it.+Not sure if someone else recommended it or not, but I suggest that every advertisement be immediately followed with a small text below the ad that donations will eliminate the ad for that user.
-If the you know the name of the husband but not the wife how do you enter her name? Do you enter unknown unknown or just unknown for the surname or do you enter the married surname for the spouse? I have entered unknown unknown but I am cleaning up data for another user and this user has entered the spouse's surname, before I change it I need to make sure that it matters. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)+Thanks, Dallan. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 14:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-It doesn't matter all that much whether you Unknown or Unknown Unknown. If you leave the wife's name blank, the system will create a page with just the one "Unknown" for the wife, so a single "Unknown" will be consistent with other pages. What I'd rather ''not'' see however is people entering the surname of the husband for the wife's surname, because it will confuse the matching algorithm somewhat (not a big deal, but "Unknown" or even "Unknown Unknown" are better).--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:21, 3 July 2008 (EDT)+Thank you, Dallan, for the statistics, those were very interesting! It would also be interesting to know how the ad revenue broke out according to the user level, that is, 10+ edits/month users, 1-10 edits/month users, signed-in-but-not-editing users, and anonymous users. (And not sure if you can distinguish between the anonymous users who view one page and leave, vs anonymous users who view more than one page in a session.) That stat might suggest a useful differential ad policy based on user level (e.g., if most of the click-thru is coming from anonymous visitors anyway, then maybe it's worthwhile to be "heavier" on the ads for those visits and "lighter" on the ads for signed-in editors). [[User:TomChatt|TomChatt]] 05:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:That would be pretty interesting, but google doesn't tell me who clicked on ads. I do have access to the number of page views made by new users vs returning users: it turns out to be roughly 50-50: half of all page views are made by people who have visited the site multiple times over the past 10 days. Also, 4,000 people have visited the site multiple times over the past 10 days and 34,000 people have visited the site just once over the past 10 days. Returning users spend an average of 11.5 minutes on the site and view 12 pages; first-time users spend an average of 2.5 minutes on the site and view 3 pages.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
-== Happy 4th and WeRelate once again in the top 101 [4 July 2008] ==+== Foundation for Online Genealogy [28 March 2015] ==
-From Dallan:+There are links to http://www.folg.org/ on the main page, the about page and maybe a couple of others. Should this apparently dead link be revised to https://sites.google.com/a/folg.org/family-history/ wherever it appears? --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
-''I recently received the following link:+: It does seem like http://www.folg.org/ is broken. On Chrome and Firefox it displays as blank; on IE it gives error screen saying "This content cannot be displayed in a frame". The source does look like it's trying to frame the sites.google.com/a/folg.org/family-history/ content. Maybe it should be doing a redirect instead? --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 18:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
-http://www.familytreemagazine.com/podcast/episode2.asp+
-In it Family Tree Magazine talks about their new 101 Best Websites list.+== How to donate and Info about donation [30 March 2015] ==
-WeRelate.org made the list again this year. What's especially wonderful is+
-that when their editor Allison Stacy was asked to pick *one* website to talk+
-about in the podcast, she chose WeRelate. The success of WeRelate is due to+
-you.''+
-The part of about WeRelate is toward the very end of the podcast. I believe that Allison is also highlighting WeRelate in the upcoming magazine.+Suggest that the pages [[WeRelate:Donate]] and [[WeRelate:About donations]] be merged. Also suggest that the every-page footer include an additional link (making four on the bottom line) to the merged page labeled "Donate" or "Support WeRelate: Donate". The [[WeRelate:About]] page should have the donation paragraph removed in favor of a top-of-page link to the new merged donation page. Finally, could a link to financials be placed on the new merged donation page? --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 15:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- +
---[[User:Beth|Beth]] 12:39, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Person page - adding spouse of Family [14 July 2008] ==+
- +
-Spouse of Family? choose » remove +
- +
-Add new family page Select existing family page+
- +
-I believe that the layout above leads to confusion with new users. Some are adding the name of a new family page before the spouse is added. We need a redesign of this section.+
- +
---[[User:Beth|Beth]] 12:47, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Hi beth. I don't know that it needs to be redesigned. Seems like it works they way a reasonable person would expect it to. What might help would be a different label. "Spouse of Family" and "Child of Family" might be a bit confusing, and lead people to putting in the wrong information. I remember the first time I looked at this entry system I had to pause a moment to figure out what was meant. ie, "Does this mean I should put in the children of this person" or does it mean "identify the parents for this person". Intuitive is always better, and this isn't what I'd call intuitive--reaonable, rational, but not intuitive. The fact that this is set up to describe a "Family" as a basic card type is I suspect novel, and could use a little more immediate description of what is intended. What's there now is probably the most precise and concise way of saying what's needed, but it's not the terminology people expect. Would "Identify parents" work better? I'm not sure, as I don't routinely use this aspect of we relate.+
- +
-Ditto for spouse. Perhaps "Identify Spouse" would be less confusing? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:22, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-Hello Bill,+
-One day soon I hope to return to our project. Actually I think the line below adds to the confusion more than anything else; it says add new family page or select existing family page. If no family page exists; you should select add new family page. When you select that a screen pops up and you enter the spouse's given name and surname and click okay.+
- +
-But I belive that some new users interpret the line - add new family page - to mean they are supposed to type in the name; they then end up with a family page with no spouse. That is why I say something needs to be changed to make this clearer. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 14:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-Hi Beth. I believe what I was saying was that It works as described and intended, but the way things are labeled is not intuitive. A new user might get the wrong idea, which is what you were pointing to. My observation is simply that there's no redesign needed, just some more intuitive labeling. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 19:17, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-Well Bill, we agree just a problem with semantics; so we need intuitive labeling. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 19:33, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::This is causing all kinds of family page problems with one new user. Hopefully this is just isolated case; but if we have an influx of new people making the same kinds of mistakes the administrators are going to be hard pressed to fix all of the pages.+
-Not only does the user type in the name of the new family page; but sometimes it is done in reverse so we have Mary Smith and John Jones as the family page.+
- +
-::Also if you are creating a new family page; why would you need to select an existing family page? --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 08:44, 5 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::Not being one who uses this approach, I'm probably not the best person to answer, but I'll take a shot at it anyway. I think the short answer is that there are a number of ways you might have arrived at this point. Depending on the past choices that have been made you might or might not have already created a family card for a husband and wife pair---but you haven't actually created the person cards for them as yet. So, when you create the person cards, you need an option to attach them to the already existing family card.+
- +
-:::On the otherhand, you might be starting from scratch on this family, and have previously created the husband or wife, but not the family card. In this case you need an option to create a family card from scratch.+
- +
-:::On of the fun things programmers get to do is account for every dad-gum possibility that someone might encounter when using the system. That means they have to think of everything, including ways of interacting with the program that are different from the way many users would approach it. Different is not bad, just different, and the programmers have to accomodate those differences. This is an example of that. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 09:36, 5 July 2008 (EDT) +
- +
-:Okay Bill, first I am going to attempt to improve upon the tutorial by uploading images of screen shots and see if that helps. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:19, 5 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Sorry for not responding sooner. How about renaming the labels to:+I have revised [[WeRelate:About donations]] so that it a) cross-references [[WeRelate:Donate]] and b) has a working link to FOLG information. I found, and understand why, that I cannot edit [[WeRelate:Donate]]. I do think having this as a protected page is best as it contains a bit of functional kit that, if broken, screws us all.
-* Parents & Siblings Family page:, with a "find/add" label to the right (replacing the "choose" link), and an "Add another parent family" link underneath+
-* Spouse & Children Family page:, with a "find/add" link to the right (replacing the "choose" link), and an "Add another spouse family" link underneath+
-What do you think about the proposed renaming?+I have also created a new category, into which [[WeRelate:About donations]] has been put ... [[:Category:Financial support]].
-In the very near future I'm planning to get rid of those little dialog boxes that pop up when you add a new family entry. Instead, when you click on the "find/add" link, a new window will open where you'll enter the names of the husband and wife of the family along with their marriage date, and the system will do a search to see if a matching family page already exists and show you possible matches. If the family page already exists, you'll select the matching page and the system will fill in the family field with the title of the selected page. If the family page doesn't exist, you'll click on an "Add" button, the system will create a family page with the information you've entered, and fill in the family field with the title of the newly-created page.+Regards --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 15:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- +
-I'm hoping this new approach will reduce the frequency of creating duplicate family pages and mis-titling family pages.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:45, 11 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Dallan, I would prefer to have under add spouse; add new person or add existing person. Although I realize that we cannot currently add an existing person without entering the person and their index number. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 21:12, 11 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::We could keep the "add new family" link.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 03:19, 15 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Source Citation Details [10 July 2008] ==+
- +
-I have several questions regarding the format for entering data into the fields. I want to make sure that I follow the correct format in my screen shot for the tutorial.+
- +
-Regarding the field Volume / page. Should I enter: ''Part I / 107-109''. And how do you enter the data if you only have a page number and no volume number. May I just enter ''I: 107-109'' or is the ''/'' important?+
- +
-What about record name? My source is a book. The name of the article is Rev. Robert M. Cunningham, D. D. which is in the Chapter (not really numbered chapters; just book sections) named ''Recollections of North Alabama''. How about this? ''Rev. Robert M. Cunningham, D. D. in <nowiki>"Recollections of North Alabama"</nowiki>'' +
- +
-Year - I assume that is the year of publication of the book.+
- +
-Text / transcription location - I probably will not enter anything in the text field; but if one enters text does one follow the text with this ''/''+
-if one has no transcription location.+
- +
-My article gives source information. I suppose I will enter that in the notes field.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 17:17, 10 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I personally don't worry too much about the format of the "Volume/Page" or the "Text/transcription location" fields as long as they're reasonably easy for others to interpret. Date is somewhat ambiguous in the GEDCOM standard. I think it's meant to be used for the date you looked up the information, which is useful for online sources. But it also makes sense to use as the date of the particular edition of the book you looked at. I think using the "Record name" field for the Article and chapter makes good sense.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:45, 11 July 2008 (EDT)+I find that content at [[WeRelate:About non-profit status]] duplicates some information at [[WeRelate:About donations]] and suggest that it be redirected. The [[WeRelate:About non-profit status]] is protected and cannot be edited by a standard user. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- +
-== Spam? [15 July 2008] ==+
- +
-On the 13 of April 2007 [[user:Lynn9932]] added a Gedcom to this site. She also added a note on her user's page that would appear to be spam. Would one of the admin's check this please? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 22:40, 14 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I agree. Seems to be a case of "link spam." Since this is the first time I've seen this type of spam on WeRelate, I want to get Dallan's opinion. Thanks Q! --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 01:29, 15 July 2008 (EDT)+I revised the section [[WeRelate:About#Please donate]] to include a word about advertising and to remove the several times said mention of the 'donate button' in the upper right of the page, which I think was there at one time but which I've not seen in a long time. Should there be such a button or link on every page? --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 15:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-This isn't the typical "link spam" case that we used to see before people had to confirm their email address in order to edit pages: It's not on a high-visibility page and the user has other contributions. It may be that the user made a mistake and forgot to put in the full URL of their family website. I left them a message about it. In general though I think we should be more lenient about people adding links to their own user pages.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 03:19, 15 July 2008 (EDT)+I redirected [[WeRelate:About non-profit status]] to [[WeRelate:About donations]].--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 05:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 +:Maybe you should put your tax info on a protected template that could be added to the page. You probably don't want people messing around with the tax ID. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 16:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 +::Good point. I've done that.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 03:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
-== Current status of various projects [29 July 2008] ==+== Method for regular monthly donations [30 March 2015] ==
-Would it be possible or advantageous for there to be a list of projects or features that Dallan has planned and the current status? I know these things are discussed in various places at the watercooler, but I'm hoping for a standard place, easy to find, not buried in many discussions, where this info would be made available. For example, I'd like to know the current status on the match/merge function. And how far down on the to-do list is a feature that will allow line breaks in uploaded notes in GEDCOMs. If there already is such information available, I don't know where to look for it. --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 12:15, 15 July 2008 (EDT)+Suggest that you look into or describe method(s) for providing small monthly donations which are directly charged to credit or debit card. Thinking in terms of $10 / month as a "sustaining member" donation level. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 15:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 +: Good idea, especially if some of us actually followed through? --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 08:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 +:: There isn't currently a way to have an amount automatically charged to your credit card each month on the donations page, but I could add it if enough people would say they would make use of it. It appears that Paypal supports this.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 08:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-and is there a place that tells what has just been done?+I would do this. It would also be a bonus if doing so would remove the ads.--[[User:Wongers|Wongers]] 08:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 +: +1, I would as well. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 14:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 +::Count me in -- we need to do something to keep the site viable. --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 +:::What about a donation of $19/year for no ads?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 +::::You can count me in as a taker on that amount. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 05:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 +:::::While I think it's a nice kicker to take out the ads for donors, the site for non-donors needs to look professional enough that new people come and stay, or there's no point. I'd rather we focus on raising an overall goal that makes the ads go away as much as possible for everyone. --[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 05:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 +::::::I'm fine with that as well. It's a question of how much people donate and how quickly they want new features to be implemented. An inexperienced developer in the US (i.e., college student) or an experienced developer from Ukraine both cost around $20-30/hour. New features will take from a few hours to a few days to implement depending on the feature, so if we had an extra $300/month, we could probably implement one new feature a month. If we wanted that money to come purely from donations, then each active user would need to contribute $1/month or $12/year. If we wanted it to come purely from ads, then we would need to keep both the right-hand and the left-hand ads. Or we could do a combination.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 +::::My question would be, is $19 going to be enough? (And is this a one-time donation or an annual donation?) WeRelate desperately needs up-dating, and has for a long time. We are not unique -- there are other free wikis out there -- and we are being left behind because the others offer benefits that we don't. I don't mind being a "niche" site if we survive, but survival is still going to take up-grading. And like Bob C. (above) I am (and have been for some time) seeing "RootsWeb" handwriting on the wall -- not enough money to maintain the site and eventual sale to someone like Ancestry and their ability to gut the good and leave a shell. I agree with Amelia, we need to maintain a reasonably serious appearance in order to attract new users to even a niche site. I can live with one or two <u>discreet</u> ads as a source of on-going income, combined with other means of raising income -- such as an annual donation campaign, for example. If a $20 (or more) donation once a year is enough to make the up-grades and to significantly reduce the number of ads on all pages, then that's pretty small peanuts for the benefits.--[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 16:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
-I have been away about a week and now when I go to add someone it looks very different. I also cannot find whatever it was that I always used that was a directory of all the pages I have in various trees. I cannot recall the term for this but it doesn't seem to be in the pull down where it used to me. I am feeling very disoriented and if there is somewhere that details the changes I would like to find it?--[[User:MizLiv|MizLiv]] 15:58, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+== WeRelate and Paypal [29 March 2015] ==
-The new look is from the new search engine that Dallan installed. Dallan is editing the tutorials. You still select My Relate>User Profile. That will show a list of all of your trees and you can view the list from there. Or you can select My Relate>Trees and select to view the tree there. You can also select My Relate_Launch FTE. Do these include the directory that you are looking for? --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 17:18, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+A couple of observations:
 +* I don't see a way via the Paypal site to set up regular donations over time; appears to only support single donations. There was an allusion above to Paypal supporting for payees multiple cross-time payments.
 +* I wanted to see if I could find FOLG as a payee in the Paypal interface and could not. I think it would be useful to have the WeRelate payee available as a search return from within Paypal; however, I'm not sure if Paypal supports this for non-profits or only for stores as in retail ventures.
 +--[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
-----+== WeRelate and Allen County Public Library -and- The Genealogy Center [29 March 2015] ==
-thank you!+
-the list I can't find is not the index within the tree - it was a link that I went two that let me see ALL family pages, individual pages, images etc. no matter what tree they were in. I can't figure out if I am blind or if it has been moved? I thought it was in the MyRelate pull down memory? I have used it a lot so I know I am not imagining it but I COULD be wrong about where it is and suddenly have gone blank!--[[User:MizLiv|MizLiv]] 19:12, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+The page http://genealogycenter.org/ contains a prominent "Donate" button in the top button bar. It might be useful to clarify somewhere (maybe on [[WeRelate:About donations]]) that donation to The Genealogy Center does not directly support WeRelate, though it would support a WeRelate partner. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 15:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
-Well, I am not sure that I ever found the list that you are missing. The dashboard has been moved to the top of the list under My Relate. Sorry that I cannot be of more help. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 19:36, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+== WeRelate and online charity listing sites [11 April 2015] ==
 +I pulled a reference to http://www.guidestar.org/ into [[WeRelate:About donations]] and went looking for other online registries, but found some incorrect information:
 +* at [https://www.fundraise.com/non-profit/shoreview-mn-foundation-for-on-line-genealogy-inc fundraise.com], the FOLG address is listed as being in Shoreview, Minnesota.
 +* at [http://greatnonprofits.org/org/foundation-for-on-line-genealogy-inc GreatNonProfits], the FOLG address is listed as being in Elk Ridge, Utah.
 +* at [http://501c3lookup.org/foundation-for-on-line-genealogy-inc/ 501c3 Lookup], the FOLG address is again listed as in Shoreview, Minnesota.
 +* at [http://www.taxexemptworld.com/organization.asp?tn=1485659 TaxExemptWorld], the FOLG address is listed as in Provo, Utah.
 +* does not appear to be in [http://www.charity-charities.org/index.htm Charity Vault]
 +* does not appear to be in [http://www.charitynavigator.org/ Charity Navigator]
-----+--[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 16:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- +
-Would "Browse" be what you are looking for? Its under Admin in the pull downs. Or at +
- +
-[http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Browse Special:Browse]+
- +
-[[User:Quolla6|Q]] 20:06, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Sorry for being late responding. In addition to the "Browse" screen, you can also go to the "Search" screen, check the "Watched" checkbox, and press "Search". This gives you a list of all pages in your tree, and unlike the "Browse" screen you can see vital information about the People and Families you are watching. You can even sort them by title or by date modified by checking the "Exact pages only" checkbox. [[Help:Search]] has more details. Since it does so much more than Browse does, I removed the Browse menu item from the MyRelate menu (but left it in the Admin menu), but then I didn't tell anyone that I did that :-(. I apologize for the confusion; hopefully you'll really like the new search interface or you can continue to use Browse in the Admin menu.+Extracted content from the Exempt Organizations Business Master File for Utah; this can be downloaded from http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Exempt-Organizations-Business-Master-File-Extract-EO-BMF and has an explanatory sheet at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/eo_info.pdf . The file format is puportedly .csv, but could not open it using Libre Office, so went to Google Sheets and that opened just fine.
- +
-As for talking about changes that have been made, I'm [http://werelateblog.wordpress.com/ starting a blog]. There's not much there yet, and it looks ugly, but it will improve over time. +
- +
-As for talking about changes that are going to be made, I'm not going to estimate dates any more, because I'm not a good estimator :-). But I have put a partial list of the things on my ToDo list on the blog (you'll see a link to the ToDo page in the upper right-hand corner).--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Google Books - Sources [24 July 2008] ==+
- +
-Hello Everyone,+
- +
-I am trying to figure out what to do about online books (sources) found on the Google Books website. +
- +
-What is the policy of Werelate, and Google Books about Werelate users citing the book.+
- +
-Many of these sources are virtually impossible to see in person.+
- +
-Can they be added as Werelate sources? If so how do we the users list them?+
- +
-By Title of Book, location Google books?+
- +
-Thanks for the input on this subject+
- +
-Debbie Freeman--[[User:DFree|DFree]] 12:48, 19 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-On another subject could we add a spell checker to Werelate? I though we had one before.+
- +
-:Google Books is a repository. If a book (which is a source) can be found there, the link to the book should be listed in the repository listing (e.g. [[Source:Allis, Horatio D. Genealogy of William Allis of Hatfield, Mass., and Descendants, 1630-1919|here]]).--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 18:12, 19 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Debbie, the browser Firefox has a spell checker. You can download from here [http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0.1/releasenotes/]. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 19:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Cluuz [29 July 2008] ==+
- +
-Here's a link to very interesting beta search engine site.+
- +
-[http://www.cluuz.com/Default.aspx?__VIEWSTATE=%2FwEPDwUKMTQ0ODMyMDI5NA9kFgICBQ8WAh4HVmlzaWJsZWhkGAEFHl9fQ29udHJvbHNSZXF1aXJlUG9zdEJhY2tLZXlfXxYPBQl2ZXJ0aWNhbHcFCXZlcnRpY2FsbgUIY2hrWWFob28FBmNoa01TTgUIY2hrQWxleGEFDWNoa1RlY2hub3JhdGkFDWNoa1Nob3dQZW9wbGUFEGNoa1Nob3dDb21wYW5pZXMFDGNoa1Nob3dQaG9uZQUNY2hrU2hvd0VtYWlscwUQY2hrU2hvd0FkZHJlc3NlcwUOY2hrU2hvd0RvbWFpbnMFDGNoa1Nob3dEYXRlcwUQY2hrU2hvd0dlb2dyYXBoeQUMY2hrU2hvd090aGVy&query=&vertical=web&chkYahoo=on&chkShowPeople=on&startAt=1&noResults=10&sites=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.werelate.org%2Fwiki&removeTerms=&__EVENTVALIDATION=%2FwEWFQLXkerrDgL%2F%2BOneAgKJ5PXlDALZ4rGICwKc9MboCgLl19%2F%2FAwK4nL%2F3CwLD%2F6SjCQKi2OOLBwLHm9DGBgKYkYbRBwK%2FicTBDgLn2fT7DgLc0db6CwLc8arEBQKooOS%2FBQLJ8YKoAwLm4sSPDQLtoKPwBQL4%2BuItAtKglOQD Cluuz]+
- +
-The specific link above allows you to search the WeRelate site. As an example, type in "Daniel Boone" (include the quotes---otherwise you'll get hits for "Daniel" and for "Boone" as well as "Daniel Boone". You can also use Boolean operators. Not sure if the standard Google symbols (beyond quotes) work here. +
- +
-When you do that you get a display of links to the site that contain "Daniel Boone". This is fairly neat if what you want to do is search specific to WeRelate, though its advantages will likely be overcome when the update to the WeRelate search engine are in place. Also, I've notice that with some settings links to other websites are also retrieved.+
- +
-However, the really neat bit with this engine is the "grey" display of connectivity. Near the top of the page there will be a few links that will be in grey, with the form "Daniel Boone (208)" or something of that sort. Click on one of those links and you get a display map showing the links between articles in which "Daniel Boone" appears.+
-In theory, this would allow you to quickly see other connections to Daniel Boone located on WeRelate---Might be faster to scan the images than to look at the individual links to cull out what's of interest and what's not.+{|
 +!FIELD!!VALUE
 +|-
 +|EIN||810660912
 +|-
 +|NAME||FOUNDATION FOR ON-LINE GENEALOGY INC
 +|-
 +|ICO||% TAYLOR QUASS
 +|-
 +|STREET||724 W 1720 N APT 207
 +|-
 +|CITY||PROVO
 +|-
 +|STATE||UT
 +|-
 +|ZIP||84604-6408
 +|-
 +|GROUP||0
 +|-
 +|SUBSECTION||3
 +|-
 +|AFFILIATION||3
 +|-
 +|CLASSIFICATION||1200
 +|-
 +|RULING||200602
 +|-
 +|DEDUCTIBILITY||1
 +|-
 +|FOUNDATION||15
 +|-
 +|ACTIVITY||0
 +|-
 +|ORGANIZATION||1
 +|-
 +|STATUS||1
 +|-
 +|TAX_PERIOD||201312
 +|-
 +|ASSET_CD||0
 +|-
 +|INCOME_CD||0
 +|-
 +|FILING_REQ_CD||2
 +|-
 +|PF_FILING_REQ_CD||0
 +|-
 +|ACCT_PD||12
 +|-
 +|ASSET_AMT||0
 +|-
 +|INCOME_AMT||0
 +|-
 +|REVENUE_AMT||0
 +|-
 +|NTEE_CD||A80
 +|-
 +|SORT_NAME||
 +|}
-[[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:57, 20 July 2008 (EDT)+--[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 16:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
-:Q, is this working? I tried this using Firefox and I did not get any results. I don't mean zero matches; there were no results displayed. By the way Dallan's new search engine is installed. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 19:28, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+:FWIW, these are all places we've lived since starting FOLG around 2002. The current address is 223 N 835 E, Lindon, UT 84042. We moved here about six months ago. We filed the address change with the state of Utah but possibly not with the IRS yet. We're checking into that.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 04:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-It works for me (maybe it was down earlier). The link graph is cool.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+What does FOLG mean?--[[User:Chicken Band|Chicken Band]] 10:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:[https://sites.google.com/a/folg.org/family-history/ Foundation for On-Line Genealogy], the sponsor of WeRelate.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 17:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
-:As I recall from my PERL programming days, there's a canned routine for generating such displays. I've not seen it implemented previousy (assume this is probably a redo using PHP). The item seems neat, but you need a large data rich site to get any use out of it. WeRelate would qualify as "data rich". Some County web pages (e.g., Russell County GenWeb) are also extremely data rich, and this works effectively on that site. Sites like Ancestry are compartmentalized, and much of the data is only served up on demand, so it doesn't work well there. But on data rich sites, it could be very useful. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 18:40, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+== Fundraising proposal [16 April 2015] ==
-----+Over the weekend five people donated a total of $350 - thank-you!
-We could do something like this based upon the "what links here" links. Probably not anytime soon though. I'll have to mull it over.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 21:27, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
-:As elegant as this is, there are many other things I think would be needful, and I would, I think, deserve higher priority. In the meantime, the CLUUZ site itself seems sufficient unto the need. And as I said, I'm not entirely sure how useful this will prove. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 22:38, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+Also, I have switched the left-hand and right-hand ads to text-only. We'll try that for a couple of days.
-== Living Coker (12) replacing with actual person [29 July 2008] ==+It looks like several MediaWiki developers are available for $35-$40/hour. (When I checked a year or two ago it was only $25-30/hour, but it appears to have increased.) I think we'd want to hire a developer for at least two weeks in order to give the developer a chance to get familiar with the code and implement a few features. If we were to try to hire someone for just a few days the start-up costs of becoming familiar with the code would be relatively high. Given that, I think we ought to not hire anyone until we have $3,000 raised either from ads or donations. That would be enough to hire someone for two weeks.
-When edited pages that were submitted by another user; if I have a death date for the ''living person'' what is the correct procedure? On the first one I just removed the living person and added the other.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 21:19, 25 July 2008 (EDT)+So here is a proposal for feedback:
-:Wouldn't it depend on why they had a) a "death date" and b) a notation that this card was for a living person? This, and variants is a frequently seen error on Ancestry family trees. Sometimes you;ll see folks with the notation "living" but DOB's in the 1500's etc. Obvious no longer amongst us, but still with the notation "living person". I suspect from that that this is due to a preference being set to ALWAYS assume the person is living, unless noted otherwise. Then they forget to note otherwise as they are adding hundreds and thousands of cards to their family tree via GEDCOM dumps. To me, this is simply a symptom of not thinking about what they are doing, but just harvesting names for their tree. I believe that for those showing this and other symptoms, the actual data about the person is of only secondary interest---its adding as many connection that you can find that's important. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:00, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+* We run a fundraiser the first month of each quarter with the goal of raising $3,000 each quarter.
 +* We use the excess ad revenue from the prior quarter to jump-start the fundraiser.
 +* We need to have some way of promoting the fundraiser each quarter - ideas?
 +* People who contribute at least $5 during the quarterly fundraiser will not be shown ads for that quarter. I could add something like ''Don't like ads? - Donate'' links to the top of each ad. I have already taken the liberty of disabling ads for the five people who contributed over the weekend.
 +* People who contribute more than $5 will be emailed a link to a google form where they can vote on the [[WeRelate:Suggestions]] they want to see implemented that quarter. People who contribute more will have their votes weigh more.
 +* Someone needs to summarize each suggestion into a single section with examples: the existing (undesired) behavior, and the proposed (desired) behavior. This will make it easier for me and the developer to understand the suggestion.
 +* I will review the suggestion summaries and attempt to estimate the number of days required to implement each one. Hopefully this information will help guide the people who are voting.
 +* Once we have raised $3,000 we will hire the developer.
 +* If we are unable to raise $3,000 during a quarter, we use the money to jump-start the fundraiser for the next quarter.
-----+My guess is that a few suggestions could be implemented each quarter using this approach. Thoughts?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 05:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
-You could enter the death date, then rename the page to include their given name if you wanted.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Best way to ID accidental duplicate pages for later fix [27 July 2008] ==+
- +
-Hello,+
- +
-My question is what do I do to ID an accidental duplicate family or person page that I created so it can be fixed later? +
- +
-As well as help me know it is a duplicate page so I do not add information to that page but to the earlier numbered page. Example John Doe (1) and John Doe (3) person page. I want to make sure I add information to John Doe (1) person page. Debbie Freeman --[[User:DFree|DFree]] 16:26, 26 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-Debbie just redirect (3) to (1). If the (3) remains in your tree list after the redirect just remove the page from your tree; do not delete the the page.+
-To redirect do the following: Redirect the duplicate page to the surviving page by typing ''# redirect[[title of surviving page]]'' on the first line in the text box of the duplicate page.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 18:38, 26 July 2008 (EDT)+:Sounds to me that what we need is a ''Product Backlog'' and a ''Product Owner'' to manage it. For those not familiar with these terms, they come out of the world of Agile Software Development (specifically the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_(software_development) Scrum methodology]). A Product Backlog is essentially a prioritized list of enhancements and fixes, and the Product Owner is a person from the user community who acts on behalf of the user community to prioritize the backlog and ensure that the developers understand the requirement. Items near the top of the prioritized list are more precisely defined than those lower in priority - that is, we take more time (as a community) to ensure precise definition of the requirement when it is close to being addressed than when we are just talking about how important it is to address.
 +:A rule of thumb in Scrum is that items are prioritized based on return on investment - the ratio of value to implementation cost. Therefore, the higher the value and the lower the effort to implement, the closer to the top of the list an item is. That means that in addition to the community "voting" on value (in whatever way we decide to do that), we also need an estimate of the effort to implement the change. Scrum recommends estimating effort using ''story points'', which essentially is a way to size items relative to each other (without getting caught up in trying to say how many days it will take, which is notoriously difficult to do). I'd be happy if we started with estimating items as small, medium, large and extra large.
 +:The Product Backlog is always visible to all stakeholders.
 +:So here is what I would propose:
 +:*Implement a better way for users to vote on suggestions. I like the 1 to 5 scale someone else suggested. There should also be a place for people to describe the benefits (e.g., pain avoided, improved capability, attractiveness for new users).
 +:*As a community, have a discussion about general guidelines for priority. Are we most interested in making changes that will attract new users (e.g., private space for living individuals) or retain users once they come (e.g., reduce pain points), or do we want to balance these? I have set up a [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/WeRelate_talk:Watercooler#WeRelate_Improvement_Priorities_.5B11_apr_2015.5D separate topic] for this.
 +:*Investigate product backlog tools - I see one called [https://easybacklog.com/ easyBacklog] that is currently free. Maybe there is an open source one that could be incorporated into WeRelate, but linking to an external one might work as well. I don't know if the product backlog tool would be the best place to expand on benefits, or if that should be done in the Suggestions list in WeRelate. That might depend on how well we can integrate a product backlog tool with WeRelate (specifically, integration or user accounts).
 +:*Assign a Product Owner. (I would be willing to give this role a try, with the caveat that I would back down if it became too burdensome from either a time point of view or with having to deal with inappropriate behavior.)
 +:*Once the voting has established the items garnering the most interest, have Dallan size the top X items so that they can be prioritized based on value and effort. Get this done several weeks before work starts each quarter to give time for final feedback and tweaking.
 +:*Publicize the process - discussion on overall priorities, voting on suggestions, and where the Product Backlog is.
 +:*Celebrate success (as we say in my work place) - publicize the implemented suggestions.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 14:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 +::This sounds like a good approach. The "backlog tool" might be a bit of a problem. Integrating one into WeRelate would be way overkill and absorb needed resources, so I think that's out. Just using easyBacklog might be ok; a problem there might be that it would not be readable by the general public -- each person wanting to read would have to get an account and be given access. (Copying status from easyBacklog onto WeRelate might solve that, but would be a burden.) Using wiki pages on WeRelate would be straightforward but would not have any backlog-management tools available. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 19:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:::Yes, it occurred to me also that incorporating a backlog tool might be overkill and take too much effort. I'm not proficient enough in wiki tools to be able to modify the [[WeRelate:Suggestions|Suggestions]] page to add a sortable column that indicates priority, but maybe that would be all it would take. Although, if we go with the Product Owner idea, we would probably want to control who could set the priority.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 20:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-Hi Debbie... to clarify Beth's instructions, don't forget to add the brackets. Also, I don't think it works if there's a space between the "#" and "redirect". Here is what your command should look like: <nowiki>#redirect [[Person:Stella Orpha Sumpter (1)]]</nowiki>. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 21:17, 26 July 2008 (EDT)+Great ideas! (And btw, ad-free looks really fine!)--[[User:Jillaine|Jillaine]] 17:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-I saw your comment and dug through your contributions. I found and fixed at least some of the duplicates you were trying to work through. You'll have to review it anyway. I noticed that you had two problems "#" and "redirect" need to be together. Also, as you already read, the destination of the redirection has to be enclosed in double square brackets.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 22:58, 26 July 2008 (EDT)+Hi Dallan,
-== New Search Functionality [29 July 2008] ==+In general i like your ideas. There is just one thing that strikes me. While the focus on money is good, in the sense that money makes the world go round, i feel that money is not the only contribution a member of the community can make.
-The changes made to the Search function are greatly appreciated. I haven't fully explored this yet, but this is a great improvement. A couple of things to consider:+I added over 10,000 people to the site, each one of them manually. Would you say a genealogy site without quality pages has any value? And if the quality page has value, how to calculate the donation of 10,000+ quality pages?
-1. If you search for a specific name, e.g., Daniel Boone, you generate a long list of hits. The counter says there are over ten thousand hits. Some of those hits are for "similar to Daniel Boone", and not exact matches. Obviously, you can't examine all of those hits. Fortunately the list is "semi" ordered, so that exact matches for "Daniel Boone" appear near the top---but not necessarily all of them, and not necessarily in order of their "index number". Here's a list from the second page of hits:+The second thing is that the donated amount (of money, or in my case, of quality pages) should NOT be of any influence to the weight of their vote. In a society where people don't know each other, the money is the message. But in a community, that which brought us all together should be supported.
-:Person:Daniel Boone (23)+This is my 2 cents, after looking up "Dutch treat" on Wikipedia, which article closes with the statement: "Surprisingly no reference found for the most obvious country the Netherlands. Please update with factual references."
-:Person:Daniel Boone (25)+(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Dutch)
-:Person:Daniel Boone (26)+
-:Person:Burwell Boone (1)+
-:Person:Daniel Boone (27)+
-:Person:Daniel Boone (28)+
-:Person:John Boone (35)+
-:Person:Daniel Boone (29)+
-Note that the sequence of "Daniel Boone"'s is interrupted by the insertion of "Burwell Boone (1)", and "John Boone (35)". I don't see an obvious reason for that to be a desirable thing if you are searching for "Daniel Boone". What it says is that the list of hits is only roughly ordered. Here the unneeded hits can be easily skipped over. But they are obviously out of order. That makes me wonder if you might get hits for "Daniel Boone" isolated very deep in the list---say at hit 949? You wouldn't be able to find such scattered hits as they would be buried so deeply---and so might miss something helpful+Best regards, Ron [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 18:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
-2. The above sequence of hits skips over "Daniel Boone (24)". There is actually a card (sort of) for "Daniel Boone (24)", though the corresponding tree has been deleted, and "Daniel Boone (24)" is just a placeholder for something that once existed but for which there's no information retained---just the fact that sometime someone created a space for "Daniel Boone (24)", and then went away. Is this little bit of real estate (so to speak) up for grabs? Should this "ghost" persist, and could/should others with an interest in Daniel Boone choose to utilize this real estate? Should such "ghosts" be completely purged from the system, and the space set aside for them be reused?+:Woepwoep, let me add to my statement above where I stated that a user's "contribution" is not interchangeable with a user's "donation," by stating that "Value" does not necessarily equate to "Cost." The value of your material contribution of genealogical data is almost incalculable (especially to you), whereas the cost to store, maintain, and process that data can be calculated pretty easily. In fact, the more you contribute, the more it costs.
-[[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:38, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+:I can give you a personal illustration. A few years ago when I hit the half-century mark in age, I began to recognize my own mortality and reevaluate the time and effort I put into pursuit of my interest in genealogy (both "time" and "effort" becoming more valuable commodities to me). I took a long look at the family history and genealogy collection I had accumulated over the previous 30 years and realized that no one close to me valued it like I did, and then I realistically recognized that it all may be lost when I pass. I began to take steps to find a permanent home for it, and was pretty discouraged by the lack of enthusiasm I got from libraries and genealogical societies in pledging to accept it, now stored primarily in binders (upwards of 50 or more of varying sizes) in my home office. The most common response I received was that the space to house it and the cost to maintain it would be too high for such a collection of limited interest (i.e. families and offspring of my ancestors). Unless consolidated into a published book form, I could find none interested in accepting it. That's partly why I am here at WeRelate, so hopefully I can leave the legacy of my family history to those who might value it as much as I in the future.
-:Hi Q, I have reused some of these "ghosts"; when helping others rename their pages. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 11:59, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+:Do you see my point? The value of your contributions can in no way be translated into monetary terms. Any "credit" that Dallan would apply to contribution of data would be purely a number pulled out of thin air, possibly as an incentive to encourage further contributions. But at this point, actual revenue (hard cash) seems to be the guiding force here to keep WR alive and functioning. Take care. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 20:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
-::Yes, I think you and I have discussed this before. I think you're re-use of the real estate is the best choice, but there might be reasons for keeping them that we don't know about. Just putting the question, so to speak to Dallan. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 12:04, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+:: Bob, i appreciate your contribution. We are talking different value systems here. The word http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incommensurable comes to mind. A friend told me about the history of genealogy. He said: "it began with the identification (and define) of the nobility. To avoid intruders. This was according to the male line. That is why a "family tree" or a "genealogy" classically means a male line.
-----+:: The second phase was tracing back hereditary diseases - this means: the medical side - so that was at that time the factor that pushed genealogy. In this phase, ofcourse, also became the female line involved."
-Clicking on "Exact Matches" I get 18 hits for Daniel Boone. If I don't find what I want in there, I would then expand the search. Burwell Boone shows up when doing an "exact match" because his alt name is "Daniel." John Boone shows up because Daniel is his middle name. I find both of them showing up in the hits as a desirable thing, unless you are speaking specifically of where in the order of things they appear. Even so, I *could* have been searching for Burwell, but only know him by the name of Daniel. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 12:58, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Hi Ronni, I could be wrong, but I'd think you'd want the priority to be given to persons whose card reads as stated, then persons who have as an AKA the same name. Names not actually being searched, but which for various reasons give you a match, should, I think, appear a lower depth in the search. Yes, the instance you cite would make things harder, but the instance you cite would be much less common than someone simply looking for Daniel Boone. The priority should, I think, go to what serves the greatest number. +
- +
-:Also, the problem you point out would be largely eliminated by using any of the additional fields (e.g., parents, spouse, DOB, DOD, whatever) provided to narrow a search.+
- +
-:With a common name you could expect to get a hundred hits or more. In the future, as the database builds, this will become much more problematical. Right now you get about 120 hits for a common name like "John Walker". Some day I expect you'll get literally thousands of hits for that name. At that point, there's a substantial penalty to be paid for retrieving names that don't match a search exactly. From my perspective, what's needed is a system that +
- +
-::a) gives a well ordered list for what's being searched. If the search is for "John Walker" than hits for John Walker should appear beforehits for John Alexander Walker; John Walker before Alexander Walker,,etc, and hits should be in proper "human" numerical sequence (index numbers ordered 1,2,3,....19, 21, 22, 23....n), not (1,11,12...19,2, 20,21....), etc.+
-::b) That there's a way to skip forward in a series of hits, so that you could guage where a specific hit of interest to you might lie in the sequence---ie, if they are in exact numerical order, you could skip forward ten pages to get to John Walker (109). Right now the sequence is ordered with machine logic---ie John Walker (2) would appear immediately after John Walker (19)--because "2" is greater than "1", which is the way the machine looks at it as things are currently set up---rather than having 20 appear after 19, which is the way we look at it.+
- +
-::Having an irregular display algorhythm makes it hard to figure out where in the sequence you need to get....which could be fatal if you can only look at 10 cards at a time,...and there are thousands of hits to look at.+
-::Another component of a fix here (if a fix is needed) is to display more hits to the page. I like the fact that there's a good selection of vita data to review when you examine the hits. But the fact that they are strung out on separate lines means you can only get a few hits per page---and keep the page down to a relatively small size. There are two solutions for that which I see---a) allow more hits per page (100 would not be too many, but might get consuptive of bandwidth or something.) b) compress each hit to a single line---which probably means smaller type face. Might also consider using the whole page width by eliminating the left hand side bar.+:: So Bob, i would like to say, if nobody cares, perhaps generations after yours and mine, people will care. Vincent died poor, but he said: "If a voice inside you says you can not paint, then by all means paint, and that voice inside you will be silenced".
-Might not be able to display as many of the vita elements as currently the case. (By the way, I also like displaying the list of user's for each hit, but if you get very many people watching the same page that might become a problem. Possibly displaying just the initial creator would be good. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:51, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+
 +:: Cheers, Ron [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 20:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 +::: My basic question is if i would charge my family for a Christmas dinner [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 16:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-Another issue/suggestion/irritation with the functionality rolled out with search: It appears something happened to the place name dropdowns on the person pages? I noticed that the matching seems to have gotten better, but... I used to be able to type, say, "Plymouth, P" and get just the places that have the word Plymouth, and another word starting with P (like Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachusetts). And the list would be in alpha order. Now, if I type "Plymouth", I get too many results to display, they are not in any order I can decipher, and the town of Plymouth, Mass is not one of them. Typing more letters does no good unless I type the entire word Massachusetts, with the comma. Both issues are mostly on the level of irritating (I enter Plymouth as a place a lot!), but to the degree we want to encourage people to use the official place names, having a useful list pop up while the person is typing the second word instead of afterward would help. And, (I forgot to add), the way I discovered that I had to type "Plymouth, Massachusetts," instead of "Plymouth, Plymouth," is that nothing pops up if I type that - which is just plain wrong.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 02:51, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+I think they are all great ideas to be implemented, Dallan. As Ron raised the question above, your use of "contribution" and "donation" should be clarified. I'm sure you are using the word contribution as in "<i>donating money and fund raising</i>," whereas Ron would also like to interpret the word contribution as "<i>submission of genealogical data</i>," a viewpoint which might have merit in my opinion, but how do you measure it?
-:Interesting example, though if I entere "Plymouth" I do get a list that includes "Plymouth, Massachusetts" with a notation of a redirect to "Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachuetts". Still, a display in true alphabetical order, (and numerical order) would be very helpful. Also, in this particular example I see some "hits" that just seem out of place---no obvious reason why "Piney, Franklin Arkansas" should appear in this list of hits, particularly sandwiched between Plymouth's". More hits to the page would be an advantage. Perhaps achievable by simply eliminating the "type" which takes up a separate line, and or using smaller type face. +The <i>weighting</i> of personal donations in the decision-making process of program improvement is a good incentive and hopefully will produce positive results rather than negative backlash by invested users unable or unwilling to donate.
