On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:56:22 -0500, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote: >On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:59:18 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh >Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: > >>On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:57:39 -0500, Denis Beauregard >><denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:46:55 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh >>>Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >>> >>>>The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. >>> >>>I would have personally some problem with associating a society >>>and knowledge. While the society (whatever it is and whatever the >>>purpose is, i.e. genealogy or other topics) may have the purpose of >>>publishing data (review, database, books, etc.), it is usually not >>>a monopoly. A federation of societies is usually a better group to >>>define standards and in many domains, there are specific committees >>>to set standards and while they are usually associated to societies >>>or federations equivalent, they work better when they are >>>independent and include representants from the industry (genealogy >>>software authors in our case). So, even if the NGS can set some >>>standard, FGS can have other and different standards and LDS may >>>have other as well so that in genealogy, there is no universal >>>"authority", even at a national level. >> >>I have no problem with that. Mine was the briefest way I could think >>of to say that there should be some set of standards for research. I >>think we need to know if data we use is based on the best and most >>accurate available or whether based on the whim of the preparer. I >>don't care WHAT they do but I want to know the basis if I use their >>data. > >NGS and FGS are large enough. Suppose you live in a smaller country. I don't. >Societies and federations usually have less competent managers and >it can be a lot easier for some jerk to take the control and to >corrupt some major source. Replace "smaller country" by "area" or >"topic", etc., and you will find that you may have databases that >are corrupted, filled of data that shouldn't be there, but kept as >the source to use because someone well known took the control. > >So, even if you have the largest societies running with let's call it >ethics, you may also have to use data from not very ethical people and >you will never know that point. Someone you may think to be a good >genealogist may appear to be a clown when you find out you are a >better one. And the opposite is possible. Someone who published >a reference book may have seen data that were lost later, so even if >this source has a lot of errors, it can be the only source for some >data. Of what possible use is errroneous data? >>>This is why genealogy is not genetics. You have to believe in the >>>documents. If the DNA doesn't match, then you can't know who broke >>>the line. >> >>That requires a lot of discussion. Suffice it to say I have found many >>incorrect documents. Of course it depends on the source and type. I >>know census records are often wrong. I know where one of my families >>was from 1778-1806 (NC) yet they never appeared in a census - just one >>incident. > >You have no choice but to accept what is available. And to >fill the blanks. Of course it depends on the record. I have three theories about my ancestors before my gg grand based on available records. No one can prove any of them wrong. So, do I maintain three genealogies or do it take the services of 3 men to creat my gg grand. > >>>>70% is more than "possibly" and many Southern families are >>>>considerably more certain than that. >>> >>>Actually, it could be around 99%. But even with 99%, you must >>>accept that you go by the papers and not by the genes. >> >>A person looking at adoption birth certs would be certain - until he >>saw the genealogy that recorded the true facts. In my mind that's one >>fork in the road where we make the decision to become genealogists or >>family historians. > >I don't think so. I would say the genealogist is someone building >genealogies, i.e. working on the record to build the tree, while the >family historian will add leaves to the tree, or flesh to the >skeleton. Obviously, the family historian should spend more times >with each family, and because he would check more records, odds are >better for him to find some indice proving an error for example. I'd say the genealogist can be both a tree builder and a family historian - I am. A family historian can choose anyone he wishes to be his direct line - and I'm sure some do. I have seen their sloppy work. > >Then, a genealogist would work faster. Someone publishing for example >a dictionnary with all people of his name in the world would do be >a genealogist. Someone could take the same time to work only on his >family line (i.e. 10 generations compared to 10,000 families). >And then, you find that it is very unlikely that you use the work >of the family historian except for the 1st generation, while the >genealogist work is more usefull since it covers more persons. > >>My grandfather's death certificate listed him as Joe. He signed checks >>"J O". He was also called Joseph. In his first census he was Josiah T. >>- seems like his parents should know. >> >>So far my DNA matches no Sullivan yet tested. My MRCA is two >>generations before my earliest provable ancestor. I am a close match >>with a Vaughan, a Willard and a Woolard - no help with their >>genealogy. > >With 30% of illegitimates, you reach quite fast the level where >your genealogy isn't likely your genetics. But you can't check >the DNA of all Americans to