Hi Christine As Janet wrote in reply to the original query Stillbirths have only been registered since 1927. Before that as there was no "birth" and no "death" they were not registered in anyway. BUT their burial is often noted in the local cemetery, as "Stillborn child of......". I have managed to fill in some gaps from those entries, but only where there is one family of the surname in an area. When there are multiple families giving birth over the same period it becomes a little more difficult. For still births since 1927 the next of kin can apply to the GRO for a copy of the register entry. These have never been kept locally the details were always sent direct to the GRO who maintain the register. Polly ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Colbourne via" <goons@rootsweb.com> To: "Janet Few" <janetfew@hotmail.com>; <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 7:16 PM Subject: Re: [G] Registering Still-born births Can I also ask a question on this subject? My husband's great grandmother had 11 children in the 1870/80s. They were all registered. However, present day cousins maintain there were also twins who died either at birth or very soon after. I have not found birth or death entries for them. Am I right then in assuming there was no requirement to register such events at that time? Many thanks Christine 2746 SIVERS/SIVER/SIVIER/SIVYER ________________________________ From: Janet Few via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: GOONS List <GOONS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, 19 December 2014, 18:03 Subject: [G] Registering Still-born births Yes Brian they have been registered since 1927 but it was a separate register from the live births. Janet #1136 -----Original Message----- From: Brian Horridge via Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 5:33 PM To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: [G] Registering Still-born births Can someone help please. I'm doing some research for a cousin into someone who was born in 1964 in Kensington and the family story is that he was a twin and the other twin died in childbirth. I've found his GRO birth entry but not the twin's. I believe it is mandatory nowadays to register still births but can anyone tell me if it was the same in 1964 ?? Many thanks Brian

Can I also ask a question on this subject? My husband's great grandmother had 11 children in the 1870/80s. They were all registered. However, present day cousins maintain there were also twins who died either at birth or very soon after. I have not found birth or death entries for them. Am I right then in assuming there was no requirement to register such events at that time? Many thanks Christine 2746  SIVERS/SIVER/SIVIER/SIVYER ________________________________ From: Janet Few via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: GOONS List <GOONS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, 19 December 2014, 18:03 Subject: [G] Registering Still-born births Yes Brian they have been registered since 1927 but it was a separate register from the live births. Janet #1136 -----Original Message----- From: Brian Horridge via Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 5:33 PM To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: [G] Registering Still-born births Can someone help please. I'm doing some research for a cousin into someone who was born in 1964 in Kensington and the family story is that he was a twin and the other twin died in childbirth.   I've found his GRO birth entry but not the twin's. I believe it is mandatory nowadays to register still births but can anyone tell me if it was the same in 1964 ?? Many thanks Brian _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Doug, I applaud your efforts at hosting individual pages on your Burg/ha/u/m ancestors. It is a great way to honour and to "immortalize" their histories. I have done such a website for my Benedict ancestors, using a Wiki engine. Each relative has an individual page, a vital stats table at the top and then links going up to their parents and links going down to their children. The site now has over a thousand pages, i.e. ancestors featured. If you want to see an example, this is the link to my great-grandfather, John Smedley Benedict: http://www.genealowiki.com/bin/view.cgi/Benedict/JohnSmedleyBenedict1859 The information is fully visible, searchable and can hold a family album of images. I don't have a problem with others seeing it (it is read-only), as most of the research was done by fellow Benedict's who had permission to edit directly into the pages. There would have been no way that I could have on my own done all the background research or the editing, so it is a collaborative project. I also found a number of Benedict descendants through this site that would have otherwise not known of me or vice versa. Good luck on yours, Jim Benedict Guild Representative for Western Canada Guild of One-Name Studies: Guild member #4794 Calgary, Alberta www.BenedictGenerations.com ======================================================== -----Original Message----- From: goons-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:goons-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Doug Burgum via Sent: December 19, 2014 7:12 AM To: Julie Goucher; goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records An interesting thread and I would like to add my thoughts. I spent decades researching the surnames Burgum and Burgham and originally shared my discoveries with anyone who cared to subscribe the the BURGUM FAMILY HISTORY SOCIETY. The annual subscription was modest and did not really cover the costs of printing and postage. Eventually the cost of the quarterly journals became too great and I spent a great deal of time worrying how to share my research with BFHS members. Why should I just give my hard earned discoveries to the whole world? Eventually I created my own website at www.burgumfamily.com so anyone could just steal it if they wanted to. One of the best decisions I have ever made. I was rewarded by hearing from individuals eager to share stories, photographs and data with me. I heard from people I did not even known existed. My knowledge and my research expanded as a result. In turn I have been able to help those who have an interest in BURGUM and BURGHAM, whether distant relatives or not. I am currently creating a new BURGUM website, a database site, where every single individual BURGUM and BURGHAM (not living) will have their own page with every fact I have uncovered about them. The task is huge and I therefore have great sympathy with those trying to bring the Guild website into the 21st century. It is hard, complicated and time-consuming. I will, when I get time, share all my marriage info with the Guild. It is on my "To Do" list. Finally where would we be if other organisations chose NOT to share their databases, lists and discoveries? Free websites appear on these pages regularly and we often dash to their pages in the hope of finding additions to our own ONS. I am delighted to give my information away and thank goodness so many other people feel the same way. I, for one, have benefitted by sharing my life's work. > Doug Burgum > Researching Burgum and Burgham worldwide. > Odino, Andorra >

I tried that and got a 404 Not Found What am I doing wrong? On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Debbie Kennett via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > The US Family Tree Magazine currently have an offer for a free downloadable > guide to surnames: > > http://ftu.familytreemagazine.com/surnames-family-search/ > > Debbie > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > -- Researching Drinkwater surname all over the world, any time, any place, but especially Descendants and Ancestors of Paul Drinkwater, born 1789 in Sandhurst, Gloucestershire, England. GOONS #5057 http://www.one-name.org/profiles/drinkwater.html

Anne Surely the only time it becomes an issue is if it has connections to more than one person (ie one of my non-ONS marriages happens to be someone else's ONS). In that situation, I think both people should be identified as both could help any one interested in that particular marriage. Rather than have separate fields for "contributor", "registrant" or whatever title is flavour of that particular month, why not have a simple, single, multi-line field which holds several identities ?? (or does this cause problems on searches etc). If a single one is not feasible, why not have (say) a max of 3 (or 4 or 5) fields where the "owners" of the marriage entries are added as the come in. Another way would be to duplicate the marriage entries - once for each submitter (maybe with a "submitted" date field). I'm sure the occasions where this duplication is likely to happen are rare so should not have a major impact on overall database size. Surely, this would simplify things ?? However, if entries are duplicated and one was a submission from an MC (or a CP) and one from the ONS owner, then the MC / CP entry could be ignored (as long as the details are the same). I know I was talking about the GMI but surely it also applies to other databases ?? Brian On 19/12/2014 15:47, Anne Shankland wrote: > Brian, thank you, your email neatly summarises the dilemma we have in > identifying the contributor for marriages. > > My choice would be for you to be shown as the contributor for all the > marriages you have actually submitted, whether they be for your own > registered name study, your non-registered family history, or for the > Marriage Challenge results you have collected (and you have a splendid > record of Marriage Challenges!) In addition, where the records refer > to another registered name, the registrant member should also be > shown, as the expert on this name and the source of probably more > information on it. (I won't talk about "owners" any more, it should > be "registrant" instead.) > > But what should we do when a record submitted by member A for a study > name registered by member B is updated or corrected by member C? > And what should we do when member D submits records for a study name > registered by them, but then transfers the study to member E? > > As always, I'm looking for thoughts and ideas! > > Anne >