-:Did spot a rather bizarre entry that a user has entered for "Place:Plymouth Colony, Kingdom of England"; I guess that makes sense, but there does not seem to be any consistent usage to describe other colonies in the US. For example, "Jamestown Colony" comes up with two hits for a place in Coffee, Alabama, but none for "THE" Jamestown Colony in Virginia. "Plimouth" or "Plimouth Colony" gives a single hit for "Plymouth, Plymouth...", but its not displayed as a redirect---rather the system change the entry to a key word, and picks it up that way. Which is sort of curious. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+Due to the new reality of tacking dollar amounts against these suggested program improvements, I think you need to look at prioritizing them based on their added value to the program itself and to a better measure of user support. I would suggest adding a scale of 1-5 on each program suggestion improvement area for those who get to vote, rather than just by gauging the number of "Watchers." In my own case, I may be watching a page just because I want to be part of the discussion rather than advocating or supporting for the suggestion. #1 would be least value, low support or low priority in my appraisal for the suggestion, and #5 indicating highest value, support and priority for the suggestion.
- +
-===Reusing index numbers [29 July 2008]===+
-Currently you could run into the following problem if you re-use index numbers (although it will hardly ever happen in practice): Suppose several months ago User A created a Family page "Squire Boone and Sarah Morgan (1)", and listed Daniel Boone as a child. An ID would have been reserved for Daniel, say 24, and a red link to "Daniel Boone (24)" would be displayed on the family page. Now suppose that User A doesn't create the Person page "Daniel Boone (24)" right away, and User B comes along, sees that ID 24 is unused, and re-uses it. When User B creates the page, "Squire Boone and Sarah Morgan (1)" will be listed as parents. Suppose User B is creating the page for an entirely different Daniel Boone, so they wonder how this link got put there and remove it. This causes "Daniel Boone (24)" to be removed as a child link from "Squire Boone and Sarah Morgan (1)", which confuses User A. +
- +
-As of last week this shouldn't happen anymore, because Person and Family pages get created immediately after the ID is reserved -- there are no more red links to newly-added people/families on Person and Family pages. But there are lots of old red links on existing Person and Family pages. The plan is to eventually create pages for red links on existing Person and Family pages. After that time we could start re-using unused ID numbers. This doesn't seem like a high priority to me though. I notice that most of the 18 Daniel Boone's that show up in the search results really need to be merged into two or three distinct people. Supporting match and merge seems more important right now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 21:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-===Ordering search results [1 August 2008]===+
-There are three possible orderings of search results: by relevancy (best match), by title, or by date modified. Relevancy is the default, and people with a first name of Daniel and a last name of Boone show up before people with a similar name (e.g., before [[Person:Daniel Boen (1)]] who shows up as search result #19 in my list), and people with one similar and one exact name should show up before people with only one exact name, who should should show up before people with only one similar name. I could order people whose primary first given names match exactly before people whose alternate or middle names match exactly, but it would require a fair amount of additional processing, and I'm not sure it occurs often enough to be worth it.+
- +
-:Try a search for "Ann Walker". Almost all of the initial hits are for someone where the page title does NOT include ANN, but where her middle name is Ann. So if you are looking for "Ann Walker" you have to sort through a lot of folks that don't match. Seems like the priority should be to exact matches first, then secondary possibilities. I realize this might be tough to work around programming wise. +
- +
-:But why are their page titles that do not include the middle name? yet the card notes a middle name somewhere in the system. Seems like if there's a middle name it should be in the title. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 22:56, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Because discussion a while ago yielded the rule on page naming that you don't include middle names. It helps with consistency because middle name are harder to determine and less frequently used/known.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 23:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-It's not possible to mix title sorting with relevancy sorting. The search engine allows only one sort at a time unfortunately. I'm not sure why sorting by ID within relevancy would be important though. The ID numbers don't mean anything except that one page was created before another one, and if we re-use ID numbers it won't even mean that. +
- +
-:Probably true to some extent, but if you are looking through search results systematically, non obvious display pattern makes it a bit difficult to keep track of what you looked at. One can adapt to an usuall display sequence, but usually its better not to make people learn new rules for what currently comes naturally. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 22:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-If you know the ID number of the page you want to go to, you can enter the page title (e.g., "Person:John Walker (200)") in the search box at the top of any page. I find that I use this feature quite a bit.+
- +
-Sorting the IDs as numbers so that 21 is displayed after 3 is possible; I'll add it to my ToDo list. The reason I sorted it the other way is that's how People and Family pages are listed in the auto-complete drop-downs, and it's not possible to change that order. If others would like to see the sorting changed (or see it not changed), please let me know. By the way, it looks like there's currently a problem with sorting by title that I need to look into.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 21:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
 +That's my input. Appreciate the positive movement. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 16:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:Agree with Bob. Like the idea of weighting personal donations to votes as a very nice carrot. Also agree that improvements should be focused on those most likely to bring in/bring back the greatest number of active users, even though they might not be my pet preferences. --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 18:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-I fixed the bug with sorting by title today, and at the same time I went ahead and changed it to sort ID numbers numerically instead of alphabetically. (It turns out it's also possible to change the sort order in the auto-complete drop-downs, but that's low-priority.)+Woepwoep, the time that you and I and everyone else has put into WeRelate to this point has given us a nice place to share our genealogy. Our contributions, which cannot be valued, get converted into the money required to run the site via ads, and the ads generate enough revenue that we don't have to worry about the site being shut down. The contributions that we have all made in terms of our time has gotten us to where we are today: a website that isn't going to be shut down. But if we want to make improvements we need contributions of money (donations). And we need to come up with an incentive for people to donate. Telling people that they can help choose the improvements seems like a good incentive to me.
-I also modified search so that matching given and surnames in the title sort higher in the relevancy ranking than names not in the title. This solves the "Ann Walker" problem -- people with a first given name of Ann now sort higher than those with a middle or alternate name of Ann.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 01:32, 1 August 2008 (EDT)+I agree that the number of watchers is not a perfect (maybe not even a good) indicator of the value of the suggestions. Would people add comments to the suggestions' talk pages arguing why the suggestion should be prioritized as a #1 (least value) to a #5 (most value)? I'm still proposing that those who donate the money necessary to pay the developer should have the final vote, but their vote can/should be influenced by the prioritization comments. I'll assume that suggestions that receive no prioritization comments are low priority.
-Very good! That helps considerably. Having things display with this set of priorities will make the most sense to most users. Hence should make the searching system more helpful. Thanks [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)+We have currently raised $450 out of a goal of $3000. Unless there are objections, I will highlight the fundraiser at the top of each page starting tomorrow. Also, instead of asking people to donate $5 every three months to opt-out of ads, I'll mention on the donate page that donating $19 or more opts you out of ads for a full year.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- +
-===Displaying search results [29 July 2008]===+
-It's certainly possible to list more than 10 results per page, but 10 per page seems like a standard. Google and Ancestry both do this. I'd be worried about decreasing the font size, because usability experts say that websites designed for older people (many of our users are older) need to generally have a larger font size.+
- +
-If lots of users are watching a page, we show at most 80 characters (or around that number) in the search results so the user list doesn't get too large.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 21:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-===Place auto-complete [1 August 2008]===+
-I'll work on the place auto-complete. I'm not sure why "Plymouth, Plymouth," doesn't work but I'll look into it. I'll also sort place auto-complete results alphabetically, show the type (but not the title) in smaller font so we get more results per screen, and filter the results by partially-entered higher-level place names so you can enter just "Mass" instead of "Massachuetts," (although it's even easier to enter "Plymouth, MA,").+
- +
-The reason that Piney shows up when you do an auto-complete on Plymouth is it has an alternate name of Plymouth. The reason that Plimouth gives [[Place:Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States]] is this place has an alternate name of Plimouth (and it's the only place with a name or alternate name of Plimouth). I think we had a user create some early American colony places, but just a few, which is probably why you don't see Jamestown.+
- +
-Most of the place redirects will be deleted so that they stop cluttering up the drop-down list later this year.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 21:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
 +:: Dallan, thanks much for your consideration. Here's an idea for donation. It is not a complete idea, a mere starter.
 +:: My daughter aged 15 recently donated USD 25 to Skyblock (http://shop.skyblock.net/category/10202) which is also a community afaik. So perhaps we could find out what makes Skyblock different from WeRelate in terms of Donation? Her decision was based on - if i recall it right - getting perks which she then could give away to her online friends to help them with their part in this collaborative game they play together. Hope this helps. Best regards, Ron [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 07:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:::It's an interesting idea. I wonder what kind of "perks" we could provide.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 05:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-Place auto-complete should be working much better now. Please let me know if you see any problems.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 01:32, 1 August 2008 (EDT)+Dallan could you please add me to your list of people who see no ads? It is very annoying. Thank you, Ron.
- +: Alternative: if action=edit then remove ads ?
-== Contribution Count [1 August 2008] ==+
- +
-How do I get my contribution count since I started?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 14:51, 1 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:You've edited a whopping 112,303 pages since you started! Wow! You have the distinction of having made more edits than any other person on WeRelate. I'll add to my ToDo list displaying the total number of contributions on your MyRelate Dashboard page in addition to the number of edits over the past 90 days.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:32, 1 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Sorting Sources [7 August 2008] ==+
- +
-A request for your already too long list. I am a software engineer and when things aren't ordered it bothers me more than it should. Sources end up managed in whatever order they were entered. It just seems more natural to have them in chronological order. Since there is a date entry associated with all sources, you could add a tool that will reorder sources by date. The source remove tool cleans up the data nicely, and a reordering tool would need to do the same. You could do it manually, but is is very painful and prone to error. I try not to obsess when seeing things in the "wrong" order ;-) , but this would be nice for us obsessive types .....--[[User:Srblac|Srblac]] 15:22, 2 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Of course, one person's "wrong order" is someone else's "right order". What comes up now is close to being what I'd call right, though I'd still like to see thing in sequence by Index number within major sort categories---that's roughly (not necessarily) ordered by date of creation. Dallan's right, however: its only a "tidyness" thing to have them ordered by Index---in its self it serves few purposes, other than "it makes sense looking at it", as opposed to being "inscrutable". I can, however, see an advantage, with other ordered arrangements. As with DOB or with DOD, or perhaps death range. That way you could quickly scan the list to see where you needed to be looking for potential matches: up front, down in the middle, or way down at the bottom. Then you have the problem of getting to that part of the list, but that's something else again. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 17:01, 2 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-I think I may not have given enough information. Your response appears to be with respect to the way the new search tool responses are ordered (understandable given your recent focus on it and a very nice improvement IMHO). I was talking with respect to source entries on a person page. I would guess you'll never get an agreement on how the search tool responses should be ordered, they work OK for me as is. What I would like to have is the option to run a tool that would reorder the sources on a person page in chronological order based on the dates entered in the source data. Undated entries can flow to the bottom in the order they are already in (i.e. the order they were created). I have a series of census sources (and other records) on many pages that are all out of order (e.g [[Person:Sophia Polkow (2)]] is particularly disordered). It bugs me. Ordering them by hand is too dangerous and tedious. Here, [[Person:Henry Becker (5)]] is what I am shooting for. All the sources in order by year and the undated entry at the end. --[[User:Srblac|Srblac]] 17:17, 2 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Ah, sorry to misunderstand. Yes, I see how that would be "untidy", and cumbersome to do something about. "Painful" as you say, would probably be about the right description. Since that aspect of WeRelate's system is not something I work with, I've no oar in the water on the problem---other than to sympathiz. It looks like what you are doing is about optimum for the WeRelate system. (And, as an aside, folks who actually take the time, as you have done, to write text articles are in the decided minority here.) While I take a different approach to citations, one thing I like about the WeRelate system is how it encourages folks to cite the specific basis for different data elements. Ie., "The DOB is from source S13, and the DOD is based on S2". [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 18:38, 2 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Sorting source citations seems like a good idea. I'll add it to the ToDo list. It will probably be a couple of months before I get to it though. (You don't know javascript and would want to implement this do you?)--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 15:15, 5 August 2008 (EDT)+
 +:: I tested the Donate page by transferring 20 dollars to FOLG through Paypal. Now i still get ads.
 +:: So perhaps the instruction page should say that a human action is required and that payment does not immediately lead to an ad-free WR.
 +:: Also, i am not transferred back to WR page.
 +:: Also, how will FOLG know who i am, e.g. how will you know i bought an ad-free year? the paypal transaction only mentions a confirmation number and my company name (self-employed, business account with paypal).
 +:: These are my findings during testing.
 +:: Best regards, Ron [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 09:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 +::: It is now half a day later, and i still see ads, despite the fact that i paid USD 20.--
 +::: While i am editing [[Person:Hendrina Arentsen (1)|Hendrina]]'s page, adding the information that she died back in 1881, i am polled by google for what age women i like. It says "select an age and view singles in your region." I can choose between 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, or 50+. I feel a little embarrassed, because obviously i like much older women.
 +::: Dallan, is it absolutely necessary to use ads ? Is there no other way?
 +::: thx, Ron [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 16:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-Maybe we'll come up with some conventions on how we want the sources to be ordered. On the other hand, we might not. All I would suggest for now is a set of up/down arrows that allows you to move a record up or down a position.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 16:34, 5 August 2008 (EDT)+It's a manual process - I get notified by email of the donation, then I look up your user name based upon the email address that you entered in your donation and turn off ads for you. I just added a sentence to that effect on the donate page.
-----+Also, I changed the email address on the paypal account on March 30th. It turns out that changing the email address on our paypal account made our paypal button stop working -- donations made during this time need to be cancelled. I updated the paypal button on the website yesterday. If you made a donation over the past five days and have ''not'' had ads turned off, please let me know and I will explain how you can cancel your donation.
-The up/down arrows are a good idea; I was thinking we could also add a "sort" button in the source citations section of the edit screen that would allow someone to sort the citations chronologically. But it would be something that someone would have to click on; sorting chronologically wouldn't be automatic.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)+
-----+If we had enough donations or if we decided that we didn't care about any new features we could turn off or scale back ads. Let's see how the fundraiser goes.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 20:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
-Is the request to order sources based on dates entered in the source (e.g. covered by the source), the date the source was produced, or based on the information to which they are attached? Because it strikes me that most people are going to want or expect the last one, but if we can really order by date, there are much more useful things to do (sorting search results and events in the left hand bar, for example). And with the exception of census records, the first two sorts are rarely going to correlate with the information entered and are thus largely useless and going to confuse people - sorting by the dates books are published or the dates they cover doesn't serve any purpose. I would much prefer that any effort go to the up/down arrows - since that would also let us move "down" less reliable sources.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 18:27, 5 August 2008 (EDT)+: thx so much for this adfree workspace ! happy easter [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 00:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
-----+== Robot for pulling content over from Wikipedia [7 April 2015] ==
-I am thinking that the button would sort sources according to the dates of the events that the sources were attached to. What do you mean by sorting search results in the left hand bar? (I'll add your vote for the up/down arrows.)--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)+
-:Re: left hand bar, I mean sorting events on the person (or family) page so show they show up as, for example, birth, census, will, death, instead of birth, death, then alt events in the order entered.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 13:03, 7 August 2008 (EDT)+I think that the robot which updates WeRelate content on pages tagged with {{tl|Source-wikipedia}} or {{tl|Wikipedia-notice}} has not run in quite awhile. Is this something which can be turned back on or run manually from time to time? --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 23:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:I have to run it manually and I've forgotten to run it recently. Thanks for reminding me. I'll run it first thing next week.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 05:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 +-----
 +Dallan
-Some sources are specific to an exact date. e.g., a birth certificate. But even there, its not uncommon to have multiple dates contained in the source---in the case of a birth certificate you might, for example, have the mother's DOB. It's relative rare to have a "source" include information only for a specifc date. Usually they cover a range of time, often a very large range of time in the case of histories and genealogies. If you were using the "date" to which the source was pointing, rather than the date of issuance of the source, how would you select date to be used for sorting? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 07:44, 7 August 2008 (EDT)+Please warn us immediately before you run the Wp update. Those of us who are trying to add our two cents worth at the same time should really find something else to do while it is happening because it really slows down the servers. I know, you'll do it "overnight", but that doesn't help those of us in other timezones.
-::Looking at the 2 pages mentioned by Srblac, there are 16 source citations all listed as mysources. In actuality only 4 appear to be mysources, the death, marriage and birth certificates. The rest, census records, books and the like are properly sources, not mysources. Sorting by date seems to me to mean the date of the event for which the source is cited. However, unless a different Vol/page # and/or actual text is quoted, the source only needs one citation per page. I have seen family pages for example where the exact same source reference is cited 10 times and attached to 10 different individuals birth dates. These should be combined into one citation and referenced for each event.--[[User:Scot|Scot]] 11:41, 7 August 2008 (EDT)+Thanks. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:Good point. I will slow down the update rate so it won't slow down everyone else. I plan to start it Monday evening (US time) or Tuesday morning (EU time). I'll post here first.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 19:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-Sources would be sorted according to the dates of the events to which they were attached. And I agree that up/down arrows on sources and sorting events automatically in the left-hand bar are higher priority.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 19:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)+Thanks, Dallan. Having a ''slow'' rate of updates is fine, to the point that it might make it through everything in a week or two or more if needed. A monthly manual launch would be a good routine to get into if possible. My thinking is that a) most of the wikipedia articles in the set brought over will not have MAJOR changes frequently (might not even experience edits in any particular year), so that b) the main role would be to get an initial pull over here in a timely fashion after initially placing the {{tl|source-wikipedia}} template. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 01:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 +: I started the wikipedia update tonight. It now waits three seconds between each update, so hopefully we won't notice the additional load.
 +: There are two types of wikipedia updates: a) one where the updater just looks for "source-wikipedia" templates and replaces them, and b) one where I download the latest version of wikipedia and the system updates all of of the articles that need updating. The first update is pretty lightweight. Normally it runs weekly, but it looks like I had turned it off inadvertently so it hasn't been running for a long time. I'll start it running weekly again after this full update is complete. The second type of update is the one running right now. This update will take about a week to complete at the slower rate. I'll try to remember to run this roughly once a quarter.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
-== Source Clean Up Project [4 August 2008] ==+== I don't mind ads, as long as they are limited [9 April 2015] ==
- +
-We are looking for volunteers to help clean up the thousands of sources page in anticipation of a "Research Assistant" - a goal set for 2009. You can read more about this project [[WeRelate:Source review|here]]. Any questions or problems can be discussed on its appropriate [[WeRelate talk:Source review|talk page]]. It's a daunting task and any volunteer time you can offer, even if it's only a few minutes a day, will help! Thanks! --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 15:58, 4 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Embedding Google maps? [14 August 2008] ==+
- +
-Google Maps has a nice feature called "My Maps" that allows you to construct your own custom Google maps with pushpins (or other icons) wherever you'd like to put them. I'm playing around with it, as I've found it useful to plot the location of homes where various related families lived, churches they attended, etc. You can put descriptions that pop-up when you click on a given pushpin, and make them include links back to the relevant werelate person/family pages. Google allows you to embed their maps in other websites, but the way to do it is using a snippet of HTML they provide that has an "iframe" in it. (If you're curious, you can see an example of one such map [http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=114495216136942644394.000454662bd5b7b22dc18&z=16 here].) Obviously, I could simply put a link to the map from a Person or Family page, but it would be much cooler to actually embed the map. Is that possible? Alternatively, is there a way that I can extend the WeRelate Pedimaps to show additional geolocatable things - residences, churches, etc? --[[User:TomChatt|TomChatt]] 04:10, 14 August 2008 (EDT)+
 +In response to the discussion around conditions under which ads would be removed going on above, I'll say that I don't mind ads which are relatively unobtrusive. I've only donated $10, but do plan to do that on a monthly basis (manually via Paypal). I don't anticipate having an ad-free workspace in exchange, but I do want to stave off the addition of more or larger ads, and I want to ensure that the crew have sufficient resource to continue to work forward (albeit slowly) on site improvements and establishment of a future-proofing fund to accommodate potential (inevitable, really) need for porting the content to another platform as technology evolves. For instance, I think the mediawiki software that is underlying WeRelate is not the currently deployed one for Wikipedia ... the option to change version should be available if there is a compelling reason based on the functionality options provided by the change. That takes resource = money. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 01:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:That particular change - updating the MediaWiki software to the latest version - will take a lot of time. We'll want to figure out whether we want to save our money to do that or implement some of the simpler suggestions.
 +:BTW, I've been experimenting with different-sized ads, in particular a 160-pixel-wide vs a 300-pixel-wide ad on the right-hand side. The 300-pixel-wide ad on the right definitely brings in more money, but it may not be worth it. Right now I lean toward the 160-pixel-wide ad on the right and a 160-pixel-wide ad on the left.. I'm also experimenting with display vs text-only ads. We'll see how that goes.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 +::Just offering feedback. I don't mind display ads (of course, what they display is questionable sometimes - some of the ones on my phone flash which is really annoying) but it is easier to train the eye to ignore them whereas text only ads look almost like part of the page. Don't know if bolder borders around the ads would help with that process, certainly predictable locations makes recognition of ads quicker. Prefer 160 versus 300 but can live with either if push comes to shove. All that is better than the ones just below the banner which interrupted the flow of reading and pushed a lot of good stuff off the first screen. Does it help if we, say, click one ad each day, or does that not make any difference? --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:::You should ''avoid'' clicking on ads just to "help the website". Google (and advertisers) consider this click-fraud, and too much of it will cause Google to ban the website and associated account, losing all revenue. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 +::::Thanks, Robert. I had the same question as Jrich. --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 06:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-This has been the subject of past discussions. What you are speaking of would be a welcome addition. I believe someone (not Dallan) said that this was in the works. Personally, I'd just as soon copy an image, and insert on WeRelate as needed, but there are some licenseing restrictions about doing that. There are definite restrictions on using the aerial photoimages, but the restrictions on the pseudo 3D topo maps seems much less restrictive. Dallan was mulling the distinctions over awhile back, but I haven't heard what he concluded. +FWIW, the display ads on the left and right work about the same as the text ad on the left and display ad on the right. I think having a text ad on the left is less obtrusive than a display ad, but if others think a display ad would be less obtrusive, I could switch it back. A 300-pixel-wide ad on the right works a bit better than the 160-pixel-wide ad, but I'm not sure the additional real estate is worth it.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 04:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:Can you add a horizontal rule between the left-hand ad and the text above it to provide better separation between the website content and the ad? -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 16:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:Text ads on the left and the 300px display on the right seems like a reasonable approach, but I agree with Moverton that some visual separation before the left text ads is needed. Maybe a horizontal rule just after the "Don't want ads?" link, and maybe after the horizontal line an italic centered "''Advertisements''" before the ads start. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 17:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
-All of the Google map products (aerial, topos, Street maps, Street Views) have their uses. Since Topozone sold out to US Trails, having a source for USGS maps got a bit harder. (Theere were licensing restrictions at Topozone, such that their use on WeRelate was questionable, but at least you could get versions for person use. The implementation as US Trails pretty much requires a subscription to view the maps effectively, and all you can get there now is the 3D version, and a very small window at that. Personally, for our purposes the original USGS maps are better, because they provide more detail than the psuedo 3D versions of either USTrails or Google maps. There are still a couple of sources for the USGS topo's, but they are clumsier to use than old Topozone.+== WeRelate Improvement Priorities [20 April 2015] ==
-But I ramble.+As a follow-up to the fundraising proposal, I want to initiate a discussion on the "big picture" priorities for improving WeRelate features. This is not about which specific suggestions are a priority, but the guidelines on how to prioritize suggestions.
-[[User:Quolla6|Q]] 09:00, 14 August 2008 (EDT)+For example, we can focus on one or more of the following areas (please add to and/or refine this list):
 +:attracting new users (which changes might induce more people to give WeRelate a try)
 +:retaining new users (which changes will improve the first impression)
 +:reducing pain points for established users
 +:expanding the possibilities (helping WeRelate grow beyond its initial vision)
 +:support for quality of the data
-----+We might also want to consider relative priority of:
-I don't know if it's quite what you're looking for, but you can add a reference to the google map template in the description field of an event/life-fact. Dallan was planning to special-case the handling of such items in the pedia-map by using that set of map coordinates in preference to the implied coordinates of the place associated with the event. A for example of the use of this stuff would be on my Grandfather's page - [[Person:James Mason (13)]] - where I am able to indicate details like where the family farm is.+:improvement in online data entry
 +:improvement in GEDCOM upload
-While the map template may or may not give you what you are looking for presentation wise, it does let you preserve important details.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 09:22, 14 August 2008 (EDT)+Then for each suggestion, we could rate it (1 to 5) on how well it fit into each of these areas. For example, a suggestion might be a 5 in reducing a pain point, and a 2 in retaining new users; or it might be a 4 in data quality and a 0 in everything else.
-----+Once we decide our guidelines (relative priority of the above areas) and the contribution of each suggestion in each area, it would be possible to prioritize the suggestions better (see my post on ''Product Backlog'' and ''Product Owner'', under the [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/WeRelate_talk:Watercooler#Fundraising_proposal_.5B11_April_2015.5D fundraising proposal]).--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
-Adding more mapping capability is something I really want to do soon. I need to spend a bit of time adding some match-merge functionality first, but I hope to have some additional mapping capability, including the embedded google maps, within two months. +
- +
-The googlemap template should be working for the pedi-maps now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 22:32, 14 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Network page of others? [22 August 2008] ==+
- +
-Is there a way that I can look at the "network page" for another user? I assume there's some weird parameter string I can add to the end of the URL, but I can't guess what it might be...--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 07:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-There really should be, but there's not. That's an oversight. I'll add one next week and update this page when I do.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 14:35, 20 August 2008 (EDT)+As an additional comment on "who gets the most say", Dallan suggested (as a way to encourage donations): "People who contribute more will have their votes weigh more." I'm not actually a big fan of that - as others have pointed out, volunteers who improve the quality of data across WeRelate also contribute to the site. I think that if the person doing the prioritization is a regular on WeRelate, he/she can probably tell which users are highly committed to WeRelate and can take that into account if necessary. If Dallan felt it were necessary to "put a bug" in that person's ear about a donor (i.e., here is another committed person you might not be aware of) that could be done.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- +: @DataAnalyst this sounds like a plan ! [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 15:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
-:If you are going to fiddle with that function, perhaps you could set it to exclude "watercooler" and "User" pages from the mutal network? Most folks are going to edit something sometime on the watercooler, and it doesn't really tell others much to learn that someone else is watching the watercooler. Ditto, but less emphatically for user pages. Where the value of this function comes is from identifying folks interested in specific people articles. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 18:12, 20 August 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-That makes sense; I'll do that as well.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 10:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)+The highest priority area would be "retaining new users (which changes will improve the first impression)," it seems to me. Growth in participation is the underlying aim, and "attracting new users" is not a priority until the experience encountered is acceptable. Clearly some attention is warranted for "pain point" and "data quality", but those seem secondary to me so that only the worst problems/easiest fixes in those areas should bubble up to the top of the list. "Expanding the possibilities" doesn't seem reasonable at this point since the important improvements there would be too expensive to implement with the likely resources.
-== HTML and Spreadsheets [21 August 2008] ==+For retaining users, I think GEDCOM integration improvement deserves attention the most; to me, the online entry seems adequate even though not the best.
-Don't know exactly where to put this, but there's a nice technique for working with Excell Spreadsheets, and converting them into HTML tables on the web+--[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- +:I agree with this, but another part of it (for the admins) is being able to maintain the quality of what is uploaded. Several of us are still trying to clean up the mess made from 2007-2010, and while we've made headway, there is still quite a bit of bad material needing to be cleaned/deleted. WR needs more safeguards to prevent a reoccurance of this by users - I still see people uploading gedcoms with blank persons (which are almost always a way to discreetly keep livings from being spotted), people adding them by hand, incomplete dates, etc. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 19:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
-http://htmlhelp.rootsweb.ancestry.com/tutorials/genpages/excel.html+
- +
-While I've just found the above article, I've made use of this technique for years. Thought I'd pass it along in case someone else might find it handy. --[[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== transcripts [25 August 2008] ==+
- +
-Does anyone have pointers as the the "best" way to enter transcriptions? I have a partition document (dividing real estate among heirs) that I'd like to add to the person page but I'd like to be consistent with others? +
- +
-Thanks--[[User:Jsadler|Jsadler]] 23:03, 22 August 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Sure - scan it, upload the jpeg's, and transcribe the text into the associated text area for the various jpegs. If there are several pages, associate them together in an article. I copied a transcribed interview I did of a grandparent while I was in HS back in the 70s. You can see that at [[Mason, James R. Interview of James C Mason]].--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 00:16, 23 August 2008 (EDT)+I'm sorry but data quality is not secondary, it is primary - by orders of magnitude over anything else. And until attracting new users brings in a higher quality of user than the normal Internet genealogist user (who think copying from an anonymous tree on Ancestry is doing genealogy, and then posting it again and again all over the Internet is collaborating), or until we have a set of reinforcing eduction and formatting tools, with functional help pages, to organically guide the normal Internet users towards more professional-quality practices, why would we want more? They will just make us look more like Ancestry public trees, only smaller. Look, if I don't care about quality, I'm not even going to come here, and it's not an ease of use issue. Ancestry and various parts of familysearch.org, and probably other sites with deep pockets, are always going to be bigger, have more features and have bigger quantities of data, and if I want an answer without caring if it is right, I'll go there. But they have data, not information. They can't provide quality control because it might scare away naive or paying users.
-----+The type of user that we should be aiming at should want mistakes pointed out, should believe that the most important thing is getting it right, and is willing to donate time and effort in a community effort to collect reference-quality genealogy - not just looking for yet another bulletin board to post their tree on. The people that want to make a long-term committment, not just to post their data and then never participate again, but to interact with future posters, collaborate, and share, even if sometimes if means spending a few hours on a person that isn't their ancestor.
-You can capture the document as suggested above, either as a transcription or as an image, or as both. The more interesting question is where you put it. +
-*One way would be to attach it directly to a specific specific person article, but that would make it difficult to use it in any other context. +We should require sources, we should flag certain sources as undesirable, we should have formatting tools that format dates and remove _UIDs so people can spend their time researching instead of cleanup. We should revamp the help system, lock up help pages, and develop a formal release with the goal of building a coherent set of help pages that can be counted on to reflect the current policies and conventions and provide articles on good practices - with a separate development area where discussion, testing and development of new policies can go on without confusing the help system. We should have wizards that ensure sources get cited appropriately, e.g., ask for the county name on the census, warn people with annoying popups when entries are invalid, have reports like we do for duplicates that list for a user all the sourceless or subpar pages they are watching. Ideally, I would like to have levels of users with different privileges that require demonstration of certain amount of expertise before you can add people before 1900 (IMHO, the extreme limit of personal knowledge), before 1850 (before the census), before Gregorian calendar, do GEDCOM uploads, create source and place pages, etc., etc.
-*Another way would be to create a "source document" (either source or mysource); then the item could be cited/linked to from anywhere. The problem with that is that "sources" are supposed to be more along the lines of bibliographic citations, rather than actual documents.+
-*You could create an "article" containing the material you're interested in, plus a "source" article describing it.+
-*If you expect to want to place the transcription in multiple locations, then you might want to consider making it into a template. That way you could insert a template link (e.g., <nowiki>{{template:name of document}}</nowiki>, and that could be inserted where needed, and the transcription would display on the page where ever you put the template link.+
-*An alternative (possibly the best) approach would be to place it (either the images, or the transcription, or even both) into the digital library. That's in Beta development so not generally available for use, but ultimately, that's going to be the place where things such as you mention are stored. An advantage/disadvantage of placeing things in the digital library is that they can't be modified---on the positive side, that means it will appear exactly the way you want it to appear, and you don't have to worry about anyone deciding it should read some way other than you think it should. On the negative side, that means its hard to get a correction in place once you've saved the file.+
-A number of folks have played with the digital library, but not many have made extensive use of it--I'm sure Dallan would be happy to have anyone work with it who wanted to. The most extensive use of this feature has been by the "Low Country Africana Project", with regular contributions since march, and about 500 items added to date. Not all of the bells and whistles on this feature are in place, and I guess it probably won't become generally available for awhile. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:42, 23 August 2008 (EDT)+Yes, volume, ease of use, faster software, etc., will make this site better, but only if the quality is high. Otherwise, it will dilute the kernel of good stuff many patient people have been slowly building through time-consuming manual effort. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 20:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-Here's another idea - see the will on this page - [[Person:Helen Lewis (6)]].--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 09:17, 23 August 2008 (EDT)+I was on MyHeritage first, or - to be precise - on a Dutch site Zooover which was acquired by MyHeritage.
 +Then i got smartmatches on the MyHeritage site with a site called WikiTree.
 +So i went there.
 +Somehow i got from WikiTree to WR.
-----+My point is that i believe the collaboration with MH has brought WikiTree a lot of new users.
-Some of my attempts at transcripts can be seen [[MySource:Srblac/Wilson Research Report, Recipient: Scott Black]], [[MySource:Srblac/Antony Broad Research Report]] and [[MySource:Srblac/Charles Cunningham Black Family History: Transcribed by Cheryl Ahner]].<br>+So if WR is to have many new users, there should be a visibility on popular sites like MH.
-<br>+
-This is a completely different issues, but ... As you can see I have gone in the completely opposite direction with my MySource data. ("sources are supposed to be more along the lines of bibliographic citations, rather than actual documents.") I have been making all of MySources actual source documents themselves. I suppose that merits a separate discussion, but I want folks to be able to see actual source data rather than just a reference to it. Turning everything into an article and linking to it makes life harder for both the researcher and for the reader.--[[User:Srblac|Srblac]] 15:42, 24 August 2008 (EDT)+
-:I believe there was quite a bit of discussion on this at some point---probably contained in the archives. There seemed to be a variety of different approaches to using the "Sources". Some thought it was best used as a bibliographic citation, and others wanted it to be the actual information. Some of us (moi) confused things doing both. My recollection is that the conclusion was reached that they should be used as a bibliographic citation, because when the Digital Library came on-line, that would be the place to put actual documents. Those documents could then be linked to wherever they needed to be cited. Digital Library is still in Beta development (though it works fairly well). I think Dallan moved it up in the priority list to get it to the point where some groups could use it to enter their documents, but once it got to the point where it would work effectively, other priorities took over (my personal interpretation), and final fixes were postponed while he worked other pressing issues (like the very much improved sort function---which by itself is well worth the delay in finalizing the Digital Library.) In anycase, I don't know if it really makes much difference how an individual might choose to use the "Source" namespace. There might be a conflict at some point if your use conflicts with later changes that conform with the intended use. My personal choice has been to use the Source as a bibliogrpahic citation, and place the actual documents involved into the Digital Library. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 17:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT)+My 2 cents.
 +Ron [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 21:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-I think you could appropriately put the transcription in a MySource, or in an article with a link from a Source page. The digital library is ultimately the best place to put it. The digital library works pretty well right now, but as [[User:Quolla6|Q]] says, future development (including better integration with the wiki) is on back-burner until matching + merging person and family pages in the wiki is working. If you want to play around with the digital library, let me know and I'll set up an account for you.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 23:31, 25 August 2008 (EDT)+I see we're slightly over our $3000. goal for hiring some help. But I haven't seen any more talk of how the priorities will be set. Is work on the priorities going on someplace else? If so, can the selection process be made more visible? I know everyone will have opinions they want heard. I'm all for attracting more new people, but if we can't keep them once they're here, what's the point? So for my part, higher priority should be given to relatively easy to fix pain points so that folks enjoy their work here and don't leave frustrated. Let's look at all those suggestions that have been languishing to determine what hurts the most and which of those are easiest to fix. --[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 23:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
-== Uploading gedcom to existing tree [5 September 2008] ==+:We are currently 60% of the way ($1800) toward our goal ($3000). At the end of the month I'll take any [[WeRelate:Suggestions|suggestion]] with five or more watchers and add it to a google form, so if there are any suggestions below that number, then watch them so they make the cut. I'll make the form available here on the watercooler for anyone to fill out. I will also encourage people to read the various discussions here on the watercooler about which types of suggestions would be in the best interest of WeRelate.
 +:Everyone's votes will be taken into account, but people who have contributed cash will have their votes count more because the developer needs to be paid in cash. I'll supplement the donations with the extra money we've been making on ads. I will then hire a developer and have them work on the highest-voted suggestions.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 03:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
-I would like to upload a gedcom to an existing tree, but I wish the existing pages in the existing tree to remain in the tree. The new gedcom does not duplicate any pages already in the tree. Is this possible or is it necessary to upload the gedcom to a new tree and then copy the pages to the now existing tree?--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:11, 24 August 2008 (EDT)+== What type of person is welcome at WeRelate? Why would they come (and stay)? [20 April 2015] ==
-----+There have been long term grumblings among the more professional of the genealogists here that the vast majority of people who think they are doing genealogy are just messing things up for the serious folks. I can sympathize with that. However, doing something about this requires WeRelate to take a firm stance on who is welcome to contribute here and who should go somewhere else. There's a telling quote over at [[WeRelate:Pando for genealogy]] ... "If you haven't already done so, help Pando grow by uploading your tree!" Yes, this is preceded by some words about including sources and keeping an eye on the pages you create here, but in the end another quote from the page states "WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. We take a shared approach to genealogy." One of the methods for increasing data quality noted above is to ensure the deletion of bad content. I would put it to you that anyone who sees their content being deleted will unlikely become a returning user ... but that is not a bad thing if WeRelate can thrive (financially) by retaining people doing quality genealogy. The world is chock full of people who are not, and in the end it will be those people who are not who will be clicking through the ads on this site, not the few who are.
-I don't think it's necessary, but there are reasons to prefer an isolated upload. After a GEDCOM upload, I want to go back through all the pages and tidy up place names, remove duplicated sources (or useless sources like "one world tree", etc.). When I'm done with that initial tidying operation on the page, I drop it's membership in the tree I uploaded into and add it to my default tree.+
-But that said, I'm sure you can upload to an existing tree. Even when you have duplicated person and family pages, you just get a page with an incremented sequence number - you know "Family:John Doe and Mary Smith (2)", etc.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 10:35, 24 August 2008 (EDT)+With this being said, maybe a major improvement would be a walling between the high quality, masters approved content and the rest contributed by the rabble (myself included, though the damage I do is small because I do not do any Gedcom uploads). I think this segregation (which should not be immediately evident to the casual user, because that casual user really would not care) would work toward addressing a number of the line items noted above among the prioritizations.
-:Okay and thanks. If the gedcom just creates duplicated person and family pages; I should have uploaded my first gedcom into the existing tree. I have not used this gedcom feature before; so I was not clear on how it worked. But anyway this will work; all of the pages to be tidied up will be in one tree and the duplicates in the other. I will tidy up and merge the duplicates and eventually end up with everyone in one tree.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 11:19, 24 August 2008 (EDT)+--[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 22:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:As someone who has the done much of the deleting, the vast majority of what I have deleted has been content from users who simply dumped their GEDCOMS on the site 7-8 years ago, and were never seen again. Myself and the others who are behind that process have received few complaints about it, for the simple fact that most of these users never came back. It isn't about 'master' content, but trying to avoid the most poor genealogical content - no dates, living people, no places, etc. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 23:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 +---------
 +I reflect on my own experience starting almost 10 years ago. I had a nice little 3-4 generation family tree and had just found a family connection on RootsWeb. I went to town on copying data into my personal tree. It took me a few months to realize that I had to be cautious about the quality, which led me to review all my new data and hunt down better sources.
 +So what if I had found that connection on WeRelate instead of RootsWeb? I would have added my 3-4 generation tree, connected it to previous generations, and voila - a nice deep family tree, without negatively impacting the data that more experienced people had created. So my question is, if this were today, would my newly added, sporadically sourced, all deceased, 3-4 generations be welcomed? I say, yes. Let's welcome this type of contribution so that others can find it and see where they fit. Let's encourage/coach the newcomer to add sources and grow their genealogy skills, but if they are not interested, let's keep their contribution (ensuring that living persons are deleted) and let them go on their way.
-----+The problem comes, of course, when the newcomer has already enhanced his/her tree (as I did) with information from RootsWeb, the Ancestral File, Public Member Trees, and (worst of all) OneWorldTree. We have already limited GEDCOM imports to post-1750 so that newcomers are limited in the damage they can do via GEDCOM (we probably want to formalize the process by which a newcomer who has established his/her serious approach to genealogy gets that restriction lifted, and maybe the cutoff year needs to be refined). Maybe we also need to put some serious effort into reworking the message on the [[WeRelate:Pando for genealogy|Pando for genealogy]] page to limit the damage newcomers do via manual data entry.
-I have a similar problem. It is too time consuming for me to enter my information into WeRelate directly. Entering into my genealogy software goes 10 times faster, so I upload small gedcoms after I process a family unit.+
-* I had uploaded a gedcom ([[Family:Bartholomew Clark and Ann Shoff (2)| Clark family]]) and then got a break on a lot of information for one of the children in that gedcom [[Person:Lydia Clark (20)| Lydia Clark]] which included several generations for her into the present day. +