find something. So, I stop my line where the proof ends and keep looking. The oblect is not speed, it's accuracy. >>I doubt that I have the DNA of all three males so I'm guessing that a >>Sullivan male impregnated three women whose baseborn children later >>changed their names. > >But the DNA variation has something like one change for maybe 5 or 10 >generations. So, it would make more sense that the 3 people you >found are descendant of a common ancestor, but 10 or even 100 >generations back, at a time when there were no family name. > >>That is reasonable since my gg grand had 5 baseborn children by three >>ladies before he settled down with one of them. >> >>At this point I can continue my frustrated search or I can take the >>easy way out and link to the line I want to link to because it goes >>further back. I consider one honest and the other dishonest. I choose >>to be honest and I do not choose for others. > >This would be a work of family historian which can be necessary when >there is not enough reliable data to continue or when there is some >obvious problem (DNA in your case). Well, I could publish my family back to Adam and Eve - I'm just missing two generations. But lots of people don't believe the Bible, and Irish mythology is just, well, mythology. It's not my idea to produce something that no one can disprove - that's child's play for me. My idea is to produce an accurate genetic line with as many family stories as I can find to include. If I have to stop at 1790 c'est la vie. >Among the Quebec British immigrants, there is a Sullivan that is >renamed to Sylvain later (a true French name). Just to say you >may find DNA where you didn't expect it ! So far I have found Sullivan spelled more than 100 ways. My problem is that if some people here named a son William their genealogy would trace back to William the Conqueror because the names are the same. I think we all descend from Anonymous - he is everywhere. Hugh

Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >>So, even if you have the largest societies running with let's call it >>ethics, you may also have to use data from not very ethical people and >>you will never know that point. Someone you may think to be a good >>genealogist may appear to be a clown when you find out you are a >>better one. And the opposite is possible. Someone who published >>a reference book may have seen data that were lost later, so even if >>this source has a lot of errors, it can be the only source for some >>data. > >Of what possible use is errroneous data? Everything we do in life is based on subjective and therefore probably erroneous data. Erroneous does not necessarily mean entirely without foundation. The set of erroneous data still contains some truth. >>You have no choice but to accept what is available. And to >>fill the blanks. > >Of course it depends on the record. I have three theories about my >ancestors before my gg grand based on available records. No one can >prove any of them wrong. So, do I maintain three genealogies or do it >take the services of 3 men to creat my gg grand. Whatever pleases you. It's a hobby. >>With 30% of illegitimates, you reach quite fast the level where >>your genealogy isn't likely your genetics. But you can't check >>the DNA of all Americans to find something. > >So, I stop my line where the proof ends and keep looking. The oblect >is not speed, it's accuracy. For you, yes. For others, the object may be different. For me, it is a structure upon which I can build my study of history, whether it is of my family or some other. History is aided by facts when they are available, but useful history can be built based on analysis of subjective information as well. lojbab

In article <l8lcr3pt14n7spoonctqp06bhtid1j2g00@4ax.com>, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes: <snip> > For you, yes. For others, the object may be different. > > For me, it is a structure upon which I can build my study of history, > whether it is of my family or some other. History is aided by facts > when they are available, but useful history can be built based on > analysis of subjective information as well. > > lojbab I think one of the things Hugh's been getting at is the question of what standards one applies to the analysis of information, not the nature of the information, per se. So let me ask, what guidelines/criteria/rules do YOU apply in the analysis of your subjective information? I'd ask Hugh the same question: what standards do YOU, Hugh, apply in examining and before accepting data? All of us here, I think, like to believe we're fairly rigorous in the conclusions we draw from the data we dig up, tho' the truth is that some are more demanding than others. And, certainly, I'd be much more inclined to trust the research of somebody I knew dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's, rather than merely waved his hands over the data and pronounced it acceptable. Hugh may be the one extreme and, for all I know, you might be the other (tho' I'm not suggesting that, at all). As to standards and standard setting organizations, I have to say it all depends. If your objective is to join the DAR/SAR, then you'll document your claim in accordance with their rules and standards. If you're gathering information on your ancestors in order to prepare LDS temple ordinances for them, you follow THEIR rules. If you're a hobbyist, you have a choice and do what satisfies your own idea of thoroughness and reasonableness. Sloppy Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson) wrote: >In article <l8lcr3pt14n7spoonctqp06bhtid1j2g00@4ax.com>, > Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes: ><snip> >> For you, yes. For others, the object may be different. >> >> For me, it is a