Yes Brian they have been registered since 1927 but it was a separate register from the live births. Janet #1136 -----Original Message----- From: Brian Horridge via Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 5:33 PM To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: [G] Registering Still-born births Can someone help please. I'm doing some research for a cousin into someone who was born in 1964 in Kensington and the family story is that he was a twin and the other twin died in childbirth. I've found his GRO birth entry but not the twin's. I believe it is mandatory nowadays to register still births but can anyone tell me if it was the same in 1964 ?? Many thanks Brian

Can someone help please. I'm doing some research for a cousin into someone who was born in 1964 in Kensington and the family story is that he was a twin and the other twin died in childbirth. I've found his GRO birth entry but not the twin's. I believe it is mandatory nowadays to register still births but can anyone tell me if it was the same in 1964 ?? Many thanks Brian

Brian, thank you, your email neatly summarises the dilemma we have in identifying the contributor for marriages. My choice would be for you to be shown as the contributor for all the marriages you have actually submitted, whether they be for your own registered name study, your non-registered family history, or for the Marriage Challenge results you have collected (and you have a splendid record of Marriage Challenges!) In addition, where the records refer to another registered name, the registrant member should also be shown, as the expert on this name and the source of probably more information on it. (I won't talk about "owners" any more, it should be "registrant" instead.) But what should we do when a record submitted by member A for a study name registered by member B is updated or corrected by member C? And what should we do when member D submits records for a study name registered by them, but then transfers the study to member E? As always, I'm looking for thoughts and ideas! Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Horridge via" <goons@rootsweb.com> To: <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:20 PM Subject: [G] Submitting entries to the GMI > Can I add my experiences (and to link two different threads on recent > postings). > > I joined the Guild without registering a surname because at that time I > was not confident that I could (or wanted to) do a One Name Study. I > joined as an associate member for several reasons - one of which was so > I could benefit from the GMI in researching for all my own various > ancestral lines in East London (thanks mainly to Howard Benbrook's vast > input of Cardinal Points). Then, in order to "put something back", I > submitted (with Mary Rix's approval) details of all marriages I had > found for any surname in any place to help fill in the many gaps in the > GMI sequencing that existed in it's early days. Since then I have done > 4 marriage challenges and have submitted all the results to the GMI as > well as all marriages I have now found as part of my own (now > registered) One Name Study. > > Following the recent exchange of e-mails about "ownership", it makes me > wonder how my submissions would be classed as they seem to fall into 3 > broad categories:- > > 1) my own ONS surname marriages > 2) my other surname marriages for (possibly) non-registered surnames > 3) my MC results > > I must say that I willingly submitted all my own marriages (both ONS and > others) for the benefit of other Guild members without any thought of > "protecting" them. Also, most of the marriages were transcribed from > parish registers deposited in various record offices so I could not > really claim "ownership" anyway. > > My view is that if people are worried about data being stolen then do > not give it to anyone else. > > Regards > > Brian Horridge > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