-* I have deleted Gedcom's in the past and uploaded "new improved versions" of that same family, but this leaves behind all the "Lydia Clark (1)" and then creates "Lydia Clark (2)" for no reason. So rather than delete ([[Family:Bartholomew Clark and Ann Shoff (2)| Clark family]]) I simply created a gedcom beginning with that one descendant, [[Person:Lydia Clark (20)| Lydia Clark]], which included all the new data I have researched and uploaded it as an additional tree (I read somewhere we are NOT supposed to upload more than one Gedcom into any given tree). Then I merged the Lydia Clark in the Clark Tree with the Lydia Clark from the additional tree. +
-* My problem now is that there does not seem to be an option to add persons from the Lydia Clark tree to the Clark tree without manually editing each person and putting a checkmark in the box next to the Clark tree at the bottom of each page. When I go into FTE all I get is grey for any of the members I have not yet edited in this way, saying they are not in the Clark Tree, but I want them there.+
-*Did I do this all wrong? or what is the procedure? Yes I know that "one day" the upload a new gedcom will work better when the match merge thingy is working... but in the meantime I want to get my updates on WeRelate now, as I am hoping to get collaboration on this family group. +
-* It seems to me that there "should" be an option under file in FTE to add persons from one tree to an existing tree. --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 08:49, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+
-::There are several things in here, so let me see if I can respond to it in parts.+I would be willing to work on some messaging if I got the sense that there was some consensus on what the messaging should be. Are we okay with un-sourced new (not duplicate) data from, say, 1850 on? Should we expect at least some minimal completeness of data (e.g., at least one year and/or place on each page)? Do we encourage people to "test out" their contributions to well-established pages on the Talk page before making changes to the Person/Family page? Do we want to offer coaching? Do we have sufficient resources to offer coaching or do we "coach" via a bunch of static pages?
-::* I can understand being more familiar with one interface than another, and therefore being faster with something else. Allowing for differences in familiarity, what is less convenient about werelate?+
-:::Hello [[User:Jrm03063| JRM]] I use [[http://www.whollygenes.com/ TMG (The Master Genealogist)]] and with it we have the ability to repeat a citation last used simply by hitting F3. with WeRelate I have to jump though all the hoops, choosing type of source / finding the source (''IF I remember how to type in the name of it and get it easily OR then having to go through the laborious task of finding it, YUK'') and again entering page.. notations etc.. A good example is when entering a lot of data found on several persons from within a particular census page. In TMG, I can hit "F4" with opens typs of tags, and it self-completes as I type, and choose that which I need. I tab to date and enter, then from within that tag I can again hit "F4" which opens the "add a source" page and hit "F3" which automatically cites the WHOLE last source used with all its page numbers/notations/ etc. as an added bonus all I have to do is hit "ctrl" F3 to get a list of the last 15 used, arrow down to the one I want and hit enter, and viola. SO much easier to cite sources!!! +'''Admin types''' - please let me know if some rework of the [[WeRelate:Pando for genealogy|Pando for genealogy]] and [[Help:Wiki etiquette|Wiki etiquette]] pages would be welcome. (I know I have a tendency to wordiness - I promise to keep it under control and submit my write-up for editing.)--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 23:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
-:::I find I am more and more just putting in the "personal history" section on the page that "the information on this page came from census records, contact me for further source info" and leaving it at that. (This is just one example of ease with use of software vs. WeRelate) --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 14:38, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+: I view the term <i>Pando for Genealogy</i> as being akin to <i>World Peace</i>, a noble, idealistic-sounding objective, but unrealistic and unachievable. It like knowing statistically that everyone is related to everyone else in the 15th or 16th generation removed. Interesting bit of trivia, but meaningless in terms of finding factual data about the other unknown offspring of my European-born 2nd great-grandparents (unless, of course, one of those offspring are also using WeRelate - the basic concept of Pando). So I'm not sure what bit of advice I can provide regarding it.
 +: On the other subject page, I added suggestions for the remainder of the missing ABCs on the [[Help_talk:Wiki_etiquette#Thoughts_for_completing_the_alpha_etiquette_topics_.5B14_April_2015.5D|Help talk:Wiki etiquette]] page. Please feel free to edit, enhance, change, or whatever to better fit the subject prior to moving it to the [[Help:Wiki etiquette|Help Page]].
 +: Hope that's helpful. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 13:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
-::* In order to allow for everyone to work together without anyone accidentally destroying someone else's work, a true wiki never deletes anything. It just creates a new version. "werelate" departs from this a little, to allow delete of information that only you contributed to, but the name-space footprint of the stuff you had can not go away. Once a name comes into existence, the sequence number for that name is created and is ever increasing. I don't know if a "new page", could be created in a location freed up as a side-effect of a delete, but I suspect that's below the level of the code Dallan wants to work on (it's certainly not something wiki software wants to do).+'''Anyone''' - Assuming some new messaging is welcome, let me know where you agree/disagree with my opinions, or have additional considerations to include. Thanks.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 23:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
-::* You can't do anything "wrong", unless you're intentionally screwing up data. You can do things that are less convenient and more time consuming for you and others to work on, but that's not a crime to my knowledge. Keeping information synchronized across different application systems, whether a traditional business or an application like genealogy, has kept a lot of software engineers well paid for a long time. It is a highly challenging proposition, and I would discourage anyone from adopting that sort of work flow pattern if possible. Dallan is determined to try to implement something like this, and my hat's off to him for the effort, but GEDCOM really isn't set up to record the kind of information that would allow a smooth re-integration of former download. I suspect he'll solve the problem in the 90% case, but that 10% may make a user crazy...+: when i first entered WR, i tried to upload my MyHeritage export file. which was not much of a success. then i tried to upload a partial, which also did not succeed. but instead of giving up, before i could even think of giving up, two wonderful ladies here at WR ([[User:JBS66|Jennifer]] and [[User:Lidewij|Lidewij]]) found me and have actually made me feel so much welcome that i decided to completely disregard my gedcom and type the entries one by one (now well over 10K entries). Hope this helps, Ron. PS thank you Lidewij and Jennifer !!! [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 00:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
-::* A "tree" in werelate is different than a "tree" in other genealogy systems. Typically, a tree "contains" both the names of the people in it but also all their information. "Deleting" a tree therefore deletes both things. In "werelate", a tree is just a list of page names that are represented out in the common name spaces, like PERSON and FAMILY pages. In wiki-terms, delete of a tree should do nothing to the pages the tree points at. However, in order to make werelate a little more like the systems folks are familiar with, [[User:Dallan]] coded a side effect into the tree delete, such that PERSON and FAMILY pages - to which only you have contributed - are also deleted. 
- 
-::* To my knowledge, you can load another GEDCOM into an existing tree, but you'll still get duplicate pages - they'll just be in one tree instead of two. When I load a secondary GEDCOM, I load it in it's own tree, and then use the upload tree as a guide for my work. I visit every page in that new tree, tidy up places and such, then drop it from the upload tree and add it to my default tree. When the upload tree is empty, I'm done so I delete it. 
- 
-::* If there are pages that you really aren't interested in editing associated with a GEDCOM upload, it probably would be better if you just didn't upload them. It's sort of like dropping pages on the floor and expecting someone else to tidy them up, file them, redirect them to a better version of the page, etc. The general rule I would hope people would observe is to not upload what they don't want to maintain (or at least, tidy up and merge) after the upload. [[User:Jrm03063]] 
- 
-:::[[User:Jrm03063| JRM]] I do not think I ever said I do not want to edit pages, I am saying my pages are already edited within my own software '''BEFORE I upload them''', thus I do not need to edit them, beyond doing merges where there are overlaps. I feel you think Gedcom uploads are junk, I am here to tell you that I do not feel that way. My goal with using WeRelate is for collaboration and that is all. If I can get cousins to see my pages and submit extra information and updates that will be wonderful, as I have already added all I knew and or could find, '''before I uploaded it'''. Now if someone does separately email me information, without at all posting it to my WeRelate pages, then I do go in and edit the pages. --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 14:38, 5 September 2008 (EDT) 
- 
-Can't personally speak to your question, but it sparks a question of my own. What is it about the data entry system on WeRelate that makes it so much slower than your genealogy software? Is this a layout issue? Is it an issue with the basic "Person page-Family page" style of organization? What could be done to make the direct data entry process faster? Personally, I don't make that much use of the data entry system myself, but use my own HTML programming to layout the information. Plus's and minus's with that approach, but "speed" certainly isn't one of its plus's. I personally find the WeRelate data entry system a bit cumbersome to use, but I'm not exactly sure what it is that makes it cumbersome. I think it has something to do with the "Person page-Family page" style of organization. I think this is unique to WeRelate, but its been so long since I explore genealogy programs, maybe its commonplace today. Not saying that it should be different---the WeRelate system is obviously geared toward GedCom downloading, and direct data entry is available for those that need it. But I'm wondering if there's a way to improve direct data entry? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:58, 29 August 2008 (EDT) 
- 
-:::[[User:Quolla6|Q]] to my knowledge there is no genealogy software that causes you to create both family pages and person pages, this is yet another reason I shy away from using WeRelate to directly enter information, it just takes too long to do all that, which is automatically done if I just do it from within my [[http://www.whollygenes.com/ own software TMG]] --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 14:38, 5 September 2008 (EDT)  
---- ----
-I'm making a change in the next month or two that should help: the FTE window will be displayed on every person and family page (you won't run the FTE in a sidebar), and will show the people related to that person/family regardless of whether they're in your tree. So you'll be able to give your relatives a link to a person/family in your tree and they'll be able to navigate around by clicking on the boxes in the FTE window that is displayed on the page. They won't have to launch the FTE. +I really hope in the midst of discussing good genealogical work vs. other genealogical work, that we don't inadvertently create a "caste" system. I'm not fond of elitist genealogy; everyone should have a chance to contribute to WR, no matter where they are on the learning curve, as long as rules are abided and honest attempts to cite are made.<br>
 +What I'd like to see is a more visible attempt to reach out to new users as happened when I joined WR. Interaction between contributors seems to have slowed in the last few years. Perhaps we should remember to "help" other contributors rather than plop them into a category of unworthy or inept genealogists. If we have a chance to teach what we know to another contributor, we shouldn't hesitate. Then perhaps the unworthy and inept can become worthy and competent. Neal--[[User:Neal Gardner|SkippyG]] 06:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
-There's no way to add everyone from one tree to another (and I probably won't be adding one because with this change I'm trying to make it less necessary to worry about what tree(s) a page is in), but if you [[User talk:Dallan|leave me a message]] with the names of the trees you want to merge, I can add them for you.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:27, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+:Totally agree with Neal. My own experience is that just entering date -- and getting even minimal feedback from others, has increased my sensitivity to quality issues. Similarly, my experience with FamilySearch's Family Tree, which started with an incredible ton of garbage, is cleaning up much faster than I would ever have expected simply because so many people are involved. (Admittedly, still has a long ways to go, but the point remains, the more people involved, the faster it happens.) In this sense, the more active users WeRelate has, the more likely that inexperienced users will learn and become experienced users.
-== Ettiquette and Conventions [5 September 2008] ==+:I also agree that the [[WeRelate:Pando for genealogy|Pando for genealogy]] page needs rewriting -- we are not really all that unique anymore, for one thing. And we do need to offer more than "help us grow" -- some excitement? some celebration? Something.--[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 07:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
-It is likely I missed something, but I have watched the get-started video a couple of times, and what it presents is nearly intuitive where I find there are many non-intuitive issues that I wouldn't mind guidelines or rules for.+::I invite you to take a look at many of the mobile applications on the market today (some probably on your own cell phone). Many of them are built, propagated, expanded and popularized on "reward points" and "privilege levels." You might refer to it as a "<i>caste</i>" system, but the younger generation accepts the concept that the more you use an application, the more you contribute data to the app, and the higher level of proficiency and competency you display, the award of "points" alone (i.e. status) is a sufficient enough reason alone to continue using, continue building, continue adding data to the app to keep their interest alive.
 +::Let me show you some examples of some of the apps I use or know about: '''[http://www.gasbuddy.com/ GasBuddy]''', a program that provides real-time fuel prices throughout the U.S., awards points to users for entering fuel prices in the app when they visit gas stations. These reward points can then be entered into a weekly sweepstakes drawing for a chance to win hard cash. The '''[https://www.waze.com/ Waze]''' program provides real-life traffic conditions for travelers. Users who contribute data, such as traffic congestion reports, roadside hazards, speed traps, stop-light cameras, or weather reports are awarded points for their contribution and get newer user icon choices and additional reporting functions for their achievement levels.
 +::My daughter and her friend (along with a million other enthusiasts), drive around the state she lives and skateboards around parking lots she visits either attaching or scanning (they call it ''deploying'' or ''capturing'') '''[http://www.munzee.com/ Munzee]''' QR-code stickers attached to the back of light posts, parking signs, and other man-made and natural objects. Why? For the points! The app shows their achievement levels, and they are awarded bonus points or specific icon-IDs for their achievement or are given recognition on the website showing their skill-level and compete with other app users based on point accumulation and higher achievement levels.
 +::If we in the WeRelate community are going to grow and bring in a larger audience of younger users, I feel we need to transform WR into a program or application they can relate to and are encouraged to use and contribute to, not only based on WeRelate's unique approach to genealogical record-keeping and the ephmerical concept of contributing to a [[WeRelate:Pando for genealogy|Pando for Genealogy]], but supplemented by skill levels, competition, rewards and achievement recognition. Please don't mistake my suggestion as saying the program needs to be "''dumbed-down''," but I do think that competency or proficiency levels should be considered based on a balance between quantity of information contributed, quality of data inputted, and impact on the community (whether as a donator, editor, mentor or administrator), and access or reward privileges associated with each of those levels.
 +::Does that make sense? --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 13:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
-For example, what is the polite way to dissent with data input by others? Add a topic on the talk page with a explanation of why the data might be wrong, wait a month, and if no response, change the data?+:::Your alluding to a type of [[wikipedia:Gamification|gamification]]. It would be interesting to apply that to code forks that draw on the same data and bring back into the core elements which were popular / successful. I'm not someone with the skills myself, but such people are becoming both more common and more in demand. At my workplace, there are a number of software projects which aim to gamify both internal and external activities. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 23:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- +
-For example, guidelines of what goes in family history and what goes on the talk page? Right now, not many people have talk pages, so one is worried that people don't check here, but this would seem to be the ideal place to explore discredited or alternate evidence.+
- +
-For example, when using bet., bef. or aft. in dates, it might be reasonable to ask that people always include a source and probably also a note that explains how you arrived at the date. There is a myriad of date issues that could generate such conventions.+
- +
-There is a hint of the type of rules I am looking for on the screen that describes how to pick Source or MySource. But there are many such decisions where it would help if all users could try to work the same way.+
- +
---[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 18:24, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:You'll find much discussion of this here and elsewhere, but in brief, if you have good reason to believe data is wrong, just fix it. If someone disagrees with you, they can start a discussion. If there's a dispute, add dates as alternates and explain. Some don't believe that any data is ever wrong, in which case you're free to be cautious, but I've fixed probably hundreds of errors and never gotten a complaint.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 22:18, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I concur w/Amelia. It's just far too impractical to wait around for folks who might disagree. How do you know who's interested at that moment? Check out [[Person:John Alden (1)]], and look at the number of people watching on the left hand side. What would be a quorum? 
-It's part of the wiki-way to just make the changes. If a dispute arises you deal with it then, but you just can't allow the process to be crippled in the vast majority of cases because once in a very great while someone disagrees. I'm currently watching about 25,000 pages. Over 20,000 of those arise from merging duplicates and tidying up other people's pages. I think I've encountered a disagreement maybe three or four times - and it was never of a severe sort. More of an, are you sure and what do you think sort of thing. Even if it were awful, that's something like 3/20,000. Does that seem worth worrying about?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 22:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+It is not about building a caste system. It is about people who are life-long researchers being willing to expose their work to people who just started, without worrying it will be corrupted by somebody who doesn't understand the nuances of harder genealogy situations. It's about minimizing new garbage when we're still digging up from under the old garbage. And its about being able to be open to all, without sinking to the abysmal quality of general Internet genealogy that always results when there is no quality control.
- +
-----+
-Jrich, I applaud your concern with courtesty. I have a similar view, and would not witingly change a page I had not created without at least attempting communication with the author. There is an issue of courtesty with doing work in a wiki type site. WeRelate, despite what some folks think, does not follow the rules of the Wikipedia in several respects. Most importantly, on the Wikipedia there is an overriding emphasis on using published, peer reviewed documents as sources. Use of original research is prohibited. (Good reasons for those rules---without them the Wikipedia would quickly degenerate into into a something quite unreliable.) But if those rules were followed on Werelate, there'd be virtually nothing here---because almost all genealogy involves original research. True, people cite family histories as their sources, but such sources are rarely what could be called "peer reviewed"---perhaps widely read, and some folks think they are the "bible" for their line, but unless something has gone through a formal peer review process, it doesn't meet the wikipedia standards, and you won't be able to get an article based on this accepted long term on the Wikipedia. Try making a change on a wikipedia article based on your original research, and or based on a "family history", and see what happens. Here that's not a problem, but that's because this is not the Wikipedia, and despite what some seem to think, different rules do apply.+
-Another aspect of the differences between this and the Wikipedia, is that the readership base is much smaller here, than on the Wikipedia. On the Wikipedia you have roughly 40 to 100 Million hits a month. That's a lot of folks reading articles. Not all hits result in an edit, but many do. Here you have at most about 10-20K hits a month, with a corresponding reduction in edits. Half of the users of the Wikipedia are what might be called regulars---folks who habitually go to the Wikipedia to get or add information. On WeRelate most users (about 80%) are just passerbys <ref name="quantcast>These data are based on [http://www.quantcast.com/werelate.org Quantcast] results; Werelate is not registered with Quantcast, and the data quantcast presents for it are estimates. Those estimates may undercount actual use. I've observed that the counts went up substantially on another wiki after it was registered. Nonetheless, I'm confident that the traffic on WeRelate is a tiny fraction of the traffic on Wikipedia.</ref> One look and they are gone. The base of people seriously working the WeRelate wiki is far smaller than that on the Wikipedia. As a result, far fewer folks are going to be paying attention to changes in articles. Some will, but the vast majority will never notice the change---even if they might have felt strongly about the change (one way or the other) they are probably not going to see it, and if they do see a change notice, probably won't invest the time to discuss the point. On the wikipedia, given the larger, more involved user base, you can pretty much guarantee it that if you make a change, its going to be a) noticed, and b) discussed, and maybe c) argued. Not here.+It is hard to know what you don't know, so you can't expect new users to police themselves. They will all think they're doing fine. They have been conditioned by other sites to think incorrectly. They need a system that gives them feedback, not after they've uploaded their entire GEDCOM, only to get frustrated by the resulting complaints and leave, but from the first page that's wrong.
-Given the smaller base, I think there's a need to be proactive in contacting folks with whom you disagree about some point of family history. How long you might wait for them to respond is an interesting question. Personally if I were inclined to change an article created by someone else (other than say cosmetic, spelling, etc.), I'd make the change, and then contact them directly by email, asking for their input. That would seriously cramp some peoples style, but I think there is such a thing as courtesty---and this is not the Wikipedia. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:30, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+It's about giving them limited access at first so they can discover this isn't just another Ancestry, to make sure the goals of WeRelate are compatible with their goals, but then having a path to give them access to everything when it is appropriate. It's about collaboration, so hanging around and participating. It's about sharing, so telling where data came from and presenting it so it's useful to others. And it's about building a data source that serves the community, not just them, so being willing to have it corrected, and to feel some responsibility to get it right because other people have to use it, too. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
-References:+: Excellent comment !!! Yes my enthousiasm for the site was definitely skyrocketing when the two aforementioned ladies taught me how to work on the site. I would delete a person and then add an new person, but Jennifer kept pushing me to try the compare function. I didn't get it at first, wanted to give up and do my old way. But now i am so happy that she never gave up. Also i had a three hour phone call with Lidewij, after she had helped me a great deal by correcting the places that i had found (my search is a 30x30 miles area in the Netherlands called "Achterhoek" where all of my family originated). There is much synchronicity at work when you share a same higher goal. I work on this genealogy without knowing much more than that i am called to do this work - a vocation if you will. I just follow my gut feeling, don't know if my forefathers tell me to. So perhaps it is a passion? Perhaps emotion is a strong advertiser for the work that we do?
-<references/>+: Best regards, Ron [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 20:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
 +So...if we give new users 'limited access', what does that mean ? Do we tell them what they can or can not do ? Are certain pages "off limits" ? Do we tell them up front that only a certain group of contributors can do A, B, C and D ?
-While I understand the "just change it" philosophy, I am not sure it will scale to high-volume use and mature data. I would hate to see dueling edits flip-flopping data back and forth in one of those numerous cases where the answer cannot be determined and multiple possibilities exist. I would prefer to see a convention for handling this set up now so most people come into WeRelate with it being the norm, and them not getting used to any other way. It is tempting to think we could have a moratorium in its infancy, but I think it should be established and people should start to use it as often as they can bring themselves to...+And if at the end of (for lack of better words) a so-called Probationary Period, do we give them a passing or failing grade ?..and if found wanting, do we tell them to take their Trees elsewhere and boot them out the WR door ? I can't imagine encouraging a new contributor to WR, and telling them she/he will be limited in their involvement/privileges until a committee decides they qualify to "join" with full privileges.
-I was also curious about other issues. There are so many places to put information and it is not clear (perhaps just to me) which is the best for what: embedded in a source, put it in a note, or add it to family history. For example, a one-line statement of historical interest (say, 'Selectman in 1673')probably belongs in the family history section so that all data of a single type is in one location, but it fits so easily in the text section of a source, especially if one wants to attribute that item to that source. A standard set of conventions that most conscientious users follow would result in more readable and understandable pages. I could even see starting every person with a family history section having a standard set of topic headers, or similar framework.+Rather, I'd suggest that the "weeding out" should occur on the front end, requiring new users to read certain guidelines, how-tos, etc. before any GEDCOM is accepted. Among these should be a strict discouragement of relying on certain sources, the coverall "My Source" usage, and whatever the premier genealogists, and the rest of us, would like to quell '''before'''... rather than after. It seems that we are receiving less junk, than in the earlier years, due I would suppose to better reviews of GEDCOMS. And periodically perhaps we could touch base with absent users to see why they are not updating their pages, if they have concerns that have shyed them away from WR, etc.
-Another issue is the formatting of dates. There are all sorts of practices in the various sources out there, many of which I happen to have an opinion on :-), and I thought the staff genealogist, or other appropriate person could write a quick outline of ideal practices. +I can't conceive that we should be discouraging every new user who hasn't been bent over a microfilm reader since shortly after teething and potty training. If you want responsible, accurate contributors, then ''nurture'' them. Good genealogists aren't formed in a test tube, they're taught. So why can't we adopt a familial attitude toward a variety of contributors ? WR should be a basic pleasant, learning experience as well as a quest for perfection. Fini for me. Neal--[[User:Neal Gardner|SkippyG]] 01:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:Neal, I think what Jrich was getting at is that we don't want new users coming in who don't understand the nuances of working in older genealogy and making big changes such as merging family, renaming instances of 'unknown' to whatever purported wife is listed on OneWorldTree, etc. I had to deal with a user of less than a week old awhile back who was doing just that with a major line, 'fixing it' so it matches whatever says on Ancestry.com. This is what we want to prevent, and if there were an increase in members it would be bound to happen more often. All I believe that should happen is that 1) new users are restricted from editing (and especially merging or renaming) other people's pages for say 30 days, or a certain numbers of edits. That way they will have a track record and probably a better understanding of how we operate here before making changes like that. The rest of JRich's proposal is more radical, and one I have privately advocated for awhile, but I think at this level of activity we don't need to go there yet. It isn't about 'grading' users, but simply users showing that they 1) understand the difference between real genealogy and the mindless copying that passes for genealogy on the rest of the internet and 2) That older genealogy is not simply a matter of finding a 'John Smith' baptism in the early 17th century listed on Familysearch. There are more than a few users that I know who started off coming off of Ancestry, but over time learned something from reading several of us and looking at how we do edits and now I have zero qualms about these people editing the older genealogical pages. It may sound *mean* to some, but this dare I say it, discrimination, is necessary for keeping the quality of this site high. No one would be grading anyone. But for the moment, it has only rarely been an issue because our user base isn't high enough yet. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:: +1 quality first, ego second. [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 13:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC
-:I think of "WeRelate" as in perpetual Beta mode. Unlike most genealogy programs you buy, WeRelate is very adaptable---mostly because there's someone there willing to make changes on the fly to meet specific needs. There's been a lot of thinking gone into setting up WeRelate...much more so than other genealogy wiki's, I think. I'm sure not every idea has worked as well as someone wished it to, but by trial and error, what "works", survives, and what doesn't, dissappears. But there can be different solutions to the same problem in a system. and I think that's a good thing, as different people have different capabilities, and different needs. One solution does not fit every problem for every person. Sometimes you need multiple ways of getting at things. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:54, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+== Active Quality Control [20 April 2015]==
-Never shy about expressing my opinion, I will outline some of the date issues specifically. George E. Bowman of the Mayflower Descendant sometimes converted dates to new style, which technically meant adding 10 days. So if you saw a date in that magazine of 3 June 1632, you always wondered, is this really 3 June or was it 24 May converted to new style? For that reason, I prefer to leave the date as written in the source, only adding a second year for the months Jan-Mar if necessary, e.g., 24 Feb 1645[/6]. I prefer using brackets to show that I added the second year based on context, or no brackets if the second year format was used by the source, e.g., 24 Feb 1645/6. When quoting numeric dates, I like to quote the date and then give my interpretation in brackets to make it clear I have adjusted for the change in month numbering that occurred in 1753, e.g.: 4 (5) 66 [4 Jul 1666]. When I use aft. or bef. I like to have an explicit note explaining the significance of the date given, such as died bef. such and such a date because that was the date of the inventory. I hate the use of unadorned years which I frequently see, e.g., '1749', except in the sole case where that is all the source gives. If a will is dated 5 Jun 1749 and proved 8 Aug 1749, the death date should be bet. 5 Jun 1749-8 Aug 1749, not 1749. The term Abt. should be used for calculated ages with a 1 or 2 year precisions, e.g., from census entries, depositions, or gravestones, whereas some other term, such as 'Est.' or 'Say' should be used for the swags based on children's ages, date of marriage, etc. Obviously, the basis for all estimates should be explained in a note. I don't want to put words in the mouth of my source, or make it more or less precise than it was, and at the same time, I want to make it very clear what I added so others can check, and if necessary, correct my work. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 13:19, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+Last year I had some private conversations with Dallan regarding how large complex enterprise databases address the problem of varying data quality and accuracy. Basically you need to actively track and manage the degree of confidence you have in your data. The primary focus needs to be tracking the DATA rather than the USERS, and providing tools to evaluate and improve the quality of the data. To some extent the GEDCOM import process already applies this concept. The technology exists to do this, but it would not be a trivial upgrade. Though I think it could be made fairly seamless given sufficient development resources.--[[User:Jhamstra|Jhamstra]] 15:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
-Another issue is the formatting of dates. There are all sorts of practices in the various sources out there, many of which I happen to have an opinion on :-), and I thought the staff genealogist, or other appropriate person could write a quick outline of ideal practices. +: Would it help if we implement some kind of "workspace" idea? One workspace could be "production" which is the actual site: "one person, one page". And one workspace could be the private space for the user, where they could dispatch a person or a family to the production workspace. And may a third workspace where the user can do "what if?" analysis.
 +: Just a thought.
 +: Best regards, Ron [[User:Woepwoep|woepwoep]] 15:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
-:If the only thing someone puts down for a particular data element (say a DOD), then yes, some sort of rules are needed for that data element, and what is meant by (for example) "circa". That way others can interpret the value. Whether "Abt" means the same as "Circa", or whether either means "one or two years" in terms of precision seems sort of if'y. Why might some folks mean "within 3 years", or "within a decade or two". Not likely to be something that could be pinned down and have used consistent. +::I'd like to make this a separate conversation. Hope that's okay with everyone. I think it has great potential to get dragged out or at least have side-issues beyond the above discussion.
 +::I think the primary approach needs to focus on educating incoming users, recognizing that they will not read any more than they have to. I think revamping the Help page system is a big component, because how do they know what to read? what do they believe? But I think adding feedback mechanisms is critical (this is a bad date, you have not entered a source, that place name is not recognized). Maybe this feedback is what you mean by tracking the DATA? But ultimately, if a user creates an unacceptable number of subpar pages, I think there needs to be feedback on the user level as well.
 +::I am not sure how the computer can manage the "degree of confidence you have in your data". When "reference" genealogies like say [[Source:Bond, Henry. Family Memorials. Genealogies of the Families and Descendants of the Early Settlers of Watertown, Massachusetts, Including Waltham and Weston (1855)]] or [[Source:Savage, James. Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England]] includes massive and numerous errors (sorry for my New England bias), it is obviously not as simple as saying is there a source there? You can't count the number of sources. It only takes one correct source to counter a million mistaken sources, and a source that is right 98% of the time is still wrong 2%. The computer can give an indication of when pages need attention, but ultimately it takes an investment of time by knowledgeable persons to actually do the improvement. Even something as trivial as cleaning up bad dates, such as "2-4-1742", should really involve looking up sources to find out which of the several possible answers is right. The computer can flag this as needing attention, but any attempt to fix it without research, is merely guessing. Assuming it is right, it could conceivably intend to be February, April or June.
 +::As far as a data quality tool, workspaces sounds like they would require a user to police themselves as to when to put something into production, and ultimately this is the same problem we already have. That involves training the user so that the entire community has similar understandings of what is desired. I see a lot of interesting applications of the idea for other reasons, though I'm not sure about the complexity they would add. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 16:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
-:On the otherhand, if you include the reasoning for the date in question (ie, "falls within a five year period between the date the will was written, and the date probate was entered"), then "rules" are not needed so much. Including the reasoning though, is sometimes difficult to do---especially if all someone is doing is filling in the text boxes. There's are also some practical problems with that related to the wide variety of capabilities different people bring to genealogy. You can provide a short explanation there, but I suspect in most cases the logic of the answer put into the text box, is more complicated than that. Which is why I personally prefer text articles, rather than "fill in the box". [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:54, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+:::I agree with [[User:Jrich|Jrich]] -- we need to focus on educating users. It can be a bit time consuming and tedious, but I think it can be done. Gayel --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 17:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
-:: I agree that everything is fixed by an explanation. In regards to circa, about, estimated, etc. there are two different situations at least that I see. One is where you have a documented age on a given date and you can calculate some other date. This is not precise as it is subject to error of the document and usually the age is only given with a precision of a whole year, meaning it is probably only precise within a year or two. However, this is different from the swag based on typical age relationships, i.e., first child born at 25 and then the next children are born one every two years. It is useful when you see a name in a list to have an idea of which century they lived in, at least, but this kind of swag has a much lower authority/reliability than the first kind of estimated date. We can't change all the sources out there that have followed a million different practices, and probably can't isolate WeRelate from that either, since GEDCOM uploads will invariably bring in garbage, but a convention would tend to get used, which people would follow more and more as they see it used on various pages they view, and over time the pages would be more consistent, hence more understandable. I don't really care too much about what the convention is, but think it would be beneficial if there was one. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 14:32, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+::::If we want to educate new users to provide better genealogy, perhaps those of us who know what we are doing should improve some of the genealogies that are already on our pages, even if they are not ones we have provided ourselves. Just this morning I was taking some notes from a ''Wikipedia'' page where Robert the Bruce was mentioned. I decided to link my WR entry to one of our "Person:" pages. After discovering that the Robert the Bruce in Wikipedia was [[Person:Robert I of Scotland (1)|Robert I of Scotland]] in ''WeRelate'' I decided to have a look at his previous generations. Three generations back I came across [[Family:Robert De Bruce and Isabelle Huntingdon (1)|Robert de Bruce and Isabelle Huntingdon]] (with a marriage year of 1209). Those of you who know your medieval genealogy ought to cast their eyes down the birthplaces of their children. It looks like the only one on WeRelate who had a go in making corrections was the "WeRelate Agent" and he didn't do a very good job.
-:::Ok, here are my date conventions:+::::A supplementary question: Why do we keep finding places with two commas and a space (or maybe no space) in between? e.g., "Of, , Carrick, Scotland"; ",,Huntingdonshire,England"; "Isleworth, Middlesex, , England". Now there's a lesson to teach newcomers. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 18:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
-:::Date conventions are really important, as they should eventually serve as a basis for data consistency checks. A date string that uses an unusual form will not be able to be recognized by the software, so useful integrity checks could not be made.+
-:::* <day of month> <month abbrev> <year> - Day of month is an ordinary integer, as is the year. The year is also an integer (w/AD implied) and can appear with a trailing "nn/nn+1" to indicate dates before the calendar shift (early 1600s?). Month abbreviations are the usual - "Jan", "Feb", "Mar", "Apr", "May", "Jun", "Jul", "Aug", "Sep", "Oct", "Nov", "Dec". These have a leading capital as would be appropriate if they were spelled out. No trailing ".".+== Surname pages from Wikipedia and the opportunity they provide [16 April 2015] ==
-:::* before, after, about - "bef", "aft", "abt". No period, keep the lower case to take up less space and because "before", "after" and "about" would not correctly be upper case. The about characteristic can also be "ca".+I was a bit surprised when I saw [[Template:Wp-Thompson (surname)]]. Surname pages from Wikipedia (at least that I've seen to date) have not come into WeRelate with the list of biographies attached. At the moment, I do not understand how the import software decides to link to WeRelate pages vs. linkout to Wikipedia pages ... but one of the features of this link revision is that person names are sometimes link revised to point at WeRelate Person pages. Given a surname page with content from Wikipedia, it occurred to me that one expansion potential would be to systematically create person pages for notable (dead) people listed on those surname pages. Just wondering whether anyone thinks this is ''totally crazy'' or a valid workstream that might be instantiated as a WeRelate Project.--[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 03:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- +
-:::* If a date is an estimate, precede it by "Est.". This is meant for consistency with the usage in the WFT (which actually uses "WFT Est."). +
- +
-:::* Time ranges for an event w/duration (say, residence) - "from" <start_date> "to" <end_date>+
- +
-:::* Range within which an event is believed to have occurred - "bet" <start_date> "and" <end_date>+
- +
-Never use an all-digit form (i.e., <yy>-<mm>-<dd>) since there is often confusion between what field is+
-the month and what field is the day. Never gratuitously capitalize - it takes up too much space.+
---- ----
-I'd be happy for someone to create a [[Help:Conventions]] page and add conventions to it. I don't consider myself enough of an expert to have good opinions here over the basic "don't use all-digits" advice. Currently the software just looks for a 1-2 digit number for the day, an alphabetic word for the month, and a 3-4 digit number for the year. It ignores modifiers like bef, aft, abt, and uses just the first date of a range. (To handle those cases where people use all-digit dates, it checks to see if one of the numbers is between 1-12 and the other is between 1-30, and does the right thing in that case.)+I see now that the Wikipedia page has had a section header added which will prevent the list of people from being brought into WeRelate. Probably not a bad idea, considering the lack of segregation between living and non-living people in the list.--[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 23:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
-Regarding where to put information, I plan to make a change this Fall that I think will make it more natural to put short explanations on the talk page: I want to list the talk page contents after the contents of the primary page, with an entry box for adding a quick comment to the talk page, like you see in blogs. I'm hoping that this change promotes two behaviors: (1) it will encourage newcomers to leave comments when they have something to say about a page -- filling in a comment entry box at the bottom of the page is a lot less intimidating than editing the page, and (2) it will encourage newcomers to leave their opinions about a page in the comment box rather than editing the page. Then others with more experience can decide whether to incorporate their comments into the primary page. People could be encouraged to leave comments rather than edit well-established pages directly.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:27, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+== Usage of the East End of London as a WR place [16 April 2015] ==
-== Preserving Copyright [5 September 2008] ==+The East End of London is a geographical region or area, but it is not an administrative place. It is not a London borough (1965 to the present); it never was a metropolitan borough (1900-1965). Before 1900 the area was made up of many, many parishes. It is necessary to go these parishes, boroughs, and the register offices of the time in order to obtain formal "source-able" family history information.
-As one of the benefits of WeRelate should be collaboration, I have been doing the genealogical equivalent of picking a fight: 'fixing' other people's data, and adding controversial individuals, hoping to encourage discussions of these interesting cases. Many of these cases hinge on other people having access to sources I do not, or vice versa.+My personal feeling is that the "East End" ought to be deleted from our database--along with many other places in London that have been identified as districts and should be called neighbourhoods. In most other cases these districts were part of a metropolitan borough and, in many cases, part of a parish.
-In making my arguments, I frequently find myself wanting to quote my sources. Sometimes the actual text of a source is important. Having the text certainly seems to add authority in some cases, and shows exactly how limited that authority is in other cases. (A record giving the death date for "Wid. Parks" could easily be applied to the wrong person, but without the text, a reader might assume this is of the same quality as a source that says "Lydia, wife of Benjamin Parks".)+It does, however, cover a wide area and some people may want a descriptive term to cover an as-yet-to-be-found vital statistic--just like using "England" for a first generation of an American colonial family. For this reason I accept that some people will disagree with me.
-I suspect quoting one vital record with proper attribution would not be regarded as copyright infringement, but after 10 or 15 years of data input, will WeRelate collectively contain 75% of the vital records of towns such as Woburn, Concord, etc.? Would that now be considered copyright infringement?+But, may I make the plea that when the "WeRelate agent" goes to work on updating entries from ''Wikipedia'' that the East End of London is linked to ''Wikipedia'' (i.e., <nowiki>[[Wikipedia:East End of London|East End of London]]</nowiki>) and not to our place database. But <nowiki>[[Place:Tower Hamlets (London Borough), Greater London, England|London Borough of Tower Hamlets]]</nowiki> now exists in our database, along with the other 30+ London Boroughs, and I would hope the "WeRelate agent" could identify them. Currently (and there was an update last week) the London Borough of Tower Hamlets is being referenced to ''Wikipedia''.
-As a lay person, I am not at all comfortable trying to interpret copyright law. I read some of the fair use links and such, but it might help to have examples of what WeRelate would consider good or ideal usage and improper usage.+The London Boroughs were introduced fifty years ago in 1965 and each one is a Register Office--time enough for people to find their way into vital statistics.
-Is abstracting a source with attribution always valid? To list a source without some indication of what that source supports could create erroneous appearances if the data gets changed. For example, I enter date-A supported by my source, and later the page is edited to say date-B. If the source is still there, it would now appear that that source is in support of date-B, which is incorrect.+This note has also been posted on the East End of London "talk" page.
---[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 18:48, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+--[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 07:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)--[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 07:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
-:Your use of Werelate sounds exciting. Have you stimulated discussions? Regarding copyright; facts cannot be copyrighted, but rather the format that is used to present the facts. So if you just quote the facts you are not violating any copyright law.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 21:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+== Newspapers as sources - different source each time the name changes or one source to rule them all? [17 April 2015] ==
-:: I have not as of yet stimulated any discussions. Unfortunately I do not think there are enough users active on WeRelate to make this a high probability. Also, most of my hard cases are hard because they do not have a wealth of information readily available so the chances of hitting an interested party may be smaller. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 13:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+Newspapers change over time. They merge, split, change ownership, change names, cease publication, restart publication ... they are dynamic beasts when considered over a time frame of a couple of centuries, which is the time frame we are all familiar with here. Wikipedia tends to take the approach of "current newspaper and all predecessors to be covered by the same article". However, I think that from a genealogical point of view, the different incarnations of the newspaper could (should?) be considered as distinct sources. In using the http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ site, I have in a small number of cases so far, applied the "different name, different publisher = different source" approach to representing newspaper sources. I think my edits have reached a critical mass that I should ask what the community thinks of this. This particular post was prompted by my addition of [[Source:Evansville Courier & Press]]. This newspaper has, as usual, changed its name and ownership many times; the source representation reflects the ''wikipedia'' approach in the 'year range' parameter. The question which looms now is should I split this source into the fragments indicated by reviewing http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn98063103/ and tracing through preceding titles, or should I leave the Source intact and just refer to each of the other entries in 'chronicling' via the Repository tag set?
 +:my personal feeling = different sources for different incarnations of a pubilcation.
 +Thanks for providing your (expert & amateur) input. This will become more of an issue over time as scanning of old publications continues to ramp up and copyrights expire.
-:::We're not actively promoting WeRelate at present until we get match+merge working. But yet we continue to grow. Once we start actively promoting it early next year I expect we'll see a lot more users.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:27, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+--[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 01:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
-:A few more things - records from before 1923 are in the public domain, and that includes most of the New England vital records collections. Lengthy verbatim quotes (like copying entire entries out of Great Migration) are what's most likely to raise eyebrows, but that's much different than the selective quoting you're talking about. And as for someone changing the data attached to a source, that's why you always watch the pages you've edited, that way you can fix such errors.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 22:09, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+:One question comes to mind is how to define "different incarnation". Different owner/publisher? Different title? Or if one person owns the entire archives, even preceding their management of the paper, is it then one beast since they presumably inherit all the copyrights? And how does a typical WeRelate user determine which incarnation it is? What they know is the title at the top of the page they are looking at.
-----+:What we are trying to do by citing sources? I suspect we want to enable people to find it. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 02:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
-I'm not a lawyer either, but as others have said: facts are not copyrightable and if you put something in your own words you're not violating copyright. Also, I would think that quoting a few sentences verbatim from a copyrighted source along with proper attribution isn't a problem.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+
-:: As hinted by some of the answers, it appears most of my sources are old enough that it is not an issue. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright wikipedia article on duration of copyrights] I was confused that more works aren't available on books.google.com and thought there must be some other complexity involved. (books.google.com is another example of how the next big changes to genealogy are going to revolve around the Internet. WeRelate is part of that too.) --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 13:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+::A source citation is mainly for exactly that: identifying the source so that it can be found. It can also serve to characterize the source, which is useful for quick evaluation, and essential if the source is not generally available.
