> If you only want serious/responsible folks to see it, create a > book -- maybe find one of those print-on-demand companies to handle > it, and price it so that folks will understand that this is not > something done gratis... then post a link to where the book can be > bought -- but supply no online data itself. > > [email protected] Baloney! You will find many "serious" genealogists with GEDCOMs on WorldConnect and you will find many worthless family books you can purchase for a price (and vice versa). Research is only as good as the researcher and the documentation--the media where the info is displayed is not relevant. One thing about the Internet as a repository for genealogical data--it is MUCH easier to change it online should you find an error than it is in a book that has already been printed and distributed. Joan [email protected]

Lois Brinks-Heath <[email protected]> > it on to their children. For me, I would never put this kind of > info into FTM or out there publicly. I just keep it in my notes. TMG has a few features that help this type of situation: exclusion and sensitivity markers. One can enter the data, but the markers can be used to prevent the data from being printed or transferred via GEDCOM. > In regards to uploading my FTM to public places, I would like for <nitpicking> FTM is a program. One seldom, if ever, uploads a program. One uploads, possibly the FTM datafile (though that is only usable by those with programs that can read FTM native storage format), a GEDCOM (text, but structured for transfer between programs), or some textual report made from the data (web pages, PDFs, etc.). -- bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/ Dennis Lee Bieber <[email protected]>

> Has anyone noticed lately that when looking at family trees on > Ancestry that a growing number of them do not have a contact name, > only "unknown" at the top of the page. This really makes it > difficult to identify sources, connect with the contributor or > verify that the info is correct. I for one would like to complain > about it, but not sure where to send the complaint. > > Lois Brinks-Heath <[email protected]> If I had a dollar for all them unknowns, I could buy a nice TV set. What is really driving me mad is there's a man named Jerusha Simmons who has about 5 or more e-mail addresses dating back about the same amount of years. He is sooooo closely related to me. And I can't reach him. I even tracked down his old address on whitepages.com with number, he moved. I hope he's still alive. Maybe he'll pop up again some day. Tim Johnson <[email protected]>

> I'm not satisfied to do that. In the interest of presenting correct > information I think we have a duty to identify the incorrect. By > not identifying the wrong information we help perpetuate it. I'll > not be a party to that. > > Anyone who can determine what to believe probably doesn't need the > information in the first place. > > Hugh <[email protected]> Hugh- I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't inform a submitter if we find an error in their data. I simply am saying we cannot force anyone else to accept our version of the facts or fix errors in their files if they don't want to--they have the right to be wrong if they choose to be wrong. The only files and data over which we have complete control are our own. Joan [email protected]

> I want to take pictures at cemeteries and wondering what kind of > resolution I should look for in a digicam, as well as any other > features that would be good for genealogical purposes. I realize > that more pixels gives better pictures, but it makes for larger > pictures, more space taken up etc. > > Zev Griner <[email protected]> I'll be the Grinch. (g) I've used everything from a point-and-shoot Kodak camera with a 110 cartridge, through a 35mm SLR Nikon, a low-end Polaroid, and a 3Mp digital camera. I've taken good, bad, and indifferent pictures with each. I suspect it's the photographer not the camera in all three cases. (g) Low-end digitals seem to be 5 or 6 Mp these days, but just for giggles, pop for one of the single-use digitals and see how bad you think it is. Then borrow a better camera and reshoot the same scenes. If there's $200 worth of difference visible to your eye, then borrow an even better camera and repeat until you quit seeing a difference or until you hit your price limit. Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

> Actually, for every type of picture, there's an upper limit beyond > which extra resolution is wasted. If you're interested in the > inscription, etc, you don't need to be able to focus on every > chrystal in the rock. I have found 300 dpi on an A4 picture is > easily enough - although I've done some at 600. What's more > > "Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]> DPI (actually PPI) is a print-specific attribute which on its own doesn't say anything about the resolution of the source. A P&S camera has a sensor maybe a quarter of an inch across... At 300DPI on the sensor that would be a picture of 75 pixels <G> Also: 300PPI is considered photo-grade for printing, 600PPI is throwing a lot of information at the printer that it can't use. On a pure CMYK inkjet printer, 300PPI data implies 150LPI (halftone line screen is commonly half the image pixel rate). For 256 grey levels one needs a 16x16 printer dot, so 150LPIx16 => printer DPI of 2400. Modern photo printers with half-intense pigments/dyes or special (true red/blue) allow for photo-grade printing using 1200 printer DPI (from the same 300PPI image size). Many subjects can be printed down to about 200PPI without noticeable degradation. What are the dimensions of an A4 page? A 4x6" print at 300PPI is 1200x1800 => 2MP camera. An 8x10" print is 2400x3000 => 7MP camera. Downgrading to 200PPI, those cameras can produce 6x9" and 12x15" -- bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/ Dennis Lee Bieber <[email protected]>