An interesting thread and I would like to add my thoughts. I spent decades researching the surnames Burgum and Burgham and originally shared my discoveries with anyone who cared to subscribe the the BURGUM FAMILY HISTORY SOCIETY. The annual subscription was modest and did not really cover the costs of printing and postage. Eventually the cost of the quarterly journals became too great and I spent a great deal of time worrying how to share my research with BFHS members. Why should I just give my hard earned discoveries to the whole world? Eventually I created my own website at www.burgumfamily.com so anyone could just steal it if they wanted to. One of the best decisions I have ever made. I was rewarded by hearing from individuals eager to share stories, photographs and data with me. I heard from people I did not even known existed. My knowledge and my research expanded as a result. In turn I have been able to help those who have an interest in BURGUM and BURGHAM, whether distant relatives or not. I am currently creating a new BURGUM website, a database site, where every single individual BURGUM and BURGHAM (not living) will have their own page with every fact I have uncovered about them. The task is huge and I therefore have great sympathy with those trying to bring the Guild website into the 21st century. It is hard, complicated and time-consuming. I will, when I get time, share all my marriage info with the Guild. It is on my "To Do" list. Finally where would we be if other organisations chose NOT to share their databases, lists and discoveries? Free websites appear on these pages regularly and we often dash to their pages in the hope of finding additions to our own ONS. I am delighted to give my information away and thank goodness so many other people feel the same way. I, for one, have benefitted by sharing my life's work. On 19 December 2014 at 15:11, Doug Burgum <doug.burgum1@gmail.com> wrote: > An interesting thread and I would like to add my thoughts. I spent > decades researching the surnames Burgum and Burgham and originally > shared my discoveries with anyone who cared to subscribe the the > BURGUM FAMILY HISTORY SOCIETY. The annual subscription was modest and > did not really cover the costs of printing and postage. Eventually the > cost of the quarterly journals became too great and I spent a great > deal of time worrying how to share my research with BFHS members. Why > should I just give my hard earned discoveries to the whole world? > > Eventually I created my own website at www.burgumfamily.com so anyone > could just steal it if they wanted to. One of the best decisions I > have ever made. I was rewarded by hearing from individuals eager to > share stories, photographs and data with me. I heard from people I did > not even known existed. My knowledge and my research expanded as a > result. In turn I have been able to help those who have an interest in > BURGUM and BURGHAM, whether distant relatives or not. > > I am currently creating a new BURGUM website, a database site, where > every single individual BURGUM and BURGHAM (not living) will have > their own page with every fact I have uncovered about them. The task > is huge and I therefore have great sympathy with those trying to bring > the Guild website into the 21st century. It is hard, complicated and > time-consuming. > > I will, when I get time, share all my marriage info with the Guild. It > is on my "To Do" list. > > Finally where would we be if other organisations chose NOT to share > their databases, lists and discoveries? Free websites appear on these > pages regularly and we often dash to their pages in the hope of > finding additions to our own ONS. I am delighted to give my > information away and thank goodness so many other people feel the same > way. I, for one, have benefitted by sharing my life's work. > > Researching Burgum and Burgham worldwide > Ordino, Andorra > > On 19 December 2014 at 15:10, Doug Burgum <doug.burgum1@gmail.com> wrote: >> An interesting thread and I would like to add my thoughts. I spent decades >> researching the surnames Burgum and Burgham and originally shared my >> discoveries with anyone who cared to subscribe the the BURGUM FAMILY HISTORY >> SOCIETY. The annual subscription was modest and did not really cover the >> costs of printing and postage. Eventually the cost of the quarterly journals >> became too great and I spent a great deal of time worrying how to share my >> research with BFHS members. Why should I just give my hard earned >> discoveries to the whole world? >> >> Eventually I created my own website at www.burgumfamily.com so anyone could >> just steal it if they wanted to. One of the best decisions I have ever made. >> I was rewarded by hearing from individuals eager to share stories, >> photographs and data with me. I heard from people I did not even known >> existed. My knowledge and my research expanded as a result. In turn I have >> been able to help those who have an interest in BURGUM and BURGHAM, whether >> distant relatives or not. >> >> I am currently creating a new BURGUM website, a database site, where every >> single individual BURGUM and BURGHAM (not living) will have their own page >> with every fact I have uncovered about them. The task is huge and I >> therefore have great sympathy with those trying to bring the Guild website >> into the 21st century. It is hard, complicated and time-consuming. >> >> I will, when I get time, share all my marriage info with the Guild. It is on >> my "To Do" list. >> >> Finally where would we be if other organisations chose NOT to share their >> databases, lists and discoveries? Free websites appear on these pages >> regularly and we often dash to their pages in the hope of finding additions >> to our own ONS. I am delighted to give my information away and thank >> goodness so many other people feel the same way. I, for one, have benefitted >> by sharing my life's work. >> >> Doug Burgum >> Researching Burgum and Burgham worldwide. >> Odino, Andorra >> >> >> >> On 19 December 2014 at 11:25, Julie Goucher via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> >>> I went off to bed pondering on Anne's comment regarding the GMI. >>> Currently I have not contributed, but this week through the prompt of >>> Nigel & Anne adding the link to the website to the indexes then the >>> page showing the amount of indexes I revisited this this topic. >>> >>> Firstly, the links at the bottom of the search pages are incredibly >>> useful. I have links in my own ancestry to five surnames none of which >>> are registered by me. I have material that I can and will happily >>> submit to the GMI (and other indexes) which I have gathered through >>> the course of my own research. >>> >>> So I was in agreement with Tessa, that material might be submitted by >>> person A but the study is registered to person B. I therefore feel >>> that Anne's suggestion of two fields representing the contributor and >>> the study holder covers that point off rather nicely. >>> >>> Should there be an addition note column? >>> >>> I might submit marriage certificate information in relation to a >>> surname of interest to me would be the contributor and the member of >>> the Guild who is the registered member would also be shown. Is there >>> an instance when other material might be added to this particular >>> entry that might cause me to be "knocked off" as the contributor? Or >>> would, if appropriate a Cardinal Point be added that show as a >>> separate entry? Of course the witnesses name on any marriage >>> certificate might for example link into someone else's ONS quite >>> easily. >>> >>> Dick Chandler raised a very valid point in his first email in this >>> thread "2. What is to stop someone (acting as an individual or acting >>> on behalf of an organisation - commercial or otherwise - perhaps even >>> a competitor) joining the Guild and lifting ALL of EVERY contributor's >>> information, and doing with it whatever they like?" >>> >>> I think on the whole that the genealogical community is trustworthy, >>> honest, has integrity and is transparent, although I will admit that >>> sometimes there are people do surprise you. I would say that should it >>> be discovered that anyone assumes (either through historical or new) >>> membership and then actively lifts all the work as Dick describes then >>> that would be dealt with within the parameters of the Constitution. >>> >>> I assume that there is a functionality within with website that >>> enables the web master and team to see what activity there is against >>> any given membership number? >>> >>> There are of course instances when you might want to download a >>> complete section of something - say part of the Wiki, but the >>> difference is downloading for your own use and downloading for the use >>> of others who are not Guild members. >>> >>> Thanks to Anne and Nigel and perhaps others we have enabled a workable >>> and changing website. We have a steady stream of material & indexes at >>> our disposal and we also have the ability through the leadership of >>> the Guild administration to enable discussion through this forum. Mary >>> Rix contributed and maintained the GMI and has left it in a good >>> position that we can take the material and the foundations and build >>> upon it. That is a progressive organisation. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Julie Goucher >>> Guild Member 3925 >>> Orlando & Worship ONS >>> Regional Rep ~ South Devon >>> >>> On 18 December 2014 at 22:28, Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Tessa, that is a very interesting and troublesome question about the >>> > "contributor" of data, which I've been thinking hard about. I agree >>> > that we >>> > should recognise the contributor of data, but from what I can see, I am >>> > not >>> > sure that we always (or often) know who the contributor was. In the >>> > GMI, >>> > the contributor is usually set as the study registrant, because that's >>> > the >>> > person to whom application should be made for more information on the >>> > marriage. But as you point out, the contributor may be somebody quite >>> > different. And they may have further information too which could be >>> > valuable. >>> > >>> > I would like to see two different fields on the GMI entries, one for the >>> > member who actually provided the information, and one for the member who >>> > has >>> > the study registered. But retrofitting extra fields of information to >>> > an >>> > existing database is never easy! >>> > >>> > If there were separate fields for contributor and for study registrant, >>> > then >>> > for Marriage Challenges the contributor could be correctly set to show >>> > the >>> > membership number of the Challenger, while the study registrant would >>> > still >>> > be shown as the data "owner". How would this be? >>> > >>> > Anne >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Tessa Keough via" <goons@rootsweb.com> >>> > To: "Anne Shankland" <shankland@one-name.org>; "Anne Shankland" >>> > <anne.shankland@gmail.com>; "GOONS" <goons@rootsweb.com> >>> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:59 PM >>> > Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records >>> > >>> > >>> >> Definitely will take a look at this over the holidays as I think it is >>> >> a very good idea to have this type of data available and it should be >>> >> (that is a question for the tech folks) a process of making that >>> >> choice (from here on out) when we provide data to the uploaded. As to >>> >> those who contributed data in the past, perhaps we can ask the >>> >> question and get a response from those members. >>> >> >>> >> One question I have on the language is what is a member who does not >>> >> have a registered study and is contributing data called? We might want >>> >> to use the term contributor (all around) rather than owner because I >>> >> am guessing that we have all gathered data that is at archives, >>> >> libraries, online, etc. to add to our databases and we don't really >>> >> "own" it anymore than we "own" our surnames - we have registered them. >>> >> Am I missing something? (And I am not interested in having a >>> >> discussion about members with and without registered studies - every >>> >> member of the Guild is somewhere in their journey here and I am happy >>> >> to learn from and share with all my fellow GOONs). >>> >> >>> >> Now I need to get busy and provide some of that data so Anne, Cliff, >>> >> Marie and the others have some more data to work with. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for all your efforts (past and present), >>> >> Tessa >>> >> >>> >> Tessa Keough >>> >> Guild of One-Name Studies, Member No. 5089 >>> >> Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Anne Shankland via >>> >> <goons@rootsweb.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> Debbie and others, the proposals you make are part of the original >>> >>> plan I >>> >>> put forward for the GMI some time ago. Once converted to a true >>> >>> database, >>> >>> developments such as this are very straightforward, and the last few >>> >>> editions of the GMI have existed in both the classic format and >>> >>> database >>> >>> format. You may have noticed that the GMI now offers an "old search", >>> >>> which >>> >>> uses the classic format, and a "new search", which uses the database. >>> >>> >>> >>> If I were to get the go-ahead to proceed with the database format, I >>> >>> would >>> >>> offer (on the new search): >>> >>> a) A search option for a member to see all the entries for his or >>> >>> her >>> >>> own registered name. This would be available only to the "owner" of >>> >>> this >>> >>> data, i.e. the registrant of the surname, and so would not allow any >>> >>> harvesting of the data by anyone else. >>> >>> b) A database option for a member with entries in the GMI to allow >>> >>> his >>> >>> or her entries to be freely searchable by any member. >>> >>> >>> >>> I prefer to consider entries to have an "owner" rather than a >>> >>> "contributor", >>> >>> the owner being the registrant of the surname. Hence entries might >>> >>> change >>> >>> hands if a surname registration is transferred from one member to >>> >>> another. >>> >>> This is a somewhat different concept from the existing one of >>> >>> "contributor", >>> >>> but I believe that at present the contributor for each entry is >>> >>> assumed >>> >>> to >>> >>> be the study owner even if they are not personally submitting the >>> >>> data. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thoughts, please? >>> >>> >>> >>> Anne Shankland >>> >>> Web Indexes Administrator >>> _____________________________________________ >>> >>> RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc >>> http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >>> the subject and the body of the message