 +::To serve these ends, I believe there should be a separate Source: page for each newspaper title (or, rather, for each title used in one or more citations). For finding the source the actual title used at the time the cited newspaper item was published is the essential information. The issue cited may be available in some collection that has only issues under that title, whether or not other collections or repositories have the issue included with issues of predecessor or successor titles of that newspaper. For repository that includes successor titles, the repository can be expected to provide for access via the title actually used (e.g. "Evansville press. (Evansville, Ind.) 1906-1998"), so the cited issue can be found via that name. A different repository may only have it accessible via the actual title used (e.g. "Evansville press"), and may not even know about earlier or later titles. Thus the actual title needs to be used in the citation, and should be used in the Source: in order to properly document where issues ''of that title'' may be found. The Source: page can list the names of predecessor and successor titles in notes (and perhaps link to Source: pages for them. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 04:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
-== Displaying marriages sorted by date [28 August 2008] ==+:::The WeRelate [[Portal:Source|Source Portal Page]] shows that the titling convention for newspapers is simply: '''Title (Place issued)'''. So if that guidance is still valid, then the source page title should only change, or a new one added, if the title of the newspaper or the place of publication changes. If looking for guidance in writing an individual citation within your page reference, you may want to consult one of the many university publication standards pages, such as [http://libguides.dixie.edu/c.php?g=57887&p=371715 Dixie State University's Newspaper Citation Guide]. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 20:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
-I have noticed that on Family pages, children can be entered in any order and will display sorted by their birth date. This is a great feature. On Person pages, however, when a person has been married multiple times, their marriages are not sorted by date. Is this possible to do other than ordering them correctly on the person’s edit page? Also, is it possible to display a person’s marriage date and location on their Person page?--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 08:50, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+== New set of templates for crude sequence information [19 April 2015] ==
-----+This is related to the newspaper source discussion. I've ported from the English Wikipedia as set of six templates for creating a crude 'succession box', in this case aimed at presenting preceding and succeeding titles for newspapers. The master template which uses five utility templates is [[Template:Sequence]]; I've implemented this in two articles so far: [[Source:Evansville Courier & Press (Evansville, Illinois)]] and [[Source:Free Trader=Journal and Ottawa Fair Dealer (Ottawa, Illinois)]] . It's not terribly pretty, but it provide some functionality which would otherwise be placed into narrative. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 04:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
-What I plan to do in the near future is display a mini-tree on the right-hand side of each person and family page. In this tree, the marriages and children would be listed in order by date.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+
-== Place Names - the Netherlands [28 August 2008] ==+== Is survey legit? [20 April 2015] ==
-I have an observation on Place names - not sure if this is the proper place to post this.+Received an email this morning with a link for taking a survey about WeRelate. Just want to verify that the link is legitimate before I reply ;-) Thanks ... --[[User:KayS|KayS]] 20:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 +:It's legit. It's market research for a project that I'm working on jointly with a genealogy society. I'm hoping that the results will be beneficial to WeRelate users and other genealogy developers.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 02:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
-My current research involves the Netherlands, specifically the province of Friesland.+== Mapping County Cemeteries [23 April 2015] ==
-The Netherlands is divided into provinces and each province is further divided into municipalities. +
-So, I would be inclined to record the town of Fewerd as such:+
-Ferwerd, Ferwerderadeel, Friesland, Netherlands. (town), (municipality), (province), (country). +
-This would be similar to the divisions in France. I noticed that Werelate’s Place pages for France are recorded in this manner (ie: [[Place:Igé, Orne, Basse-Normandie, France]]). However, the Place pages for the Netherlands do not include the municipality (ie: [[Place:Ferwerd, Friesland, Netherlands]]). It would be helpful to know the municipality in which a town is located for easier searching. I have noticed that websites for Friesland research include municipality information to further limit searches.+
-I wasn't sure if it was possible to make changes to the place pages to add this information.--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 15:49, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+
-----+I am intrigued by this map of Hopkins County, Texas indicating all the cemeteries and would love to work on such a map for a different county. http://www.hcgstx.org/index.php/records/burial-sites/cemeteries-mapped
-Hello JBS66,+I have the cemetery info but not the know-how to create the map with push pins and a scroll down index. Could there be some sort of template built that would have the info for creating such a page with just the long/lat to be added for a map of any area and then whoever is interested could add the info on the various cemeteries? Is such a template possible? (I inquired of the Hopkins Co. folks about their map and they had hired someone to create their map.)
-Many of us enter our location names is it was when the event occurred. As I understand it that creates a problem for the mapping system since the mapping is based on present time location names, and it creates issues in Werelate because of that. If I understand correctly you can enter your locations as you wish, and in time those locations will be redirected by Werelate to the present time locations page.+When working on Wood County, WV I realized how helpful it would be to be able to visualize in what locality each of the many cemeteries were located. And the more I think on this, the more I like the idea of being able to create such a map to be linked to each county page. Is this a possibility? If so, we would need a page telling about the template and just how to add what is needed to the template in order to locate the area and then locate a cemetery in that area. Maybe a wild dream; so is it possible? Better yet, does anybody else think it would be helpful? --[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 23:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
-Dallan or others probably understand this much better than I do though. Debbie Freeman--[[User:DFree|DFree]] 16:18, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+:Hi Janiejac. To get many of the same features you are looking for in a graphic display for any area of the United States, you may want to go to [http://billiongraves.com/ Billion Graves] and search their cemetery maps. From the home page, hit the <u>Search</u> tab, hit the <u>Cemetery Lookup</u> tab, type in your filtering parameters (down to the county level if you want to see all the cemeteries in a particular county), then hit <u>Search</u>. It will display in textual format all the cemeteries it lists for that particular county. At the bottom of the page, you can hit the <u>Cemetery Map</u> tab for a satellite image and scroll it to the geographical area you are looking for. (It does not show political boundaries below state level, although it does show city names and highways.) Hope that helps. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-The short answer is '''yes!''' The reason we have only three levels for the Netherlands (and many other European countries) is because the data that we used to construct the Netherlands places (Wikipedia, Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names, and the Family History Library Catalog) largely had only three levels for most European countries. These countries stay in their current state until someone decides to improve them. For example, [[User:Scot]] is currently doing this for Portugal. Others have done it for Sweden, Scotland, Poland, and many other countries (see [[WeRelate:Place review]] for information about a large review project last Fall). +Thanks Bob, I'll give it a try. I just may have to try to learn how google maps work, but I'd rather research than create pages! --[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 02:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
-If you're interested in working on adding municipalities to the Netherlands, leave a message on [[User talk:Dallan|my talk page]] and I'll help you get started. +:I use the [http://www.histopolis.com/ Histopolis] website to find out which township a cemetery is located in or if it is within city boundaries. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 07:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
-For Europe we tend to title places according to the hierarchy they were in around 1900-1930, and earlier/later hierarchies are listed as also-located-in places. The Netherlands seems to have been relatively stable for the past 100 years, so this won't be an issue for Netherlands. +
- +
-One final thing: I'm starting a process to automatically edit 750,000 Source pages for the sources in the Family History Library Catalog. During the next few days while this is running, I'd rather not have a lot of place reorganization underway, but you could start around the end of next week if you're interested.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Howto Export GEDCOM or Backup Tree [28 August 2008] ==+
- +
-I was wondering how I can export data from weRelate to a gedcom.+
-It's a feature that we can see in the future ?+
-The only way that I can see to backup my tree is to use a web crawler / spider and make an offline copy (is a really bad idea, but it's the only that I can imagine now).--[[User:Fbarriga|fbarriga]] 22:39, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-There's supposed to be a GEDCOM download one of these days, but we're waiting on [[User:Dallan|Dallan]] on that one. It's somewhere on his dance card.+
- +
-I want it for the same reason you do. Also, since there really aren't plans for werelate to offer anything in the way of report generation, it would allow you to dump a section of data to the report-generating facility of your choice.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 10:18, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:I am also looking forward to the day that this is possible. It is too time consuming to enter data on WeRelate and a genie program. I found a new site on line; you can upload your gedcom and create a custom family tree and export your tree and have it printed. There is no charge for the service but you do have to contribute your family tree. Here is the link, but I have not tried the service. The creators of the web site were formerly associated with Family Tree Legends and GenCircles. The link: [http://webtree.com/home?l=en.us]--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-I should have mentioned previously, there is an ongoing discussion at [[werelate talk:Merging and downloading trees]].--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 14:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-I'm the bottleneck on this one unfortunately. I expect by the end of the year we'll have GEDCOM export ready. Need to get matching+merging working first.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Convention for Two Family Names [28 August 2008] ==+
- +
-In Chile and others countries, the wife don't loose their family names and we all have two family names.+
-Example: I'm "Felipe Barriga Richards", son of "Arturo Barriga Apparcel" and "Heidi Richards Staab".+
-At this time, I was using the two family names, but I don't know if there is a convention to deal with that.--[[User:Fbarriga|fbarriga]] 22:43, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Local and contemporary custom is most important. I'm not aware of any customs on this particular issue, but if I understand it correctly, you're saying:+
- +
- <given name> <parent surname 1> <parent surname 2>+
- +
-Where the "effective" surname is "<parent surname 1> <parent surname 2>". I think that you would simply put the two parts of the effective surname in the surname field, because that's what they are. My children have their Mother's surname as their middle name, but that's not what you describe. I'm familiar with other customs as well, where children take a hyphenated version of their parents surnames - <parent surname 1>-<parent surname 2>. I suppose this latter situation is most like the one you describe, but apparently use of the "-" character isn't a typical custom where you are? Do folks sometimes put the parent surnames together with a "-" so that they will not be mistaken for a middle then a last name?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 23:18, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-I agree with [[User:Jrm03063]]. Put both surnames in the surname field; you can hyphenate them or not. The surnames will be individually-searchable, so if a person's surname field is "Barriga Apparcel" and someone searches on Barriga or on Apparcel, that person will be returned.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Checkout the newest browser Google Chrome [15 September 2008] ==+
- +
-The new browser from Google is great for merging pages. You can actually have two or more windows open at the same time. Check it out. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 19:48, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Understand that Chrome is based on the same underlying programming as went into Apple's Safari---which has had this capability for some time. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 19:56, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Hi Bill, I had Safari on my computer but never really checked it out; did not know that it had the capability or I would have used it; but the downloads from the Apple site for updating the Ipod typically mess up on my laptop and I have to download them from the site. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::Believe it comes with OS X. Initially I wasn't especially impressed, but then Microsoft stopped supporting IE for the Mac. Figured if they didn't think they were competitive, then the handwriting was on the wall. I never particularly noticed that having multiple windows open was unique to Safari. Figured it was so obvious that all browsers would support it by now. So your note took me by surprize. Didn't know I had it so good. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 20:36, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-Son said that the Safari windows version has issues; but don't know if that is still the case. Yes, Bill you have been having a good time and didn't let us know. <g> I have been opening WeRelate in my laptop and desktop to merge pages. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:44, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:I do something similar. While I'm entering data on a WeRelate page I'll open the source page in another window, then copy and paste between the two. Beats continuously opening a page, capturing the data, then navigating to the destination page, pasting, then navigating back to the source for something else. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 21:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Tabs are definitely awesome. Firefox and IE7 also have them. I just downloaded Google Chrome to check it out.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:45, 7 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Dallan, with Chrome when you open 2 or more tabs; you can just drag one of the tabs to a new window so you can have multiple tabs open in different windows at the same time. Can you do that with Firefox or IE7? If so I don't know how. I can have multiple tabs, but have to switch from one or the other; I cannot view both of them at the same time with Firefox or IE7--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 02:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::I see what you're saying now. I just tried it. That is pretty cool. I also like that it lets me use nearly my entire screen for the webpage (very little is used for their menus). I don't like that it crashed on me while I was editing a page though. I think I'll give it another month to mature, and then I'm planning to switch over and make it my main browser.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-My hubby says the "buzz" on the net is that Google created this "Chrome" without any collaboration with other "browser makers" and thus it is full of security leaks and other problems, which other established browsers have already "fixed" in their versions. Just an FYI --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 23:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== 18th Century Trade Faire at Fort Loudon, Vonore, TN [6 September 2008] ==+
- +
-My major interest in WeRelate is in developing a feeling for how our ancestors lived, particularly on the Virginia Frontier in the late 18th Century. The [[Southwest Virginia Project]] is part of how I'm attempting to do this. One of the things that I think helps are images that help create a sense of the context of our ancestors lives. My wife and I recently attended an "18th Century Trade Faire", at Fort Loudon, Vonore, TN. Fort Loudon was the site of an ill-fated British Fort that came into existence during the French and Indian War. Each September the Fort Loudon Association puts on the Trade Faire. You can read about it [http://www.fortloudoun.com/ here].+
- +
-I took a number of photographs, and placed a few of them in a [[Re-enactment:18th Century Trade Faire at Fort Loudon, TN|temporary starter article]]. Some of these photos will probably make their way into illustrations for the [[Southwest Virginia Project]] [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 00:18, 7 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-These are some terrific pictures!--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:45, 7 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Transferring information from data fields [7 September 2008] ==+
- +
-Dallan+
- +
-Is there code that can be used in an article page that will transfer the content of edit input boxes (e.g, date of birth input box) into text placed in the article? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:47, 7 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Sorry, it's a good idea, but there isn't anything to do that right now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Editions of Sources [8 September 2008] ==+
- +
-Many of the sources found in the Source namespace are FHL microfilms or ancestry.com databases. But they are merely reproductions of real books which may also be found in libraries.+
- +
-When you use find/add to locate a source, the list presents the title only with no hint about the edition (except those where ancestry.com or FHL film number gets stuck in the title).+
- +
-I have been using these reproductions and the underlying sources interchangeably, since I assume if the data is the same, others will just want to know the most convenient form for themselves. I.e., if I can find the book in a nearby library, why rent a microfilm at a Family History Center which takes at least 2 weeks to arrive? For some I have taken the time to add in the author and original dates of publication, even though the source is nominally referring to a FHL microfilm, to provide more descriptive information about the source.+
- +
-Recently an "automated update" changed one of these entries to enter the date of filming, overwriting the publication date of the underlying book I had entered. It also undid my edit which had moved the subtitle to the subtitle field and instead put everything back in the title field so that the title is once again long and impossible to input except by cutting and pasting.+
- +
-:Sorry - the automated update is not supposed to overwrite human changes. Could you let me know the title of the Source page so that I can try to figure out what went wrong? And if you haven't already, I'll put it back the way you had it.+
- +
-::I believe it was [[Source:A history of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania : from the earliest settlements to the present time including much valuable information for the use of schools, families,‎]]. It is not even one I care about but I was adding information to differentiate it from Charles Roberts History of Lehigh County. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 21:42, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::I found it and fixed it.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-First, I would argue that in terms of assessing the quality and type of data, the date of filming is useless. It depends on the publication date of the underlying material.+
- +
-:Good point. In cases where you find the publication date of the original material, please feel free to replace the one written by the automated update.+
- +
-Second, most of these entries abuse the title field, and clearly combine both the title and subtitle into the title field instead of properly using the subtitle field. This makes it very difficult to type the source names by any manner than cutting and pasting when you want to add a <nowiki>[[Source:xxx]]</nowiki> type link to your notes.+
- +
-:I agree that the FHLC titles are often overly-long. But it's difficult for an automated program to know where best to split the title. Currently it splits it on a colon or semi-colon when the FHLC title is longer then 80 characters. If there's a better place to split, please feel free to update the Title and Subtitle fields to split at the better location. Also, feel free to rename the Source page to have the shorter title. Around the end of the year we'll run another automated process to rename the Source pages to use a "place. title" format for Source pages for geographically-oriented record collections or a "first-author. title" format for books/articles, which conforms to the [[Help:Source page titles|standard for titling Source pages]].+
- +
-::I recognize that this is personal opinion, but since I type a lot of stuff in manually, instead of GEDCOM uploads, I find the long titles very annoying to get exactly right.+
- +
-:::Excellent point! Not to mention making a very messing looking article if you are writing extensive text, as opposed to putting information into text boxes. Like yourself, most of my input is manual. That appears to be a very small minority on WeRelate. Perhaps our needs are different from the majority. Fortunately, Dallan doesn't seem too hard over about folks following their own drummer. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 21:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
- Not only are the FHLC titles long, but adding place and/or author before the title makes them too long. Most place oriented items have the place name in their title anyway so it becomes redundant when you add it in front. And adding the FHLC number to make each title unique instead of listing all the filmings in the text of a single page also screws up the title. I expect the title to be the title. Is this just compensating because the listing of titles after you do a search on the find/add screen doesn't specify the author, etc? I haven't memorized the FHLC film numbers so I still have to follow the FHL link to read the description to find out what the different versions of the same title are. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 21:42, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Actually, not having the author/place as part of the Source page title is why so many titles currently include the FHLC number -- because several items in the FHLC catalog have the same title (often just something like "Parish registers 1800-1850") so we had to add the FHLC number to a Source page title in order to make the title unique. When we rename FHLC sources to include the author/place in the title later this year we'll be able to drop the FHLC number (and the subtitle) from the Source page title. +
- +
-:In cases where there are multiple filmings of the same item, I hope that over time people will redirect the Source pages to a single Source. If you find that you're citing the same source over and over, feel free to create a Source page with an abbreviated title and redirect that source page to the longer-title source page.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-But, that said, there are times when editions become an important issue, as in when things get updated or there is an error in one edition. But is there a need to treat each different edition on each different media as a different item in the Source namespace? +
- +
-:Not generally. If there are multiple editions, It's best to put that information into the text of the Source page. I realize there's only one publication field; in cases where the item has multiple editions, feel free to leave the publication field empty and put the publication information for the various editions in the text. We're encouraging people to put the edition information in the citation. Another possibility is to create a "redirect" (see below) for each edition, with the publication year in parentheses in the title of the redirect, and have the redirects point to the Source page that covers all editions. You could then cite the (redirected) Source page containing the publication year in the title in your source citation.+
- +
-If so, it seems that the process to select from the list of known sources needs to change. Perhaps the first step is to pick the title/author and then a second step would be to identify the edition/format.+
- +
-I guess this touches on my earlier question about conventions. Different people might think different organizations are more optimal than others. But the one thing that won't work is to have everybody each do their own thing. What is the best way to deal with this?+
- +
-:Two things: First, there has been [[WeRelate talk:Source Committee|a lot of discussion]] around the best way to [[Help:Source page titles|title source pages]], and as we are currently [[WeRelate:Source review|reviewing the online source pages]], the rules are being refined. I think they're pretty stable now and in fact I'm about to update the help pages to reflect the latest thinking later today. In the future when people create sources that don't conform to the rules we'll be able to educate them on what the guidelines are.+
- +
-::I will go read the help pages and try to follow the preferred way of doing things. Perhaps you should require new users to take a test to make sure they have read all the recommended help pages before screwing up the system. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 21:42, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::The help instructions at the bottom of the "Add Source" screen are hopefully a little clearer now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Second, we can use redirects. If you create a Source page and put <nowiki>"#redirect [[Source:target source title]]"</nowiki> as the only text in the text field, then the title of that Source page becomes a "synonym" for the target source. This is pretty useful, because if the same source is available in book form, in microfilm form, or online, and people naturally use different Source page titles to refer to the different forms of the source, we can have the alternate titles redirect to the original title. Redirection can also be used to create abbreviations for commonly-referenced items with long titles.+
-:--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
---[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 09:14, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Your point about not citing specific editions is an excellent one. That is something that should always be done, where it applies, and usually the distinction between editions is based on the date of publication. Works published in different years oft contain different information---sometimes contradictory---so knowing which edition you are using can be very important, and needs to be included in the citation. In theory, the citation format preferred here includes that information, though not as part of the article title. Unfortuantely, I've seen sources here where the date of publication was not specified---apparently whoever wrote the article felt the title alone was sufficient. In most cases it is, but not in all, and good form should always include the date I think. +
- +
-Here's and example [[Source:Marriages by Rev. George Wack]] +
-If you read this work you'' see that it was created by a 'bot', and that the date is not included.+
-If you open the page up for editing, you'll note that there is an input box for "issue date" (really that should be publication date in most cases, but perhaps "issue" fits a more global interpretation. (ie, something that was never "published", just printed up on a certain date.)+
- +
-So if "Marriages..." was first released in 1890, and then reissued in 1895 (perhaps with corrections or with additional marriages), just citing "Marriages by Rev. George Wack" would be quite inadequate. The date the specific document examined should have been included in the bibliographic citation. Personally, I think it should be included in the articles title, but that's personal preference. In anycase, the date should be in the pages data. +
- +
-But suppose "Marriages by Rev. George Wack" was indeed released in 1890 and 1895. How would you direct someone to one version or the other---even if you figured out a way to include both dates in the description, just calling out the articles title <nowiki> [[Source:Marriages by Rev. George Wack]] </nowiki> would not allow you to point to the specific edition. Perhaps you could fiddle with the article title itself "Marriages by Rev. George Wack, first edition" or "Marriages by Rev. George Wack, second edition". Citing "Wack, 1890" seems easier, but that's just me perhaps.+
- +
-On consistency, One can expend an awful lot of effort in making things consistent.there are circumstances where consistency is important and needs to be achieved. There are other circumstances where it accomplishes little, and simply drains time and effort. Depends on the goals. in anycase:+
- +
-There are five major citation styles in use in the United States. Here's a summary of examples for each Style, as given on World Cat, for a specific work.+
- +
-Citation Styles for "Annals of southwest Virginia, 1769-1800,"+
- +
-<table border=1> +
-<tr bgcolor=lightgrey><td> Style<td>Example+
-<tr><td>APA+
-<td>Summers, L. P., Bickley, G. W. L., & Coale, C. B. (1929). Annals of southwest Virginia, 1769-1800. Abingdon, Va: L.P. Summers.+
- +
-<tr><td>Chicago (Author-Date)+
-<td>Summers, Lewis Preston, George W. L. Bickley, and Charles B. Coale. 1929. Annals of southwest Virginia, 1769-1800. Abingdon, Va: L.P. Summers.+
-<tr><td>Harvard+
-<td>SUMMERS, L. P., BICKLEY, G. W. L., & COALE, C. B. (1929). Annals of southwest Virginia, 1769-1800. Abingdon, Va, L.P. Summers.+
-<tr><td>MLA+
-<td>Summers, Lewis Preston, George W. L. Bickley, and Charles B. Coale. Annals of Southwest Virginia, 1769-1800. Abingdon, Va: L.P. Summers, 1929.+
-<tr><td>Turabian+
-<td>Summers, Lewis Preston, George W. L. Bickley, and Charles B. Coale. Annals of Southwest Virginia, 1769-1800. Abingdon, Va: L.P. Summers, 1929.+
- +
-</table>+
- +
-For the most part, there's not a whit worth of real difference between these styles---all provide the same basic information. None specify edition, but all specify date of publication---just in different places, and in different "styles". What's preferred on WeRelate (not my personal preference, by the way) is MLA or Turabian. (It doesn't appear here, but the difference between MLA and Turabian is that in Turabian, the title is underlined.)+
- +
-These different styles exist, I presume, because they meet specific needs. These styles are preferred and used by different groups of writers. In part, what they use is simply a matter of convention. Someone "liked it" early on, and that like turned into a standard within that group. It is likely, however, that some of the styles developed in response to specific needs of specific groups---because the style emphasized things that were important to that group. APA and Chicago, for example, are used in the Sciences, Harvard in law, and MLA, and Turabian are probably encountered more in the arts (including English, which is significant because that's the style most folks are going to be familiar with. The distinction between Science and the Arts in terms of citation style probably reflects what these groups want to emphasize. Ignoring content, for Science, the important thing is not what you call your document, but who wrote it and when. Priority of discovery is based on precedence, and who said it first, and when, is what is important to science authors. In the arts, what's important is who made it and what they called it.: No one refers to "Shakespeare, 1589", instead they refer to "Shakespeare's Hamlet". Among scientists, on the otherhand, when writing technically would prefer "Darwin, 1859", over "Darwin, Origin of the Species"---though they might use the latter form in more casual reference, simply because Origin of the species has become iconic.+
- +
-If there is a standard in genealogy, its probably MLA and Turabian. The [http://www.NewEnglandAncestors.org/publications/5283.asp NEHGS] prefers something similar to MLA, but its not quite the same. Other journals use, I believe, different source formats, but they are probably most similar to MLA or Turabian.+
- +
-Does it really matter which format is used? That depends on the purpose. Obviously, if you want to create a bibliography for your work, you'd prefer to be consistent within that work. That doesn't mean you have to be consistent BETWEEN works, just within that one work. After all, purposes and objectives might change, and different format serve different purposes. But in the broad scheme of things, it doesn't really matter which of several formats you choose---what's important is that the needed information is present.+
-That way, if a bibliography needs to be developed necessary to support an article in a particular journal (say NEGHS), then you'd have all the information needed to support that article. One day there may even be a Bibliography Tool here to do that for you. You could specify the format (MLA, for instance), give it a list of articles, and it would punch out the bibliography according to the needed specifications. Send it to a different Journal (say one that prefers Harvard), you could get a bibliography in that format. That would be a very cool tool to have, even if you weren't into publication, and it wouldn't make much difference if the format's of the original source articles differed---as long as the data was there. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 12:38, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Also, we have to walk a line between having Source page titles that look similar to accepted styles for source citation and titles that are short and easy to remember. So we've chosen to include just the first author in the Source page titles for books, and to include the place, but not the full agency name, in Source page titles for geographically-oriented record collections. All authors are included in the Authors field though.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Blog badges [17 September 2008] ==+
- +
-Is there a badge we can add to our blogs that would link back either to the WeRelate homepage or to our profile page? More and more sites are offering that feature to their members/users. I think it would be a neat way to drum up a little more traffic for the site (and it would look cool on our blogs ;-) --[[User:Ajcrow|Ajcrow]] 08:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:I presume you are looking for an icon of some sort. There's the WeRelate Icon [[:Image:WeRelate.gif]] which might serve your purposes. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:54, 11 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Good idea! How about <nowiki><a href="http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User:Dallan"><img src="http://www.werelate.org/w/skins/common/images/badge.png"></a></nowiki> ? You probably want to replace my user page with your own :-)--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Protocol for untended to Gedcom uploads [17 September 2008] ==+
- +
-I'm preparing to merge my individuals where duplicates exist with other users.+
-I came across a user that uploaded a Gedcom with over 11,000 individuals.+
-They have not made any contributions since, and their work contains duplicates.+
-Should I go through the effort to merge into their work or can we consider deleting this tree as suggested for another user on [[User talk:Jrm03063]]?--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 17:23, 13 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-As you've noted, there has been much discussion on this issue and the reason I would say for a lack of response here is we are at a stand-still on the topic. I don't recall that a decision was ever made on what to do about such GEDCOMs. We'll have to wait for Dallan to chime I believe. :) +
- +
-I wonder though if instead of deleting the entire GEDCOM (which some people oppose for fear of losing some crucial data yet undiscovered) if the pages couldn't be moved to a ... graveyard of some sort? Gone but not forgotten? --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 08:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-: If the original GEDCOM is still around somewhere, that might help. Without that, I don't know how you structure the stuff you're pulling off. If the original GEDCOM exists still, then perhaps it could be dropped as an archive on the digital library. Thinking out loud here - I wonder if there's a decent GEDCOM to pdf report (simple and complete, easy to search - not necessarilly cosmetically beautiful), such that we could have both in the digital library. GEDCOMs aren't very useful to werelate unless you upload the whole thing, so you couldn't easily inspect a GEDCOM for bits and pieces of information. --[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]]+
- +
-:: I don't know about a GEDCOM to pdf format, but the program [http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/ Behold Genealogy] reports everything in a GEDCOM on one page which can then be exported to HTML or RTF. Neat program which I've been using for about a year now. BTW, I'm on the delete-the-GEDCOM side of this issue. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 15:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-I think we treat abandoned GEDCOMs like abandoned property. Make some reasonable attempts to contact the person who did the upload to see what their intentions are. If we don't hear anything, then it belongs to the community and we can do what we want. If anyone in particular has worked with the materials in question, then I think Dallan will generally respect that person's opinion on whether the material is worth retaining or not.+
- +
-I've covered a lot of ground on stuff like this - could you please advise what user/tree you're looking at? Thanks...--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 10:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-The user I keep coming across is [[User:Rrhoule]].+
- +
-: Strangely, I havn't crossed paths with anything from that user, but I looked after seeing your remarks. I checked a small sample of their person pages and found repeated and pretty much useless pro forma sources. I can't say exactly how much duplication there is, but there seems to be a lot. I grabbed the last page of their contributions and found that 50 of 500 families had an index greater than 1. Rashly estimating, that means that there could be as much as 10% duplication associated with this GEDCOM. If we further assume that merging about 100 pages a day is doing well, and that the 10% holds across the 11000 page tree, [[User:Rrhoule]] has kindly presumed upon the werelate community, a task of some 100 user-days, to which they have so far contributed....0. I would second the nomination for delete. --[[User:Jrm03063]].+
- +
-I've been trying out some merging this morning thanks to the great tips on [[User talk:Jrm03063]] and [[User talk:Scot]]. 1/5 of the Gedcom families that I uploaded have potential duplicates. I'm glad I only uploaded a portion of my data!+
- +
-What happens with families that have been deleted such as [[Family:Charles Cloutier and Louise Morin (1)]]. Actually, this family is indexed under (1)-(12), 10 of which have been deleted. Can the lower index numbered pages be reused? So, can I redirect my [Family:Charles Cloutier and Louise Morin (12)] to [Family:Charles Cloutier and Louise Morin (1)] to keep the index numbers low?+
- +
-It seems so easy to upload a Gedcom, and so incredibly time consuming to clean up the results.+
-I look at why I uploaded a Gedcom instead of entering by hand. I thought entering by hand would take too long, and I wasn't sure how much of my data was common to WeRelate's. I only uploaded names/basic dates/marriages and planned to go back and add in sources. Perhaps there could be some sort of happy medium. I could upload my Gedcom, but if the program notices the family currently being uploaded shares a title, it will put that into a log file instead of creating new pages. Then, I would be responsible for checking the log file to see what I needed to enter by hand. It would be a whole lot easier to enter in a few pieces of missing data on a page then to match/merge multiple pages. Just a thought...+
-I do have to say that I love the concept of WeRelate. It's great to have a site where work can be done collaboratively on unique pages.--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 12:22, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-I definitely try to keep the index numbers low. If index "1" was previously deleted however, you'll need to recreate it before you redirect to it. That's easy enough of course, because when you try to go to the deleted address location you'll get a chance to create the page anew.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-So, how do we go about deleting this tree?+
-This user holds the coveted (1) page on many of my merges, so I'll hold off on merging those until that tree is deleted.+
- +
-This might be a silly question but I came across a few cases like [[Family:Marin Banne and Isabeau Boire (2)]] where there are no other duplicates but the [[Family:Marin Banne and Isabeau Boire (1)]] spot was deleted. Would you suggest redirecting to the (1) page, even though this family is not duplicated, just to have the (1) spot? It would make it easier to see that it wasn't a duplicate, but would it create a needless redirect page?+
- +
-Thank you!--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 07:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-: As for deleting the tree, we wait for Dallan to get around to reading the watercooler or someone sends him e-mail. W.R.T. redirecting 2->1, I often do for precisely the reason you give. There are bazillions of redirects out there already, a few more makes no difference. --[[User:Jrm03063]]+
- +
-::In just a few months of real usage by the genealogical community, the (1) label will loose all special meaning. Even in this small dataset there are multiple hundreds of John Wheelers. Some names (John Smith) will probably routinely have 5 and 6 digit numbers after it, and of course, to the person related to him, that last John Smith is as important as the first one. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 09:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::For person pages, you're right. However, for what I call "fully qualified" family names (both given and surname for husband and wife - no "unknown"), the probability of duplication seems to be extremely remote. I made a stab at some statistics on the subject, based on my experience searching out duplication so far. My claim a few months ago was, "Cases of identical family page names being associated with different actual families are extremely rare, and occur less often than one per one thousand duplications (possibly even less)." I have seen no indication that duplication of such fully-qualified names is any more common now (with a "person" population of 1.5M). If we assume that this strategy is useful so long as the percentage of duplicates is below 10% (even then, judicious use of "1" and "2" probably extends the approach indefinitely), then I think we get a progression like this: {(1.5M, 0.1%), (3M, 0.2%), (6M, 0.4%), (12M, 0.8%), (14M, 1.6%), (28M, 3.2%), (56M, 6.4%), (112M, 12.8%)}. So I think redirection to "(1)" for fully-qualified families is going to be worth it for quite a while yet. Even if we discarded it if/when the person population exceeds 100M, it will help get us there. --[[User:Jrm03063]]+
- +
-::::Good point. What I should do is lower the last-index-number counter when a page with the highest index number is deleted.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 10:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-I'm sorry for not chiming in earlier; the last few days have been overflowing with various things that ''had'' to be done. +
- +
-I'll contact [[User:Rrhoule]] and let them know that I'm deleting their tree. I'm working right now on tools that will make merging easier, and in the future part of the GEDCOM upload process will be to merge into existing pages before the new pages get created. Until those tools are in place, the policy is that GEDCOM's that are going to cause a lot of merge work that are uploaded by people who are no longer active, are deleted upon request.+
- +
-We keep every GEDCOM that's been uploaded, but a lot of the GEDCOM's contain information on living people to I'm reluctant to automatically put existing GEDCOM's into the digital library. Sometime next year though I plan to add an option to the GEDCOM import where people can say explicitly that they want their GEDCOM to be added to the digital library, and I'll make a "gedcom viewer" available (similar to the FTE) so that people can view the GEDCOM files online.+
- +
-As for renaming/redirecting pages to (1) indexes, you're free to do that, although I agree with [[User:Jrich|Jrich]] that ultimately a (1) index often won't have any special meaning.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Button Link [17 September 2008] ==+
- +
-Is there a button link I can use to link werelate to my blog? I already have a text link but buttons are better because they stand out. --[[User:Brannon|Brannon]] 18:21, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Brannon, I don't think Dallan has a specific button link, but could you use the little WeRelate icon that appears in the upper left corner of this page? Just embed a link in it and put it on your website? --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 12:32, 16 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Try <nowiki><a href="http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User:Dallan"><img src="http://www.werelate.org/w/skins/common/images/badge.png"></a></nowiki> . I just created it this morning using [http://www.lucazappa.com/brilliantMaker/buttonImage.php this website].--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Chinese surnames [18 September 2008] ==+
- +
-How should Chinese surnames be handled?+
-The Chinese surname 伍 has the pinyin Wu, but most natives of this surname originate from Guangdong and go by Ng or Eng in western countries.+
-And Wu is used by other surnames, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_(surname).--[[User:Ronengyoung|Ronengyoung]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Here are two possible suggestions:+
- +
-* Since Wu is used as the transliteration for several different characters, I would add 伍 as an alternate name on the Person page (or maybe list 伍 as the surname and list Wu as an alternate name - your choice) so that people know which character you mean. To keep things simpler for others though, it would be best if Wu, not 伍, were used in the page title.+
- +
-* If you edit the [[Surname:Wu]] page and list Ng and Eng in the "Related names" field, then searches for Wu will also find people named Ng or Eng. And vice-versa, if you edit the [[Surname:Ng]] and [[Surname:Eng]] pages and list Wu as a related name, then searches for Ng and Eng will also return people named Wu. Changes like this require 4-6 hours to start having an effect on searches.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 10:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Google maps not working? [23 September 2008] ==+
- +
-I am not able to see any of the Google Maps. Is it my browser? or is it a problem at Google? or some problem here at WeRelate? --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 10:29, 18 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-: Working ok for me... --[[User:Jrm03063]]--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 10:49, 18 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-not working for me most of the time but does work once in a while along with several other features. i think the problem is in the werelate program. i am using vista & internet explorer. --[[User:Jimlatimer|Jimlatimer]] 13:46, 22 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Google maps is working fine for me. I use Firefox, Google Chrome, and also tried it out on MS Internet Explorer.--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 13:58, 22 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-I'm able to repeat the problem with IE7 on XP, but I haven't found out what's causing it yet. I'll look at it more tonight.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:It turns out that at least in my case, the problem was due to my web filtering software. I had the same problem seeing maps on WeRelate as well as on an [http://code.google.com/apis/ajax/documentation/example.html example on the google website] (can you see the map in this example?), so in my case I figured it was a browser settings problem. But none of the things I tried -- clearing the cache, disabling add-ons, resetting to the default IE settings, even upgrading to the new IE8 beta, did any good. Then when I turned off the web filter, the problem went away. I don't know if that's the same problem in your case. If you're still having difficulties after pressing control-F5 (or clicking on the refresh button while holding down the control key) to clear the cache, and you can see the map in the google example but not on WeRelate, would you please let me know?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 01:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-still not working -- i did control-F5 and nothing changed, i did control-refresh and nothing changed, i turned off protected mode and nothing changed. i am not sure what you mean by turn off web filter. i do not have parental control turned on.--[[User:Jimlatimer|Jimlatimer]] 11:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Google maps (on WeRelate) is now not working for me. Tried it on Firefox, Chrome, and IE.+
-On IE last night, an error box that said "Maps Loaded" came up.+
-Your example site, Google Maps, and Acme Mapper all do work.--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 12:53, 23 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-I'm sorry. How embarrassing -- I ended up breaking maps completely last night and didn't realize it until tonight. Maps should be working finally now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:23, 24 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Famous Living People [22 September 2008] ==+
- +
-What's the protocol for pages that have been created for famous living people? Example: [[Person:George Bush (3)]]. There's also a page for Prince Charles around that does actually have data. One one hand, yes, we say no living people. On the other hand, George Bush's vitals are available in approximately a zillion places already, and the ability to hook into a famous person's ancestry is probably a perk of our system.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 13:56, 21 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-There's a lot to be said for the absolute nature of living/dead. If you decide on fame, then you have to decide on a metric that is relatively objective. My choice would be whether or not they have a wikipedia page, but again, I don't have a strong preference.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 16:50, 21 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Let's go with what [[User:Jrm03063]] suggests -- this lets us rely upon Wikipedia's metric rather than create one of our own.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Ditto-Clipboard Extension [22 September 2008] ==+
- +
-I don't think that I have posted information about this program on the Watercooler before. The program is very useful; especially for me since I am spoiled by the clipboard features available in Legacy.+
- +
-The program is free. Access the download here.+
- +
-[http://ditto-cp.sourceforge.net/]+
- +
-Description:+
- +
-''Ditto is an extension to the standard windows clipboard. It saves each item placed on the clipboard allowing you access to any of those items at a later time. Ditto allows you to save any type of information that can be put on the clipboard, text, images, html, custom formats, .....''--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 23:11, 22 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Watched pages [24 September 2008] ==+
- +
-I am so excited as '''finally''' I have two cousins who have joined WeRelate, '''AND''' have adopted the appropriate tree I have online, '''AND''' they are collaborating. It is a dream come true! OK, so now I have this "new" problem. +
- +
-As I find more information, Say.. John Doe had NO wife or kids entered when my cousins adopted the tree. Now I find more info and add the wife and kids. I find that the wife and kids are now "not" being watched by the two cousins, so they don't know anything when I even find more and add a second generation to the original John Doe. So I have write to them and have them go in and manually open each of the new kids and click edit in FTE and click on "add this person to the tree." Is it unreasonable to somehow have new people pages within an adopted tree, added to the my collaborating cousin's watchlist automatically? --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 20:11, 23 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Fantastic. But it does not work that way. If you trust them you can allow them to use your user name and password and then you would not have to notify the cousins about new pages. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:18, 23 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-I think though if your cousins are watching John Doe and then you add a spouse to him, your cousins should get a message that changes were made to the John Doe page. When they look at what has changed, they should see something like ''Propagating changes to a family member'' and then they can see the newly added page and choose to "watch" it. I ''think'' this is how it works. I don't have my preferences set to receive email when changes are made so I'm not sure about notification, but when I look at my Watchlist, I see this kind of change all the time. +
- +
-And btw, congrats on the new collaboration! :)+
- +
---[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 20:34, 23 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-I agree with Ronni's comment -- your cousins should get an email about the Family page being changed, and when they view the changed page they can decide if they want to watch the newly-added pages. Having them use your user name and password could also work, but then they wouldn't get email notifications since the emails would all go to you.+
- +
-The issue with their needing to also add the pages to their adopted tree is a pain I agree. For reasons like this I want to get rid of the notion of "trees" later this year and instead display the FTE window on every Person and Family page. I think this will make things simpler. I could also provide an option to "watch every page that user X watches", but that's lower in priority for now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:23, 24 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Both cousins already have their own user name and password. and the whole idea of collaboration is for us to get emails when any of us makes changes. so having them use my password would mute the whole collaboration concept for me.+
-The option to "watch every page that user X watches" would not be good, in my humble opinion, as I am watching all pages from my other trees, which have no connection what so ever to the folks in the tree which the two cousins are collaborating on, thus that action would add a bunch of pages they don't need to be getting emails about when updated.+== Sort feature adding children [2 May 2015] ==
-Let me ask, if they just go to the page and click "watch" in the upper right hand corner, does that do the same thing as when you go up to "edit" and then select "add this page to tree"? I did not think it did, I was thinking that only makes them watch the page, but these newly watched pages would "not" show up in the FTE window. I was thinking that when you go up to "edit" and then select "add this page to tree" -that cause you to watch the page AND to have it added to the adopted tree, thus the new children and spouses will now show up in the FTE window. Do I have that correct? I am attempting to "guide" my cousins, I don't want to get them discouraged, now that I finally have someone willing to Collaborate!! --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 09:41, 24 September 2008 (EDT)+I've been adding children & sources for 'John Robinson and Hannah Wiswall (1)'. Usually the children sort chronologicaly quickly; this time the sort hasn't happened yet (20 min). Some maintenance going on ? Neal--[[User:Neal Gardner|SkippyG]] 21:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Current revision