> I doubt "change your reaction" would be your response if someone > stole from you. I really don't see that I should get MY case jumped > when all I'm wanting is to make it a bit more difficult for a thief > to steal from me, and I see it as no different from locking my doors > and windows to make it difficult enough for a thief to get into my > house, or my truck, that he'll decide it's not worth the effort and > will move on. I really don't see why I should be criticized for not > > "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]> Putting stuff on a web page is the equivalent of pinning it up on a supermarket bulletin boards, with signs on the billboards saying it is there.... If you only want serious/responsible folks to see it, create a book -- maybe find one of those print-on-demand companies to handle it, and price it so that folks will understand that this is not something done gratis... then post a link to where the book can be bought -- but supply no online data itself. With a book, you can include a preface stating how the information should be sourced and strongly requesting that such source credit be entered into their programs when using data from the book. -- bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/ Dennis Lee Bieber <[email protected]>

I had a similar thing happen but before all these online trees. About 18 years ago I exchanged info with a cousin. I had created a small family genealogy based on my great grandmother's stories and sent her a copy. About 10 years later another cousin said she found this booklet written by a well know local genealogist that included our family. She bought a copy for me at $15. When I got it is was a copy of the booklet I had sent out with all the spelling errors I had. The only change was the title page which now bore the name of the other genealogist with no mention of me or my grandmother. I contacted the woman and she said she had no memory of corresponding with me. When I sent he copies of her letters including the one acknowledging the receipt of the booklet. She simply refused to talk to me. I often wonder how much of her reputation was built on work of other people. They only way to keep people from claiming your work as their own is to share with no one. And that negates the very reason we do genealogy. You cannot copyright dates as they are facts of records. You can copyright your narrative and try to sue anyone who used the narrative without your permission but that is extremely expensive and you would have to prove they had your work before they wrote theirs. Not easy. Julia [email protected]

> > > I have a 1920 census record which says a specific man was born in > > > Russia/Poland and emigrated in 1905. His parents were both also > > > born in Russia/Poland, and the native language of both is Hebrew. > > > His wife was born in Pa, her father in Russia/Poland native language > > > Hebrew and her mother born in Hungary native language Hungarian > > > (struck-through and Magyar written above). > > > > > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> > > > > As usual for me, I'm not sure what exactly you are asking, > > > > Lisa Lepore > > I was hoping for an itemized list of the things that could deduced > from the information quoted. > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> Cheryl, why don't you list what you think could be deduced and let us critique. bob gillis

This has been an interesting discussion about "family secrets". I just recently traveled to California to meet descendents of my father's brother. It is one of the fun things about gathering information to hear "the other side of the story" from other family members. Then, I have to decide how to handle this "privileged information" in terms of passing it on. In my husband's family, there are two "secrets", one of an aunt who had an abortion in 1941 after her boyfriend was killed at Pearl Harbor. This is information that she never shared with anybody, but other aunts evidently passed it on to their children. For me, I would never put this kind of info into FTM or out there publicly. I just keep it in my notes. However, my father-in-law was married briefly just prior to marrying my mother-in-law, to legitimize a child of that union. I feel that this (probably) living person needs to be included in our family tree. I just enter it as a first marriage with no comments about it. In regards to uploading my FTM to public places, I would like for the program to have a way to completely block all notes, facts, etc. that I have in the FTM, but since it doesn't do this very well, I have started keeping a second copy of my tree and stripping out all notes before uploading it to Rootsweb. I also have learned the hard way that not all information needs to be added to FTM, but keep in a separate folder on my computer. It doesn't need to be "out there" for public knowledge. Lois Lois Brinks-Heath <[email protected]>