An interesting thread and I would like to add my thoughts. I spent decades researching the surnames Burgum and Burgham and originally shared my discoveries with anyone who cared to subscribe the the BURGUM FAMILY HISTORY SOCIETY. The annual subscription was modest and did not really cover the costs of printing and postage. Eventually the cost of the quarterly journals became too great and I spent a great deal of time worrying how to share my research with BFHS members. Why should I just give my hard earned discoveries to the whole world? Eventually I created my own website at www.burgumfamily.com so anyone could just steal it if they wanted to. One of the best decisions I have ever made. I was rewarded by hearing from individuals eager to share stories, photographs and data with me. I heard from people I did not even known existed. My knowledge and my research expanded as a result. In turn I have been able to help those who have an interest in BURGUM and BURGHAM, whether distant relatives or not. I am currently creating a new BURGUM website, a database site, where every single individual BURGUM and BURGHAM (not living) will have their own page with every fact I have uncovered about them. The task is huge and I therefore have great sympathy with those trying to bring the Guild website into the 21st century. It is hard, complicated and time-consuming. I will, when I get time, share all my marriage info with the Guild. It is on my "To Do" list. Finally where would we be if other organisations chose NOT to share their databases, lists and discoveries? Free websites appear on these pages regularly and we often dash to their pages in the hope of finding additions to our own ONS. I am delighted to give my information away and thank goodness so many other people feel the same way. I, for one, have benefitted by sharing my life's work. Researching Burgum and Burgham worldwide Ordino, Andorra On 19 December 2014 at 15:10, Doug Burgum <doug.burgum1@gmail.com> wrote: > An interesting thread and I would like to add my thoughts. I spent decades > researching the surnames Burgum and Burgham and originally shared my > discoveries with anyone who cared to subscribe the the BURGUM FAMILY HISTORY > SOCIETY. The annual subscription was modest and did not really cover the > costs of printing and postage. Eventually the cost of the quarterly journals > became too great and I spent a great deal of time worrying how to share my > research with BFHS members. Why should I just give my hard earned > discoveries to the whole world? > > Eventually I created my own website at www.burgumfamily.com so anyone could > just steal it if they wanted to. One of the best decisions I have ever made. > I was rewarded by hearing from individuals eager to share stories, > photographs and data with me. I heard from people I did not even known > existed. My knowledge and my research expanded as a result. In turn I have > been able to help those who have an interest in BURGUM and BURGHAM, whether > distant relatives or not. > > I am currently creating a new BURGUM website, a database site, where every > single individual BURGUM and BURGHAM (not living) will have their own page > with every fact I have uncovered about them. The task is huge and I > therefore have great sympathy with those trying to bring the Guild website > into the 21st century. It is hard, complicated and time-consuming. > > I will, when I get time, share all my marriage info with the Guild. It is on > my "To Do" list. > > Finally where would we be if other organisations chose NOT to share their > databases, lists and discoveries? Free websites appear on these pages > regularly and we often dash to their pages in the hope of finding additions > to our own ONS. I am delighted to give my information away and thank > goodness so many other people feel the same way. I, for one, have benefitted > by sharing my life's work. > > Doug Burgum > Researching Burgum and Burgham worldwide. > Odino, Andorra > > > > On 19 December 2014 at 11:25, Julie Goucher via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> I went off to bed pondering on Anne's comment regarding the GMI. >> Currently I have not contributed, but this week through the prompt of >> Nigel & Anne adding the link to the website to the indexes then the >> page showing the amount of indexes I revisited this this topic. >> >> Firstly, the links at the bottom of the search pages are incredibly >> useful. I have links in my own ancestry to five surnames none of which >> are registered by me. I have material that I can and will happily >> submit to the GMI (and other indexes) which I have gathered through >> the course of my own research. >> >> So I was in agreement with Tessa, that material might be submitted by >> person A but the study is registered to person B. I therefore feel >> that Anne's suggestion of two fields representing the contributor and >> the study holder covers that point off rather nicely. >> >> Should there be an addition note column? >> >> I might submit marriage certificate information in relation to a >> surname of interest to me would be the contributor and the member of >> the Guild who is the registered member would also be shown. Is there >> an instance when other material might be added to this particular >> entry that might cause me to be "knocked off" as the contributor? Or >> would, if appropriate a Cardinal Point be added that show as a >> separate entry? Of course the witnesses name on any marriage >> certificate might for example link into someone else's ONS quite >> easily. >> >> Dick Chandler raised a very valid point in his first email in this >> thread "2. What is to stop someone (acting as an individual or acting >> on behalf of an organisation - commercial or otherwise - perhaps even >> a competitor) joining the Guild and lifting ALL of EVERY contributor's >> information, and doing with it whatever they like?" >> >> I think on the whole that the genealogical community is trustworthy, >> honest, has integrity and is transparent, although I will admit that >> sometimes there are people do surprise you. I would say that should it >> be discovered that anyone assumes (either through historical or new) >> membership and then actively lifts all the work as Dick describes then >> that would be dealt with within the parameters of the Constitution. >> >> I assume that there is a functionality within with website that >> enables the web master and team to see what activity there is against >> any given membership number? >> >> There are of course instances when you might want to download a >> complete section of something - say part of the Wiki, but the >> difference is downloading for your own use and downloading for the use >> of others who are not Guild members. >> >> Thanks to Anne and Nigel and perhaps others we have enabled a workable >> and changing website. We have a steady stream of material & indexes at >> our disposal and we also have the ability through the leadership of >> the Guild administration to enable discussion through this forum. Mary >> Rix contributed and maintained the GMI and has left it in a good >> position that we can take the material and the foundations and build >> upon it. That is a progressive organisation. >> >> Regards >> >> Julie Goucher >> Guild Member 3925 >> Orlando & Worship ONS >> Regional Rep ~ South Devon >> >> On 18 December 2014 at 22:28, Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> > Tessa, that is a very interesting and troublesome question about the >> > "contributor" of data, which I've been thinking hard about. I agree >> > that we >> > should recognise the contributor of data, but from what I can see, I am >> > not >> > sure that we always (or often) know who the contributor was. In the >> > GMI, >> > the contributor is usually set as the study registrant, because that's >> > the >> > person to whom application should be made for more information on the >> > marriage. But as you point out, the contributor may be somebody quite >> > different. And they may have further information too which could be >> > valuable. >> > >> > I would like to see two different fields on the GMI entries, one for the >> > member who actually provided the information, and one for the member who >> > has >> > the study registered. But retrofitting extra fields of information to >> > an >> > existing database is never easy! >> > >> > If there were separate fields for contributor and for study registrant, >> > then >> > for Marriage Challenges the contributor could be correctly set to show >> > the >> > membership number of the Challenger, while the study registrant would >> > still >> > be shown as the data "owner". How would this be? >> > >> > Anne >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Tessa Keough via" <goons@rootsweb.com> >> > To: "Anne Shankland" <shankland@one-name.org>; "Anne Shankland" >> > <anne.shankland@gmail.com>; "GOONS" <goons@rootsweb.com> >> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:59 PM >> > Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records >> > >> > >> >> Definitely will take a look at this over the holidays as I think it is >> >> a very good idea to have this type of data available and it should be >> >> (that is a question for the tech folks) a process of making that >> >> choice (from here on out) when we provide data to the uploaded. As to >> >> those who contributed data in the past, perhaps we can ask the >> >> question and get a response from those members. >> >> >> >> One question I have on the language is what is a member who does not >> >> have a registered study and is contributing data called? We might want >> >> to use the term contributor (all around) rather than owner because I >> >> am guessing that we have all gathered data that is at archives, >> >> libraries, online, etc. to add to our databases and we don't really >> >> "own" it anymore than we "own" our surnames - we have registered them. >> >> Am I missing something? (And I am not interested in having a >> >> discussion about members with and without registered studies - every >> >> member of the Guild is somewhere in their journey here and I am happy >> >> to learn from and share with all my fellow GOONs). >> >> >> >> Now I need to get busy and provide some of that data so Anne, Cliff, >> >> Marie and the others have some more data to work with. >> >> >> >> Thanks for all your efforts (past and present), >> >> Tessa >> >> >> >> Tessa Keough >> >> Guild of One-Name Studies, Member No. 5089 >> >> Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Anne Shankland via >> >> <goons@rootsweb.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> Debbie and others, the proposals you make are part of the original >> >>> plan I >> >>> put forward for the GMI some time ago. Once converted to a true >> >>> database, >> >>> developments such as this are very straightforward, and the last few >> >>> editions of the GMI have existed in both the classic format and >> >>> database >> >>> format. You may have noticed that the GMI now offers an "old search", >> >>> which >> >>> uses the classic format, and a "new search", which uses the database. >> >>> >> >>> If I were to get the go-ahead to proceed with the database format, I >> >>> would >> >>> offer (on the new search): >> >>> a) A search option for a member to see all the entries for his or >> >>> her >> >>> own registered name. This would be available only to the "owner" of >> >>> this >> >>> data, i.e. the registrant of the surname, and so would not allow any >> >>> harvesting of the data by anyone else. >> >>> b) A database option for a member with entries in the GMI to allow >> >>> his >> >>> or her entries to be freely searchable by any member. >> >>> >> >>> I prefer to consider entries to have an "owner" rather than a >> >>> "contributor", >> >>> the owner being the registrant of the surname. Hence entries might >> >>> change >> >>> hands if a surname registration is transferred from one member to >> >>> another. >> >>> This is a somewhat different concept from the existing one of >> >>> "contributor", >> >>> but I believe that at present the contributor for each entry is >> >>> assumed >> >>> to >> >>> be the study owner even if they are not personally submitting the >> >>> data. >> >>> >> >>> Thoughts, please? >> >>> >> >>> Anne Shankland >> >>> Web Indexes Administrator >> _____________________________________________ >> >> RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc >> http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message