This page is for discussing anything you want to discuss unless it relates only to a single page. Let people know what you like and don't like about WeRelate. If you don't want to leave comments on this page, you can email them to dallan@WeRelate.org.

Are you a new user? Have a question about how to use WeRelate? Post it to WeRelate talk:Support.

Old topics have been archived: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.


Topics


GenWeb Sources [1 January 2015]

Would it be best practice to delete GenWeb "Sources" and transfer their links to their respective county Place pages as Resources?--khaentlahn 18:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, I am not even sure it would be a good practice??? The times I have used Genweb, it usually includes a link to specific set of data found on a specific page of their website which I doubt is anyway linked to by the Place page. --Jrich 19:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I should have been more specific. I was referring to the main home page of the respective GenWeb sites, not the various resources that those sites contain. Therefore, the idea is that GenWeb home pages are not actual Sources (which many of them are created as such currently on WeRelate), but the various GenWeb home pages should be linked to 'somewhere' as they can be a viable resource from which to cull specific information, hence the county Place page suggestion. GenWeb pages are more closely related to Repositories, but transferring GenWeb Sources to Repositories has been determined not to be a viable practice and continuing the practice of using them as Sources has been frowned upon. So if giving them a link on respective county Place pages is not viable (so as to start removing the bad Sources), then what should be done with the links to the home pages?--khaentlahn 19:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I still don't understand. Who decided they are bad sources? If they contain transcripts of marriages in some county, which many do, how are you supposed to cite that information, i.e., what to point the source citation at. Perhaps an example would be useful. On my side, an example is Family:Henry Kendall and Julia Grogan (1). --Jrich 23:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with JRich.--Beth 01:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


According to the conversations here (beginning in 2013) and here, using individual County GenWeb pages as Sources is incorrect, which appears to be what was used on the example you gave with Family:Henry Kendall and Julia Grogan (1). Whether I agree with this or not, I do see the logic behind why all of these County GenWeb pages are not Sources as they are closer in definition to Repositories of gathered information. The overarching question of what to do with GenWeb pages does not appear to have been determined (they need to be standardized, converted, or removed), but, in all likelihood, they will disappear over time from what I read. If this is incorrect, a determination of some type would be helpful as there is still confusion over the subject. In any case, I retract my initial question (it was going to be too much work) in place of a determination on County GenWeb pages. Should they be standardized, converted to Repositories, or removed? Am I missing other options? As they stand currently, they are a mess.--khaentlahn 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am still at a total loss trying to understand the issue here. If you make Genweb a repository, it is allowed to contain multiple sources, say, one for each county. A insignificant organizational issue that in no way requires deleting the individual county genweb source pages. To make each county genweb a Repository implies that it contains several sources, so each subsection now needs a source page. For example, in the above example, now the Marriages section of LaPorte County genweb would be a source page inside the Laporte county Genweb Repository, instead of having one source page for the entire county website.
I read the cited discussion, filtering out all but Dallan's comments as just someone's opinion, and I do not see that it says using county Genwebs as source is incorrect. Instead, just the opposite. So saying it says one thing or another is rather selective reading.
As far as I can see, the choice here is to have a Source page for each County genweb (since each are administered differently) or have absolutely no page at all, and do them all as citation-only including explicit links to the page used when you are using the Genweb website as a source of information. --Jrich 04:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
After a little more information which you provided to me in referencing County Sites?, which I will admit I hadn't read previously, this line of conversation is no longer valid as it appears that my original question was erroneous based on invalid information.--khaentlahn 16:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


Why is Find A Grave Template not working? [1 January 2015]

On Person Page Person:Nancy Baile (1), the saved result is (i think) a lot of code. I've tried to change it, but . . What can we do?