> I want to take pictures at cemeteries and wondering what kind of > resolution I should look for in a digicam, as well as any other > features that would be good for genealogical purposes. I realize > that more pixels gives better pictures, but it makes for larger > pictures, more space taken up etc. > > "Zev Griner" <[email protected]> Zev, The resolution you need will be determined by what you plan to do with the digital photos. If you are planning to display them only on the web, then a camera with lower resolution will probably do (1-3 megapixels or so). If you need to print them at the quality of a commercial printing press (unlikely, but you never know), I'd say 7-8 megapixels is needed for a full page image. For home printing of snapshots something in the mid-range would be fine (I've even had decent results with a cheap 2 megapixel camera printing to my Epson R300-a great photo printer, BTW). With a high-end camera you can always step-down the resolution of the images you shoot if storage space is an issue, but coming from a graphic arts background I prefer to shoot the best possible image with the best camera and lenses I can afford. I've had great results with my Canon EOS 10-D and the fact that its an SLR means I can easily swap on and off specialized lenses -- good for cemetery shooting where catching inscriptions well can be tricky. Digital SLRs, while more expensive than the typical pocket-sized, fixed-lens, point-and-shoot models, have the advantage of letting you get familiar with a basic lens and then add more to your arsenal as needs grow/change and budget allows. Stay away from digital zoom features if you can -- they can introduce ugly image artifacts and noise. An optical zoom is the way to go. The most important thing to remember is that a good camera does not guarantee good pictures -- study up on lighting, exposure, and other aspects of photography and take lots of different shots of the same subject with different settings to ensure you haven't wasted a trip when you take them home and download the pics to your computer. You can't always trust the tiny color LCD screen digicams provide to be sure you've got a good shot. Regards, Joe Joseph Mann <[email protected]>

> I want to take pictures at cemeteries and wondering what kind of > resolution I should look for in a digicam, as well as any other > features that would be good for genealogical purposes. I realize > that more pixels gives better pictures, but it makes for larger > pictures, more space taken up etc. > > [email protected] study how to cross light the stones by reflection or fill in flash FROM THE SIDE (s) no chalk, shaving soap (google it please - an eternal discussion) your problem will be lighting not pixels Hugh W -- Beta blogger http://nanowrimo3.blogspot.com/ visiting my past http://hughw36-2.blogspot.com/ re-entry http://snaps4.blogspot.com/" photographs and walks old blogger http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG Hugh Watkins <[email protected]>

> I want to take pictures at cemeteries and wondering what kind of > resolution I should look for in a digicam, as well as any other > features that would be good for genealogical purposes. I realize > that more pixels gives better pictures, but it makes for larger > pictures, more space taken up etc. > > [email protected] Storage is cheap... GB CF cards are available for under $100, and can hold something like 500 4MP JPEG images (and around 200 8MP -- but only around 72 8MP RAW on my 20d). 6MP on a P&S, 8-10MP on an APS-C SLR (P&S have smaller, physically, sensors, and packing more pixels into a smaller space makes for more noise at equivalent "ISO"). I'm rather picky when it comes to cameras -- I want full manual control as an option, hot-shoes for accessory flash (the built-in flash is not the best choice in many cases -- too close to the lens means little to no shadows [shadows bring out details of carvings]; too weak -- typically a 10-15 foot range at high sensitivities => higher noise in the image; can't be bounced). Custom white balance capability (pick up a set of Kodak grey cards to go with it -- using manual settings you can use the grey card to 1) set the "base" exposure [the polar bear in snowstorm effect: cameras assume they are seeing an 18% grey field, and will conclude that white-on-white is highly lit, so will reduce exposure to make it grey; use the grey card to set manual exposure for grey, and the white-on-white will stay white. I say "base" as, if the histogram display shows too much clipping of highlights you will have to reduce the exposure some to shift things darker], 2) set a neutral white balance [as with exposure, cameras assume they are looking at 18% grey /color tone/, and will "correct" images that are primarily one color to make that color look greyish) Ignore any specs for "digital zoom", only "optical zoom" is useful (digital zoom is the same as taking a non-zoomed picture, cropping out all but the middle, and then magnifying the pixels to print as if it were the size of the full image). Viewfinder for normal use... These P&S models where you have to hold your arms out to compose on an LCD are harder to hold steady. Unlike some, I do not find wide-angle/close-focus (this applies to P&S models, not changeable lens SLRs) that useful for documentation purposes. Backing up and using full telephoto results in a "flatter" (less distorted) image with more depth-of-field than creeping up to 7 inches and going wide-angle. (Note: if the viewfinder is off-axis, as with P&S models, you may need to compose [on tripod] using the LCD) A decent tripod for the size of the camera (technically, even my $100 tripods are on the light-weight end for my SLRs). Remote release capability -- infrared remote is nice (pity my 20d needed a costly wired remote). This can allow you to set the camera up, and then move away to hold lighting assists (see next) Fold up reflector(s) (I should buy one larger model than my current collection [I think my large is a 32" 5-in-1] -- since one needs go large to get avoid "hot-spots" on objects (a 20-30" is about right for just head portraits <G>). These come in different patterns. For stones, a silver/white or silver/black may be all you need (black, which I don't own, can be used to /block/ light; silver reflects with minimal color tinting -- other finishes are gold, "soft" versions of silver or gold, shiny white... A 5-in-1 model has a core of white diffuser [lets the light come through it] with a reversible cover that give silver/white/gold/soft gold surfaces). Not easy to use with a bounce flash as you can't see the effect (aim) except by taking pictures and checking on the LCD screen. -- bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/ Dennis Lee Bieber <[email protected]>