Can I add my experiences (and to link two different threads on recent postings). I joined the Guild without registering a surname because at that time I was not confident that I could (or wanted to) do a One Name Study. I joined as an associate member for several reasons - one of which was so I could benefit from the GMI in researching for all my own various ancestral lines in East London (thanks mainly to Howard Benbrook's vast input of Cardinal Points). Then, in order to "put something back", I submitted (with Mary Rix's approval) details of all marriages I had found for any surname in any place to help fill in the many gaps in the GMI sequencing that existed in it's early days. Since then I have done 4 marriage challenges and have submitted all the results to the GMI as well as all marriages I have now found as part of my own (now registered) One Name Study. Following the recent exchange of e-mails about "ownership", it makes me wonder how my submissions would be classed as they seem to fall into 3 broad categories:- 1) my own ONS surname marriages 2) my other surname marriages for (possibly) non-registered surnames 3) my MC results I must say that I willingly submitted all my own marriages (both ONS and others) for the benefit of other Guild members without any thought of "protecting" them. Also, most of the marriages were transcribed from parish registers deposited in various record offices so I could not really claim "ownership" anyway. My view is that if people are worried about data being stolen then do not give it to anyone else. Regards Brian Horridge

I think it is now time that the GMI was fully searchable on all names, surely in this day and age it is possible to stop someone stealing all your work. I personally don't mind who steals my data , it is not mine I am just looking after it for future generations it is there to whoever wants it to use Jim Isard 1803