Thanks, --GayelKnott 19:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I took a quick look and found that there was a stray '<refname' at the end of the text for S2 on that page. Removed the offending stray and the template works fine.--jaques1724 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jaques -- so simple when you know what to look for, but I sure didn't.--GayelKnott 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Does WeRelate have a naming convention for slaves? [5 February 2015]

Wondering how WeRelate handles the surnames of people who became or were born into slavery. I'm thinking specifically about the period of slavery in the U.S. pre Civil War. Thanks.--Jillaine 22:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Coincidentally, I have an interest in this question from the other direction: A bunch of my ancestors, sadly, owned slaves, in some cases I have their names. I'd like to document them in case it could be useful to someone else's research. --Trentf 01:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a good question. Many of my ancestors owned slaves, but I haven't personally traced any of them. I would think that the 'Unknown' naming convention would apply to slaves (ie Sara Unknown); most genealogists who do black genealogy simply call them by their given names "a slave named Sara", etc. Daniel Maxwell 11:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I did a bit more searching and happened upon this category Category:Slavery, it shows two different conventions being used: The surname of "Unknown" (as Daniel suggested), and a few have the surname "(Enslaved)". I would think the former would be sufficient but I would suggest coupling it with the category, though I might suggest that the Slavery category get two sub-categories: Slaves and Slave Owners. Maybe the general topic of Slavery is worthy of a portal or project of its own? --Trentf 17:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there should be separate sub-categories for 'Slaves' and 'Slave owners'. I went ahead and created them. I also created these templates: Template:Slave (and equivalent Template:Enslaved person), Template:Slave family, and Template:Slave owner. The templates can be used on a Person or Family page instead of a direct Category: entry, the intended advantage being that the category placement or category name can then easily be changed. For example, currently Template:Slave family causes a page to have Category:Slaves, but it could later be changed to use a 'Slave families' category or some such.
I am beginning to go through the pages presently in Category:Slavery to update them to use the new categories (via templates). Most pages seem to be part of this plantation research project.
A number of pages in Category:Slavery don't fit either of the new sub-categories. So far I've found pages for never-enslaved descendants of slaves and for overseers of slave plantations. Some people in the category are of unclear status: a son of an owner and his slave who was a minor at the end of U.S. slavery and was later sent to college by the slave owner's sisters. I'm not sure if descendants and overseers should be removed from Category:Slavery or put into new sub-categories (of what nature?), or just what. I'm leaving them unchanged at the moment.
--robert.shaw 02:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Top 100 websites [4 April 2015]

WeRelate has featured again in Genealogy in Time magazine's 100 top genealogy website based on webtraffic. We've gone from 86th to 79th. Out of interest, do we publish anything ourselves about traffic? AndrewRT 16:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I would love to see periodic reports of various metrics about the site. It seems like we all spend our days making steady improvements to information on the site, and it would be nice to see some numbers to show where our collective effort is getting us. I have noticed that you, AndrewRT, have made some efforts towards generating metrics in the past. Are you still pursuing that? Could you use a hand? --Trentf 14:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not in answer to your question, but I did add the "101-Best" summary related to the Social Media sites on the Community Portal page a few months ago, which is the first primary portal page that comes up when a user hits the "Start Collaborating" link on the main page. --BobC 21:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I recently added Google Analytics to the site. We get between 3,500 and 4,000 users visiting the site each day.--Dallan 05:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Trentf - apologies I can see I've only just seen your comment. Yes I did do some work on stats in the past and have kept this. My main focus has been on "number of person pages" which I still believe is the best metric for the site's size although I did discuss some others [[1]]. It easy to help out - just click on this link and add the date & number (in the bottom right hand side) to this page - if you can help by adding stats every now and then this would be useful!

We are currently up to 2.69m pages, an increase of 6% over the last 16 months. I'm afraid this is not sufficient growth to allow us to ever change our scale and as per the other discussions, Dallan is having to use adverts to pay for much needed technical development now that the tentative Wikimedia discussion led nowhere. As previously discussed, the decision to restrict GEDCOM uploads has severely limited the long term growth potential for the site. Even the claim to be "the world's largest genealogy wiki" is sadly no longer true, having been overtaken by WikiTree. Having said that, I still prefer it to share my own tree and I can see it still generates top google hits. AndrewRT 22:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WikiTree is much larger than we are now. We really ought to change that tagline. Any suggestions?--Dallan 05:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I suggest "It is the world's largest not-for-profit genealogy wiki" AndrewRT 08:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think FamilySearch Family Tree is a "for profit" wiki, so I'm not sure that works, either. Using all three (for different reasons), I remain convinced that WeRelate is the most flexible, and certainly provides the best arena for story-telling --the kind of thing that makes for a good Featured Page, for example. But what slogan can you make out of something like that? --GayelKnott 18:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't really used the FamilySearch family tree - is it, strictly speaking, a "wiki"? Also do you know how many people it has now - I'm struggling to find the stats. AndrewRT 21:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely a wiki, although why they don't want to call it that, I don't know. I'm not sure how you would go about getting stats for the number of users, but the person responsible for it is Ron Tanner. --GayelKnott 22:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
In his 2015 RootsTech lecture, he said Family Tree had 2.5 million new person pages added each month -- I don't know how reliable this is, but they are being added by a wide range of people. --GayelKnott 23:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless you're referring to their "Research Wiki" - this only has 81,000 articles on it so is smaller than the WeRelate wiki. AndrewRT 21:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Please, see these statistics : 1 and 2 + 3 and 4 + 5 and 6 + 7 - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 01:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Dallan ... "WikiTree is much larger than we are now." --> Yes, but WikiTree "works" with living people ! And every day we are removing more as 100 or 200 persons and "orphan records" in our WeRelate. I saw also a WeRelate-member for 6 or 8 weeks removing his tree (about 2000 persons). See these links : 1, 2, 3
AndrewRT ... On your page User:AndrewRT/Size, you give a number for GeneaNet ! This site (which is very appreciated used in France) is really an horror, because its incredible proportion of duplicates and errors ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 02:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The FamilySearch family tree (not the wiki but the tree) has more people, more page views, and more users than WeRelate and WikiTree combined. Like you say, they don't like to call it a "wiki", but it has a lot of characteristics of a wiki. What if we stayed away from words like "largest"? In the meantime, I'll change the tagline to just "WeRelate.org"--Dallan 06:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

What do other people do when they find their WeRelate pages copied elsewhere without attribution? [4 February 2015]

Just found another page on Ancestry that had a scanned page from WeRelate that I recognized as one I had posted - but with no attribution, and no indication that it came from WeRelate, other than the formatting of the sources. I don't care if my name is not mentioned, but if WeRelate is being mined for data, I really do think the site itself should be credited. And that is also my understanding of what the Open Commons agreement is about -- go ahead and copy, but provide attribution. Am I wrong? (I did leave a comment, thanking the person for circulating my information, and pointing out that it come from WeRelate, with an URL to the page.) What do other people do? Thanks, Gayel --GayelKnott 19:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup - that's exactly what I do on ancestry, i.e. provide a comment stating where the information is coming from with a link to the WR page.--Cos1776 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Ditto - I literally just had this dilemma 12 hours ago.--Amelia 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Since Ancestry is a pay to use service, uploading material may be a violation of the Open Commons agreement. I would be interested in what a copyright lawyer has to say about that. People can't go around profiting from Wikipedia for instance. --Artefacts 20:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
This is one of several reasons I dislike Ancestry.com. I think the only thing that can be done is make a copyright violation claim, but there isn't going to be a one size fits all solution. It is going to be a game of whack-a-mole. There are even worse instances of this same problem - several photos I personally scanned from my grandmother's album and put on Findagrave found their way to Ancestry.com like they were just free for the taking. Now I watermark all of my scanned, non-public domain images 'Daniel Maxwell Collection'. I also do not keep a tree on Ancestry.com since I dislike how they handle non-Ancestry approved sources. Daniel Maxwell 21:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Very reassuring, and response policy now in place.. And, Artefacts, can't you just see a Judy Russel blog on this? I don't think she would pull her punches. But Daniel 's right -- it would be like playing whack-a-mole to deal with officially. Gayel--GayelKnott 01:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
If there's a silver lining to plagiarizing WeRelate, at least they're hopefully spreading good data, for a change. Ancestry enhances people's ability to copy data, good or bad, that bad data often propagates faster than the correct data, until suggesting the right answer is swimming against the current. I have been told that Ancestry owns almost no actual data, mostly just indexes made in India, and as more and more stuff is put online, Ancestry will have less and less to offer. Devil Take the Hindmost: venture capital fund to buy Ancestry, that is. --Jrich 04:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The Legal Genealogist would do a great blog on this. Wikipedia has a whole apparatus to report copyright violations, I don't understand why a commercial company like Ancestry does not have to have one. I think the willingness of government records agencies to outsource record provision to Ancestry is incredibly stupid as they are giving up a way to show their relevance to the taxpayer and justify their existence and Jrich is right about Ancestry's usefulness and relevance decaying as the Internet keeps expanding its offerings. --Artefacts 18:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I have to say I disagree about Ancestry's relevance decaying. Ancestry has a long, consistent history of buying out or neutralizing all the potential competitors it can, and doing well at that. Rootsweb was put on ice years ago; census sites, general genealogy sites, even some government data provision pulled in; Billiongraves to counter FindAGrave, deals with FamilySearch for holding original document images and limiting usage outside the Ancestry paywall; the list goes on and on. I'm sure they are continuously figuring on how to acquire or neutralize other emerging or established resources like WikiTree and FindAGrave. Although there are an increasing multitude of smallish, scattered resources on the net, only a few major resources of interest to them, like Archive.org and Google Books, remain out of their reach (or so it seems to me). --robert.shaw 19:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Most of that is a different issue. I agree that Ancestry has to fight tooth and nail to retain commercial viability, because with a few well placed free sites, they would go out of business tomorrow. To be honest, I don't like the idea of most commercial genealogy sites unless they offer something copyrighted and not under public domain (See NEHGS's site for an example of this, which has a large selection of recent genealogical journals, something Ancestry doesnt offer) but Ancestry mainly has people thinking that they have to pay for access to the census and other non copyrighted government records and I don't like this. Oh sure, they index the pre 1850 censuses but there is no reason Familysearch or someone else could have done this and put it all up for free. Ancestry has other problems too, such as creating 'sources' from people's GEDCOMs. Daniel Maxwell 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you would have a case against Ancestry unless they refused to remove copyrighted material that was pointed out to them. Since individuals are creating and sharing their personal trees with each other, I think fair use rules would apply similar to here on WeRelate. As far as my work is concerned, I don't care who copies it or whether they attribute, although unattributed anonymous data loses its value. I just assume that anything I put on the Internet could be copied and am not shocked if I see it. And when I see them copy something I put together on this site, I take it as a compliment. It isn't something I would ever bother going to court for. (This is my opinion, and I am not a lawyer.) -Moverton 17:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with you in general, the fact is that all material on this site is copyrighted and this is clearly indicated at the bottom of every page (see WeRelate:Terms of Use). The terms of the copyright ([CC-BY-SA]) clearly indicate that any materials can be copied provided credit is given and that they place no restrictions on further copying. As long as they abide by those terms, then there's no problem (though, I am not a lawyer). But if they take the information behind their paywall and augment or improve it but prevent further copying, then I have a huge problem with that. That would entirely negate the goal of putting information here under CC-BY-SA, which is, as I see it, to improve the quality of genealogical information on the internet. --Trentf 14:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If you post genealogical information on any site with the expectation that it won't be "copied" or "shared", then you likely also believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. First of all, some of what people "think" is copyrighted simply isn't because they don't include any "original thought" or "originality"; this includes many transcriptions, etc., also "facts" can't be copyrighted. If the information we add on WeRelate is high quality and source-based, we should be accepting of others copying that information without first asking for permission or using proper citation. Much of what I've added here I've seen on other people's websites, including some of the maps I've done and other narrative that COULD be considered "copyrightable". In the beginning, I got a little irritated, but after I thought about it more, I figured it was good to have "better information" on someone else's site, instead of other questionable information... Remember "a rising tide lifts all boats". John F. Kennedy --Delijim, 4 February 2015
More like a "rising tide profits Ancestry" and makes suckers out of the novice users there who don't realize how much stuff behind the paywall they are financing is available here and elsewhere for free. --Artefacts 21:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe WeRelate has ever espoused itself to be a "be-all, end-all" in genealogical research like Ancestry has. For better or worse, Ancestry will continue to be the most comprehensive place to research your ancestors. It has more way more sources than probably all of the other sites combined, and in spite of its many flaws (especially the Ancestry Member Trees, many with little or no sources or documentation), it is still the best thing around, and yes, with a fee attached. Until there is a better site to use, I'll continue to be happy to shell out the $25 or bucks a month or so to have access to their vast source of records. Like it or not, it sure beats trudging around the country to visit local courthouses, graveyards, LDS research centers or genealogical libraries... As they say, nothing good in life is FREE. Best regards --Delijim, 4 February 2015
It most certainly is not the best site for research and it is not even remotely comprehensive. The coverage on Ancestry is good for censuses and some vital records (which governments should be providing themselves) and some specialized collections and that is about it. It sucks for pre-19th century sources. FamilySearch and Google are better for church records, without doubt, which is the meat and potatoes of anyone who is not a novice.--Artefacts 22:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia and inclusion of content therefrom [16 April 2015]

Hello -- I have been active from time to time in adding people, particularly scientists, who have Wikipedia biographies to WeRelate. I created a template over at Wikipedia to be added to a biography talk page indicating that the person has been represented in WeRelate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Werelate). I wanted to express my negative feelings about bringing content from Wikipedia over into WeRelate. There was a time a few years ago when I liberally used the template which would bring content over from Wikipedia to this wiki. However, in recent activities, I've not been using this template, rather focusing on the basic genealogical information. Frankly, I believe it is this basic genealogical information which is the core of what WeRelate is about, not the linkage, for instance, the linkage between Person:Amos Alcott (1) and Person:Ralph Emerson (4) via the passage "Alcott became friends with Ralph Waldo Emerson ....". This is an example I stumbled across when adding Person:Charles Haskins (6), but it pricked me into writing this. Such connections are not along the critical path for WeRelate, and we should be relying on Wikipedia to provide the rich text of a biography, while we here work to systematize that information. There have been inklings/dreams/rumors that WeRelate and Wikipedia might merge via the Wikimedia Foundation. If that happens, I would see WeRelate as a specialized adjunct to WikiData rather than Wikpedia per se, drawing on the organized information in Biography Infoboxes and explicitly not replicating Wikipedia biographical narratives. It is this state, looking at the genealogical systematization of content as oppose to florid narrative, which I see as the true future of WeRelate. --ceyockey 01:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Just created Person:H Wells (1) (for H. G. Wells), which kind of exemplifies the minimalist approach to representing Wikipedia in WeRelate. --ceyockey 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the better approach is to use the sources that Wikipedia uses. Citing the page itself would be like citing another WeRelate page as a source on WeRelate. But in practice Wikipedia is cited as a source in itself, despite Wikipedia's infamous inaccuracies, hence one of the several reasons I am not a fan of Wikipedia. Daniel Maxwell 08:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
In general, yes, use of the sources the WP article cites is to be preferred. They can be directly cited if one actually consults the source and finds the information (and sometimes more, like birthplace Brooklyn for Person:Charles Haskins (6)). However, if one is only relying on WP's citation, then I think it best that WeRelate's citation reflect both the (supposed) original source and the fact that it came from Wikipedia. For instance, in Wikipedia, H. G. Wells' death date (and birth date?) cite Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, so both that and the WP page version doing the citing, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._G._Wells&oldid=646374101#cite_note-Parrinder-3 (available via "Permanent link" in tool menu) should be used. I prefer this to be in the form "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, as cited by Wikipedia link", but "Wikipedia link citing Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" would also be reasonable. --robert.shaw 18:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Re WR's H. G Wells page. With no parents and no spouse? I thought this was genealogy.

I just came over to Watercooler to take a break after working on the village of Bredon in Worcestershire, England. The Wikipedia page mentions a William Hancock with a date of 1718. WR has another William Hancock who died in Bredon in 1676, no descendants listed. Anyone want to tie up some loose ends? --Goldenoldie 11:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"With no parents and no spouse?" - It's still useful, because it gives birth and death dates and places. It's just one person, but still a contribution. --robert.shaw 18:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: Your comment on Person:H Wells (1). It also the practice at WR to use full birth names, not initials in person pages. So H Wells needs to be Herbert Wells. Daniel Maxwell 12:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, sort of. I've renamed the H Wells page to be Person:Herbert Wells (9), but have left the primary Name as "H. G. Wells". I think this is the right thing to do because when a person has many names, if one stands out as the well known name that should generally be used. Certainly "H. G. Wells" is much more recognizable than "Herbert George Wells". This helps, for instance, when doing a search for "Herbert Wells" -- one can immediately go to it, if that's who you're after, or skip it if you're after someone who is not the famous H. G. Wells. --robert.shaw 18:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both of Robert's points above relating to the famous Mr. Wells. And to Ceyockey's minimalist approach, Bravo! That's what the community approach to genealogy here at WR is all about: plant the seed, let the community water it, and we can all benefit by it's growth, maturity and propagation. You can look at it now and see it is nothing like it's Wikipedia cousin page, not to mention the related pages created and linked from page on Mr. Wells. Isn't that what the now-dormant Genealogy Contest here at WR was all about? Planting the seed and letting it grow... --BobC 15:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Following the discussion, I think you will find this person record more along the lines of what most people would find useful and acceptable (?): Person:Louis Mordell (2) . --ceyockey 18:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The basic problem is that some of us actually like the "florid narrative" that you think should be restricted to Wikipedia. I don't think you can say that narrative belongs to one place and "facts" belong somewhere else. And it's worth pointing out that there are multiple ways to reference/link to Wikipedia, including the one you have just used. --GayelKnott 18:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You think it is a problem? I am not stopping anyone from adding narrative, nor have I said I would remove it if it was there. I'm saying I prefer not to have it and, therefore, will not be adding it myself. --ceyockey 19:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Louis is a great example of a page that benefits from the WP extract, given that I have no idea who he is unless I go to WP. The flipside of that is that writing a good, well-sourced summary of someone truly high profile like, say, George Washington is hard to do correctly and takes a lot of time, whereas we can leverage a crowd-sourced, cross-linked version from WP unless and until someone feels they can improve it. (And, on that vein, I love it that we get the cross-linked content to other WP pages. I think it's fun to be able to instantly see other people and where they came from to end up in the same place.)
Now that I've been moved to comment, however, I'm not sure what the original issue was. People add narrative if they want, and don't if they don't want to, right? As long as the people that don't want to add it, don't object to other people coming along and doing so, then we don't have a problem.--Amelia 23:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Married surnames for women [21 February 2015]

Hi Markus3. Recently you have moved the married surname from the married surname field to the married given name field, leaving the married surname field blank, on several of the pages I watch. Can you explain why you are doing this and how you decide which pages to do it to? It doesn't make sense to me, and it removes a data point from the page which affects searches. Regards, --Cos1776 13:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cos1776 ! Please, at first excuse my very bad english. You seem to be not the only contributor who has a different opinion and experience with this use. See the "revert" of Jaques1724 ---> http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person%3AAbiah_Hitchcock_%281%29&diff=21602835&oldid=21602718
I really don't understand why what I changed ... "affects searches". Can you explain and give examples ? I believe instead that my changes are absolutely necessary because otherwise the "count tool" always give an exaggerated number of persons (it's the same problem with Geni and WikiTree) ---> see this page - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jaques1724. When you remove data from a page, you remove the ability to search on it. You may have noticed that the "Surname in place" search no longer appears on the left side of the page for the married surname of these women. Regarding your analysis program - if your "count tool" is not working properly, then you should fix the "count tool" itself, not change the data until you get the results to come out the way you want them to. I can not analyze your code from the link you provided. Does your program know to exclude data from the Married Surname Field if you do not want to count married women? --Cos1776 22:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cos1776 ! Please, be more attentive ! It's not my... "analysis program" ! My "count tool" works perfectly ... it's nothing particulous but just a basic MediaWiki table with rows and columns. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Markus3: I too came here to ask why you were moving the last name of women's married names from the surname field into the given name field. A page I was watching had this change, and I saw that you had done this kind of change for a bunch of women on 16 Feb. I don't see any point in doing this, and it will have serious consequences for the search mechanism. I think most English-speakers, at least, expect the married last name to be in the surname field, and will search for it in that position. That convention is the one that is used on major genealogy sites like FamilySearch. I don't think you should continue doing such changes unless and until some consensus to do so is reached (say, on the Watercooler page). Please let Cos1776 and I know your thoughts about this. --robert.shaw 04:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Robert ! It's for me not so easy, my english is very poor. It's difficult to explain all the details of my "position". And I saw very often since my activity on WeRelate that a lot of contributors write on several points/topics in terms I am unable to really understand (and GoogleTranslate is "diabolic"). About your opinion and argumentation, it's for me exactly as the argumentation of Cos1776. You are staying on generalities and explaining nothing. You wrote for example : "it will have serious consequences for the search mechanism". What do you mean ? Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 07:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Cos1776 and robert.shaw ! it's obvious . I "have noticed that the "Surname in place" search no longer appears on the left side of the page for the married surname of these women.". But 1) this possibility has very serious consequences on the general number of persons with a particular surname. 2) the "search mechanism" is really not destroyed ... it's only not so direct. 3) I have noticed since 2 years that the very vast majority of records on WeRelate don't use this heavy problematic search method. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL. --Markus3 08:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of why it is being done, if the information being entered in the "given surname" field is the married name, not the name they were born with, then it is incorrect.

I think that is the point being made.--Jonmcrawford 12:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, what is being discussed is not the primary name for an individual (which all agree should use the maiden surname), but rather an additional name for a woman, which can be labeled as "alternate name" or "married name". The question is whether to have the surname (taken from husband at marriage) in the "surname" field, or in the "given name" field. To make this clear, here are two screenshots of how it looks while editing:
Image:MarriedSurname.PNG
versus
Image:MarriedSurnameInGiven.PNG
--robert.shaw 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Robert ! And the field where this "married name" is tipped is bringing consequences (advantages and disadvantages). The problem is : "Which of these two methods brings more benefits and fewer drawbacks ?"
Yes, Jonmcrawford. The option labeled "married name" also divides the input between given name and husband's surname. It's also theoretically "incorrect" to put a surname in the entry field that is dedicated to the first name. But ... Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 07:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This dialogue reminds me of how i am struggling with family names in the part of Holland where i grew up. When a man married into the farm of his wife, he would - at any given time, perhaps when their third child is born - take on the name of his wife, or - to be more precise - the name of the farm where she came from and where they live. The first and second child may be named after their father, but then the father changes surnames, and the children get their lastname from the place where they were born. My solution to this is to have the surname field follow the father's name, and in the alt_name i enter the farm name. Example see Eimert and Janna. Note Janna Goormans is also called Janna te Roller, while some of her children have "ten Brundel" as their surname.

woepwoep 22:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Markus3 - When I say that it is "your" counting tool, it means that "you" are the one using it to count something that "you" personally wish to count. Obviously, it is not working perfectly for your needs, because you have to edit pages by hand, one at a time, to eliminate the married surname field in order to get the counter to return the answer that you want. Instead of getting into a back and forth argument about this - why don't you explain exactly what you are trying to count (I think I know, but you seem to think I am missing something). Then we can help you with a solution to your problem that doesn't negatively impact everyone else. --Cos1776 13:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cos1776 ... 1) I especially do not want to ..."negatively impact everyone else" ! 2) I think, my goal/project it very clear and very simple --> to obtain (when possible without writing an other/new (light or heavy ?) part of programm) an exact number of persons who have a particular surname and precisely excluding surnames obtained by marriage. I don't want to remove any information on person pages and family pages, making poorer the records and obstructing the work of others. 3) No and no ... I am not the (only) "one using to count". There is a big competition between genealogical sites and the vast majority of them are using this "total number of persons" as advertising, propaganda and recruitment. Many give false statistics, with duplications and confusions (intended or not). I can cite several sites and genealogical associations in France. I have had several debates and (sometimes heavy) conflicts about it, including Wikipedia ... When WeRelate wants to be better than its rivals (that use comparisons on the number of records), we are needing undisputed and indisputable arguments and numbers of records. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 09:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

On the fringes there may be some value to external search engines in having married names entered, though the exact value is far from clear as the names exist in very close proximity in Family page titles already. As it has largely not been done in any systematic way, it seems pointless to have it exist on, say, 0.5% of the pages. Further, I believe it is pointless until the feature is supported by software that keeps it up to date, so that when somebody changes the spelling of a husband's name from, say Curtiss to Curtis or Curtice, or vice versa, the married names of all five of his wives is correctly updated as well. Up until recently, believing it to be an annoyance brought in with people's GEDCOM uploads, because it is something they do on their own system, or their software does, I have been deleting it. I have put that on hold hoping this conversation would establish whether WeRelate values it and is going to add software to maintain it, or it is realized it is a maintenance headache, because it duplicates data on the woman's page to data whose natural place is on her husband's page, creating a non-normalized data model, which suggests it should not be done at all if not by software. The simplest arrangement is, of course, to simply know people by their birth name, and much like the system for place names, some people may not like that system, but it allows us to have a common understanding and work together.

Whatever this counting tool is, is a separate issue that needs explaining. I would hazard a guess that somebody needs to figure out a different way to count surnames as it appears to be concerned with one person's project, which does not make a good justification for changing how things are done. --Jrich 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: a common understanding - I would put forth that we already do have a common agreement for at least one part of a woman's page - the wiki Page Title - which could technically be anything, but we have agreed to use a person's birth name (first and last) to provide the unique identifier for their page. It would seem to me that Markus3 should probably use the Page Title to count people born with a specific surname for his project. Depending on what exactly it is that he is trying to count, he should probably also incorporate the name variant database, which brings me to ...
Re: maintenance issues with using different names - It is true that name variants used to cause problems in genealogical databases, but remember that WR now handles name variants very well (recall this project), so I do not agree that including married surnames introduces the potential for a maintenance headache. It is not necessary to use the same spelling for every member of a family. They rarely all appeared in the records with the same spelling anyhow.
Re: should we even include married surnames on pages for women - I say YES, mostly because a woman was usually known for more years of her life by her married name(s) than by her maiden name. She therefore would appear in official records more often under her married name(s), which means that it is often beneficial to be able to search for her that way. That data point is very relevant to who she was. I would be interested in exploring the concerns surrounding this issue further, however. --Cos1776 19:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You can search for Family pages with wife's given name and husband's surname filled in. You can search for Person pages using the given name and fill in the spouse's surname. Since the married name has a given name and surname separate (and half the cases I see only fill in the surname part of it anyway), it does not create a contiguous string you can search for anyway. So I see little actual searching value. --Jrich 20:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to remember that someone's married name may change in unpredictable ways, such as combining both spouses' surnames, etc. This field seems to serve a purpose in disambiguating what the actual married name of a person was. IMO, I think that if the field is given as "Married name", with a first name and surname, then people will fill it out with the married name in the surname field. Moving this to the first name is confusing. --Jdfoote1 20:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Marc asked for an explicit example of how his preferred data entry causes searching problems, so: Suppose you want to find out if WeRelate has anything on a person you know as "Amanda Boyer". Perhaps you know or suspect that was a married name, but perhaps you think she may have been single at the time you know about her. One natural way to search for her is to go to the "Search" dropdown and select "People" search. On the search Person page, you naturally would fill in "Amanda" in the Given Name field and "Boyer" in the Surname field. Doing this search will not find one of the candidates (as the WeRelate database exists right now) because the candidate, Person:Mariah Frost (1), who was known as "Amanda Boyer" during her first marriage, does not have the name "Boyer" in the surname field of her alternative Married name (or any other alternative name). This is because "Boyer" was moved out of the Surname field and into the Given Name field of the Married name. The correct name was actually given on her page, but was modified so that the person can no longer be found through using this straightforward, natural form of search. --robert.shaw 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


It sounds like the solution to the use case presented by Markus3 is to provide direct access to the underlying WeRelate data rather than via the user interface. With direct access, he could query the surname field and exclude all but the primary name from the results. How might such direct access be granted? --ceyockey 13:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ceyockey, perhaps a solution ? Would it be possible to bring together in a single field (without heavy modification of the source program) for the option labeled "married name" ! But actually, the vast majority of this information about the "married name" is labeled "alt name". With this modification (only one field for this only line) the search can perhaps work as hoped/wished by other contributors ? Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Marc, It looks like your counting is done with simple searches. If this isn't yielding proper results, then the search functions need to be modified. Reporting tools should be made to conform to the data in the database, and the data should never be modified to accommodate the reporting tools. You may not like hearing this, but you may just be stuck with what you've got until a developer can improve the search functions for you. -Moverton 17:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I said the same thing (using Marc's terminology) on 14 Feb and was told to "be more attentive", after I had taken the time to review his project page and tried to offer solutions. It does seem like it is more about arguing than it is about finding an agreeable solution. In this case, I still vote for searching the Page Title, instead of any Surname fields, since it is the most consistent place where you will find a woman's maiden name. (I will refrain from opening the Name Fields can of worms again at this time.) --Cos1776 17:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Cos1776 ..."searching the Page Title, instead of any Surname fields" ? ---> May I have a real example, with a link and/or a screenshot ? I have tried often since weeks ! The result is not as expected, because the "married name" always appears ! What works wrong ? What I did not understand ? Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 19:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Marc, HERE is a link to such a search. It returns Person pages which have the surname "Carrier" and which have "Carrier" in the page title (note that 2 fields have entries: Surname, and Keywords, which has "Title:Carrier" in it. The search returns 53 person pages. If one removes the "Title:Carrier" specification, it returns 55 pages. The 2 additional returned pages are: Person:Martha Allen (69), returned because she has a "Married name" entry with "Carrier", and Person:William Caryer (1), returned because he has an "Alt Name" entry containing his surname with the spelling "Carrier". Note that it is important to put the name in both the "Title:" field and the "Surname" field because some names, such as "George", can be used as either a given name or a surname. --robert.shaw 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It's fine, Robert ! Thank you ! Here is the reason why I did not understand !. I had read many times yet this help page. Is there somewhere other informations and tips about all search possibilities ?
I only chose one time "page title" in the first field on the top which offers 3 options. I did not know I had also to add "Title:...." in the last field "Keywords". It's very interessant to have this (new for me) possibility, but what is returned is not perfect. I wish I could obtain real alternatives but do not take into account the "married names". No luck ! And I know, the very vast majority of contributors are using "alt name" instead of "married name". One more time thanks for your "patience" and the quality of your explanation and clarification ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL ---Markus3 15:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I found out about "Title:" and other options from the Help:Search page, but I had to think about it awhile and try some test searches before I decided it was best to use Title: and Surname. --robert.shaw 18:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes! Thank you for the example, Robert. I think this is going in the right direction and will work just fine for one specific spelling of a Surname. If Marc also wishes to include Surname variants in his final count, the Search will have to be adjusted. I've been working on it, but haven't figured out how to get variants (for Surname only) returned when searching on Page Titles. Any ideas? --Cos1776 20:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Markus3, I suggest you end this silly Watercooler controversy about a married woman's given name (i.e. personal name) versus surname (i.e. family name), and just chalk it up to language or procedural misinterpretation. This seems to me to be an almost embarrassing argument you can't win and has no basis in commonly accepted genealogical recordkeeping. Please review the Person Page Tutorial for further rules for designating names here at WeRelate. Hopefully that will clarify the rules and format for data entry of names and end this fruitlessly trivial argument. I also invite you to review the definitions and historical use of "Given Names" and "Surnames" at Wikipedia. No response to me is necessary, because I don't want to share any further in this senseless discussion, and that is why I write this here on your Talk Page rather than add to the Watercooler Page. Take care. --BobC 15:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

BobC ... it's very funny, ... courteous and friendly ! --> "silly controversy" + "fruitlessly trivial argument" + "this senseless discussion" + "you can't win". Where do you read I search and hope to "win" ? This is the "watercooler page" where ideas are discuted ... Why do you think it's a "controverse" full of violence and intolerance in the arguments ? WeRelate is a collective "tool" and site ! I do not try to always have the last word ! Genealogy is not "war"  ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 16:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Open external links in new window (tab)? [26 March 2015]

One of the things I find quite useful about Wikipedia is that when I click on an external link it does not open in the same tab/window as the article I am viewing. Is this something which could reasonably be implemented here, either as a default or as a personalization (selectable behavior parameter)? Thanks for considering this. --ceyockey 01:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think most browsers that support tabs allow you to right-click on a link and choose to open a new tab instead of in place. So you already more or less have control of what you want to happen. --Jrich 02:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Unwanted Ads [7 April 2015]