> [snip] > > > no > > maybe your mother copied from the 1863 book (mistakes and all too) > > > > what you have to do is look very critically at the 1863 book and try > > and find the original source of the data in the nineteenth century > > > > a PRIMARY source is a document created at the same time by the > > people involved in the event. > > > > a will > > a probate > > some church books > > > > but NOT many census records > > which are mostly SECONDARY sources > > because they are a fair copy from original census returns or an oral > > statement on a door step pencilled into a note book > > > > Hugh Watkins <[email protected]> > > Census records are pretty good indicators of where a person lived at > a particular time. And a copy of the original record is probably > pretty accurate. But (1) don't trust the indexes - lots of errors > there (2) there is no guarantee that every member of a household, > even if the last name is the same, is the blood kin of the adults. > > It's tough enough to find an essential fact but in my mind real > proof exists when we find a corroborating fact or perhaps a timely > succession of facts. > > J. Hugh Sullivan I look for three independent items of evidence before regarding any entry in my tree as "goldplated". Hugh W -- Beta blogger http://nanowrimo3.blogspot.com/ visiting my past http://hughw36-2.blogspot.com/ re-entry http://snaps4.blogspot.com/" photographs and walks old blogger http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG Hugh Watkins <[email protected]>

> I want to take pictures at cemeteries and wondering what kind of > resolution I should look for in a digicam, as well as any other > features that would be good for genealogical purposes. I realize > that more pixels gives better pictures, but it makes for larger > pictures, more space taken up etc. > > [email protected] Actually, for every type of picture, there's an upper limit beyond which extra resolution is wasted. If you're interested in the inscription, etc, you don't need to be able to focus on every chrystal in the rock. I have found 300 dpi on an A4 picture is easily enough - although I've done some at 600. What's more important is to be able to switch the flash off (for example, if you photograph a highly polished stone, you're better without a flash as the stone will reflect the flash like a mirror) - if the light's not good, use a tripod and a slower shutter. If the camer's on a tripod and you have a remote release for it, you can use a reflector (I use tin foil over a sheet of card) to give indirect lighting which may throw an inscription into better relief. Rather than spend a fortune on a mega mega pixel camera, I'd invest (after the tripod and remote release) in decent photo-handling software - badly eroded inscriptions can often be read if you play with the image - remove a colour forexample. Photoshop Home Edition has a feature where it makes an image look embossed - which helps sometimes. Lesley Robertson "Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]>

> I was hoping for an itemized list of the things that could deduced > from the information quoted. > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> Literally? Presuming the 1920 census was a door-to-door (vs the more modern snail mail with selected door-to-door sampling), I see two things: The census take was /told/ ...... Sometime after the entry had been made, someone made a "correction" to a field, putting in Magyar (which might even be questionable itself given an earlier description of the history of the region; it's a third-party assumption of what should have been entered). It might be safe to assume the family base is eastern Europe/western Russia (maybe south-eastern, given the Hungary reference)... What were the political boundaries like around 1880 (presuming the main individual is at least 20, emigrated at 5, and giving 20 years for the parents) -- no Poland, as I recall... -- bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/ Dennis Lee Bieber <[email protected]>