Tessa,Anne & all The concept that the GMI should provide information from one's study and MCs, to help others and particularly new members is surely what we are all working towards - information multiplying. I wrote an MM article in the Journal to general unacclaim that each UK marriage found 1852-1911 has a 90% chance of "finding" another marriage by deduction, since there are only 4 names listed - if A married B, then C must have married D. The other 10% being rare BMD errors & 2 name listings. If we are truly wanting to improve information multiplying from the GMI, then we should be allowed two extra columns for deduced marriages. Personally I am working my way through the membership on a 1:1 basis as a lone voice on MM, but he guild is wasting a big opportunity here ... Robert Fowler 5464 ________________________________ From: Tessa Keough via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: Anne Shankland <shankland@one-name.org> Cc: GOONS <goons@rootsweb.com>; Tessa Keough <tessa.keough@one-name.org> Sent: Friday, 19 December 2014, 3:50 Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records I will be the first to say I need to spend some time with these indexes and databases (my holiday project!). But I do appreciate that you are thinking through how to address possible fields. How about those with some experience in these sharing their thoughts. Thanks so much Anne for working on this very valuable resource housed on the Guild website and for the updates and migration. If I understand correctly, I think separate fields would be a good idea. Other thoughts here? Thanks so much. Tessa Tessa Keough Guild of One-Name Studies, Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS Legacy Virtual Users' Group Community on Google+ Society for One-Place Studies - Plate Cove East, Newfoundland On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Anne Shankland <anne.shankland@gmail.com> wrote: > Tessa, that is a very interesting and troublesome question about the > "contributor" of data, which I've been thinking hard about. I agree that we > should recognise the contributor of data, but from what I can see, I am not > sure that we always (or often) know who the contributor was. In the GMI, > the contributor is usually set as the study registrant, because that's the > person to whom application should be made for more information on the > marriage. But as you point out, the contributor may be somebody quite > different. And they may have further information too which could be > valuable. > > I would like to see two different fields on the GMI entries, one for the > member who actually provided the information, and one for the member who has > the study registered. But retrofitting extra fields of information to an > existing database is never easy! > > If there were separate fields for contributor and for study registrant, then > for Marriage Challenges the contributor could be correctly set to show the > membership number of the Challenger, while the study registrant would still > be shown as the data "owner". How would this be? > > Anne > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tessa Keough via" <goons@rootsweb.com> > >> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Debbie and others, the proposals you make are part of the original plan I >>> put forward for the GMI some time ago. Once converted to a true >>> database, >>> developments such as this are very straightforward, and the last few >>> editions of the GMI have existed in both the classic format and database >>> format. You may have noticed that the GMI now offers an "old search", >>> which >>> uses the classic format, and a "new search", which uses the database. >>> >>> If I were to get the go-ahead to proceed with the database format, I >>> would >>> offer (on the new search): >>> a) A search option for a member to see all the entries for his or her >>> own registered name. This would be available only to the "owner" of this >>> data, i.e. the registrant of the surname, and so would not allow any >>> harvesting of the data by anyone else. >>> b) A database option for a member with entries in the GMI to allow >>> his >>> or her entries to be freely searchable by any member. >>> >>> I prefer to consider entries to have an "owner" rather than a >>> "contributor", >>> the owner being the registrant of the surname. Hence entries might >>> change >>> hands if a surname registration is transferred from one member to >>> another. >>> This is a somewhat different concept from the existing one of >>> "contributor", >>> but I believe that at present the contributor for each entry is assumed >>> to >>> be the study owner even if they are not personally submitting the data. >>> >>> Thoughts, please? >>> >>> Anne Shankland >>> Web Indexes Administrator >>> >> SNIP _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I think the multiple problem is really only on the GMI and maybe the vault project - those would appear to be the only indexes where non-interested third parties are , in effect, transcribing records. All the others are set with one contributor per record, and in the case of the WWM - if the names are not part of a study - the understanding is that the contributor is still willing to be contacted about them. SO one slot should do fine for those. Afterall, if you had contributed a Pepler/Webb marriage to the WWM - a searcher could reach you as well as checking out both the Pepler and Webb studies. That's three places for info - each of the surname studies and the bonus is you for that little extra. And that works right now. Marie (GOONS 5318) Bringing the world together one surname at a time. 'A Pepler Name' http://pepler.tribalpages.com 'Hedgerow - the Ancestors' http://cranberry.tribalpages.com Pepler DNA Study http://www.familytreedna.com/public/pepler-ow/ 'Scroops, Scropes and Scroopes' http://dentonlk.tribalpages.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Horridge via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: "goons@rootsweb.com" <goons@rootsweb.com> Cc: Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:12 PM Subject: [G] Fwd: Re: Submitting entries to the GMI Anne Surely the only time it becomes an issue is if it has connections to more than one person (ie one of my non-ONS marriages happens to be someone else's ONS). In that situation, I think both people should be identified as both could help any one interested in that particular marriage. Rather than have separate fields for "contributor", "registrant" or whatever title is flavour of that particular month, why not have a simple, single, multi-line field which holds several identities ?? (or does this cause problems on searches etc). If a single one is not feasible, why not have (say) a max of 3 (or 4 or 5) fields where the "owners" of the marriage entries are added as the come in. Another way would be to duplicate the marriage entries - once for each submitter (maybe with a "submitted" date field). I'm sure the occasions where this duplication is likely to happen are rare so should not have a major impact on overall database size. Surely, this would simplify things ?? However, if entries are duplicated and one was a submission from an MC (or a CP) and one from the ONS owner, then the MC / CP entry could be ignored (as long as the details are the same). I know I was talking about the GMI but surely it also applies to other databases ?? Brian On 19/12/2014 15:47, Anne Shankland wrote: > Brian, thank you, your email neatly summarises the dilemma we have in > identifying the contributor for marriages. > > My choice would be for you to be shown as the contributor for all the > marriages you have actually submitted, whether they be for your own > registered name study, your non-registered family history, or for the > Marriage Challenge results you have collected (and you have a splendid > record of Marriage Challenges!) In addition, where the records refer > to another registered name, the registrant member should also be > shown, as the expert on this name and the source of probably more > information on it. (I won't talk about "owners" any more, it should > be "registrant" instead.) > > But what should we do when a record submitted by member A for a study > name registered by member B is updated or corrected by member C? > And what should we do when member D submits records for a study name > registered by them, but then transfers the study to member E? > > As always, I'm looking for thoughts and ideas! > > Anne > _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I went off to bed pondering on Anne's comment regarding the GMI. Currently I have not contributed, but this week through the prompt of Nigel & Anne adding the link to the website to the indexes then the page showing the amount of indexes I revisited this this topic. Firstly, the links at the bottom of the search pages are incredibly useful. I have links in my own ancestry to five surnames none of which are registered by me. I have material that I can and will happily submit to the GMI (and other indexes) which I have gathered through the course of my own research. So I was in agreement with Tessa, that material might be submitted by person A but the study is registered to person B. I therefore feel that Anne's suggestion of two fields representing the contributor and the study holder covers that point off rather nicely. Should there be an addition note column? I might submit marriage certificate information in relation to a surname of interest to me would be the contributor and the member of the Guild who is the registered member would also be shown. Is there an instance when other material might be added to this particular entry that might cause me to be "knocked off" as the contributor? Or would, if appropriate a Cardinal Point be added that show as a separate entry? Of course the witnesses name on any marriage certificate might for example link into someone else's ONS quite easily. Dick Chandler raised a very valid point in his first email in this thread "2. What is to stop someone (acting as an individual or acting on behalf of an organisation - commercial or otherwise - perhaps even a competitor) joining the Guild and lifting ALL of EVERY contributor's information, and doing with it whatever they like?" I think on the whole that the genealogical community is trustworthy, honest, has integrity and is transparent, although I will admit that sometimes there are people do surprise you. I would say that should it be discovered that anyone assumes (either through historical or new) membership and then actively lifts all the work as Dick describes then that would be dealt with within the parameters of the Constitution. I assume that there is a functionality within with website that enables the web master and team to see what activity there is against any given membership number? There are of course instances when you might want to download a complete section of something - say part of the Wiki, but the difference is downloading for your own use and downloading for the use of others who are not Guild members. Thanks to Anne and Nigel and perhaps others we have enabled a workable and changing website. We have a steady stream of material & indexes at our disposal and we also have the ability through the leadership of the Guild administration to enable discussion through this forum. Mary Rix contributed and maintained the GMI and has left it in a good position that we can take the material and the foundations and build upon it. That is a progressive organisation. Regards Julie Goucher Guild Member 3925 Orlando & Worship ONS Regional Rep ~ South Devon On 18 December 2014 at 22:28, Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Tessa, that is a very interesting and troublesome question about the > "contributor" of data, which I've been thinking hard about. I agree that we > should recognise the contributor of data, but from what I can see, I am not > sure that we always (or often) know who the contributor was. In the GMI, > the contributor is usually set as the study registrant, because that's the > person to whom application should be made for more information on the > marriage. But as you point out, the contributor may be somebody quite > different. And they may have further information too which could be > valuable. > > I would like to see two different fields on the GMI entries, one for the > member who actually provided the information, and one for the member who has > the study registered. But retrofitting extra fields of information to an > existing database is never easy! > > If there were separate fields for contributor and for study registrant, then > for Marriage Challenges the contributor could be correctly set to show the > membership number of the Challenger, while the study registrant would still > be shown as the data "owner". How would this be? > > Anne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tessa Keough via" <goons@rootsweb.com> > To: "Anne Shankland" <shankland@one-name.org>; "Anne Shankland" > <anne.shankland@gmail.com>; "GOONS" <goons@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:59 PM > Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records > > >> Definitely will take a look at this over the holidays as I think it is >> a very good idea to have this type of data available and it should be >> (that is a question for the tech folks) a process of making that >> choice (from here on out) when we provide data to the uploaded. As to >> those who contributed data in the past, perhaps we can ask the >> question and get a response from those members. >> >> One question I have on the language is what is a member who does not >> have a registered study and is contributing data called? We might want >> to use the term contributor (all around) rather than owner because I >> am guessing that we have all gathered data that is at archives, >> libraries, online, etc. to add to our databases and we don't really >> "own" it anymore than we "own" our surnames - we have registered them. >> Am I missing something? (And I am not interested in having a >> discussion about members with and without registered studies - every >> member of the Guild is somewhere in their journey here and I am happy >> to learn from and share with all my fellow GOONs). >> >> Now I need to get busy and provide some of that data so Anne, Cliff, >> Marie and the others have some more data to work with. >> >> Thanks for all your efforts (past and present), >> Tessa >> >> Tessa Keough >> Guild of One-Name Studies, Member No. 5089 >> Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >>> Debbie and others, the proposals you make are part of the original plan I >>> put forward for the GMI some time ago. Once converted to a true >>> database, >>> developments such as this are very straightforward, and the last few >>> editions of the GMI have existed in both the classic format and database >>> format. You may have noticed that the GMI now offers an "old search", >>> which >>> uses the classic format, and a "new search", which uses the database. >>> >>> If I were to get the go-ahead to proceed with the database format, I >>> would >>> offer (on the new search): >>> a) A search option for a member to see all the entries for his or her >>> own registered name. This would be available only to the "owner" of this >>> data, i.e. the registrant of the surname, and so would not allow any >>> harvesting of the data by anyone else. >>> b) A database option for a member with entries in the GMI to allow >>> his >>> or her entries to be freely searchable by any member. >>> >>> I prefer to consider entries to have an "owner" rather than a >>> "contributor", >>> the owner being the registrant of the surname. Hence entries might >>> change >>> hands if a surname registration is transferred from one member to >>> another. >>> This is a somewhat different concept from the existing one of >>> "contributor", >>> but I believe that at present the contributor for each entry is assumed >>> to >>> be the study owner even if they are not personally submitting the data. >>> >>> Thoughts, please? >>> >>> Anne Shankland >>> Web Indexes Administrator