Over the last couple of hours I am getting bombarded with a wide variety of advertising in various locations on werelate pages. Is anyone else experiencing this or is it my computer? I know I won't be working on werelate much longer if I can't figure out how to stop these. --Susan Irish 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that in the last couple of days, the ads have gotten really intrusive. Now we have them below the name box on person pages. I don't mind them on the left bar, but having 3 areas of ads is too much. Daniel Maxwell 02:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed -- these are gross! Not only to work with, but they sure don't present the kind of image that is likely to attract new users. You can get rid of them, one at a time, by clicking the very small grey x in the top right corner of the ad, but you have to do it for every page. --GayelKnott 04:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. They make the pages look awful and junky. The bigger ads on the right and left are pretty bad, but the one at the top is a dealbreaker, as it makes the page impossible to read and is the type that would only appear on a site whose primary purpose is advertising. Do ad blockers kill them? If not, I think I'm out until they're fixed.--Amelia 05:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, ad blockers kill them. I've been blissfully unharassed by ads. --robert.shaw 06:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of getting revenue for this site, I urge you not to use Adblocker on WR. We could use the income, though I can understand doing it under these circumstances - I myself have it on until this is sorted. Dallan has assured me that this is a WIP measure, and we will be experimenting with different placements/ad types over the next couple of weeks. I find the placement of the ad on the left side very non-intrusive, and actually an improvement compared to the old placement on the right side, where it caused the person columns to shift over.Daniel Maxwell 07:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to donate, or use affiliate links, but I won't use the site with the giant ads, and may stop even with an ad blocker. They look so unprofessional (and I say that with the middle text ad in place) that I think they undermine the entire purpose of the site in promoting serious genealogy and discussion, in which case there's really no point in my spending my efforts here. I spend a lot of time online looking at the spammy, scraped, semi-illegal marketing side of the internet for work, and that's where I think I am with these. I get the need for money, but please look at other options.--Amelia 14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't like the ads on the pages at all, but the nature of the ads (drugged out mug shots, cheezy medical ads, questionable businesses, etc.) will push me out as well. They drown out the serious and respectable work on the pages and give WR the appearance of just another junky name-scraping site. This is a horrible idea, and I hope that we can come up with a different answer. Wondering if this is happening as a result of the relatively minor, yet very vocal, opposition to joining forces with, dare I say it, the blissfully ad-free world of the Wikimedia Foundation? - here it comes :) --Cos1776 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The new plethora of ads substantially detracts from the site. It really makes it seem like a trashy commercial site (of which genealogy has way too many of these days). The banner under the header block on Person and other pages is the most problematic (disruptive and misleading), although some of the ads in other locations are pretty bad too (mug shots, arrest records, find anyone...). The site would do best (IMO) by emulating Wikipedia -- the ad-free nature is welcoming and helps invite new content contributions. Maybe there need to be higher profile ways of soliciting donations, but the heavy ads really are alienating. --robert.shaw 18:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Experiencing the same in the middle of the pages I'm working on ! I have enough trouble with new bifocals. Can't the ads stay on the side ?--SkippyG 02:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am going to contact Dallan about this. Ad placement is something I have wanted to talk to him about for awhile now anyway. Daniel Maxwell 02:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Notice that the way the logo on the top left of the page is now out of alignment because of the width of the ads on the left. Pages are displaying strangly now. If Dallan doesn't respond here, I will keep trying to get ahold of him behind the scenes. Daniel Maxwell 03:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The ads are an attempt to get the site to make some additional money so I can afford to hire a developer every once in awhile to improve the site. I'm planning to try different ad placements over the next few weeks to find out which set of placements have the highest $/annoyance ratio. I'm not particularly wild about the middle ad, though google recommends that's the best place to put an ad. But I agree that annoyance factor is pretty high. I just switched the middle ad to text-only. That makes it less annoying I think. Another possibility is to remove it entirely. Other possibilities to experiment with are whether the left and/or right ads should be switched to text-only or removed entirely. I'll be trying these variations over the next few weeks.--Dallan 05:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation -- I was afraid it was about money. So, what happens if I click the x to get rid of the ones in the middle of the page every time I change a page -- a nuisance, but sending a message. Who gets the message and what does that do to agreement with Google?--GayelKnott 06:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Dallan, you might want to consider setting up an affiliate link arrangement to Amazon for Source pages which are for books sold there. It might be more remunerative than ads, less intrusive, and occasionally actually helpful to the reader. --robert.shaw 06:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Even though I accept the money implications, I've added an ad-blocker. Even with text-only the text of the ads is too large. A margin around them might help. BUT even with an ad-blocker the empty space follows on into edit-mode increasing the time of the editing process. This is important when trying to do a series of similar edits. --Goldenoldie 08:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


We should support Dallan on this. I also found the ads fairly intrusive, but also understand the financial implications of hosting a "Free Website", where one of the only sources of revenue is selling ad space.... -Delijim 10:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Well all, Dallan removed the one on the top. I think the ones on the side need to be adjusted a little bit in width, but it is much more tolerable now. Daniel Maxwell 07:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, only the one on the right really needs to be made a bit smaller, perhaps allowing more white space on the page (a la Find A Grave). And a third ad at the bottom of the page might work, as well. --GayelKnott 08:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are some statistics that may be useful:

  • WeRelate currently makes enough money on ads to pay for the servers, but not for any development costs.
  • With the new ads, WeRelate made enough money today that if it were to continue like this for a full month, we would have $600 extra - enough to hire a junior developer for 20-30 hours a month or a senior developer for 5-10 hours a month.
  • 40% of the ad revenue today came from the middle ad; 35% from the left-hand ad, and 25% from the right-hand ad. These percentages agree with Google's recommendation for ad placement: middle is best, followed by left-hand side, followed by right-hand side.
  • I would prefer not to end this experiment after only one day, but since so many people dislike the middle ad I have removed it. Next we'll find out how much can be made with just left and right-hand ads. After that we'll find out how much can be made if we require the left and right-hand ads to be text-only ads instead of text+picture ads, then with left-hand-only ads, then with right-hand-only ads, then with right-hand-only ads that are 160 pixels side instead of 300 pixels wide. I'd like to run these experiments for several days each so we get more-accurate results than we got from the experiment with all three ads today.
  • FindAGrave has ads at the top-middle of the page, on the left-hand side, and at the bottom.
  • We can't put an ad at the top-middle of the page like FindAGrave does because our drop-down menus would cover it, and google doesn't allow anything to cover their ads, including drop-down menus. We could put an ad in the middle if it were above the drop-down menus. That might look strange though.
  • Over the years WeRelate has typically gotten $100/year in donations, generally from a single person. You know who you are; thank you.
  • Since the beginning of the year, roughly 300 people have made 10 or more edits to WeRelate pages, another 300 have made 1-9 edits, and another 4,000 people have visited the site at least once as a signed-in user but have not made any edits. (If we were to run a donation campaign, my guess is the majority of donations would need to come from the 300 active users.)
  • The majority of site visits: 80-90%, are made by people who have either not registered or who have not signed in. They tend to come to the site from a google search, look at one page, and then leave.
  • I've tried affiliate marketing with Amazon in the past; it wasn't worth the effort when I tried it, though I can provide a special link that you can put on source pages pointing people to Amazon if you want to try that approach.
  • I have not tried becoming an Ancestry affiliate and pointing people to Ancestry (i.e., like the ads like found at the bottom of FindAGrave pages). I believe that most people visiting WeRelate have already heard of Ancestry, though I can try adding the Ancestry affiliate ads if you think these ads would not be more annoying than they are worth.

--Dallan 07:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for those details, Dallan; it helps to know the facts. I'm stunned by the lack of personal donations. Yes, as Ron below says, people donate time, but if you could make it easier / more visible to encourage people to donate $, that could help you. "Want to keep WeRelate.org from being overtaken by ads? Please donate..." "If you donate at least $___ you (personally) won't see ads" (Don't know if that's technically possible.) Perhaps consider something along the lines that wikipedia or public radio does-- periodic fundraising campaigns where, for a specific period of time, viewers are encouraged to donate money. Set a goal: "We need to raise $nnnn in order to hire a developer to make the improvements you've been requesting; please help us reach that goal..." (and have one of those thermometer things that reports progress against the goal. Off to the donate page now, Jillaine 13:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Suggest that a copyedited version of the bulleted list provided by Dallan be put on a page and placed into the new category Category:Financial support (or a replacement category with more consensus support). --ceyockey 15:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am one of those 300 active users.

I would like to see these 300 active users as contributors. So my question is: what is the match between me editing a page, or adding a page, and an ad on that same page? Am i expected, when i am looking for the edit button, to see "oh, an ad! let me just click on it", instead of doing my work and edit or add the page?

It does make sense that when i use other people's work, i see ads. It doesn't make sense to want money from me since i already invest my time.

I hope that i can be on a list of 300 active users who - while signed in - are freed from any ads, so that we can do our work.

Thank you, Ron--woepwoep 09:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


I like wikipedia's practice of periodic requests for donations and I always give. If this would get WeRelate suggestions worked on, I'm for it because I've given up on WeRelate because of lack of improvement. I don't want those suggestions to just disappear; I want to see them lined thru as completed - so we can know what has been done! So lets give Dallan some help and get this train moving again. Perhaps after an initial push for donations, WeRelate could revert to periodic requests for donations. These ads will ruin us! If wikipedia can support themselves with periodic requests we should be able to do so too - after we get over this 'inactive suggestion list' problem. At least I hope that's what additional funds will be used for! --janiejac 15:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I will add a "Donate" link to the upper-right corner of every page (between Settings and Volunteer) tomorrow. I'm open to other suggestions for emphasizing donations as well. I'm also open to the idea of a donation of say $19/year making it so you don't see any ads.
The argument that "I contribute my time so I shouldn't have to contribute money as well" makes sense, but it means that we're back to ads being the primary source of funding. People who don't spend a lot of time on the site probably aren't going to donate a lot of money to it. And unobtrusive ads make less money than obtrusive ads, so if we want to raise more money, we need to have more ads. On the other hand, perhaps we're generally happy with the site as it is. I'm ok if that's the concensus as well.--Dallan 06:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I consider this a wake-up call, as should all users and supporters of this WeRelate service. To everyone who reads on the bottom of the home page the words, “WeRelate is a free public-service wiki for genealogy sponsored by the Foundation for On-Line Genealogy,” and thinks that the word “free” means “no cost” is either very naïve, oblivious to reality, or an ardent supporter of liberal politicians. Nothing is free! Someone pays the cost: either Dallan out of his own pocket or out of the FOLG organization, generous corporate or personal donators who have no ulterior motive or anything to sell, advertisers who get visibility and a portion of the page space in return for revenue to the site, or the users and subscribers to the service.

Roughly 10-15 years ago I saw the same dilemma faced at RootsWeb, a totally “free” community-based genealogy website, at the time a viable alternative to Ancestry.com. If I remember correctly, as their vision outpaced their capability, as genealogy data contributions increased, and as the need for greater media storage and higher speed access compounded, they asked politely at first for donations, then went to the ad-revenue route, then eventually sold out and fell under the Ancestry corporate umbrella, where they now reside. Whether that is considered a good or bad path to follow, they do still survive and still provide a subscription-free resource to a small slice of the genealogy community.

While I don’t really consider myself an active user here, I guess if based on making 10 or more edits to WeRelate pages since the beginning of the year alone, then yes, I am an active user. I’ve been here off and on since 2008 and have not yet chosen to donate money. So if Dallan feels the only way to fund my use of the service is ad-space, then so be it. As a matter of fact, I think it’s fair I should be provided the choice to either donate to the service or put up with the ads if I choose not to donate. To me it’s worth the “price” of a “free” service. (BTW, a user's "contribution" is not interchangeable with "donation." Really? Quite the opposite, I believe.)

While some may object to the “fat-lady weight-loss ad” showing up on the right side of your grandmother’s person page, either consider that your share of the price for having this service available to you, or consider it an incentive to donate to FOLG and not see that ad again. Those ads will pay for getting that “suggestion list” its much needed attention and should improve the capabilities and use of this site.

Not sure if someone else recommended it or not, but I suggest that every advertisement be immediately followed with a small text below the ad that donations will eliminate the ad for that user.

Thanks, Dallan. --BobC 14:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Thank you, Dallan, for the statistics, those were very interesting! It would also be interesting to know how the ad revenue broke out according to the user level, that is, 10+ edits/month users, 1-10 edits/month users, signed-in-but-not-editing users, and anonymous users. (And not sure if you can distinguish between the anonymous users who view one page and leave, vs anonymous users who view more than one page in a session.) That stat might suggest a useful differential ad policy based on user level (e.g., if most of the click-thru is coming from anonymous visitors anyway, then maybe it's worthwhile to be "heavier" on the ads for those visits and "lighter" on the ads for signed-in editors). TomChatt 05:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be pretty interesting, but google doesn't tell me who clicked on ads. I do have access to the number of page views made by new users vs returning users: it turns out to be roughly 50-50: half of all page views are made by people who have visited the site multiple times over the past 10 days. Also, 4,000 people have visited the site multiple times over the past 10 days and 34,000 people have visited the site just once over the past 10 days. Returning users spend an average of 11.5 minutes on the site and view 12 pages; first-time users spend an average of 2.5 minutes on the site and view 3 pages.--Dallan 06:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Foundation for Online Genealogy [28 March 2015]

There are links to http://www.folg.org/ on the main page, the about page and maybe a couple of others. Should this apparently dead link be revised to https://sites.google.com/a/folg.org/family-history/ wherever it appears? --ceyockey 15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It does seem like http://www.folg.org/ is broken. On Chrome and Firefox it displays as blank; on IE it gives error screen saying "This content cannot be displayed in a frame". The source does look like it's trying to frame the sites.google.com/a/folg.org/family-history/ content. Maybe it should be doing a redirect instead? --robert.shaw 18:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

How to donate and Info about donation [30 March 2015]

Suggest that the pages WeRelate:Donate and WeRelate:About donations be merged. Also suggest that the every-page footer include an additional link (making four on the bottom line) to the merged page labeled "Donate" or "Support WeRelate: Donate". The WeRelate:About page should have the donation paragraph removed in favor of a top-of-page link to the new merged donation page. Finally, could a link to financials be placed on the new merged donation page? --ceyockey 15:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


I have revised WeRelate:About donations so that it a) cross-references WeRelate:Donate and b) has a working link to FOLG information. I found, and understand why, that I cannot edit WeRelate:Donate. I do think having this as a protected page is best as it contains a bit of functional kit that, if broken, screws us all.

I have also created a new category, into which WeRelate:About donations has been put ... Category:Financial support.

Regards --ceyockey 15:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


I find that content at WeRelate:About non-profit status duplicates some information at WeRelate:About donations and suggest that it be redirected. The WeRelate:About non-profit status is protected and cannot be edited by a standard user. --ceyockey 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


I revised the section WeRelate:About#Please donate to include a word about advertising and to remove the several times said mention of the 'donate button' in the upper right of the page, which I think was there at one time but which I've not seen in a long time. Should there be such a button or link on every page? --ceyockey 15:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


I redirected WeRelate:About non-profit status to WeRelate:About donations.--Dallan 05:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should put your tax info on a protected template that could be added to the page. You probably don't want people messing around with the tax ID. -Moverton 16:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I've done that.--Dallan 03:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Method for regular monthly donations [30 March 2015]

Suggest that you look into or describe method(s) for providing small monthly donations which are directly charged to credit or debit card. Thinking in terms of $10 / month as a "sustaining member" donation level. --ceyockey 15:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, especially if some of us actually followed through? --GayelKnott 08:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There isn't currently a way to have an amount automatically charged to your credit card each month on the donations page, but I could add it if enough people would say they would make use of it. It appears that Paypal supports this.--Dallan 08:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I would do this. It would also be a bonus if doing so would remove the ads.--Wongers 08:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

+1, I would as well. --ceyockey 14:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Count me in -- we need to do something to keep the site viable. --GayelKnott 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
What about a donation of $19/year for no ads?--Dallan 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You can count me in as a taker on that amount. Daniel Maxwell 05:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
While I think it's a nice kicker to take out the ads for donors, the site for non-donors needs to look professional enough that new people come and stay, or there's no point. I'd rather we focus on raising an overall goal that makes the ads go away as much as possible for everyone. --Amelia 05:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with that as well. It's a question of how much people donate and how quickly they want new features to be implemented. An inexperienced developer in the US (i.e., college student) or an experienced developer from Ukraine both cost around $20-30/hour. New features will take from a few hours to a few days to implement depending on the feature, so if we had an extra $300/month, we could probably implement one new feature a month. If we wanted that money to come purely from donations, then each active user would need to contribute $1/month or $12/year. If we wanted it to come purely from ads, then we would need to keep both the right-hand and the left-hand ads. Or we could do a combination.--Dallan 06:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
My question would be, is $19 going to be enough? (And is this a one-time donation or an annual donation?) WeRelate desperately needs up-dating, and has for a long time. We are not unique -- there are other free wikis out there -- and we are being left behind because the others offer benefits that we don't. I don't mind being a "niche" site if we survive, but survival is still going to take up-grading. And like Bob C. (above) I am (and have been for some time) seeing "RootsWeb" handwriting on the wall -- not enough money to maintain the site and eventual sale to someone like Ancestry and their ability to gut the good and leave a shell. I agree with Amelia, we need to maintain a reasonably serious appearance in order to attract new users to even a niche site. I can live with one or two discreet ads as a source of on-going income, combined with other means of raising income -- such as an annual donation campaign, for example. If a $20 (or more) donation once a year is enough to make the up-grades and to significantly reduce the number of ads on all pages, then that's pretty small peanuts for the benefits.--GayelKnott 16:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

WeRelate and Paypal [29 March 2015]

A couple of observations:

  • I don't see a way via the Paypal site to set up regular donations over time; appears to only support single donations. There was an allusion above to Paypal supporting for payees multiple cross-time payments.
  • I wanted to see if I could find FOLG as a payee in the Paypal interface and could not. I think it would be useful to have the WeRelate payee available as a search return from within Paypal; however, I'm not sure if Paypal supports this for non-profits or only for stores as in retail ventures.

--ceyockey 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


WeRelate and Allen County Public Library -and- The Genealogy Center [29 March 2015]

The page http://genealogycenter.org/ contains a prominent "Donate" button in the top button bar. It might be useful to clarify somewhere (maybe on WeRelate:About donations) that donation to The Genealogy Center does not directly support WeRelate, though it would support a WeRelate partner. --ceyockey 15:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


WeRelate and online charity listing sites [11 April 2015]

I pulled a reference to http://www.guidestar.org/ into WeRelate:About donations and went looking for other online registries, but found some incorrect information:

--ceyockey 16:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


Extracted content from the Exempt Organizations Business Master File for Utah; this can be downloaded from http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Exempt-Organizations-Business-Master-File-Extract-EO-BMF and has an explanatory sheet at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/eo_info.pdf . The file format is puportedly .csv, but could not open it using Libre Office, so went to Google Sheets and that opened just fine.

FIELDVALUE
EIN810660912
NAMEFOUNDATION FOR ON-LINE GENEALOGY INC
ICO% TAYLOR QUASS
STREET724 W 1720 N APT 207
CITYPROVO
STATEUT
ZIP84604-6408
GROUP0
SUBSECTION3
AFFILIATION3
CLASSIFICATION1200
RULING200602
DEDUCTIBILITY1
FOUNDATION15
ACTIVITY0
ORGANIZATION1
STATUS1
TAX_PERIOD201312
ASSET_CD0
INCOME_CD0
FILING_REQ_CD2
PF_FILING_REQ_CD0
ACCT_PD12
ASSET_AMT0
INCOME_AMT0
REVENUE_AMT0
NTEE_CDA80
SORT_NAME

--ceyockey 16:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, these are all places we've lived since starting FOLG around 2002. The current address is 223 N 835 E, Lindon, UT 84042. We moved here about six months ago. We filed the address change with the state of Utah but possibly not with the IRS yet. We're checking into that.--Dallan 04:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What does FOLG mean?--Chicken Band 10:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Foundation for On-Line Genealogy, the sponsor of WeRelate.--DataAnalyst 17:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Fundraising proposal [16 April 2015]

Over the weekend five people donated a total of $350 - thank-you!

Also, I have switched the left-hand and right-hand ads to text-only. We'll try that for a couple of days.

It looks like several MediaWiki developers are available for $35-$40/hour. (When I checked a year or two ago it was only $25-30/hour, but it appears to have increased.) I think we'd want to hire a developer for at least two weeks in order to give the developer a chance to get familiar with the code and implement a few features. If we were to try to hire someone for just a few days the start-up costs of becoming familiar with the code would be relatively high. Given that, I think we ought to not hire anyone until we have $3,000 raised either from ads or donations. That would be enough to hire someone for two weeks.

So here is a proposal for feedback:

  • We run a fundraiser the first month of each quarter with the goal of raising $3,000 each quarter.
  • We use the excess ad revenue from the prior quarter to jump-start the fundraiser.
  • We need to have some way of promoting the fundraiser each quarter - ideas?
  • People who contribute at least $5 during the quarterly fundraiser will not be shown ads for that quarter. I could add something like Don't like ads? - Donate links to the top of each ad. I have already taken the liberty of disabling ads for the five people who contributed over the weekend.
  • People who contribute more than $5 will be emailed a link to a google form where they can vote on the WeRelate:Suggestions they want to see implemented that quarter. People who contribute more will have their votes weigh more.
  • Someone needs to summarize each suggestion into a single section with examples: the existing (undesired) behavior, and the proposed (desired) behavior. This will make it easier for me and the developer to understand the suggestion.
  • I will review the suggestion summaries and attempt to estimate the number of days required to implement each one. Hopefully this information will help guide the people who are voting.
  • Once we have raised $3,000 we will hire the developer.
  • If we are unable to raise $3,000 during a quarter, we use the money to jump-start the fundraiser for the next quarter.

My guess is that a few suggestions could be implemented each quarter using this approach. Thoughts?--Dallan 05:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds to me that what we need is a Product Backlog and a Product Owner to manage it. For those not familiar with these terms, they come out of the world of Agile Software Development (specifically the Scrum methodology). A Product Backlog is essentially a prioritized list of enhancements and fixes, and the Product Owner is a person from the user community who acts on behalf of the user community to prioritize the backlog and ensure that the developers understand the requirement. Items near the top of the prioritized list are more precisely defined than those lower in priority - that is, we take more time (as a community) to ensure precise definition of the requirement when it is close to being addressed than when we are just talking about how important it is to address.
A rule of thumb in Scrum is that items are prioritized based on return on investment - the ratio of value to implementation cost. Therefore, the higher the value and the lower the effort to implement, the closer to the top of the list an item is. That means that in addition to the community "voting" on value (in whatever way we decide to do that), we also need an estimate of the effort to implement the change. Scrum recommends estimating effort using story points, which essentially is a way to size items relative to each other (without getting caught up in trying to say how many days it will take, which is notoriously difficult to do). I'd be happy if we started with estimating items as small, medium, large and extra large.
The Product Backlog is always visible to all stakeholders.
So here is what I would propose:
  • Implement a better way for users to vote on suggestions. I like the 1 to 5 scale someone else suggested. There should also be a place for people to describe the benefits (e.g., pain avoided, improved capability, attractiveness for new users).
  • As a community, have a discussion about general guidelines for priority. Are we most interested in making changes that will attract new users (e.g., private space for living individuals) or retain users once they come (e.g., reduce pain points), or do we want to balance these? I have set up a separate topic for this.
  • Investigate product backlog tools - I see one called easyBacklog that is currently free. Maybe there is an open source one that could be incorporated into WeRelate, but linking to an external one might work as well. I don't know if the product backlog tool would be the best place to expand on benefits, or if that should be done in the Suggestions list in WeRelate. That might depend on how well we can integrate a product backlog tool with WeRelate (specifically, integration or user accounts).
  • Assign a Product Owner. (I would be willing to give this role a try, with the caveat that I would back down if it became too burdensome from either a time point of view or with having to deal with inappropriate behavior.)
  • Once the voting has established the items garnering the most interest, have Dallan size the top X items so that they can be prioritized based on value and effort. Get this done several weeks before work starts each quarter to give time for final feedback and tweaking.
  • Publicize the process - discussion on overall priorities, voting on suggestions, and where the Product Backlog is.
  • Celebrate success (as we say in my work place) - publicize the implemented suggestions.--DataAnalyst 14:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like a good approach. The "backlog tool" might be a bit of a problem. Integrating one into WeRelate would be way overkill and absorb needed resources, so I think that's out. Just using easyBacklog might be ok; a problem there might be that it would not be readable by the general public -- each person wanting to read would have to get an account and be given access. (Copying status from easyBacklog onto WeRelate might solve that, but would be a burden.) Using wiki pages on WeRelate would be straightforward but would not have any backlog-management tools available. --robert.shaw 19:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it occurred to me also that incorporating a backlog tool might be overkill and take too much effort. I'm not proficient enough in wiki tools to be able to modify the Suggestions page to add a sortable column that indicates priority, but maybe that would be all it would take. Although, if we go with the Product Owner idea, we would probably want to control who could set the priority.--DataAnalyst 20:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Great ideas! (And btw, ad-free looks really fine!)--Jillaine 17:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi Dallan,

In general i like your ideas. There is just one thing that strikes me. While the focus on money is good, in the sense that money makes the world go round, i feel that money is not the only contribution a member of the community can make.

I added over 10,000 people to the site, each one of them manually. Would you say a genealogy site without quality pages has any value? And if the quality page has value, how to calculate the donation of 10,000+ quality pages?

The second thing is that the donated amount (of money, or in my case, of quality pages) should NOT be of any influence to the weight of their vote. In a society where people don't know each other, the money is the message. But in a community, that which brought us all together should be supported.

This is my 2 cents, after looking up "Dutch treat" on Wikipedia, which article closes with the statement: "Surprisingly no reference found for the most obvious country the Netherlands. Please update with factual references." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Dutch)

Best regards, Ron woepwoep 18:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Woepwoep, let me add to my statement above where I stated that a user's "contribution" is not interchangeable with a user's "donation," by stating that "Value" does not necessarily equate to "Cost." The value of your material contribution of genealogical data is almost incalculable (especially to you), whereas the cost to store, maintain, and process that data can be calculated pretty easily. In fact, the more you contribute, the more it costs.
I can give you a personal illustration. A few years ago when I hit the half-century mark in age, I began to recognize my own mortality and reevaluate the time and effort I put into pursuit of my interest in genealogy (both "time" and "effort" becoming more valuable commodities to me). I took a long look at the family history and genealogy collection I had accumulated over the previous 30 years and realized that no one close to me valued it like I did, and then I realistically recognized that it all may be lost when I pass. I began to take steps to find a permanent home for it, and was pretty discouraged by the lack of enthusiasm I got from libraries and genealogical societies in pledging to accept it, now stored primarily in binders (upwards of 50 or more of varying sizes) in my home office. The most common response I received was that the space to house it and the cost to maintain it would be too high for such a collection of limited interest (i.e. families and offspring of my ancestors). Unless consolidated into a published book form, I could find none interested in accepting it. That's partly why I am here at WeRelate, so hopefully I can leave the legacy of my family history to those who might value it as much as I in the future.
Do you see my point? The value of your contributions can in no way be translated into monetary terms. Any "credit" that Dallan would apply to contribution of data would be purely a number pulled out of thin air, possibly as an incentive to encourage further contributions. But at this point, actual revenue (hard cash) seems to be the guiding force here to keep WR alive and functioning. Take care. --BobC 20:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Bob, i appreciate your contribution. We are talking different value systems here. The word http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incommensurable comes to mind. A friend told me about the history of genealogy. He said: "it began with the identification (and define) of the nobility. To avoid intruders. This was according to the male line. That is why a "family tree" or a "genealogy" classically means a male line.
The second phase was tracing back hereditary diseases - this means: the medical side - so that was at that time the factor that pushed genealogy. In this phase, ofcourse, also became the female line involved."
So Bob, i would like to say, if nobody cares, perhaps generations after yours and mine, people will care. Vincent died poor, but he said: "If a voice inside you says you can not paint, then by all means paint, and that voice inside you will be silenced".
Cheers, Ron woepwoep 20:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
My basic question is if i would charge my family for a Christmas dinner woepwoep 16:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think they are all great ideas to be implemented, Dallan. As Ron raised the question above, your use of "contribution" and "donation" should be clarified. I'm sure you are using the word contribution as in "donating money and fund raising," whereas Ron would also like to interpret the word contribution as "submission of genealogical data," a viewpoint which might have merit in my opinion, but how do you measure it?

The weighting of personal donations in the decision-making process of program improvement is a good incentive and hopefully will produce positive results rather than negative backlash by invested users unable or unwilling to donate.

Due to the new reality of tacking dollar amounts against these suggested program improvements, I think you need to look at prioritizing them based on their added value to the program itself and to a better measure of user support. I would suggest adding a scale of 1-5 on each program suggestion improvement area for those who get to vote, rather than just by gauging the number of "Watchers." In my own case, I may be watching a page just because I want to be part of the discussion rather than advocating or supporting for the suggestion. #1 would be least value, low support or low priority in my appraisal for the suggestion, and #5 indicating highest value, support and priority for the suggestion.

That's my input. Appreciate the positive movement. --BobC 16:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Bob. Like the idea of weighting personal donations to votes as a very nice carrot. Also agree that improvements should be focused on those most likely to bring in/bring back the greatest number of active users, even though they might not be my pet preferences. --GayelKnott 18:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Woepwoep, the time that you and I and everyone else has put into WeRelate to this point has given us a nice place to share our genealogy. Our contributions, which cannot be valued, get converted into the money required to run the site via ads, and the ads generate enough revenue that we don't have to worry about the site being shut down. The contributions that we have all made in terms of our time has gotten us to where we are today: a website that isn't going to be shut down. But if we want to make improvements we need contributions of money (donations). And we need to come up with an incentive for people to donate. Telling people that they can help choose the improvements seems like a good incentive to me.

I agree that the number of watchers is not a perfect (maybe not even a good) indicator of the value of the suggestions. Would people add comments to the suggestions' talk pages arguing why the suggestion should be prioritized as a #1 (least value) to a #5 (most value)? I'm still proposing that those who donate the money necessary to pay the developer should have the final vote, but their vote can/should be influenced by the prioritization comments. I'll assume that suggestions that receive no prioritization comments are low priority.

We have currently raised $450 out of a goal of $3000. Unless there are objections, I will highlight the fundraiser at the top of each page starting tomorrow. Also, instead of asking people to donate $5 every three months to opt-out of ads, I'll mention on the donate page that donating $19 or more opts you out of ads for a full year.--Dallan 06:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dallan, thanks much for your consideration. Here's an idea for donation. It is not a complete idea, a mere starter.
My daughter aged 15 recently donated USD 25 to Skyblock (http://shop.skyblock.net/category/10202) which is also a community afaik. So perhaps we could find out what makes Skyblock different from WeRelate in terms of Donation? Her decision was based on - if i recall it right - getting perks which she then could give away to her online friends to help them with their part in this collaborative game they play together. Hope this helps. Best regards, Ron woepwoep 07:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea. I wonder what kind of "perks" we could provide.--Dallan 05:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Dallan could you please add me to your list of people who see no ads? It is very annoying. Thank you, Ron.

Alternative: if action=edit then remove ads ?
I tested the Donate page by transferring 20 dollars to FOLG through Paypal. Now i still get ads.
So perhaps the instruction page should say that a human action is required and that payment does not immediately lead to an ad-free WR.
Also, i am not transferred back to WR page.
Also, how will FOLG know who i am, e.g. how will you know i bought an ad-free year? the paypal transaction only mentions a confirmation number and my company name (self-employed, business account with paypal).
These are my findings during testing.
Best regards, Ron woepwoep 09:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It is now half a day later, and i still see ads, despite the fact that i paid USD 20.--
While i am editing Hendrina's page, adding the information that she died back in 1881, i am polled by google for what age women i like. It says "select an age and view singles in your region." I can choose between 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, or 50+. I feel a little embarrassed, because obviously i like much older women.
Dallan, is it absolutely necessary to use ads ? Is there no other way?
thx, Ron woepwoep 16:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a manual process - I get notified by email of the donation, then I look up your user name based upon the email address that you entered in your donation and turn off ads for you. I just added a sentence to that effect on the donate page.

Also, I changed the email address on the paypal account on March 30th. It turns out that changing the email address on our paypal account made our paypal button stop working -- donations made during this time need to be cancelled. I updated the paypal button on the website yesterday. If you made a donation over the past five days and have not had ads turned off, please let me know and I will explain how you can cancel your donation.

If we had enough donations or if we decided that we didn't care about any new features we could turn off or scale back ads. Let's see how the fundraiser goes.--Dallan 20:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

thx so much for this adfree workspace ! happy easter woepwoep 00:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Robot for pulling content over from Wikipedia [7 April 2015]

I think that the robot which updates WeRelate content on pages tagged with {{Source-wikipedia}} or {{Wikipedia-notice}} has not run in quite awhile. Is this something which can be turned back on or run manually from time to time? --ceyockey 23:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to run it manually and I've forgotten to run it recently. Thanks for reminding me. I'll run it first thing next week.--Dallan 05:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dallan

Please warn us immediately before you run the Wp update. Those of us who are trying to add our two cents worth at the same time should really find something else to do while it is happening because it really slows down the servers. I know, you'll do it "overnight", but that doesn't help those of us in other timezones.

