On Thursday, July 12, 2001 4:48:53 PM UTC+2, Marleen Körner wrote: > Hello, > > I have just started my job as a programmer and I need some practice. Because > genealogy is one of my hobbies I thought about writing a genelaogy program > on my own. My idea is using a Microsoft Access Database (*.mdb) for the data > and a Visual Basic written program for the user interface. I would like to > hear you thoughts about the idea. > I also need proposals what the program should be able of. Or maybe somebody > can give me a hint where I can find some kind of catalogue "This is what a > good program does" > > Well, a lot of wishes, but I hope somebody can help me :-) > Yours, Marleen hey friends, i am try to create my own genealogy toll with i am going to use vb.net but i don't now how i am going to start creating the database.i will like to do it with window files,i will like someone who can help me with it thanks you all

On Friday, July 27, 2001 8:49:02 AM UTC+2, pblair wrote: > It was good of Ken to post this as encouragement to others. > > If you want to have a peek (only a peek!) at a Legacy file, open > Explorer and find the Legacy folder. In it should be a sub-folder, > Data. Open than, and there is sample.fdb - a small test file to play > with. Rename it to somethnig like sample.mdb, and you can open it in > Access to have a look. > > Essentially all you will see are some tables and queries. No VB or > stuff like that....but it will show you a bit about structures (open > Relationships to see that) and so on. When you have finished, name it > back to what it started out as. > > As Ken says, make a commitment and get some help... > > Paul Blair > > On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:54:42 -0700, "Ken McGinnis" > <KenMcGinnis@MillenniaCorp.com> wrote: > > >Dear Software Developers, > > > >Legacy Family Tree uses the Microsoft Access Database format for its family > >files. Many of you know that Legacy is now free and anyone can download a > >copy to use. With this new model of giving away our software we also have a > >new policy of opening our source code to developers who are interested in > >writing genealogy utilities and would like to use the Legacy file format. > >The sample Visual Basic 6.0 source code and the Legacy file specification > >are FREE to anyone interested in writing an Add-on that works with Legacy. > >If you end up with a great new genealogy tool we will even help you market > >it to our huge user base. > > > >Do you have a good idea for a product? Are you good with creating web pages > >or good with mapping or have other great ideas that genealogists have always > >needed? Why not put what you already know how to do to good use and we will > >do the rest by giving you the tools. We have already released three > >successful Add-on programs and there are several more in the works right > >now. Visit our web site to see the current Add-on programs: > >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Add-Ons.asp > > > >Any developers who are interested can send me a message and I will send more > >details along with our Non-Disclosure Agreement and the Legacy Add-on > >Agreement for your review. > > > >Thanks > > > >Ken McGinnis > >Millennia Corporation > >KenMcGinnis@MillenniaCorp.com > >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com > >We are changing the world of genealogy! > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I have just started my job as a programmer and I need some practice. > >Because > >> genealogy is one of my hobbies I thought about writing a genelaogy program > >> on my own. My idea is using a Microsoft Access Database (*.mdb) for the > >data > >> and a Visual Basic written program for the user interface. I would like to > >> hear you thoughts about the idea. > >> I also need proposals what the program should be able of. Or maybe > >somebody > >> can give me a hint where I can find some kind of catalogue "This is what a > >> good program does" > >> > >> Well, a lot of wishes, but I hope somebody can help me :-) > >> Yours, Marleen > > > > > > ------------------------------- > Paul Blair > pblair@pcug.org.au

On 2012-09-25 17:36, Ian Goddard wrote: > singhals wrote: >> My stand was (and is) -- (1) if you're going to give the parish you >> should ALSO give the rest of the locale (St. John's Parish is not a >> unique GPS point, after all). (2) if you give a parish (or Parish) in >> one place, give it in all places or at the very least say (parish not >> known). Giving a baptismal record from St Worrisom Parish, then a >> Marriage record from Alimony-upon-Thames, and a burial from London, >> Middlesex, England, UK causes those not familiar with the ins and outs >> of London civil and ecclesiastical geography untold --and unnecessary-- >> grief. > > Sadly, it may well be that parish is all there is in the original. IME > in the Lord Hardwicke Act registers only the parish is named. > > It would be quite possible for someone to have their marriage recorded > as simply All Hallows, Almondbury, and their children's baptisms as Holy > Trinity, Holmfirth. Holmfirth was a chapel-of-ease serving parts of two > parishes and held baptisms for both but not marriages. I've seen that > actual circumstance cause confusion to someone posting in an online forum. > > Just to add to the confusion it would be quite consistent have then been > buried in yet another church when the larger parish was split up in the > C19th. > > In such cases there's not substitute for becoming familiar with those > ins and outs. That's why I think there needs to be a standard and > sufficiently complex data model for dealing with civil and > ecclesiastical hierarchies of places and the way they change with time, > so that they can be posted online by those who are familiar with them. > Your genie program of choice would then be able to download and parse > the data to show the affiliations of the place at the appropriate time. > I must admit that I don´t really understand what this discussion is about. I will only state that, when it comes to sources, the main point is to give enough information about the source that anybody else could find it and check it out by themself. If you call that a sufficiently complex data model, it´s OK for me. Kurt F