> From: Anne Shankland via > Sent: 18 December 2014 22:28 > > If there were separate fields for contributor and for study > registrant, then for Marriage Challenges the contributor could > be correctly set to show the membership number of the Challenger, > while the study registrant would still be shown as the data "owner". > How would this be? It seems to me there are two things that need to be covered: 1. Someone searching the database needs to know who to contact for more information, which may be (a) the contributor, (b) the relevant surname registrant for most MC data, or (c) no-one if the study has ceased to be registered, the contributor is no longer a member, or the entry is a cardinal point from an MC. It is straightforward to have one field for this, as we expect there to be only one contact per entry. 2. To manage the database it is necessary to know who 'owns' the entry and if that implies any restrictions on it, such as the current one of not searching on the registered name: this may be the contributor or the surname registrant or a former surname registrant or a marriage challenger or some combination of those, and those people may or may not be current members. This seems to me to be more complicated as several people may have an interest, and some may not be contactable. If contributors, especially marriage challengers, were to waive any rights they have to control how the data is used then this could be simplified. It seems to me therefore that we should have an agreement that makes it clear who holds the rights to restrict access on all future contributions to the Guild's databases, and what happens when contributors cease to be members. A call to members to sign up to the new agreement would probably clear a lot of the current data to be used in the same way, but the ad hoc way in which these things have grown is going to leave us with a small rump of data that cannot be used in the same way. Best wishes Andrew -- Andrew Millard - A.R.Millard@durham.ac.uk Chair, Trustees of Genuki: www.genuki.org.uk Maintainer, Genuki Middx + London: www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/MDX/ + ../LND/ Academic Co-ordinator, Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org Bodimeade one-name study: community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/ My genealogy: community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/

Data access, as shown in recent days with Sony, is not too difficult to obtain so I trust the websites are secure enough to withstand an attack? Plus surely; it’s not a matter of who owns what but the fact that if any of these databases and analysis techniques become readily available to the genealogical world in pay to view or otherwise, one of the Guilds setting points will be lost. Rod Clayburn, 713. Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 18:37:03 -0000 > From: Anne Shankland <anne.shankland@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records > > Debbie and others, the proposals you make are part of the original plan I > put forward for the GMI some time ago. Once converted to a true database, > developments such as this are very straightforward, and the last few > editions of the GMI have existed in both the classic format and database > format. You may have noticed that the GMI now offers an "old search", > which > uses the classic format, and a "new search", which uses the database. > > If I were to get the go-ahead to proceed with the database format, I would > offer (on the new search): > a) A search option for a member to see all the entries for his or her > own registered name. This would be available only to the "owner" of this > data, i.e. the registrant of the surname, and so would not allow any > harvesting of the data by anyone else. > b) A database option for a member with entries in the GMI to allow his > or her entries to be freely searchable by any member. > > I prefer to consider entries to have an "owner" rather than a > "contributor", > the owner being the registrant of the surname. Hence entries might change > hands if a surname registration is transferred from one member to another. > This is a somewhat different concept from the existing one of > "contributor", > but I believe that at present the contributor for each entry is assumed to > be the study owner even if they are not personally submitting the data. > > Thoughts, please? > > Anne Shankland > Web Indexes Administrator > >