> > Distinguishing between what we think, or wish, and what we know > > is as important as the presentation - really, more so. > > > > Hugh <[email protected]> > > Hugh- > > We can only be responsible for information WE put in our GEDCOMs and > place online--we can't solve the problems of the world. There are > errors in books that have been there for hundreds of years and > continue to be perpetuated, and there are errors on the Internet and > there are good and bad researchers. Even good researchers make > errors in their files. We can't worry about the incorrrect > information that is out there--it has always been there and will > continue to be in the future. We can only make our own submitted > trees as accurate and complete as we can--the rest we can't really > worry about. If our info is "out there" then anyone can find it > along with the garbage files and make their own determination as to > what to believe. > > [email protected] I'm not satisfied to do that. In the interest of presenting correct information I think we have a duty to identify the incorrect. By not identifying the wrong information we help perpetuate it. I'll not be a party to that. Anyone who can determine what to believe probably doesn't need the information in the first place. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> I can appreciate that you would not feel good if this > happened, but I fear that the reality is that the only > thing that you can change is your reaction. > > Chris J Dixon I'm a descendant of Puritans with a strong law-and-order streak, what can I say? I doubt "change your reaction" would be your response if someone stole from you. I really don't see that I should get MY case jumped when all I'm wanting is to make it a bit more difficult for a thief to steal from me, and I see it as no different from locking my doors and windows to make it difficult enough for a thief to get into my house, or my truck, that he'll decide it's not worth the effort and will move on. I really don't see why I should be criticized for not wanting to become a victim while I DO want to assist others by providing my information to those who will use it legitimately and who will be kind and courteous enough to render proper credit to the person who did the work. I really can't see any of y'all wanting any less for yourselves, either. Karen Rhodes "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]>

> > It's not a matter of not wanting our information passed on. It's a > > matter of being madder than a wet hen at seeing someone else claim > > as THEIR work that which WE have labored to produce. I want to be > > able to put my information out there -- I just want to do it in such > > a way that someone else cannot steal it and claim that THEY did all > > the work that *I* actually did! > > > > Karen Rhodes > > I can appreciate that you would not feel good if this happened, but > I fear that the reality is that the only thing that you can change > is your reaction. > > You know what you have done. How does it diminish your efforts if > others copy it? > > Chris J Dixon <[email protected]> wrote: I can guess based on how I feel. If I work and sweat for years, and I'm the best I want the trophy. Okay, I'm blunt. Harvesting data without giving credit to the researcher or collector often means he is left out of the lines of communication. Sharing is a two way street and the harvester takes without shaing user names with me. The harvester is money motivated - I am learning and sharing motivated. That is not to say that Roots Web and US Gen Web and Ancestry don't provide a valuable service. But I am the originator of my presentation of data and I want users communicating with me - or me with them if they have something I don't. If harvested data is guesswork or wishful thinking, and is not so noted, I think I should have the opportunity to advise users. Otherwise misinformation will be strewed all over the Internet. Come to think of it, that's where we are now. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> > > I have a 1920 census record which says a > > > specific man was born in Russia/Poland > > > and emigrated in 1905. His parents were both > > > also born in Russia/Poland, and the native > > > language of both is Hebrew. His wife was born > > > in Pa, her father in Russia/Poland native > > > language Hebrew and her mother born in > > > Hungary native language Hungarian > > > (struck-through and Magyar written above). > > > > > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> > > > > As usual for me, I'm not sure what exactly you > > are asking, > > I was hoping for an itemized list of the things that > could deduced from the information quoted. > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> Emigrated in 1905 might suggest you could look for: Ship passenger list information Naturalization papers Native language Hebrew: Good chance they're Jews >From Russia: Check history databases: Were there pogroms? Is that why they left? Wife born in PA with father from Russia (or Poland) and mother from Hungary: Did they meet on the ship on the way over? Did they meet and marry in the US? Either way, their marriage record may be here in the states. That's just a start. I don't have any knowledge of what the strike-through of Hungarian language and the superposition of Magyar might mean. Hope that helps, or at least suggests something useful. Karen Rhodes "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]>