singhals wrote: > My stand was (and is) -- (1) if you're going to give the parish you > should ALSO give the rest of the locale (St. John's Parish is not a > unique GPS point, after all). (2) if you give a parish (or Parish) in > one place, give it in all places or at the very least say (parish not > known). Giving a baptismal record from St Worrisom Parish, then a > Marriage record from Alimony-upon-Thames, and a burial from London, > Middlesex, England, UK causes those not familiar with the ins and outs > of London civil and ecclesiastical geography untold --and unnecessary-- > grief. Sadly, it may well be that parish is all there is in the original. IME in the Lord Hardwicke Act registers only the parish is named. It would be quite possible for someone to have their marriage recorded as simply All Hallows, Almondbury, and their children's baptisms as Holy Trinity, Holmfirth. Holmfirth was a chapel-of-ease serving parts of two parishes and held baptisms for both but not marriages. I've seen that actual circumstance cause confusion to someone posting in an online forum. Just to add to the confusion it would be quite consistent have then been buried in yet another church when the larger parish was split up in the C19th. In such cases there's not substitute for becoming familiar with those ins and outs. That's why I think there needs to be a standard and sufficiently complex data model for dealing with civil and ecclesiastical hierarchies of places and the way they change with time, so that they can be posted online by those who are familiar with them. Your genie program of choice would then be able to download and parse the data to show the affiliations of the place at the appropriate time. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

Tom Wetmore wrote: > Denis:> There is at least one reason : ... > > That's not a reason you shouldn't record everything. You are describing a problem caused by using data extracted by others who didn't record everything. You either go back and get the missing data yourself or you live with it. > > Sorry, Kurt I was not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the thread's author whose post was a tirade about someone who didn't record everything, and who then tried to take the position that the problems were caused somehow by the recording of parish names. Though I didn't find any cogent argument for that position. I completely disagree and think the statement is egregious. If parish names are available of course they should be recorded. Well, Tom, I don't know how I could have made it any plainer to you without introducing the Board of Education. The OP (me) was complaining that a narrative written by someone else specified a parish with no further geographic information in one place and no where else in the document specified a parish. I was advocating CONSISTENCY which generally aids comprehension...or so those who gripe about my inconsistencies claim at least. My stand was (and is) -- (1) if you're going to give the parish you should ALSO give the rest of the locale (St. John's Parish is not a unique GPS point, after all). (2) if you give a parish (or Parish) in one place, give it in all places or at the very least say (parish not known). Giving a baptismal record from St Worrisom Parish, then a Marriage record from Alimony-upon-Thames, and a burial from London, Middlesex, England, UK causes those not familiar with the ins and outs of London civil and ecclesiastical geography untold --and unnecessary-- grief. cheryl

Denis: > There is at least one reason : ... That's not a reason you shouldn't record everything. You are describing a problem caused by using data extracted by others who didn't record everything. You either go back and get the missing data yourself or you live with it. Sorry, Kurt I was not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the thread's author whose post was a tirade about someone who didn't record everything, and who then tried to take the position that the problems were caused somehow by the recording of parish names. Though I didn't find any cogent argument for that position. I completely disagree and think the statement is egregious. If parish names are available of course they should be recorded.

< One should ALWAYS record everything found about places, dates, names, < events, relationships. < There is NEVER a reason to omit recording a parish name. We are in total agreement. Kurt F

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:42:03 -0700 (PDT), Tom Wetmore <ttw4@verizon.net> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >One should ALWAYS record everything found about places, dates, names, events, relationships. > >There is NEVER a reason to omit recording a parish name. There is at least one reason : rebuilding the families of a specific parish, i.e. all unnamed places with an accurate date are supposed to be about records found in that place. When someone copy a page of a such book, without keeping the title, then you may have some problem to confirm this data. Denis -- Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG) Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ Sur cédérom à 1780 - On CD-ROM to 1780

One should ALWAYS record everything found about places, dates, names, events, relationships. There is NEVER a reason to omit recording a parish name.

A new Question & Answer Web site for Genealogy has been proposed on the Stack Exchange Network. However, it currently needs some support before it is allowed to become a fully functional Q&A site. http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/43502/genealogy As well as bringing it to people's attention, I wanted to explain a little bit about it for those people who may be unfamiliar with that network. For the record: neither the site nor the embracing network are anything to do with myself. 'Area 51' is only a "staging area" for newly proposed sites in this network. This means that all proposed sites have to go through a phase where they are assessed for viability before they get launched. This proposed 'Genealogy' site needs 60 followers, and 40 example questions each of which has a score of 10 or more. It already has nearly 90 followers, and 19 questions with a score of 10+. Anyone who registers can then pose 5 example questions, and can also allocate 5 individual votes to others' questions - carefully avoiding ones that already have a score of 10+. When the site get launched, those questions with a score of 10+ are used to seed the site and answers can then be added to them. StackExchange sites (such as StackOverflow which software people may know of) are based on up/down-voting of answers, and the resultant 'reputation' points of individuals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Exchange_Network Most importantly, they are free, run by the users themselves, and not affiliated to any commercial organisation. The current 'staging area' is definitely a little confusing but Louis Kessler produced some useful instructions at: https://plus.google.com/u/0/?tab=wX#106257958448273208907/posts/GAYKVrtMWGH The choice is yours, of course... Tony Proctor

Hello, Kurt. This was more of a complaint that a paid researcher failed to provide in his report to a paying client sufficient identifying information for anyone to follow his trail. Perhaps he was thinking that "any idiot knows xyz is a "län", I don't need to say so"; perhaps he wasn't. Impossible to know at this point. But because he failed to SAY what level of records he was looking at, it's difficult to reproduce his results. Kind of like a astronomer failing to note which constellation he's looking at when he comments on the 2nd star in it, or an astrophysicist failing to mention whether his unit of measurement is a parsec or an A.U. In one place he said it was in "Brunnby parish." Period. In another, he says something is in "Allerum, Malmö". In yet another he specified "Ryhus, Välinge, Malmöhus". Cheryl Kurt F wrote: > Hello Cheryl > > As a Swede I am puzzled about a few words below. > > What do you mean by "parish, state" > What do you mean by "district, state" > What do you mean by "parish, district" > > In Swedish research you have to record "parish" and "län" as there are > some parishes with the same name in different län. > Is "län" the same as "district" in your notes? > What is "state"? > > A typical source notation in my research is: > "Skeda, C:4, Birth,Marriage,Death, 1792-1831, page 233" > In my database this person is noted as born 21-04-1818 in "Syrorp, > Skeda, E" as I also includes the farm name. The "E" notates > "Östergötlands län". We don´t bother to use the newly introduced > "regions" as the church books uses the old names. This source makes it > possible for me to go back and look it up again, if I so wishes. > > The birth, marriage and death records are written at the time of the > event, and must be considered as facts (unless the person who wrote the > record made an error, which is possible to overcome if you do a proper > research). > > The household examination books can be in error, as they were copied > mostly every five year. > > There is no need to have copies of the relevant pages in the church > books. It is always possible to find the right book on the internet. > (You have Genline, Arkiv Digital and SVAR to look at.) > > I don´t know what you mean by the geografic changes 1952. I must admit > this is news to me. Everyone I know uses the "old" designations. > > The censuses are harder to read and contain less indormation than the > church books. Remember that is was the State church resposibility to > keep record of every Swede. Today it is the resposibility of the IRS, so > future researchers will have more trouble to do a reliable research. > > Do you have any examples to share with us. I am always willing to help. > You can email me direct if you wish. My email address is, as always, valid. > > Kurt F > > On 2012-08-31 15:25, singhals wrote: >> A few weeks ago (or was it months?) we had another round of "the best >> way to enter place names". >> >> I came down firmly against including the parish name. This week that >> viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a relative-by-marriage who died >> about a year ago. >> >> Aunt Ett (NOT her real name) shared data on her Swedish line with me, so >> someone else would have it. The Swedish data was found for her by a >> professional researcher who charged her dearly about 15-20 years ago. He >> did NOT provide her copies (I'm guessing microfilm copiers weren't >> prolific yet or maybe she told him she didn't need official copies and >> he didn't want to make plain ones; dunno), just the prose reports. So, >> when I entered it into a genie program for her, I typed what was there. >> What else could I do? >> >> Now that a lot of Swedish records are on-line, I've been trying to >> confirm what he gave her. First off, let me say, yeah, he earned his >> money. And, no, so far he doesn't seem to have made anything up, >> precisely. He does seem to have reported things as "fact" when I would >> have labelled them "alleged facts" if I'd been charging for 'em, but >> that could be /my/ problem rather than /a/ problem. >> >> Anyway, in confirming the material at hand, I'm discovering that in some >> instances, he reported places as Parish, State; in some it was district, >> state; in some it was parish, district. I'm sure HE knew where they >> were, but after a week of intense digging, /I'm/ still not sure. I'll >> put money on the notion that Aunt Ett didn't know either! >> >> The research isn't made easier by the local guvvmint's geographic >> changes in 1952 (about half-a-century after the last contact over there >> died), or by the lack of cross-references in catalogues to those pre- >> and post- locales. I can only be grateful I'm not looking in the early >> 1700s and dealing with that episode of Swedish independence vis-a-vis >> calendars! >> >> It wouldn't have /killed/ that researcher to have added Parish to the >> parish name. Nor so I see that it would have diminished his machismo >> any to have hand-added the flaming diacriticals! (eye-roll) >> >> Cheryl >> [Yeah, it would have helped if I'd've kept the documents Aunt Ett had, >> but like a good little thing, I returned them to her. >>

Hello Cheryl As a Swede I am puzzled about a few words below. What do you mean by "parish, state" What do you mean by "district, state" What do you mean by "parish, district" In Swedish research you have to record "parish" and "län" as there are some parishes with the same name in different län. Is "län" the same as "district" in your notes? What is "state"? A typical source notation in my research is: "Skeda, C:4, Birth,Marriage,Death, 1792-1831, page 233" In my database this person is noted as born 21-04-1818 in "Syrorp, Skeda, E" as I also includes the farm name. The "E" notates "Östergötlands län". We don´t bother to use the newly introduced "regions" as the church books uses the old names. This source makes it possible for me to go back and look it up again, if I so wishes. The birth, marriage and death records are written at the time of the event, and must be considered as facts (unless the person who wrote the record made an error, which is possible to overcome if you do a proper research). The household examination books can be in error, as they were copied mostly every five year. There is no need to have copies of the relevant pages in the church books. It is always possible to find the right book on the internet. (You have Genline, Arkiv Digital and SVAR to look at.) I don´t know what you mean by the geografic changes 1952. I must admit this is news to me. Everyone I know uses the "old" designations. The censuses are harder to read and contain less indormation than the church books. Remember that is was the State church resposibility to keep record of every Swede. Today it is the resposibility of the IRS, so future researchers will have more trouble to do a reliable research. Do you have any examples to share with us. I am always willing to help. You can email me direct if you wish. My email address is, as always, valid. Kurt F On 2012-08-31 15:25, singhals wrote: > A few weeks ago (or was it months?) we had another round of "the best > way to enter place names". > > I came down firmly against including the parish name. This week that > viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a relative-by-marriage who died > about a year ago. > > Aunt Ett (NOT her real name) shared data on her Swedish line with me, so > someone else would have it. The Swedish data was found for her by a > professional researcher who charged her dearly about 15-20 years ago. He > did NOT provide her copies (I'm guessing microfilm copiers weren't > prolific yet or maybe she told him she didn't need official copies and > he didn't want to make plain ones; dunno), just the prose reports. So, > when I entered it into a genie program for her, I typed what was there. > What else could I do? > > Now that a lot of Swedish records are on-line, I've been trying to > confirm what he gave her. First off, let me say, yeah, he earned his > money. And, no, so far he doesn't seem to have made anything up, > precisely. He does seem to have reported things as "fact" when I would > have labelled them "alleged facts" if I'd been charging for 'em, but > that could be /my/ problem rather than /a/ problem. > > Anyway, in confirming the material at hand, I'm discovering that in some > instances, he reported places as Parish, State; in some it was district, > state; in some it was parish, district. I'm sure HE knew where they > were, but after a week of intense digging, /I'm/ still not sure. I'll > put money on the notion that Aunt Ett didn't know either! > > The research isn't made easier by the local guvvmint's geographic > changes in 1952 (about half-a-century after the last contact over there > died), or by the lack of cross-references in catalogues to those pre- > and post- locales. I can only be grateful I'm not looking in the early > 1700s and dealing with that episode of Swedish independence vis-a-vis > calendars! > > It wouldn't have /killed/ that researcher to have added Parish to the > parish name. Nor so I see that it would have diminished his machismo > any to have hand-added the flaming diacriticals! (eye-roll) > > Cheryl > [Yeah, it would have helped if I'd've kept the documents Aunt Ett had, > but like a good little thing, I returned them to her. >