And I agree with that thought. Once I have handed over material (I have submitted over 5000 entries to the probate index) I no longer feel any ownership of that material. I do not mind being contacted and look forward to such contacts. I think that the Guild has to look to the bottom line with regard to ownership of databases. It is an enticement for people to actually join to have access but on the other hand anyone that writes to me gets all the information that I have if it fits into their particular line of research. It is the arrangement of the data that gives it its value as many have noted. To prevent the harvesting of that arrangement of data is a bit of a conundrum. The greater the access to data the more that one can achieve (I belong to Ancestry, Find My Past, My Heritage and benefit greatly from all of these sites). I do not see us as that kind of site but rather a volunteer group that nevertheless does need some funding to move ahead. Would I object to selling access to say Find My Past or any of the other groups? No absolutely not, I think it would be good value for the money and increasing the accessibility to non-members would happen on our terms and not the terms of a harvester. I joined the Guild as a new researcher in genealogy ten years ago and immediately took on Pincombe and Siderfin as my one name studies - sort of a sink or swim attitude on my part. I have since surrendered Siderfin to my cousin Mark who lives in England and taken on Blake which I wouldn't have even considered eight years ago when I first joined but being in the society has shown me that I could sink my teeth into such a surname. The numbers of users though are so much greater on these pay sites and it would increase our visibility. Does it affect our Charity status? I have no idea actually as I live in Canada. But I notice FHS in the UK do allow Find My Past access to their data. Elizabeth (Blake) Kipp BA PLCGS Website: http://www.kipp-blake-families.ca/elizabethmain.htm Blog: http://kippeeb.blogspot.ca/ Guild of One Name Studies #4600 (Blake, Pincombe) The Surname Society #1004 (Bedard, Dumoulin, Gregoire, Prevost, Blake, Pincombe, Knight, Rawlings, Cheatle, Butt, Buller, Taylor, Gray, Farmer, Lywood, Rew, Routledge, Welch, Coleman, Lambden, Arnold, Peck, Rowcliffe, Siderfin, Cobb, Beard) On 2014-12-19 8:20 AM, Brian Horridge via wrote: > Can I add my experiences (and to link two different threads on recent > postings). > > I joined the Guild without registering a surname because at that time I > was not confident that I could (or wanted to) do a One Name Study. I > joined as an associate member for several reasons - one of which was so > I could benefit from the GMI in researching for all my own various > ancestral lines in East London (thanks mainly to Howard Benbrook's vast > input of Cardinal Points). Then, in order to "put something back", I > submitted (with Mary Rix's approval) details of all marriages I had > found for any surname in any place to help fill in the many gaps in the > GMI sequencing that existed in it's early days. Since then I have done > 4 marriage challenges and have submitted all the results to the GMI as > well as all marriages I have now found as part of my own (now > registered) One Name Study. > > Following the recent exchange of e-mails about "ownership", it makes me > wonder how my submissions would be classed as they seem to fall into 3 > broad categories:- > > 1) my own ONS surname marriages > 2) my other surname marriages for (possibly) non-registered surnames > 3) my MC results > > I must say that I willingly submitted all my own marriages (both ONS and > others) for the benefit of other Guild members without any thought of > "protecting" them. Also, most of the marriages were transcribed from > parish registers deposited in various record offices so I could not > really claim "ownership" anyway. > > My view is that if people are worried about data being stolen then do > not give it to anyone else. > > Regards > > Brian Horridge > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

That's it Robert - All of the indexes are for helping ourselves and others. And now that we have the new website format, I think they will be visited far more often. There are some issues that are becoming more noticeable as the GUild moves to encompassing a world membership. THe GMI has fantastic detail if one has the ability to actually consult registers or visit parishes - many of us don't. Pepler has 21 entries that I did not submit, of those 6 have contact details- the rest are from Marriage challenges or are cardinal points - I can glean no further information. In many ways I am better off using Family Search or ANcestry where I can see the church records - Maybe I'm just unlucky but too many of my study have been either been missed by the actual GRO indexes of the name so badly spelled that they aren't findable on the index until after I've located the church record. But the real weakness is the contact information - I know that marriages in England between 1837 and 1911 had parents, occupations, witnesses - without the contact info - I have little chance of finding these details short of getting the LDS film or finding them on Ancestry - both of which I don't need the GMI for. For me then, the contact info becomes crucial. All the other indexes have contact details. But on the GMI- this has gotten confused with Cardinal Points and Marriage challenges. SO I think what is needed is not 'owner' and 'contributor' but 'source' and 'contact' There are a lot of little orphans on the GMI that no 'contact' claims Marie (GOONS 5318) Bringing the world together one surname at a time. 'A Pepler Name' http://pepler.tribalpages.com 'Hedgerow - the Ancestors' http://cranberry.tribalpages.com Pepler DNA Study http://www.familytreedna.com/public/pepler-ow/ 'Scroops, Scropes and Scroopes' http://dentonlk.tribalpages.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Fowler via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: Tessa Keough <murkeo01@gmail.com>; "goons@rootsweb.com" <goons@rootsweb.com> Cc: Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records - GMI Tessa,Anne & all The concept that the GMI should provide information from one's study and MCs, to help others and particularly new members is surely what we are all working towards - information multiplying.

Tessa, that is a very interesting and troublesome question about the "contributor" of data, which I've been thinking hard about. I agree that we should recognise the contributor of data, but from what I can see, I am not sure that we always (or often) know who the contributor was. In the GMI, the contributor is usually set as the study registrant, because that's the person to whom application should be made for more information on the marriage. But as you point out, the contributor may be somebody quite different. And they may have further information too which could be valuable. I would like to see two different fields on the GMI entries, one for the member who actually provided the information, and one for the member who has the study registered. But retrofitting extra fields of information to an existing database is never easy! If there were separate fields for contributor and for study registrant, then for Marriage Challenges the contributor could be correctly set to show the membership number of the Challenger, while the study registrant would still be shown as the data "owner". How would this be? Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tessa Keough via" <goons@rootsweb.com> To: "Anne Shankland" <shankland@one-name.org>; "Anne Shankland" <anne.shankland@gmail.com>; "GOONS" <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records > Definitely will take a look at this over the holidays as I think it is > a very good idea to have this type of data available and it should be > (that is a question for the tech folks) a process of making that > choice (from here on out) when we provide data to the uploaded. As to > those who contributed data in the past, perhaps we can ask the > question and get a response from those members. > > One question I have on the language is what is a member who does not > have a registered study and is contributing data called? We might want > to use the term contributor (all around) rather than owner because I > am guessing that we have all gathered data that is at archives, > libraries, online, etc. to add to our databases and we don't really > "own" it anymore than we "own" our surnames - we have registered them. > Am I missing something? (And I am not interested in having a > discussion about members with and without registered studies - every > member of the Guild is somewhere in their journey here and I am happy > to learn from and share with all my fellow GOONs). > > Now I need to get busy and provide some of that data so Anne, Cliff, > Marie and the others have some more data to work with. > > Thanks for all your efforts (past and present), > Tessa > > Tessa Keough > Guild of One-Name Studies, Member No. 5089 > Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS > > > > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.com> > wrote: >> Debbie and others, the proposals you make are part of the original plan I >> put forward for the GMI some time ago. Once converted to a true >> database, >> developments such as this are very straightforward, and the last few >> editions of the GMI have existed in both the classic format and database >> format. You may have noticed that the GMI now offers an "old search", >> which >> uses the classic format, and a "new search", which uses the database. >> >> If I were to get the go-ahead to proceed with the database format, I >> would >> offer (on the new search): >> a) A search option for a member to see all the entries for his or her >> own registered name. This would be available only to the "owner" of this >> data, i.e. the registrant of the surname, and so would not allow any >> harvesting of the data by anyone else. >> b) A database option for a member with entries in the GMI to allow >> his >> or her entries to be freely searchable by any member. >> >> I prefer to consider entries to have an "owner" rather than a >> "contributor", >> the owner being the registrant of the surname. Hence entries might >> change >> hands if a surname registration is transferred from one member to >> another. >> This is a somewhat different concept from the existing one of >> "contributor", >> but I believe that at present the contributor for each entry is assumed >> to >> be the study owner even if they are not personally submitting the data. >> >> Thoughts, please? >> >> Anne Shankland >> Web Indexes Administrator >> > SNIP > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >