From: "robert williams" <> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 6:04 PM Subject: [Dyfed] The Written word. > Many Years ago I had an E.Mail off somebody who had traced their family > history using nothing but the I.G.I; > Their facts were therefore based on what somebody else had told them,and > more importantly, > NO research in to the Actual Parish Registers had been done whatsoever. Certainly I would always have the gravest doubts about anyone claiming to have traced their ancestry back two or three hundred years using nothing but the IGI - given the inevitable gaps and omissions within the surviving registers. Also to say nothing of the probable missed opportunities to flesh out their Family History from other sources. I think this would still hold true even with a relatively uncommon surname. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian P. Swann" <> To: "'Diana Trenchard'" <> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [Dyfed] The Written Word. >I still think we are in a transition in family history. > This is the communication revolution really starting to exert its power. Provided everyone always accepts that ease and quantity of communication is not necessarily the same as quality. For example, anyone can edit Wikipedia, and indeed it does contain some very useful articles. But an interesting view of the downside is provided by Timothy Messer-Kruse's piece at http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/. Similarly huge numbers of people can contribute (normally with minimal moderatorial interference) to "Have Your Say" pages on numerous TV, radio and newspaper websites - has this particularly led to noticeably higher overall standards? > The questions are how critical will these Groups be of the online > information provided, and how good is that online information anyway. Quite so. > Some people who have had to deal with Ancestry in the past are very > jaundiced - and believe they will never listen effectively to criticism > ... But the quality of the work they have done on the London and Middlesex > parish registers is atrocious. Within the next 6 weeks I intend to find > out what the London Metropolitan Archives really think of their > relationship with them - in some ways I think they must be secretly > embarrassed - but are they actively involved in any follow-up change > process, or have they washed their hands of it? Is it really the LMA's problem? Whilst any inaccuracies might indeed be regrettable, if people (including computer users) decide to adopt a new tool - clearly with some limitations as to its functionality - and then choose to use it carelessly or inappropriately, then it's surely their own lookout? Ancestry has hitherto never had the highest of reputations for accuracy, and doubtless some allowance for this was made at the time. Did anybody else offer a more credible tender? I dare say the LMA staff have quite sufficient other issues to worry about, without taking on board other people's problems. As regards the latter, they surely cannot expect any more in the way of staff assistance (assuming no additional payment is being made) than that normally offered to any other researchers. Whilst on the subject of transcripts and databases, one quite often reads criticisms of the use of overseas labour (e.g. Indian) for the purposes of keying in data, given these operators' initial lack of familiarity with local surnames and placenames. My own view is that whilst these disadvantages should not be underestimated, neither should they be overestimated. Having myself done a fair number of transcripts relating to new areas, my experience is that (particularly if given access to appropriate reference sources) if one is doing the work almost continuously, one soon begins to recognise the same placenames when they recur frequently, and it is these very same names which it is of the greatest importance to get correct. If more local operators - able and willing to devote the same numbers of hours, operating under the same overall management, and within the same timescale and budget - were indeed available, why wouldn't they then be recruited? In the end (as has already been said) the chances are that no new genealogical database is ever likely to be perfect. AJ