singhals wrote: > A few weeks ago (or was it months?) we had another round of "the best > way to enter place names". > > I came down firmly against including the parish name. This week that > viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a relative-by-marriage who died > about a year ago. > > Aunt Ett (NOT her real name) shared data on her Swedish line with me, so > someone else would have it. The Swedish data was found for her by a > professional researcher who charged her dearly about 15-20 years ago. He > did NOT provide her copies (I'm guessing microfilm copiers weren't > prolific yet or maybe she told him she didn't need official copies and > he didn't want to make plain ones; dunno), just the prose reports. So, > when I entered it into a genie program for her, I typed what was there. > What else could I do? > > Now that a lot of Swedish records are on-line, I've been trying to > confirm what he gave her. First off, let me say, yeah, he earned his > money. And, no, so far he doesn't seem to have made anything up, > precisely. He does seem to have reported things as "fact" when I would > have labelled them "alleged facts" if I'd been charging for 'em, but > that could be /my/ problem rather than /a/ problem. > > Anyway, in confirming the material at hand, I'm discovering that in some > instances, he reported places as Parish, State; in some it was district, > state; in some it was parish, district. I'm sure HE knew where they > were, but after a week of intense digging, /I'm/ still not sure. I'll > put money on the notion that Aunt Ett didn't know either! > > The research isn't made easier by the local guvvmint's geographic > changes in 1952 (about half-a-century after the last contact over there > died), or by the lack of cross-references in catalogues to those pre- > and post- locales. I can only be grateful I'm not looking in the early > 1700s and dealing with that episode of Swedish independence vis-a-vis > calendars! > > It wouldn't have /killed/ that researcher to have added Parish to the > parish name. Which is why it's best to record the entities *as they existed at the time* and to have the flexibility to enter it that way into the genie program & not be restricted to some US-centric fixed format. > Nor so I see that it would have diminished his machismo any > to have hand-added the flaming diacriticals! Memories of the Swedish chef ;) -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:25:26 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com> opined: >He does seem to have >reported things as "fact" when I would have labelled them >"alleged facts" if I'd been charging for 'em, but that could >be /my/ problem rather than /a/ problem. (Most) everything in genealogy is an "alleged fact" (i.e. an assertion). Some just have a higher degree of confidence. -- Dennis