Thanks. --Goldenoldie 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I will slow down the update rate so it won't slow down everyone else. I plan to start it Monday evening (US time) or Tuesday morning (EU time). I'll post here first.--Dallan 19:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dallan. Having a slow rate of updates is fine, to the point that it might make it through everything in a week or two or more if needed. A monthly manual launch would be a good routine to get into if possible. My thinking is that a) most of the wikipedia articles in the set brought over will not have MAJOR changes frequently (might not even experience edits in any particular year), so that b) the main role would be to get an initial pull over here in a timely fashion after initially placing the {{source-wikipedia}} template. --ceyockey 01:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I started the wikipedia update tonight. It now waits three seconds between each update, so hopefully we won't notice the additional load.
There are two types of wikipedia updates: a) one where the updater just looks for "source-wikipedia" templates and replaces them, and b) one where I download the latest version of wikipedia and the system updates all of of the articles that need updating. The first update is pretty lightweight. Normally it runs weekly, but it looks like I had turned it off inadvertently so it hasn't been running for a long time. I'll start it running weekly again after this full update is complete. The second type of update is the one running right now. This update will take about a week to complete at the slower rate. I'll try to remember to run this roughly once a quarter.--Dallan 06:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind ads, as long as they are limited [9 April 2015]

In response to the discussion around conditions under which ads would be removed going on above, I'll say that I don't mind ads which are relatively unobtrusive. I've only donated $10, but do plan to do that on a monthly basis (manually via Paypal). I don't anticipate having an ad-free workspace in exchange, but I do want to stave off the addition of more or larger ads, and I want to ensure that the crew have sufficient resource to continue to work forward (albeit slowly) on site improvements and establishment of a future-proofing fund to accommodate potential (inevitable, really) need for porting the content to another platform as technology evolves. For instance, I think the mediawiki software that is underlying WeRelate is not the currently deployed one for Wikipedia ... the option to change version should be available if there is a compelling reason based on the functionality options provided by the change. That takes resource = money. --ceyockey 01:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That particular change - updating the MediaWiki software to the latest version - will take a lot of time. We'll want to figure out whether we want to save our money to do that or implement some of the simpler suggestions.
BTW, I've been experimenting with different-sized ads, in particular a 160-pixel-wide vs a 300-pixel-wide ad on the right-hand side. The 300-pixel-wide ad on the right definitely brings in more money, but it may not be worth it. Right now I lean toward the 160-pixel-wide ad on the right and a 160-pixel-wide ad on the left.. I'm also experimenting with display vs text-only ads. We'll see how that goes.--Dallan 06:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Just offering feedback. I don't mind display ads (of course, what they display is questionable sometimes - some of the ones on my phone flash which is really annoying) but it is easier to train the eye to ignore them whereas text only ads look almost like part of the page. Don't know if bolder borders around the ads would help with that process, certainly predictable locations makes recognition of ads quicker. Prefer 160 versus 300 but can live with either if push comes to shove. All that is better than the ones just below the banner which interrupted the flow of reading and pushed a lot of good stuff off the first screen. Does it help if we, say, click one ad each day, or does that not make any difference? --Jrich 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You should avoid clicking on ads just to "help the website". Google (and advertisers) consider this click-fraud, and too much of it will cause Google to ban the website and associated account, losing all revenue. --robert.shaw 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Robert. I had the same question as Jrich. --GayelKnott 06:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the display ads on the left and right work about the same as the text ad on the left and display ad on the right. I think having a text ad on the left is less obtrusive than a display ad, but if others think a display ad would be less obtrusive, I could switch it back. A 300-pixel-wide ad on the right works a bit better than the 160-pixel-wide ad, but I'm not sure the additional real estate is worth it.--Dallan 04:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you add a horizontal rule between the left-hand ad and the text above it to provide better separation between the website content and the ad? -Moverton 16:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Text ads on the left and the 300px display on the right seems like a reasonable approach, but I agree with Moverton that some visual separation before the left text ads is needed. Maybe a horizontal rule just after the "Don't want ads?" link, and maybe after the horizontal line an italic centered "Advertisements" before the ads start. --robert.shaw 17:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WeRelate Improvement Priorities [20 April 2015]

As a follow-up to the fundraising proposal, I want to initiate a discussion on the "big picture" priorities for improving WeRelate features. This is not about which specific suggestions are a priority, but the guidelines on how to prioritize suggestions.

For example, we can focus on one or more of the following areas (please add to and/or refine this list):

attracting new users (which changes might induce more people to give WeRelate a try)
retaining new users (which changes will improve the first impression)
reducing pain points for established users
expanding the possibilities (helping WeRelate grow beyond its initial vision)
support for quality of the data

We might also want to consider relative priority of:

improvement in online data entry
improvement in GEDCOM upload

Then for each suggestion, we could rate it (1 to 5) on how well it fit into each of these areas. For example, a suggestion might be a 5 in reducing a pain point, and a 2 in retaining new users; or it might be a 4 in data quality and a 0 in everything else.

Once we decide our guidelines (relative priority of the above areas) and the contribution of each suggestion in each area, it would be possible to prioritize the suggestions better (see my post on Product Backlog and Product Owner, under the fundraising proposal).--DataAnalyst 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


As an additional comment on "who gets the most say", Dallan suggested (as a way to encourage donations): "People who contribute more will have their votes weigh more." I'm not actually a big fan of that - as others have pointed out, volunteers who improve the quality of data across WeRelate also contribute to the site. I think that if the person doing the prioritization is a regular on WeRelate, he/she can probably tell which users are highly committed to WeRelate and can take that into account if necessary. If Dallan felt it were necessary to "put a bug" in that person's ear about a donor (i.e., here is another committed person you might not be aware of) that could be done.--DataAnalyst 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@DataAnalyst this sounds like a plan ! woepwoep 15:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The highest priority area would be "retaining new users (which changes will improve the first impression)," it seems to me. Growth in participation is the underlying aim, and "attracting new users" is not a priority until the experience encountered is acceptable. Clearly some attention is warranted for "pain point" and "data quality", but those seem secondary to me so that only the worst problems/easiest fixes in those areas should bubble up to the top of the list. "Expanding the possibilities" doesn't seem reasonable at this point since the important improvements there would be too expensive to implement with the likely resources.

For retaining users, I think GEDCOM integration improvement deserves attention the most; to me, the online entry seems adequate even though not the best.

--robert.shaw 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this, but another part of it (for the admins) is being able to maintain the quality of what is uploaded. Several of us are still trying to clean up the mess made from 2007-2010, and while we've made headway, there is still quite a bit of bad material needing to be cleaned/deleted. WR needs more safeguards to prevent a reoccurance of this by users - I still see people uploading gedcoms with blank persons (which are almost always a way to discreetly keep livings from being spotted), people adding them by hand, incomplete dates, etc. Daniel Maxwell 19:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but data quality is not secondary, it is primary - by orders of magnitude over anything else. And until attracting new users brings in a higher quality of user than the normal Internet genealogist user (who think copying from an anonymous tree on Ancestry is doing genealogy, and then posting it again and again all over the Internet is collaborating), or until we have a set of reinforcing eduction and formatting tools, with functional help pages, to organically guide the normal Internet users towards more professional-quality practices, why would we want more? They will just make us look more like Ancestry public trees, only smaller. Look, if I don't care about quality, I'm not even going to come here, and it's not an ease of use issue. Ancestry and various parts of familysearch.org, and probably other sites with deep pockets, are always going to be bigger, have more features and have bigger quantities of data, and if I want an answer without caring if it is right, I'll go there. But they have data, not information. They can't provide quality control because it might scare away naive or paying users.

The type of user that we should be aiming at should want mistakes pointed out, should believe that the most important thing is getting it right, and is willing to donate time and effort in a community effort to collect reference-quality genealogy - not just looking for yet another bulletin board to post their tree on. The people that want to make a long-term committment, not just to post their data and then never participate again, but to interact with future posters, collaborate, and share, even if sometimes if means spending a few hours on a person that isn't their ancestor.

We should require sources, we should flag certain sources as undesirable, we should have formatting tools that format dates and remove _UIDs so people can spend their time researching instead of cleanup. We should revamp the help system, lock up help pages, and develop a formal release with the goal of building a coherent set of help pages that can be counted on to reflect the current policies and conventions and provide articles on good practices - with a separate development area where discussion, testing and development of new policies can go on without confusing the help system. We should have wizards that ensure sources get cited appropriately, e.g., ask for the county name on the census, warn people with annoying popups when entries are invalid, have reports like we do for duplicates that list for a user all the sourceless or subpar pages they are watching. Ideally, I would like to have levels of users with different privileges that require demonstration of certain amount of expertise before you can add people before 1900 (IMHO, the extreme limit of personal knowledge), before 1850 (before the census), before Gregorian calendar, do GEDCOM uploads, create source and place pages, etc., etc.

Yes, volume, ease of use, faster software, etc., will make this site better, but only if the quality is high. Otherwise, it will dilute the kernel of good stuff many patient people have been slowly building through time-consuming manual effort. --Jrich 20:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


I was on MyHeritage first, or - to be precise - on a Dutch site Zooover which was acquired by MyHeritage. Then i got smartmatches on the MyHeritage site with a site called WikiTree. So i went there. Somehow i got from WikiTree to WR.

My point is that i believe the collaboration with MH has brought WikiTree a lot of new users. So if WR is to have many new users, there should be a visibility on popular sites like MH.

My 2 cents. Ron woepwoep 21:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


I see we're slightly over our $3000. goal for hiring some help. But I haven't seen any more talk of how the priorities will be set. Is work on the priorities going on someplace else? If so, can the selection process be made more visible? I know everyone will have opinions they want heard. I'm all for attracting more new people, but if we can't keep them once they're here, what's the point? So for my part, higher priority should be given to relatively easy to fix pain points so that folks enjoy their work here and don't leave frustrated. Let's look at all those suggestions that have been languishing to determine what hurts the most and which of those are easiest to fix. --janiejac 23:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We are currently 60% of the way ($1800) toward our goal ($3000). At the end of the month I'll take any suggestion with five or more watchers and add it to a google form, so if there are any suggestions below that number, then watch them so they make the cut. I'll make the form available here on the watercooler for anyone to fill out. I will also encourage people to read the various discussions here on the watercooler about which types of suggestions would be in the best interest of WeRelate.
Everyone's votes will be taken into account, but people who have contributed cash will have their votes count more because the developer needs to be paid in cash. I'll supplement the donations with the extra money we've been making on ads. I will then hire a developer and have them work on the highest-voted suggestions.--Dallan 03:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What type of person is welcome at WeRelate? Why would they come (and stay)? [20 April 2015]

There have been long term grumblings among the more professional of the genealogists here that the vast majority of people who think they are doing genealogy are just messing things up for the serious folks. I can sympathize with that. However, doing something about this requires WeRelate to take a firm stance on who is welcome to contribute here and who should go somewhere else. There's a telling quote over at WeRelate:Pando for genealogy ... "If you haven't already done so, help Pando grow by uploading your tree!" Yes, this is preceded by some words about including sources and keeping an eye on the pages you create here, but in the end another quote from the page states "WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. We take a shared approach to genealogy." One of the methods for increasing data quality noted above is to ensure the deletion of bad content. I would put it to you that anyone who sees their content being deleted will unlikely become a returning user ... but that is not a bad thing if WeRelate can thrive (financially) by retaining people doing quality genealogy. The world is chock full of people who are not, and in the end it will be those people who are not who will be clicking through the ads on this site, not the few who are.

With this being said, maybe a major improvement would be a walling between the high quality, masters approved content and the rest contributed by the rabble (myself included, though the damage I do is small because I do not do any Gedcom uploads). I think this segregation (which should not be immediately evident to the casual user, because that casual user really would not care) would work toward addressing a number of the line items noted above among the prioritizations.

--ceyockey 22:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As someone who has the done much of the deleting, the vast majority of what I have deleted has been content from users who simply dumped their GEDCOMS on the site 7-8 years ago, and were never seen again. Myself and the others who are behind that process have received few complaints about it, for the simple fact that most of these users never came back. It isn't about 'master' content, but trying to avoid the most poor genealogical content - no dates, living people, no places, etc. Daniel Maxwell 23:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I reflect on my own experience starting almost 10 years ago. I had a nice little 3-4 generation family tree and had just found a family connection on RootsWeb. I went to town on copying data into my personal tree. It took me a few months to realize that I had to be cautious about the quality, which led me to review all my new data and hunt down better sources.

So what if I had found that connection on WeRelate instead of RootsWeb? I would have added my 3-4 generation tree, connected it to previous generations, and voila - a nice deep family tree, without negatively impacting the data that more experienced people had created. So my question is, if this were today, would my newly added, sporadically sourced, all deceased, 3-4 generations be welcomed? I say, yes. Let's welcome this type of contribution so that others can find it and see where they fit. Let's encourage/coach the newcomer to add sources and grow their genealogy skills, but if they are not interested, let's keep their contribution (ensuring that living persons are deleted) and let them go on their way.

The problem comes, of course, when the newcomer has already enhanced his/her tree (as I did) with information from RootsWeb, the Ancestral File, Public Member Trees, and (worst of all) OneWorldTree. We have already limited GEDCOM imports to post-1750 so that newcomers are limited in the damage they can do via GEDCOM (we probably want to formalize the process by which a newcomer who has established his/her serious approach to genealogy gets that restriction lifted, and maybe the cutoff year needs to be refined). Maybe we also need to put some serious effort into reworking the message on the Pando for genealogy page to limit the damage newcomers do via manual data entry.

I would be willing to work on some messaging if I got the sense that there was some consensus on what the messaging should be. Are we okay with un-sourced new (not duplicate) data from, say, 1850 on? Should we expect at least some minimal completeness of data (e.g., at least one year and/or place on each page)? Do we encourage people to "test out" their contributions to well-established pages on the Talk page before making changes to the Person/Family page? Do we want to offer coaching? Do we have sufficient resources to offer coaching or do we "coach" via a bunch of static pages?

Admin types - please let me know if some rework of the Pando for genealogy and Wiki etiquette pages would be welcome. (I know I have a tendency to wordiness - I promise to keep it under control and submit my write-up for editing.)--DataAnalyst 23:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I view the term Pando for Genealogy as being akin to World Peace, a noble, idealistic-sounding objective, but unrealistic and unachievable. It like knowing statistically that everyone is related to everyone else in the 15th or 16th generation removed. Interesting bit of trivia, but meaningless in terms of finding factual data about the other unknown offspring of my European-born 2nd great-grandparents (unless, of course, one of those offspring are also using WeRelate - the basic concept of Pando). So I'm not sure what bit of advice I can provide regarding it.
On the other subject page, I added suggestions for the remainder of the missing ABCs on the Help talk:Wiki etiquette page. Please feel free to edit, enhance, change, or whatever to better fit the subject prior to moving it to the Help Page.
Hope that's helpful. --BobC 13:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone - Assuming some new messaging is welcome, let me know where you agree/disagree with my opinions, or have additional considerations to include. Thanks.--DataAnalyst 23:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

when i first entered WR, i tried to upload my MyHeritage export file. which was not much of a success. then i tried to upload a partial, which also did not succeed. but instead of giving up, before i could even think of giving up, two wonderful ladies here at WR (Jennifer and Lidewij) found me and have actually made me feel so much welcome that i decided to completely disregard my gedcom and type the entries one by one (now well over 10K entries). Hope this helps, Ron. PS thank you Lidewij and Jennifer !!! woepwoep 00:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I really hope in the midst of discussing good genealogical work vs. other genealogical work, that we don't inadvertently create a "caste" system. I'm not fond of elitist genealogy; everyone should have a chance to contribute to WR, no matter where they are on the learning curve, as long as rules are abided and honest attempts to cite are made.
What I'd like to see is a more visible attempt to reach out to new users as happened when I joined WR. Interaction between contributors seems to have slowed in the last few years. Perhaps we should remember to "help" other contributors rather than plop them into a category of unworthy or inept genealogists. If we have a chance to teach what we know to another contributor, we shouldn't hesitate. Then perhaps the unworthy and inept can become worthy and competent. Neal--SkippyG 06:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Neal. My own experience is that just entering date -- and getting even minimal feedback from others, has increased my sensitivity to quality issues. Similarly, my experience with FamilySearch's Family Tree, which started with an incredible ton of garbage, is cleaning up much faster than I would ever have expected simply because so many people are involved. (Admittedly, still has a long ways to go, but the point remains, the more people involved, the faster it happens.) In this sense, the more active users WeRelate has, the more likely that inexperienced users will learn and become experienced users.
I also agree that the Pando for genealogy page needs rewriting -- we are not really all that unique anymore, for one thing. And we do need to offer more than "help us grow" -- some excitement? some celebration? Something.--GayelKnott 07:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I invite you to take a look at many of the mobile applications on the market today (some probably on your own cell phone). Many of them are built, propagated, expanded and popularized on "reward points" and "privilege levels." You might refer to it as a "caste" system, but the younger generation accepts the concept that the more you use an application, the more you contribute data to the app, and the higher level of proficiency and competency you display, the award of "points" alone (i.e. status) is a sufficient enough reason alone to continue using, continue building, continue adding data to the app to keep their interest alive.
Let me show you some examples of some of the apps I use or know about: GasBuddy, a program that provides real-time fuel prices throughout the U.S., awards points to users for entering fuel prices in the app when they visit gas stations. These reward points can then be entered into a weekly sweepstakes drawing for a chance to win hard cash. The Waze program provides real-life traffic conditions for travelers. Users who contribute data, such as traffic congestion reports, roadside hazards, speed traps, stop-light cameras, or weather reports are awarded points for their contribution and get newer user icon choices and additional reporting functions for their achievement levels.
My daughter and her friend (along with a million other enthusiasts), drive around the state she lives and skateboards around parking lots she visits either attaching or scanning (they call it deploying or capturing) Munzee QR-code stickers attached to the back of light posts, parking signs, and other man-made and natural objects. Why? For the points! The app shows their achievement levels, and they are awarded bonus points or specific icon-IDs for their achievement or are given recognition on the website showing their skill-level and compete with other app users based on point accumulation and higher achievement levels.
If we in the WeRelate community are going to grow and bring in a larger audience of younger users, I feel we need to transform WR into a program or application they can relate to and are encouraged to use and contribute to, not only based on WeRelate's unique approach to genealogical record-keeping and the ephmerical concept of contributing to a Pando for Genealogy, but supplemented by skill levels, competition, rewards and achievement recognition. Please don't mistake my suggestion as saying the program needs to be "dumbed-down," but I do think that competency or proficiency levels should be considered based on a balance between quantity of information contributed, quality of data inputted, and impact on the community (whether as a donator, editor, mentor or administrator), and access or reward privileges associated with each of those levels.
Does that make sense? --BobC 13:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Your alluding to a type of gamification. It would be interesting to apply that to code forks that draw on the same data and bring back into the core elements which were popular / successful. I'm not someone with the skills myself, but such people are becoming both more common and more in demand. At my workplace, there are a number of software projects which aim to gamify both internal and external activities. --ceyockey 23:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not about building a caste system. It is about people who are life-long researchers being willing to expose their work to people who just started, without worrying it will be corrupted by somebody who doesn't understand the nuances of harder genealogy situations. It's about minimizing new garbage when we're still digging up from under the old garbage. And its about being able to be open to all, without sinking to the abysmal quality of general Internet genealogy that always results when there is no quality control.

It is hard to know what you don't know, so you can't expect new users to police themselves. They will all think they're doing fine. They have been conditioned by other sites to think incorrectly. They need a system that gives them feedback, not after they've uploaded their entire GEDCOM, only to get frustrated by the resulting complaints and leave, but from the first page that's wrong.

It's about giving them limited access at first so they can discover this isn't just another Ancestry, to make sure the goals of WeRelate are compatible with their goals, but then having a path to give them access to everything when it is appropriate. It's about collaboration, so hanging around and participating. It's about sharing, so telling where data came from and presenting it so it's useful to others. And it's about building a data source that serves the community, not just them, so being willing to have it corrected, and to feel some responsibility to get it right because other people have to use it, too. --Jrich 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent comment !!! Yes my enthousiasm for the site was definitely skyrocketing when the two aforementioned ladies taught me how to work on the site. I would delete a person and then add an new person, but Jennifer kept pushing me to try the compare function. I didn't get it at first, wanted to give up and do my old way. But now i am so happy that she never gave up. Also i had a three hour phone call with Lidewij, after she had helped me a great deal by correcting the places that i had found (my search is a 30x30 miles area in the Netherlands called "Achterhoek" where all of my family originated). There is much synchronicity at work when you share a same higher goal. I work on this genealogy without knowing much more than that i am called to do this work - a vocation if you will. I just follow my gut feeling, don't know if my forefathers tell me to. So perhaps it is a passion? Perhaps emotion is a strong advertiser for the work that we do?
Best regards, Ron woepwoep 20:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

So...if we give new users 'limited access', what does that mean ? Do we tell them what they can or can not do ? Are certain pages "off limits" ? Do we tell them up front that only a certain group of contributors can do A, B, C and D ?

And if at the end of (for lack of better words) a so-called Probationary Period, do we give them a passing or failing grade ?..and if found wanting, do we tell them to take their Trees elsewhere and boot them out the WR door ? I can't imagine encouraging a new contributor to WR, and telling them she/he will be limited in their involvement/privileges until a committee decides they qualify to "join" with full privileges.

Rather, I'd suggest that the "weeding out" should occur on the front end, requiring new users to read certain guidelines, how-tos, etc. before any GEDCOM is accepted. Among these should be a strict discouragement of relying on certain sources, the coverall "My Source" usage, and whatever the premier genealogists, and the rest of us, would like to quell before... rather than after. It seems that we are receiving less junk, than in the earlier years, due I would suppose to better reviews of GEDCOMS. And periodically perhaps we could touch base with absent users to see why they are not updating their pages, if they have concerns that have shyed them away from WR, etc.

I can't conceive that we should be discouraging every new user who hasn't been bent over a microfilm reader since shortly after teething and potty training. If you want responsible, accurate contributors, then nurture them. Good genealogists aren't formed in a test tube, they're taught. So why can't we adopt a familial attitude toward a variety of contributors ? WR should be a basic pleasant, learning experience as well as a quest for perfection. Fini for me. Neal--SkippyG 01:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Neal, I think what Jrich was getting at is that we don't want new users coming in who don't understand the nuances of working in older genealogy and making big changes such as merging family, renaming instances of 'unknown' to whatever purported wife is listed on OneWorldTree, etc. I had to deal with a user of less than a week old awhile back who was doing just that with a major line, 'fixing it' so it matches whatever says on Ancestry.com. This is what we want to prevent, and if there were an increase in members it would be bound to happen more often. All I believe that should happen is that 1) new users are restricted from editing (and especially merging or renaming) other people's pages for say 30 days, or a certain numbers of edits. That way they will have a track record and probably a better understanding of how we operate here before making changes like that. The rest of JRich's proposal is more radical, and one I have privately advocated for awhile, but I think at this level of activity we don't need to go there yet. It isn't about 'grading' users, but simply users showing that they 1) understand the difference between real genealogy and the mindless copying that passes for genealogy on the rest of the internet and 2) That older genealogy is not simply a matter of finding a 'John Smith' baptism in the early 17th century listed on Familysearch. There are more than a few users that I know who started off coming off of Ancestry, but over time learned something from reading several of us and looking at how we do edits and now I have zero qualms about these people editing the older genealogical pages. It may sound *mean* to some, but this dare I say it, discrimination, is necessary for keeping the quality of this site high. No one would be grading anyone. But for the moment, it has only rarely been an issue because our user base isn't high enough yet. Daniel Maxwell 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
+1 quality first, ego second. woepwoep 13:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC



Active Quality Control [20 April 2015]

Last year I had some private conversations with Dallan regarding how large complex enterprise databases address the problem of varying data quality and accuracy. Basically you need to actively track and manage the degree of confidence you have in your data. The primary focus needs to be tracking the DATA rather than the USERS, and providing tools to evaluate and improve the quality of the data. To some extent the GEDCOM import process already applies this concept. The technology exists to do this, but it would not be a trivial upgrade. Though I think it could be made fairly seamless given sufficient development resources.--Jhamstra 15:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it help if we implement some kind of "workspace" idea? One workspace could be "production" which is the actual site: "one person, one page". And one workspace could be the private space for the user, where they could dispatch a person or a family to the production workspace. And may a third workspace where the user can do "what if?" analysis.
Just a thought.
Best regards, Ron woepwoep 15:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to make this a separate conversation. Hope that's okay with everyone. I think it has great potential to get dragged out or at least have side-issues beyond the above discussion.
I think the primary approach needs to focus on educating incoming users, recognizing that they will not read any more than they have to. I think revamping the Help page system is a big component, because how do they know what to read? what do they believe? But I think adding feedback mechanisms is critical (this is a bad date, you have not entered a source, that place name is not recognized). Maybe this feedback is what you mean by tracking the DATA? But ultimately, if a user creates an unacceptable number of subpar pages, I think there needs to be feedback on the user level as well.
I am not sure how the computer can manage the "degree of confidence you have in your data". When "reference" genealogies like say Source:Bond, Henry. Family Memorials. Genealogies of the Families and Descendants of the Early Settlers of Watertown, Massachusetts, Including Waltham and Weston (1855) or Source:Savage, James. Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England includes massive and numerous errors (sorry for my New England bias), it is obviously not as simple as saying is there a source there? You can't count the number of sources. It only takes one correct source to counter a million mistaken sources, and a source that is right 98% of the time is still wrong 2%. The computer can give an indication of when pages need attention, but ultimately it takes an investment of time by knowledgeable persons to actually do the improvement. Even something as trivial as cleaning up bad dates, such as "2-4-1742", should really involve looking up sources to find out which of the several possible answers is right. The computer can flag this as needing attention, but any attempt to fix it without research, is merely guessing. Assuming it is right, it could conceivably intend to be February, April or June.
As far as a data quality tool, workspaces sounds like they would require a user to police themselves as to when to put something into production, and ultimately this is the same problem we already have. That involves training the user so that the entire community has similar understandings of what is desired. I see a lot of interesting applications of the idea for other reasons, though I'm not sure about the complexity they would add. --Jrich 16:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jrich -- we need to focus on educating users. It can be a bit time consuming and tedious, but I think it can be done. Gayel --GayelKnott 17:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
If we want to educate new users to provide better genealogy, perhaps those of us who know what we are doing should improve some of the genealogies that are already on our pages, even if they are not ones we have provided ourselves. Just this morning I was taking some notes from a Wikipedia page where Robert the Bruce was mentioned. I decided to link my WR entry to one of our "Person:" pages. After discovering that the Robert the Bruce in Wikipedia was Robert I of Scotland in WeRelate I decided to have a look at his previous generations. Three generations back I came across Robert de Bruce and Isabelle Huntingdon (with a marriage year of 1209). Those of you who know your medieval genealogy ought to cast their eyes down the birthplaces of their children. It looks like the only one on WeRelate who had a go in making corrections was the "WeRelate Agent" and he didn't do a very good job.
A supplementary question: Why do we keep finding places with two commas and a space (or maybe no space) in between? e.g., "Of, , Carrick, Scotland"; ",,Huntingdonshire,England"; "Isleworth, Middlesex, , England". Now there's a lesson to teach newcomers. --Goldenoldie 18:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Surname pages from Wikipedia and the opportunity they provide [16 April 2015]

I was a bit surprised when I saw Template:Wp-Thompson (surname). Surname pages from Wikipedia (at least that I've seen to date) have not come into WeRelate with the list of biographies attached. At the moment, I do not understand how the import software decides to link to WeRelate pages vs. linkout to Wikipedia pages ... but one of the features of this link revision is that person names are sometimes link revised to point at WeRelate Person pages. Given a surname page with content from Wikipedia, it occurred to me that one expansion potential would be to systematically create person pages for notable (dead) people listed on those surname pages. Just wondering whether anyone thinks this is totally crazy or a valid workstream that might be instantiated as a WeRelate Project.--ceyockey 03:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


I see now that the Wikipedia page has had a section header added which will prevent the list of people from being brought into WeRelate. Probably not a bad idea, considering the lack of segregation between living and non-living people in the list.--ceyockey 23:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


Usage of the East End of London as a WR place [16 April 2015]

The East End of London is a geographical region or area, but it is not an administrative place. It is not a London borough (1965 to the present); it never was a metropolitan borough (1900-1965). Before 1900 the area was made up of many, many parishes. It is necessary to go these parishes, boroughs, and the register offices of the time in order to obtain formal "source-able" family history information.

My personal feeling is that the "East End" ought to be deleted from our database--along with many other places in London that have been identified as districts and should be called neighbourhoods. In most other cases these districts were part of a metropolitan borough and, in many cases, part of a parish.

It does, however, cover a wide area and some people may want a descriptive term to cover an as-yet-to-be-found vital statistic--just like using "England" for a first generation of an American colonial family. For this reason I accept that some people will disagree with me.

But, may I make the plea that when the "WeRelate agent" goes to work on updating entries from Wikipedia that the East End of London is linked to Wikipedia (i.e., [[Wikipedia:East End of London|East End of London]]) and not to our place database. But [[Place:Tower Hamlets (London Borough), Greater London, England|London Borough of Tower Hamlets]] now exists in our database, along with the other 30+ London Boroughs, and I would hope the "WeRelate agent" could identify them. Currently (and there was an update last week) the London Borough of Tower Hamlets is being referenced to Wikipedia.

The London Boroughs were introduced fifty years ago in 1965 and each one is a Register Office--time enough for people to find their way into vital statistics.

This note has also been posted on the East End of London "talk" page.

--Goldenoldie 07:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)--Goldenoldie 07:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


Newspapers as sources - different source each time the name changes or one source to rule them all? [17 April 2015]

Newspapers change over time. They merge, split, change ownership, change names, cease publication, restart publication ... they are dynamic beasts when considered over a time frame of a couple of centuries, which is the time frame we are all familiar with here. Wikipedia tends to take the approach of "current newspaper and all predecessors to be covered by the same article". However, I think that from a genealogical point of view, the different incarnations of the newspaper could (should?) be considered as distinct sources. In using the http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ site, I have in a small number of cases so far, applied the "different name, different publisher = different source" approach to representing newspaper sources. I think my edits have reached a critical mass that I should ask what the community thinks of this. This particular post was prompted by my addition of Source:Evansville Courier & Press. This newspaper has, as usual, changed its name and ownership many times; the source representation reflects the wikipedia approach in the 'year range' parameter. The question which looms now is should I split this source into the fragments indicated by reviewing http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn98063103/ and tracing through preceding titles, or should I leave the Source intact and just refer to each of the other entries in 'chronicling' via the Repository tag set?

my personal feeling = different sources for different incarnations of a pubilcation.

Thanks for providing your (expert & amateur) input. This will become more of an issue over time as scanning of old publications continues to ramp up and copyrights expire.

--ceyockey 01:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

One question comes to mind is how to define "different incarnation". Different owner/publisher? Different title? Or if one person owns the entire archives, even preceding their management of the paper, is it then one beast since they presumably inherit all the copyrights? And how does a typical WeRelate user determine which incarnation it is? What they know is the title at the top of the page they are looking at.
What we are trying to do by citing sources? I suspect we want to enable people to find it. --Jrich 02:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A source citation is mainly for exactly that: identifying the source so that it can be found. It can also serve to characterize the source, which is useful for quick evaluation, and essential if the source is not generally available.
To serve these ends, I believe there should be a separate Source: page for each newspaper title (or, rather, for each title used in one or more citations). For finding the source the actual title used at the time the cited newspaper item was published is the essential information. The issue cited may be available in some collection that has only issues under that title, whether or not other collections or repositories have the issue included with issues of predecessor or successor titles of that newspaper. For repository that includes successor titles, the repository can be expected to provide for access via the title actually used (e.g. "Evansville press. (Evansville, Ind.) 1906-1998"), so the cited issue can be found via that name. A different repository may only have it accessible via the actual title used (e.g. "Evansville press"), and may not even know about earlier or later titles. Thus the actual title needs to be used in the citation, and should be used in the Source: in order to properly document where issues of that title may be found. The Source: page can list the names of predecessor and successor titles in notes (and perhaps link to Source: pages for them. --robert.shaw 04:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The WeRelate Source Portal Page shows that the titling convention for newspapers is simply: Title (Place issued). So if that guidance is still valid, then the source page title should only change, or a new one added, if the title of the newspaper or the place of publication changes. If looking for guidance in writing an individual citation within your page reference, you may want to consult one of the many university publication standards pages, such as Dixie State University's Newspaper Citation Guide. --BobC 20:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

New set of templates for crude sequence information [19 April 2015]

This is related to the newspaper source discussion. I've ported from the English Wikipedia as set of six templates for creating a crude 'succession box', in this case aimed at presenting preceding and succeeding titles for newspapers. The master template which uses five utility templates is Template:Sequence; I've implemented this in two articles so far: Source:Evansville Courier & Press (Evansville, Illinois) and Source:Free Trader=Journal and Ottawa Fair Dealer (Ottawa, Illinois) . It's not terribly pretty, but it provide some functionality which would otherwise be placed into narrative. --ceyockey 04:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


Is survey legit? [20 April 2015]

Received an email this morning with a link for taking a survey about WeRelate. Just want to verify that the link is legitimate before I reply ;-) Thanks ... --KayS 20:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's legit. It's market research for a project that I'm working on jointly with a genealogy society. I'm hoping that the results will be beneficial to WeRelate users and other genealogy developers.--Dallan 02:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Mapping County Cemeteries [23 April 2015]

I am intrigued by this map of Hopkins County, Texas indicating all the cemeteries and would love to work on such a map for a different county. http://www.hcgstx.org/index.php/records/burial-sites/cemeteries-mapped I have the cemetery info but not the know-how to create the map with push pins and a scroll down index. Could there be some sort of template built that would have the info for creating such a page with just the long/lat to be added for a map of any area and then whoever is interested could add the info on the various cemeteries? Is such a template possible? (I inquired of the Hopkins Co. folks about their map and they had hired someone to create their map.)

When working on Wood County, WV I realized how helpful it would be to be able to visualize in what locality each of the many cemeteries were located. And the more I think on this, the more I like the idea of being able to create such a map to be linked to each county page. Is this a possibility? If so, we would need a page telling about the template and just how to add what is needed to the template in order to locate the area and then locate a cemetery in that area. Maybe a wild dream; so is it possible? Better yet, does anybody else think it would be helpful? --janiejac 23:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Janiejac. To get many of the same features you are looking for in a graphic display for any area of the United States, you may want to go to Billion Graves and search their cemetery maps. From the home page, hit the Search tab, hit the Cemetery Lookup tab, type in your filtering parameters (down to the county level if you want to see all the cemeteries in a particular county), then hit Search. It will display in textual format all the cemeteries it lists for that particular county. At the bottom of the page, you can hit the Cemetery Map tab for a satellite image and scroll it to the geographical area you are looking for. (It does not show political boundaries below state level, although it does show city names and highways.) Hope that helps. --BobC 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, I'll give it a try. I just may have to try to learn how google maps work, but I'd rather research than create pages! --janiejac 02:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I use the Histopolis website to find out which township a cemetery is located in or if it is within city boundaries. -Moverton 07:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sort feature adding children [2 May 2015]

I've been adding children & sources for 'John Robinson and Hannah Wiswall (1)'. Usually the children sort chronologicaly quickly; this time the sort hasn't happened yet (20 min). Some maintenance going on ? Neal--SkippyG 21:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)