structure upon which I can build my study of history, >> whether it is of my family or some other. History is aided by facts >> when they are available, but useful history can be built based on >> analysis of subjective information as well. >> >> lojbab > >I think one of the things Hugh's been getting at is the >question of what standards one applies to the analysis of >information, not the nature of the information, per se. So >let me ask, what guidelines/criteria/rules do YOU apply in >the analysis of your subjective information? In my case, I treat unverified data as ... unverified and presumably subjective data. In the absence of anything else, I apply a common sense check, and then use it, noting to myself that it is unverified (I mark the source, of course, and I know that the source is not a verified one). If data is heavy with violations of common sense (we all probably know of the data sets that have people who are their own great grandparents, or people who lived 200 years, or were married before they were born), then I generally ignore it entirely. If people have a specific day month year, I usually presume that there was some primary source behind it at some point, though it might be 15th level hearsay. I'm perfectly happy to include data in my tree that has a chance of being bogus, over no data at all. But I remain aware that the data may be bogus. I do tend to prioritize sources by reliability in choosing which data value to display as my preferred value. But I retain other proposed values in my notes, often with a note as to why I am choosing a different value. >All of us here, I think, like to believe we're fairly >rigorous in the conclusions we draw from the data we dig >up, tho' the truth is that some are more demanding than >others. I don't claim to be rigorous, because my concept of rigor is probably too much like Hugh's mathematically trained concept, and I don't think mathematical rigor can apply to the social sciences. I would accept scientific rigor (which is less than mathematical rigor), but in my mind, that would require DNA testing - not an option for most of my research. Rather, I just try to exercise reasonable judgement, and then provide some documentation of what I've done. On the other hand, I don't document my sources according to any academic standard. I just make sure that it is pretty obvious to me (or someone who knows my data pretty well) why I've put this particular factoid in my database. I have people that I work with, and they seem satisfied with my work quality. And since most of my work these days is with ancient French parish records and I don't know more than a few words of the language, getting compliments on the quality of my work from native French speakers tends to be self-confidence building. >And, certainly, I'd be much more inclined to trust >the research of somebody I knew dotted all the I's and crossed >all the T's, rather than merely waved his hands over the data >and pronounced it acceptable. Of course. On the other hand, I tend to appreciate someone who has done an enormous amount of work, even with a small amount of error, over someone who has invested an enormous amount of effort dotting the Is and crossing the ts. I *respect* the latter, especially when it leads to finding something that wouldn't have otherwise been found, but I wouldn't ever do that sort of thing myself, and I don't really "appreciate" it to the same degree that I would, say, a truly large collection of 95% accurate data, where the 5% is not likely to be too far wrong. But I hope that someone who is doing something that meticulous is doing it for themselves, and not for me. With a hobby the first and only one you have to please is yourself. As you might gather, I greatly appreciate ancestry.com, with its enormous quantities of data, often poorly indexed by people who don't know the language. I can live with the indexing problems, so long as the data is available. > Hugh may be the one extreme and, >for all I know, you might be the other (tho' I'm not suggesting >that, at all). > >As to standards and standard setting organizations, I have to >say it all depends. If your objective is to join the DAR/SAR, >then you'll document your claim in accordance with their rules >and standards. Obviously. But precisely because I don't respect the rules, I would never bother (even assuming I qualified). And of course if you are foolish enough to try to be a "professional genealogist" and get people to pay you for what you do, then obviously you have to keep the customer satisfied, whoever that customer might be. I for one wouldn't pay someone by the hour to meet AGS or DAR standards. Indeed, other than some weird inheritance thing that promised me big bucks for meeting some legal standard, I'm not sure I can imagine why I would ever bother to meet someone else's standards for any reason other for my own convenience. >If you're gathering information on your ancestors >in order to prepare LDS temple ordinances for them, you follow >THEIR rules. Considering the crud that has made it into the IGI database, I'm not impressed by their rules. Of course, if you are doing something according to their rules, you aren't doing it according to someone else's rules. Since the standards are not in fact "standard" what plays here might not play somewhere else. Working with French and with Canadian records and researchers, I've quickly learned just how many different standards there are, and just how incompatible they are. As a result, it is hard to take any standard seriously. >If you're a hobbyist, you have a choice and do what satisfies your own idea of thoroughness and reasonableness. Except for those who are "professionals" or wannabes, we are all hobbyists. lojbab