A few weeks ago (or was it months?) we had another round of "the best way to enter place names". I came down firmly against including the parish name. This week that viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a relative-by-marriage who died about a year ago. Aunt Ett (NOT her real name) shared data on her Swedish line with me, so someone else would have it. The Swedish data was found for her by a professional researcher who charged her dearly about 15-20 years ago. He did NOT provide her copies (I'm guessing microfilm copiers weren't prolific yet or maybe she told him she didn't need official copies and he didn't want to make plain ones; dunno), just the prose reports. So, when I entered it into a genie program for her, I typed what was there. What else could I do? Now that a lot of Swedish records are on-line, I've been trying to confirm what he gave her. First off, let me say, yeah, he earned his money. And, no, so far he doesn't seem to have made anything up, precisely. He does seem to have reported things as "fact" when I would have labelled them "alleged facts" if I'd been charging for 'em, but that could be /my/ problem rather than /a/ problem. Anyway, in confirming the material at hand, I'm discovering that in some instances, he reported places as Parish, State; in some it was district, state; in some it was parish, district. I'm sure HE knew where they were, but after a week of intense digging, /I'm/ still not sure. I'll put money on the notion that Aunt Ett didn't know either! The research isn't made easier by the local guvvmint's geographic changes in 1952 (about half-a-century after the last contact over there died), or by the lack of cross-references in catalogues to those pre- and post- locales. I can only be grateful I'm not looking in the early 1700s and dealing with that episode of Swedish independence vis-a-vis calendars! It wouldn't have /killed/ that researcher to have added Parish to the parish name. Nor so I see that it would have diminished his machismo any to have hand-added the flaming diacriticals! (eye-roll) Cheryl [Yeah, it would have helped if I'd've kept the documents Aunt Ett had, but like a good little thing, I returned them to her.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:13:37 -0700 (PDT), pblair <pblair@pcug.org.au> wrote: >At the risk of being parochial, If you ain't got pride, hoss, you ain't got very much. I guess you got it. But watch out for those King Browns in your yard. Hugh

At the risk of being parochial, the National Library of Australia (NLA) has Trove (trove.nla.gov.au) which has provided us with a most wonderful resource for genealogy in Australia. If you visit the site, you would have to be impressed by the stats given on the main page.

Tony Proctor wrote: > "Ian Goddard"<goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:a9ovhfFnmuU1@mid.individual.net... >> Tony Proctor wrote: >>> This article really caught my eye since it presents some interesting >>> statistics about the up-take of genealogy. For instance, "one in every >>> 200 >>> internet searches is related to genealogy". >>> >>> http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Articles/top%20trends%20in%20genealogy%20page%2001.html >>> >>> Unfortunately, I can't see a date for when the data was captured, or when >>> the article was published. >> >> One recent trend on s.g.britain is that of replies to posts which are >> years old. I suspect Android and/or Apple apps for querying Google >> Groups. I wonder if such apps bother quoting the date. > > Yes, the date can be very important, especially to the relevance of a survey > like this quoted one. I'm very surprised that no date was published at its > head. Not everyone would be able to find it as Denis did. Well, the first line of page 2 refers to Jan 2012 so although it's not in the heading it's not exactly hidden. But not bothering to add a dateline isn't unique; it almost seems /de rigeur/ with bloggers. > With replies to old posts, Ian, are you saying that the replies do not > always carry the current date, or that people reply not always knowing the > date of the origina thread? There are a number of apparently new threads starting "Re:" with the remainder of the subject line not matching up with any recent thread. Sometimes they don't even quote anything from the post to which they're replying although the content suggests that they are replying. Sometimes they do quote something & then usually with the date. Some of these dates go back to the 1990s. Irrespective of whether there's a date or not there seems to be little or no awareness of the fact that it's an old post or that they're not directly addressing the original poster (who may not have been active on the group for years). They all seem to have been posted via posting.google.com -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

"Ian Goddard" <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:a9ovhfFnmuU1@mid.individual.net... > Tony Proctor wrote: >> This article really caught my eye since it presents some interesting >> statistics about the up-take of genealogy. For instance, "one in every >> 200 >> internet searches is related to genealogy". >> >> http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Articles/top%20trends%20in%20genealogy%20page%2001.html >> >> Unfortunately, I can't see a date for when the data was captured, or when >> the article was published. > > One recent trend on s.g.britain is that of replies to posts which are > years old. I suspect Android and/or Apple apps for querying Google > Groups. I wonder if such apps bother quoting the date. > > -- > Ian > > The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang > at austonley org uk Yes, the date can be very important, especially to the relevance of a survey like this quoted one. I'm very surprised that no date was published at its head. Not everyone would be able to find it as Denis did. With replies to old posts, Ian, are you saying that the replies do not always carry the current date, or that people reply not always knowing the date of the origina thread? Tony Proctor

Tony Proctor wrote: > This article really caught my eye since it presents some interesting > statistics about the up-take of genealogy. For instance, "one in every 200 > internet searches is related to genealogy". > > http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Articles/top%20trends%20in%20genealogy%20page%2001.html > > Unfortunately, I can't see a date for when the data was captured, or when > the article was published. One recent trend on s.g.britain is that of replies to posts which are years old. I suspect Android and/or Apple apps for querying Google Groups. I wonder if such apps bother quoting the date. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk